Sitting of 8 December 1938

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSFEREES.
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Minister of Labour whether he has information of the number of men transferred from Scotland and the county of Fife, respectively, to places in London and the Home Counties under labour transference schemes who are at present without employment; and whether funds are available for repatriating those who stand no chance of obtaining employment within a reasonable space of time?
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I regret that these statistics are not available. I would point out that persons who transfer under the industrial transference scheme and fail to settle down within a reasonable time are given a grant of their fare home. Subsequently, however, they do not remain entitled to these exceptional facilities and are treated in the same way as other residents in the area in which they live.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there are a number of transferees from Scotland—and there are some from Fife—who are wandering about London and the Home Counties, who have no means of getting the necessary funds to travel home and have no knowledge of where they can get funds? Will the Minister make it clear where they can be obtained?
    Mr. Brown: I find it difficult to believe what the hon. Member says, because every unemployed man knows that if he goes to the nearest employment exchange he can get advice at once.
    Mr. Mathers: Has it been the experience of the Minister that these facilities are much taken advantage of?
    Mr. Brown: It differs from time to time. It depends, of course, on the state of the trade cycle, but, on the whole, we do not get a large number. They are well known and have been known for years.
    Mr. Gallacher: Do I understand that an unemployed man who has been transferred can by right go to an employment exchange and get his fare home?
    Mr. Brown: No, the hon. Member must not understand that. If a man goes within a reasonable time, say, 12 months, and has got a regular job, he will be entitled to it, but if he is transferred and settles in a neighbourhood, especially if he transfers his whole household, he naturally shares the experience of those in the locality.

    MANCHESTER.
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider establishing a training centre for unemployed men in or near Manchester, in view of the fact that there is a great volume of unemployment in the district and the nearest centre is at such a distance that it cannot be attended without considerable difficulty?
    Mr. E. Brown: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: How long will it take my right hon. Friend to consider it? May I put the question down in a week's time?
    Mr. Brown: That will be a little early. I have made a number of improvements and enlargements in the training schemes this year, and I am looking into the facts about the Manchester area to see whether we can in one form or another get this done.

    STATISTICS.
    Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons at present on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain who are wholly unemployed; the number shown as temporarily stopped; the number of persons on short time; and the number of persons who have been transferred from the depressed areas to the Metropolitan area in general and the borough of Southwark in particular for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 14th November, 1938, there were on the registers of Em-

    1333
    ployment Exchanges in Great Britain 1,522,607 persons wholly unemployed (including 66,939 normally in casual employment) and 305,496 temporarily stopped. Short time workers not at work on the day of the count are included in the latter category, but are not separately distinguished in the statistics. The number of persons transferred from the depressed areas under the industrial transference scheme and placed in employment by the Department in the Metropolitan area during the year ended 30th September, 1938, was 4,670. A corresponding figure for the borough of Southwark alone is not available.
    Mr. Day: In view of the extravagant promises that were made by Government candidates at the last two elections in which they said they were the only party that had a cure for unemployment, will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the explanation of these figures?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member must be confusing the manifesto of the other side of the House with that of this side.
    Mr. Day: Is the Minister aware that Government candidates said they were the only party who had a cure for unemployment?
    Mr. Brown: I am not aware of that, but I know the candidates were able to point to a substantial improvement, and still are.

    COTTON MILL WORKER, HUDDERSFIELD.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that recently a Huddersfield man who refused work in a local cotton mill on the ground that cotton fabric for gas masks was being woven was allowed unemployment pay by the Board of Referees; whether he is satisfied that such award is in the public interest; and what action does he propose to take?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of the case which, I think, my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. The decision to allow benefit was the unanimous decision of a full court of referees, consisting of an independent chairman, a representative of employers and a representative of insured contributors. The finding of the court was that the claimant had satisfied them that he had a conscientious objection which was honestly held. The matter is
    1334
    one for the independent statutory authorities and there is no action which I can take. I understand that the applicant is an "absolutist" by conviction.
    Sir A. Knox: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the case of this man is being announced in one organ of the Press as proof of the right of a man to refuse on conscientious grounds any help to militarism, and does he think it is right that this man should take money subscribed by his fellow-workers for unemployment benefit when he has refused work?
    Mr. Brown: The court of referees consists of representatives of those who pay, and an independent chairman representing the community, an employer and a worker all agreed that this man's position was genuine. This was borne out by the fact that he was a conscientious objector in the last war and went to prison, and that he now refuses even to take or to make gas masks owing to his convictions.
    Sir A. Knox: Are conscientious objectors to have favourable treatment?
    Mr. Mabane: Will my right hon. Friend make it plain that Huddersfield is the centre, not of the cotton industry, but of the woollen industry, and suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that it is better he should confine his attention to his own constituency; and will my right hon. Friend say what is an "absolutist"?

    GLASS INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Arthur Hendersonasked the Minister of Labour the present number of unemployed in the plate-glass trade in the Midlands; and whether this represents an increase during the past 12 months?
    Mr. E. Brown: The available figures do not distinguish the plate-glass industry separately. The number of insured persons, aged 14–64 in the glass industry (exclusive of bottles and scientific glass manufacture) recorded as unemployed at 14th November, 1938, in the Midlands division was 548, an increase of 275 as compared with 15th November, 1937.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Birmingham area there has been a considerable increase of unemployment in this in-

    1335
    dustry owing to the importation of plate-glass at low prices?
    Mr. Brown: That is a question for the President of the Board of Trade.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the number of persons unemployed is 1,828,103; that many of those persons have been out of work for long periods; and whether, in view of the failure of existing schemes to absorb the unemployed, the Government have any further proposals to make?
    Mr. E. Brown: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, I have nothing to add to my previous replies on this subject and to my statements in recent Debates.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman take a serious view of the present situation when so many persons are out of work, particularly in view of the fact that there is plenty of work to be found for them if the Government had a real policy?
    Mr. Brown: I am glad to hear of the hon. Member's faith in the powers of the Government. I have expressed my view as to the seriousness of the position on many occasions.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that my faith in the powers of the Government is being steadily weakened?

    SHOREDITUH.
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Minister of Labour whether he will state, taking the latest available date as a basis, the percentage of registered workers unemployed in Shoreditch; and in what other London boroughs this percentage was exceeded?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 14th November, 1938, the percentage rate of unemployment among insured persons, aged 16 to 64, resident in the mteropolitan borough of Shoreditch was 12.4; this figure was exceeded in the metropolitan boroughs of Southwark (with 13.3 per cent.) and Stoke Newington (with 14.2 per cent.).
    Mr. Thurtleasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in Shoreditch at the end of October, 1936, and the corresponding figures for October of the present year?
    Mr. Brown: At 26th October, 1936, approximately 3,370 insured persons, aged 16 to 64 resident in the metropolitan borough of Shoreditch were recorded as unemployed. The corresponding figure for 17th October, 1938, was 4,590.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is not the right hon. Gentleman disturbed by this large increase of unemployment in a typical East-end borough, and is he doing anything about it?
    Mr. Brown: I am always glad to see the figures go down and I regret when they go up. We are always trying to lessen unemployment, as the facts show.

    DURHAM COUNTY.
    Mr. W. Joseph Stewartasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that for last month there is again a substantial increase in the number of persons unemployed in the administrative county of Durham and the county boroughs generally; has he any statement to make in regard to this matter; and what steps he is taking to deal with the situation?
    Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of these figures. The hon. Member knows of the remedial measures which the Commissioner for Special Areas is continuously seeking to promote, but so far as the position arises from the general state of the coal industry in the county it is one which neither he nor I can control.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continual rise in unemployment figures in Durham County is a matter of grave concern to the county generally, and can he not say, as the responsible Minister, what plans he and the Government have to meet the situation?
    Mr. Brown: Certainly not in answer to a supplementary question.
    Mr. Lawson: In view of the increase in last month's figures, and particularly in view of the increasing operations of rearmament work, is not that increase very disturbing to the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Brown: My original answer points to the real cause, which is the state of

    1337
    the coal trade, and that is not within my control or the control of anyone within these islands.

    ISLE OF BARRA.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in the Isle of Barra receiving unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance, respectively, at the most recent convenient date; and what proportion of the total population of Barra is unemployed, and what percentage?
    Mr. E. Brown: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. MacMillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the level of unemployment is very high and has he not any plans at all for dealing with the situation?
    Mr. Brown: I could not tell without the figures.

    FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Labour what number and percentage of insured fishermen was unemployed at the most recent convenient date?
    Mr. E. Brown: At 14th November, 1938, the number of insured men, aged 16–64, in the fishing industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain was 6,886, or 21.1 per cent. of the estimated number insured.
    Mr. MacMillan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman take a serious view of the situation in view of the fact that one in five are fully unemployed?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Member must know that the figures for one month would not give a picture of the position for the whole year. Much depends upon the beginning and ending of the fishing season.
    Mr. MacMillan: Has the right lion. Gentleman forgotten that from month to month and from year to year these figures are getting worse?

    WESTERN ISLES.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Minister of Labour what number and percentage of the insured population of the Western Isles was unemployed at the most recent convenient date?
    Mr. E. Brown: The statistics on this point regularly compiled by my Department relate to insured persons recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges. The only Employment Exchange in the Western Isles is at Stornoway, in the Island of Lewis. The remaining islands are served by offices on the mainland, and separate statistics in respect of persons living on the islands are not available. At 14th November, 1938, the number of insured persons aged 16–64 (exclusive of persons within the agricultural scheme) recorded as unemployed at the Stornoway Exchange was 2,529, or 45.5 per cent. of the estimated number of insured persons at July, 1937.
    Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that the number of the unemployed in these islands is rising, does the Minister not think it is time that arrangements were made for Employment Exchanges to be set up in the islands, in order to save these people having to go to the already overcrowded exchanges on the mainland?
    Mr. Brown: I do not think that is so.
    Mr. MacMillan: Does the Minister not agree that the numbers are increasing?
    Mr. Brown: I agree that the numbers are high, but I should not adopt the solution which the hon. Member suggests.

    NEW INDUSTRIES (LABOUR CONDITIONS).
    Mr. A. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken to ensure that wages at trade union rates are paid to the workpeople in industries established in the special areas with the aid of public finance?
    Mr. E. Brown: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) on 1st December, of which I am sending him a copy.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does not the Minister think it would be better to ensure that reasonable wages are paid in these factories, particularly in view of the fact that the great majority of the employers are good employers and that the position is being prejudiced by the conditions at a few factories only?
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will look at that answer he will find several supplementaries on the point, and perhaps he will consider the statements there.

  INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  Mr. James Hallasked the Minister of Labour when the White Paper on the action proposed by His Majesty's Government regarding the draft conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference at Geneva in June, 1937, is to be issued?
  Mr. E. Brown: I hope to lay a White Paper in the near future.
  Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to expedite the printing of this White Paper as it was promised by the Parliamentary Secretary on 16th June?
  Mr. Brown: We shall have it in To days or so, as far as I can make out.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    SMOKE ABATEMENT, NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he has given consideration to the 74th Annual Report on alkali works by the chief inspectors and, in particular, to page 3 of the report which deals with North Staffordshire; is he satisfied with the activities of the regional committee for dealing with smoke abatement; are all the local authorities represented on the committee; and what action is he taking to abate the smoke nuisance?
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot).I have considered the report and have impressed upon the two local authorities chiefly concerned the desirability of forming a regional committee, but one of the authorities, while ready to co-operate, does not favour the formation of such a committee. Both authorities have taken active measures to deal with smoke nuisance, and good results are being obtained. I am keeping in touch with their activities.
    Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the local authority which is not desirous of co-operating?
    Mr. Elliot: I am anxious to get results, whether by co-operation or by independent action by local authorities.

    RADIUM (PRICES).
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps
    1340
    to control the world price of radium by the use of the immense purchasing power of this country; whether he has, since announcing his recent scheme for the control of cancer, purchased radium; and, if so, how much and at what price?
    Mr. Elliot: I can assure the hon. Member that I have closely in mind the points he mentions, but I would ask the hon. Member to await a statement which I shall be making on this subject on the Second Reading of the Cancer Bill.
    Mr. Adams: Is it not a fact that the world price of radium was £5,000 per gramme before the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement about dealing with cancer some three months ago, and that subsequent to that announcement he has had to purchase 11 grammes at £18,000 per gramme, making a difference of no less than £143,000; and does he not think that a great blunder was committed in announcing the scheme before purchasing the radium?
    Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, that is entirely inaccurate. The option was bought at the world price, and no such purchase has taken place as he indicates. The hon. Member is under an entire misapprehension.
    Mr. Thorne: Is there anything in the Bill which will give the local authorities some control over the radium that is to be purchased?
    Mr. Elliot: I think it will be better if the hon. Member awaits the statement which I shall be making upon the Bill.
    Mr. Adams: Arising out of the statement of the Minister that my figures are inaccurate, will he kindly give us his figures?
    Mr. Elliot: Yes, I shall give them on the Second Reading of the Cancer Bill, but I should like to say, for the information of the House, that the figures given by the hon. Member are entirely inaccurate, and that no such inflation of the purchase price has taken place.

    JAM.
    Sir Adrian Baillieasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that present regulations result in adequately high standards being enforced for jam sold in this country and described as being

    1341
    made from fresh and pure fruit-juices; and whether he will consider the desirability of raising these standards in the interests of public health and in the interests of British fruit-growers?
    Mr. Elliot: Jam is subject to the general food and drugs law, and I believe that this is being properly enforced by the local authorities who have that duty. Apart from the general law, there are also the standards for jam set up under the Agricultural Produce (Grading and Marking) Acts, 1928 and 1931, and those instituted voluntarily by the trade, and any question on those Acts should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Mr. Banfield: Is the Minister aware of the horribly low standards set up by the jam manufacturers and the very poor quality of jam which is foisted upon poor people, and will he inquire into the matter, because in many respects it is really a bit of a scandal?
    Mr. Elliot: If there are any cases of this kind it is primarily the duty of the local authorities to deal with them.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not recognised that jam is not necessarily made from fresh fruit or from fruit at all?

    HONEY.
    Sir A. Baillieasked the Minister of Health whether any action has been taken by him under the Food and Drugs Act to meet the desires of British bee-keepers with regard to the labelling of pure honey and to the desirability of enabling the public to differentiate between pure honey and the composite product which, under present conditions, is often sold as honey in this country?
    Mr. Elliot: I have received representations asking me to make a regulation under Section 8 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, to control the sale of honey mixtures. I am giving these representations careful consideration, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot in any case make a regulation to operate before 1st October, 1939, when the Act itself comes into operation.
    Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that his predecessors have been giving consideration to this matter for the last 14 years and that bee-keepers are not yet satisfied about the position?
    Mr. Elliot: The hon. and gallant Member will realise that I could not act in advance of the authority given me by this House.
    Sir Percy Harris: Will the regulations be published as soon as the law permits, because action will be not only in the interests of the producers of honey but of the consumers, who have been deceived by misleading labels?

  BISCUIT INDUSTRY (TRADE BOARD).
  Mr. Jenkinsasked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to set up a trade board for the biscuit industry; and, if so, when is the board to become operative?
  Mr. E. Brown: I have no information before me to suggest that conditions in this trade call for action under the Trade Boards Acts.
  Mr. Banfield: Is the Minister not aware that the trade board for the baking industry is working extremely well and that biscuit firms are represented on that board so far as their cake business is concerned; and would it not be advisable to inquire into the biscuit trade with a view to seeing whether a trade board would not be of help to that trade, seeing that one has been so valuable in the baking industry?
  Mr. Brown: I am glad to have the assurance of the hon. Member that the, new trade board is working well, but he and the House will know that the biscuit trade was considered when that trade board was set up, and it was not considered desirable to have a trade board for biscuit-making. I have received no representations on the subject, but I shall always be pleased to consider representations if they are well-founded.

  HOUSING (OVERCROWDING).
  Mr. Dayasked the Minister of Health whether he can state, according to the last official completed housing survey, the number of houses inspected and found to be overcrowded, giving separate figures of those found to be unfit for human habitation?
  Mr. Elliot: The latest reports of the medical officers of health place the number of overcrowded houses at the end of

  1343
  1937 at 265,000—a reduction of about 77,000 on the figure of the original survey of 1935–36. No records are available of how many of these houses were also unfit for human habitation.
  Mr. Day: Can the Minister say what number of people are compelled to live in those overcrowded conditions?
  Mr. Elliot: Not without notice.

  POLICE FORCES, PROVINCES (RESERVES).
  Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken by chief constables of provincial police forces to bring reserves to strength; and whether these efforts are being coordinated or whether the terms offered are left to be framed separately for each force?
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The conditions of service of the special constabulary are fixed for all forces by Order in Council and those of the first Police reserves, consisting mainly of police pensioners, are uniform in all material respects. The numbers depend mainly on local requirements and the number of pensioners available. The question of instituting war reserves, for emergency purposes, as has been done for the Metropolitan and City Police Forces, is under consideration.

  ALIENS.
  Captain Ramsayasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that many aliens are now seeking to enter this country, he will consider making it a condition of granting permits that an undertaking is given to refrain from political activities in this country?
  Mr. Lloyd: Aliens cannot vote, but as regards expression of political views, the general principle followed in administering the Aliens Acts is that foreigners while in this country should have the freedom which is allowed by our laws to all persons within their jurisdiction. There are, however, cases in which special considerations may make it necessary to impose certain restrictions. For example, it would be inconsistent with the Govern-
  1344
  ment's policy of non-intervention in the Spanish contest to allow foreigners to come into this country for the purpose of advocating the cause of either of the two Spanish parties.
  Mr. Thurtle: Does that apply to Spanish grandees as well as to ordinary people?
  Captain Ramsay: Does it apply also to those taking part in processions, many of which are largely composed of aliens?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that my answer is quite complete.

  MILK MARKETING BOARD (BUILDING, THAMES DITTON).
  Commander Marsdenasked the Home Secretary whether the police authorities were consulted by the urban district council of Esher prior to consent being given to the Milk Marketing Board for the erection of a large office building at the corner of Giggs Hill Green, Thames Ditton; and, if so, was any objection on traffic grounds made by the police?
  Mr. Lloyd: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has not been consulted by the Esher Urban District Council in this matter, and accordingly the second part of the question does not arise.
  Mr. George Griffiths: If this is not satisfactory will it be transferred to Royston, where I live? We will have it.

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary how many cases for cruelty to children have been reported to the Home Office for the past 12 months by the Meropolitan police; and whether he can give the total number of cases?
  Mr. Lloyd: During the 12 months ended 30th June last, 360 persons were prosecuted in the Metropolitan Police District for cruelty to or neglect of children. Separate figures in respect of charges of cruelty apart from neglect are not available. The total figure for England and Wales was 1,053.

  ATTACKS ON PEDESTRIANS.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary how many cases of slashing attacks from the various parts of the country have been reported to the Home Office

  1345
  within the last few weeks; how many of these were found to be self-inflicted; and whether any arrests have been made?
  Mr. Lloyd: There is no duty on the police to report all such cases to the Home Office, and my information is not complete. I understand two people have been charged with causing public mischief by making false statements as regard injuries which had been self-inflicted. Other cases are under investigation, and at the present stage it is not possible to say how many genuine attacks there have been.
  Mr. Logan: Has there been any complaints about the slashing attacks upon the Government's policy that have been made from the Opposition Benches?

  ACCIDENT, ROTHERHITHE.
  Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with the accident at Saint Olaves Hospital, Rotherhithe, when one man was killed and another seriously injured; what was the cause of the accident; and what was the recommendation?
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand that the hospital was being redecorated, and that a scaffold plank broke so that a painter who was using it fell to the ground and was, I am sorry to say, killed. Another man also fell and was seriously injured. The jury recommended that there should be more supervision of scaffolding by a scaffolder on work of this description.

  REFUGEES.
  Mr. Howard Grittenasked the Home Secretary whether he has approved the plan of the British Committee for the care of children from Germany, under which 200 Jewish children arrived on 2nd December as the first part of an initial scheme to bring to this country 5,000 children and eventually 50,000 Jewish children; and whether, in view of the size of this influx, he will obtain the consent of this House before agreeing to this scheme?
  Mr. Lloyd: I understand that the British Movement for the Care of Children from Germany, in consultation with the Inter-Aid Committee for Children coming from Germany, is shortly submit-
  1346
  ting to my right hon. Friend a plan for the reception, training and emigration of refugee children in accordance with the request made by the deputation which he received on 21st November. Until this plan is before my right hon. Friend it is not possible to form an estimate of the number of children whose entry to this country he is prepared to authorise, but the number will, of course, be limited by the ability of the committee to accept full responsibility.
  Mr. Gritten: In view of the great numbers of unfortunate British unemployed, does the hon. Gentleman, his Department or the Government intend to put a limit or a period to the enormous influx of aliens to this country?
  Mr. Logan: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that, although we have our unemployed, we are able to maintain our children to a certain extent?
  Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very great deal of public sympathy with these unfortunate children?
  Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I am.
  Mr. Mander: Will the Government continue a humane and sympathetic policy in this matter?
  Mr. Gallacher: Has this Government ever shown any interest in the poor children of the country?
  Mr. Grittenasked the Home Secretary upon whom will fall the cost of maintenance and upon whom the cost of education of the thousands of Jewish children that he proposes to allow to enter this country; and to how many of these children does he propose to grant naturalisation?
  Mr. Lloyd: The cost of maintenance of the refugee children brought to this country in the care of the Inter-Aid Committee will not fall upon public funds; as regards their education, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which was given on 28th November by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw). As it is the intention of the Committee to make arrangements for the emigration of these children after education and training, the question of their naturalisation does not arise.
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Jews seeking to leave greater Germany have the advantage of Jewish organisations, inside and outside that country to facilitate and assist their transit; whether he is aware of part-Jews and non-Jews having any such organisations; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that, so far as possible, a fair ratio between such of these three categories of persons as wish to obtain them is preserved in admissions to this country in respect of both children and adults?
  Mr. Lloyd: The Co-ordinating Committee for Refugees, through its organisations in this country and their corresponding bodies in Germany, is in a position to afford the necessary advice and assistance to all refugees who wish to come to this country, whether they are Jews, part-Jews, or non-Jews. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave to him on 24th November.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the difficulty indicated in this question is due to the fact that Christians have shown themselves less generous towards Christians than Jews have shown themselves towards either Jews or Christians?
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Home Secretary with what organisations, on behalf of refugees from greater Germany seeking admission to this country, he is in contact; and what machinery he has set up to receive such collaboration?
  Mr. Lloyd: In regard to the admission of refugees to this country, my right hon. Friend is working in close collaboration with the organisations who are membersof the Co-ordinating Committee for Regugees, a list of which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 2nd December. In order to facilitate the examination of cases submitted by these organisations, my Department is maintaining daily personal contact with them.
  Miss Rathboneasked the Home Secretary how many visas or permits for entry to and residence in this country have so far been granted to refugees from or still in Czechoslovakia, and how many applications from such refugees or from recognised bodies on their behalf have been refused or remain undealt with?
  Mr. Lloyd: About 1,200 refugees from or still in Czechoslovakia have so far been authorised to enter this country; about 100 applications from the British Committee for Refugees from Czechoslovakia and from individuals are at present under consideration. I know of no instance in which an application from the British Committee has been refused.
  Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are estimated to be about 5,000 of these people who would like to leave Czechoslovakia and Sudeten Germany, and who will be in grave danger unless they are let in shortly?
  Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether a decision has yet been reached to admit alien refugee children to schools maintained out of public funds?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 28th November last to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw).

  YOUNG OFFENDERS.
  Mr. Dayasked the Home Secretary the number of persons between the ages of 14 and 16 who were found guilty of indictable offences for the 12 months ended the last convenient date; and whether he will give comparable figures for the previous 12 months?
  Mr. Lloyd: The figures asked for, for the years 1936 and 1937, are 8,380 and 8,490 respectively.
  Mr. Day: How many of those children were at school during the time?
  Mr. Lloyd: I cannot say without notice.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. Oliverasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that insurance companies and mutual indemnity societies are in some cases reducing the amount of compensation paid to workmen who have attained the age of 65, many of whom have been in receipt of compensation a great number of years and are too poor to contest these reductions in court; and whether he will consider taking steps to

  1349
  safeguard the interests of these injured workmen in cases where such reductions have not been negotiated by a competent body acting on the workman's behalf?
  Mr. Lloyd: No complaints of any such practice appear to have reached my right hon. Friend, but if the hon. Member will send me particulars of the cases which have come to his notice my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider them. The hon. Member will, of course, appreciate that my right hon. Friend has no power under the Act to intervene on behalf either of the workman or of the employer in individual cases.
  Mr. Oliver: While the Minister has no power to interfere in the matter, will he take steps to safeguard the rights of the workers so that they are not robbed of their old age pensions?
  Mr. Lloyd: I said that we have not had representations on the subject, but we would be ready to examine them.
  Mr. Oliver: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

  BRITISH-BORN ALIENS (RE-NATURALISATION).
  Mr. Gallacherasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of British-born subjects have, since 1918, gone to the United States of America because they were unable to obtain employment in this country; that in the United States of America they have taken out naturalisation papers in order to retain employment; and that in many cases they have now returned to this country and desire to regain their British nationality; and whether in such cases he will consider waiving the fee of £10 charged for naturalisation, as most of these people are entirely without means and are caused hardship by being classified as aliens?
  Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid it is not possible to make a special concession in regard to the fee for persons who were originally British subjects but became naturalised in a foreign country.
  Mr. Gallacher: Although the answer of the hon. Gentleman was somewhat indistinct, I would like to ask him whether he is aware that there are many hard cases of this kind, of men trying to get employment and finding it difficult to do so
  1350
  because they have not British nationality, while they cannot pay the£10 to get British nationality until they get employment and that such men are between two alternatives. Can nothing be done for them?

  NORTHERN IRELAND.

    SPECIAL POWERS ACT.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Home Secretary what arrangements have been made with the Government of Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland police to act in Great Britain under the Northern Ireland Special Powers Act?
    Mr. Lloyd: The Act is not in force in Great Britain, and no such arrangements could be made.
    Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently a man made a speech against this Act in Manchester and that on his return to Belfast he was arrested and his papers were confiscated; and will the hon. Gentleman look into the case if I forward him the particulars?
    Mr. Lloyd: I was not aware of the case.

    IMPERIAL CONTRIBUTION.
    Mr. Loganasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Government has been steadily increasing with consequent reduction of the amount of the Imperial Contribution since the principles recommended by the Special Arbitration Committee in 1924 and 1925 were adopted; whether, as the Agreement of 1938 provides that the Exchequer makes good any deficit in the Northern Ireland Budget in future, he will say whether, in the past five financial years, the total payments to Northern Ireland by the Exchequer have exceeded the contributions by Northern Ireland to the Exchequer; and, if so, by what amount?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which the hon. Member asks. The Imperial Contribution has been increasing in the past five financial years. As stated in the Memorandum embodying the Agreement referred to in the question, it is not considered under present circumstances that there is any prospect of a deficit on the Northern Ireland Budget.
    Following are the figures:

    —

    Northern Ireland: Imperial contribution.

    Payments to Northern Ireland.(a)

    £

    £

    1934–35

    …

    24, 000

    500

    1935–36

    …

    365, 000

    762,500

    1936–37

    …

    900, 000

    937,000

    1937–38

    …

    1,100,000(b)

    1,607,000(b)

    1938–39

    …

    1,000,000(b)

    1,240,000(c)

    (a) Excludes Land Purchase Annuities retained by Northern Ireland under Section 25 of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920.

    (b) Provisional.

    (c) Estimate.

  GERMANY (JEWS).
  Wing-Commander Jamesasked the Home Secretary what are his estimates of the approximate numbers of Jews and part-Jews in greater Germany?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I have been asked to reply. While it is not possible to give a precise figure, the number of Jews by religion at present in greater Germany is estimated to lie between 500,000 and 550,000. No estimate can be given of the number of persons in greater Germany who are partly of Jewish race, but their number is unlikely to be smaller than the number of Jews by religion.
  Mr. Mander: Would the Government consider the advisability of sending Lord Runciman to Germany to assist in solving the minority problem there?
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Prime Minister answer that question?

  AGRICULTURE.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Government are spending approximately £15,000,000 annually in assistance to the agricultural industry in this country without having succeeded in placing the industry on a secure basis, he will reconsider his refusal to set up a Royal Commission to examine the whole question of agriculture in relation to the national economy and social stability in peace time, and food supply in war time?
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole position of the agricultural industry, with a view to creating a permanent and comprehensive long-term agricultural policy?
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I do not think that a Royal Commission could elicit any material information which is not already available to the Government or the House. Nor do I think that it would be helpful to farmers to undertake at the present juncture a review of the very wide scope that is suggested, which would be bound to raise the question of altering the present balance of agriculture and the assistance that is being provided for various branches of it by the long-term measures already taken by the present Government.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: As the suggestion of a Royal Commission is probably not appropriate, would my right hon. Friend consider a smaller, swifter and simpler inquiry to examine the situation now?
    The Prime Minister: The answer I have given is a reply to that question.
    Mr. J. Morgan: Would not the Prime Minister admit that there is a growing uneasiness within the industry at the way in which the policy of the Government is working out, and is not this the stage at which to review the situation?
    The Prime Minister: That is another point altogether.

    COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM POLICY.
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether he will find time for a discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Evesham relating to comprehensive long-term policy for agriculture?
    [That this House urges on the Government the necessity for a comprehensive long-term agricultural policy, as the makeshift arrangements for dealing with this great national problem are inadequate and dangerous, and a permanent agricultural policy is imperative if the industry is to survive; is apprehensive lest under cover of the comprehensive economic study all private enterprise will be destroyed; notes that this socialising of private businesses is being and will continue to be resented by housewives

    1353
    throughout the country; while not making any claim for self-sufficiency of food in this country, urges the Government to increase the internal food production, which would not seriously affect the industries depending on export trade; deplores the fact that the standard of living is reduced in the rural areas owing to the fact that farmers and producers cannot afford to pay decent living wages owing to the uncertainty of the present markets in which they are often unable to find a market for their produce at all, and that this fear of their produce being left on their hands harasses their lives from January to December every year, and is of the opinion that as one of the remedies, the Government should introduce a sound basis of price insurance with a level of prices to permit of farmers paying a fair wage to their workers and to give and maintain to them a fair return coupled with the reservation to home producers of an ever-increasing share in the home market.]
    The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on Monday last, in reply to a question which he addressed to me.
    Mr. De la Bère: Does the Prime Minister realise that one of the vital requirements of the agricultural community is a standard price; and that that standard price should be such as will enable the producer to live?

    SHORT-TERM CREDIT.
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet taken any decision concerning the scheme for short-term credit, as pressed for by the National Farmers' Union?
    The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The proposals of the National Farmers' Union for short-term credit are still the subject of communications between the union and my Department.
    Mr. J. Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he gave in reply to the hon. Member of the fixed charges indicate that the farmer's income is already mortgaged for next year?
    Mr. Morrison: I could not agree to that conclusion.

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Colonel Burtonasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state
    1354
    the Government's intentions in relationship to the recommendations in the report of the Poultry Commission?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave on 10th July last to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) and yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), to which I have nothing to add.

    BARLEY.
    Mr. De Chairasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in a position to state whether the Government intend to grant any emergency assistance to barley growers; and whether, as a long-term measure, he will consider expanding the forthcoming Wheat Act Amendment Bill into a Cereals Bill to place barley growers in a guaranteed position similar to that enjoyed by wheat growers?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: The question is receiving urgent consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement. Long-term policy is being considered at a conference of growers, merchants, brewers and other users of barley, which is holding its first meeting this afternoon. Pending the deliberations of this conference I cannot say what legislation may be necessary.
    Mr. Garro Jones: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that he will not single out barley-growers as against oat-growers in the North-East of Scotland whose need is equally great?
    Mr. Morrison: There will be no question of penalising the oat-growers.
    Sir F. Sanderson: Cannot my right hon. Friend announce the long-term policy for agriculture generally which is required?

    SUGAR-BEET (PULP PRICES).
    Mr. De Chairasked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Sugar Commission not to fix the price of pulp to which growers are entitled under their sugar-beet contracts; and whether he will consult with the Sugar Corporation with a view to ensuring that they will not raise the price of pulp thereby nullifying to a considerable extent the increased contract price for sugar-beet?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am aware that in fixing the terms of the contract for the

    1355
    purchase of the 1939 beet crop the Sugar Commission have discontinued fixed f or-ward prices for pulp sold to growers. Growers will still have first call on pulp to the extent of at least 1½ cwt. for each net ton of beet estimated to be delivered by them and will be able to obtain it at the net wholesale market price to merchants. This price must necessarily be determined by commercial considerations, including the price of other feeding stuffs, but I would point out that in fixing beet prices for 1939 the Commission have included a full allowance by way of compensation to growers for the loss of a fixed forward pulp price.
    Mr. De Chair: Are we to understand then, that there is a possibility that pulp prices will go up, and does not this involve to a great extent an increased contract price?
    Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, it is not a question of that sort. Pulp prices have been subject to some speculation among growers, and it is a reform which, in my opinion, is a very necessary one.

    LAND (VALUE).
    Mr. Higgsasked the Minister of Agriculture the approximate percentage increase in the value of agricultural land since 1930?
    Mr. W. S. Morrison: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not available.

  FACTORY INSPECTORATE, LONDON.
  Mr. D. M. Adamsasked the Home Secretary the number of factory inspectors in London and the number attached to the docks?
  Mr. Lloyd: Three superintending inspectors and 45 of the district staffs are concerned with inspection in London. Some of these are partly employed in adjacent areas. No inspector is solely employed in dock work, but 15 of the district staffs are available for such work in the principal London dock areas. In addition, the services of engineering, electrical and medical inspectors are available where necessary.
  Mr. Adams: Have these gentlemen any knowledge of ship steering gear and its working?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that the factory inspectors in general are fully conversant with the machinery which they have to inspect.

  ALIENS DEPARTMENT (STAFF).
  Mr. Graham Whiteasked the Home Secretary what steps he proposes to take to increase the staff of the aliens department, in view of the congestion of business?
  Miss Rathboneasked the Home Secretary to what extent the Department dealing with applications for permits to reside in this country, generally, or from political and racial refugees separately, has been strengthened in respect of administrative, clerical, and messenger personnel; and whether he is satisfied that the staff is now adequate to deal both with arrears and current applications in a reasonably expeditious manner?
  Mr. Lloyd: The process of expanding this staff is proceeding as rapidly as is practicable. In the last three weeks the personnel has been increased by 28, nine being experienced officers capable of assisting with the more responsible duties. Further additions are being made as quickly as the need for teaching the newcomers permits.
  Mr. White: Is my hon. Friend fully seized of the fact that incalculable hardship is being imposed at the present time in a very large number of cases in which every formality can be complied with and every guarantee given; and can he do something that will relieve this position before the Austrian passport expires at the end of this year?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have said that the process of expansion is proceeding as quickly as possible. I am informed that the new arrangements are now resulting in a considerable diminution of the residue of accumulated cases.
  Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that the present staff are not provided even with proper means for filing documents so that they may know where they are?
  Mr. Lloyd: I assure the hon. Member that that is being borne in mind.

  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is his intention to secure the provision of deep bomb-proof shelters for those citizens compelled to remain in centres of population during the progress of air raids?
  The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 5th December to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Whitechapel Division of Stepney (Mr. J. Hall).
  Mr. Adams: Could the right hon. Gentleman supply me with a copy of that reply?
  Sir J. Anderson: Certainly.
  Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these shelters will be available before the next crisis?
  Sir J. Anderson: The question relates to deep bomb-proof shelters. I can give no undertaking that such shelters will be available in large numbers in the very near future.
  Mr. David Adamsasked the Lord Privy Seal what experiments the Government have made as to the effects of high-explosive bombs of varying calibre; and whether it is his intention to place at the disposal of the public this information and information as to the protection likely to be afforded by shelters of various kinds, the respective depths required, etc.?
  Sir J. Anderson: Extensive tests have been and are being carried out, under conditions approximating as closely as possible to those of actual air attack. It is intended to publish a handbook which will place at the disposal of the public the conclusions to which these tests point.
  Mr. Thorne: Is there any mention in the book of the fact that the safest shelter is in one's own house?
  Sir J. Anderson: The book in question is going to deal with the effect of high-explosive bombs.
  Mr. Adams: When is it expected that the book will be issued?
  Sir J. Anderson: At a very early date.
  Mr. Thurtle: Is it likely to be very reassuring to the public?
  Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the tests that have been made?
  Mr. Cocksasked the Lord Privy Seal on what grounds the application of Mr. W. L. Ellis, of The Connery, Huck-nail, Notts, to be enrolled as an air warden has been rejected; and whether he will take steps to see that this matter is rectified?
  Sir J. Anderson: Recruitment to the air raid wardens service in any area is a matter for the local authority concerned; and if a local authority decide that any individual applicant has not the requisite qualifications for work as an air raid warden, I have no authority to question the exercise of their discretion.
  Mr. Cocks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gentleman in question is a close personal friend of mine, and therefore a man of high character; and do a man's political views constitute an objection to his being appointed as an air warden?
  Sir J. Anderson: That is a different question altogether.
  Mr Cocks: This is a very important question. It concerns a constituent of mine whose character has been impugned.
  Mr. D. M. Adamsasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that considerable quantities of petroleum, carbide and celluloid are lying in store in the thickly populated areas; and what regulations under air-raid precautions are the Government going to make to have these goods stored in places of safety with adequate protection in case of emergency?
  Sir J. Anderson: Carbide is, I understand, stored in hermetically sealed iron drums in buildings licensed by the local authority. Celluloid stores are subject to the safety provisions of the Celluloid and Cinematograph Film Act, 1922, and in London special arrangements have been made by the cinematograph trade to remove large stocks of film in the event of a war emergency. As regards petroleum, much attention has been given to the problem, and every possible step is being taken to mitigate the dangers.
  Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increased capacity for storage at the mouth of the Thames at Thameshaven greatly increases the danger of fire in the Thames Estuary; and can he give an undertaking that there will be no further increase of storage capacity in that dangerous area?
  Sir J. Anderson: I should require notice of that question.
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he has taken, Departmentally or in conjunction with the local authorities, property owners, and associations of employers, to produce schemes for the protection of office workers, shop assistants, and others employed in large stores and office buildings in towns liable to attack from the air in time of war, such as London and Liverpool?
  Sir J. Anderson: The Home Office Handbook No. 6, entitled "Protection of Factories and Business Premises," deals in detail with the various aspects of A.R.P.; and, in order to assist smaller undertakings, a shorter pamphlet emphasising the essential parts of A.R.P. schemes is in course of preparation. The Handbook emphasises the need for cooperation between local authorities and industrial undertakings, and it is my intention to encourage the development of local A.R.P. committees representative of industry and commerce, such as already exist in many parts of the country.
  Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to send me a copy of the Handbook; and has he noticed that the question of air-raid precautions has been coupled with that of unemployment? Will he be good enough to consult with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, in order to come to some satisfactory arrangement covering the two aspects of the problem?
  Sir J. Anderson: I shall certainly send the hon. Member a copy of the Hand- book. The second part of the question relates to a point which arises on another question.
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken in the city of Liverpool to provide protection in the residential areas, particularly for women and children, in times of national emergency; and will he co-operate with
  1360
  the city council in the immediate construction of trenches and dug-outs of a semi-permanent character in open spaces adjacent to residential areas, thus providing protection in case of emergency and work for some of the many thousands of Liverpool men at present unemployed?
  Sir J. Anderson: The responsibility in this matter rests with the city council, and I shall be ready to consider any proposals which may be submitted to me by them.
  Mr. Sandys: In view of the uncertainty that exists in regard to the Government's policy about shelters, when will my right hon. Friend be able to announce something definite about this?
  Sir J. Anderson: As I have indicated, I am pursuing investigations into one particular aspect of that question, and I am anxious not to be led into making a statement of general policy until that investigation is completed.
  Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of thousands of skilled men are available at any time he likes?
  Sir J. AndersonI know, but that applies mainly to trenches.
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the Liverpool City Council, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, railway companies, and employers' associations, to provide adequate protection during air-raids of the large number of workers in Liverpool employed on the docks, in warehouses, and in the many large industrial concerns in the city, most of whom would be doing work of prime national importance during the period of such an emergency?
  Sir J. Anderson: In general, it is expected that employers will take steps for the protection of their workpeople, but the special position of the essential public utilities is under discussion with the bodies concerned.
  Mr. Kirby: In view of the international situation and the state of unemployment in Liverpool, will the right hon. Gentleman look further into this matter of adequate air-raid precautions in the dockside area of Liverpool, taking into account the fact that there are a large number of stone and concrete buildings there?
  Sir J. Anderson: I am constantly looking into this question, but the primary responsibility rests with the local authorities.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the West Riding County Council have sent to the local authorities stating that they must return all the implements to the county council, and then, if they want them back, the county council will send them to them again?
  Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir; I was not aware of that.
  Mr. Griffiths: If you make inquiries, you will find out.

  AUXILIARY AND CIVILIAN DEFENCE SERVICES.
  Mr. Petherickasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will issue in the form of a White Paper, as soon as practicable, a list of recruits required for the different branches of auxiliary and civilian defence forces?
  Sir J. Anderson: The Guide to be issued in January next will include particulars of all branches of the auxiliary and civil defence services for which volunteers are required. My hon. Friend, I understand, is suggesting that, in addition, a White Paper should be issued stating the number of recruits needed for each branch of service set out in the Guide. So far as the auxiliary services of the defence forces are concerned, I am advised that, owing to changes in establishments, and continual changes in strengths, any figures so published could only have a very transient value, and might later prove misleading. As regards recruitment for the services of civil defence, which are a matter of local organisation, I am making arrangements to ensure that my Department is kept regularly informed of the position in each locality, and I shall consider in what form the information so obtained can best be made available.
  Sir Joseph Nall: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there are ample vacancies for all volunteers at the present time, and that there is no need to wait for a book?
  Sir J. Anderson: That is certainly the case.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS (POLITICAL MEETINGS).
    Mrs. Adamsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Maidstone Education Committee recently passed a resolution declaring that it is undesirable for any teacher or official of the committee to speak at a public political meeting; whether this resolution was based upon any recommendation from the Department; and whether he will take steps to prevent such encroachment upon the civil liberties of teachers?
    Mr. Lindsay: I have seen Press reports of the resolution referred to by the hon. Member, which was not the result of any recommendation issued by the Board. It is laid down in the Code of Regulations for Public Elementary Schools that the agreement or minute under which a teacher is employed must provide that he shall not be required to abstain, outside the school hours, from any occupations which do not interfere with the due performance of his duties.
    Mrs. Adamson: Is the hon. Member aware that the teaching profession regards this as an encroachment on the civil liberties of its members?
    Mr. Lindsay: I have seen references to it, but I think my answer is quite clear. I have quoted the Code, and it is quite explicit.

    LIVERPOOL (GRANT).
    Mr. Loganasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Liverpool authorities have taken King's Counsel's opinion on the validity of stoppage of the Liverpool education grant; and has he been informed of the result?
    Mr. Lindsay: The Board were informed by the Liverpool Local Education Authority that they proposed to seek Counsel's opinion on the legality of the Board's action, but they have not been informed of the result.
    Mr. Logan: Is the Minister aware that for four months the citizens of Liverpool have been told by the authorities there that they are awaiting a legal decision from King's Counsel with regard to the validity of the stoppage of the grant? Is it not time to find out definitely from the Liverpool authorities what the delay means?
    Mr. Loganasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the neglect of the Liverpool education authority to make proper arrangements with the non-provided schools' managers in Liverpool, he will in future refuse financial assistance for building and furnishing council schools in that city until that authority reorganise, by agreement with the church school managers, in conformity with the Education Act of 1936?
    Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir.
    Mr. Logan: What I am anxious to know is, when is Liverpool going to do anything in reference to an Act of Parliament, and what steps do the Ministry intend to take to see that Acts passed by this House are operative in boroughs such as Liverpool?
    Mr. Lindsay: I have answered the question on the Paper. The answer is, No, Sir; but, if I may amplify it, as the hon. Member knows, the Board have no power to withhold grant because an authority chooses not to avail itself of the 1936 Act. They are doing so under the 1921 Act.
    Mr. Logan: Surely the Board have power to review the whole situation. What are they going to do to see that an Act of Parliament is implemented by a body over which they have authority?
    Mr. Lindsay: I am not sure what authority the hon. Member suggests. The point is that, with regard to this Act, the powers remain with the local education authority, and the Board have no compulsory power over them.
    Mr. Herbert Morrison: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to send the late President of the Board of Education to be as rude to the Liverpool City Council as he has recently been to the London County Council?
    Mr. Lindsay: That is not a matter arising out of the question.
    Mr. Logan: He can be as rude to them as he likes.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether approval can now be given to the scheme of the Norfolk Education Committee for the erection of a
    1364
    new biology laboratory at the Downham secondary school at Downham Market, in view of the fact that the plans have been approved by the Board, the scheme sanctioned, and the tenders accepted by the local education authority?
    Mr. Lindsay: No tender for the work had been accepted by the local education authority, and the plans were returned to them on 5th November last, in order to give them the opportunity of reviewing the proposal in the light of the Board's Circular 1464.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Were the plans not sent back to them and returned to the Board a fortnight before the circular was sent out?
    Mr. Lindsay: I will make careful inquiry into those facts, but the tender was not accepted, and the Board must have the authority's observations before coming to a decision. The matter will be dealt with very sympathetically.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind that this school is already overcrowded, by the Board's standards?
    Mr. Lindsay: I have my eye on it.
    Mr. Tomlinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what precisely is the evidence required by the Board to prove that conditions in secondary schools are detrimental to the health of the students?
    Mr. Lindsay: Before deciding whether conditions in a secondary school are detrimental to the health of the students, the Board require a report from the school medical officer, which is then considered in the light of all the circumstances, and in certain cases after consultation with one of the Board's own medical officers.
    Mr. Tomlinson: If overcrowding, in the opinion of the school medical officer, is detrimental to health, will that be looked upon as evidence?
    Mr. Lindsay: Most definitely.

  INCOME TAX.
  Mr. Oliverasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will instruct the Department of the Inspector of Taxes that in cases where it is necessary to demand of ten occupiers the Income Tax

  1365
  due to be paid by the landlord under Schedule A, they should acquaint the tenants of their rights to deduct the tax paid from their next payment of rent, thereby preventing great anxiety and avoiding the necessity of threatening to distrain on the tenant's goods?
  Sir J. Simon: Where Income Tax under Schedule A is demanded from a tenant-occupier, an explanation of the occupier's right to deduct tax from his next payment of rent is contained both in a demand note issued to him and in the receipt given to him on payment of the tax. If the hon. Member is aware of any case in which this explanation was not given, I shall be glad to have inquiries made on his supplying me with particulars.

  WEALTH (NATIONAL REGISTER).
  Mr. Manderasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have prepared for compiling a national register of wealth, with a view to facilitating in war time a levy on capital?
  Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 1st June, to which I have nothing to add.
  Mr. Mander: Is it the case that all the necessary information is already available in the Treasury for this purpose?
  Sir J. Simon: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman will look at the statement to which I have referred, it will give him the information asked for in his question.
  Mr. Mander: Is the position this, that the Government require a register of human beings only and not of wealth?
  Mr. Stephen: Is it the case that great owners of property in this country are hurrying to offer their property for the service of the country?

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EMERGENCY SERVICE, SALARIES).
  Sir I. Alberyasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any general rule has now been laid down for the adjustment of the salaries of those in Government service who were called
  1366
  up for one of the defence services in the recent emergency?
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of certain Treasury instructions which have been issued on this subject.
  Mr. Sandys: Will it be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Captain Wallace: No, Sir, I think it would be too long to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but if the hon. Member would like a copy I will send him one.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. Manderasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider introducing legislation to permit an increase in the amount of old age pensions during the winter period, when extra allowances for heat, light, and food are required, in view of the fact that action on these lines is already in force under the Unemployment Assistance Board?
  Captain Wallace: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Forfar (Captain Shaw) on 1st December.
  Mr. Mander: Is not the right hon. and gallant Member aware that there is very great feeling on this subject throughout the country and that the requirements of the old age pensioners are just as great as those who are under the Unemployment Assistance Board; and will he say why nothing is to be done for old age pensioners?
  Captain Wallace: The Unemployment Assistance Board are required to take into account the needs of applicants, but the old age pension was never intended to supply completely the needs of elderly persons devoid of other resources. If these resources are insufficient, there is an avenue to which they can go where need is the criterion, as I have said before.
  Mr. J. Morgan: You mean that the avenue is the Poor Law?
  Mr. Mander: If old age pensions are not intended for that purpose, would it not

  1367
  be better to introduce legislation now to make it possible to give these old people the assistance they need?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will state the business for next week?
The Prime Minister: The business will be:
Monday—Second Reading of the Cancer Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Tuesday—Second Reading of the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Wednesday—Private Members' Motions will be considered.
Thursday—Motion for an Address for the erection of a Memorial to the late Earl of Oxford and Asquith; Second Reading of the Export Guarantees Bill.
Friday—Private Members' Bills will be considered.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. Attlee: Can the Prime Minister say when the Export Guarantees Bill will be available for Members?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Bill is being presented to-day, and copies will be available about 6 o'clock.
Mr. Logan: Is it possible to allocate any time for a discussion of the Motion (Excessive Unemployment in Liverpool) standing in the names of Liverpool Members?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to give special time for that discussion.
Mr. Sandys: May I ask the Prime Minister when the second day's discussion on the question of the National Register will take place—whether before Christmas or after?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question at present as no date has been fixed.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether there is
1368
any given period during which a Private Member's Bill ought to be available in the Vote Office before the day set down for Second Reading?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is no fixed rule as to the time a Bill is set down for Second Reading.
Mr. Thorne: May I ask you whether you have the authority to order a Member who is introducing a Private Member's Bill to have the Bill printed so many days before the Bill comes up for Second Reading?
Mr. Speaker: I have already answered that question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. De la Bère: I desire to raise a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish the House to know that I have at all times the greatest deference and respect to any Rulings you may give from the Chair. The position is that yesterday I put in two requests at the Table that Motions standing in my name should be put upon the Paper, and the Table replied that Mr. Speaker had ruled that, in view of the words of the Prime Minister, that there would not be time for a question dealing with an entirely different matter, they would not be allowed. I only wish to say that I should not like Members of this House to think that I was being deterred from asking questions by any lack of courage or determination to do the wholehearted best I can for the agricultural community.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member, if I remember rightly, had a series of questions down referring more or less to the same subject, asking for time for different Motions which he had on the Paper to be discussed. The Prime Minister gave the answer more than once to the effect that he would remind my hon. Friend that there was no provision under Standing Orders except for their discussion on a Private Member's Motion. I understood that to apply to all those Motions which the hon. Member had put down. Whether it referred to one Motion or another, I did not think that it was right that I should allow the same question to be put on the Paper several times.
Mr. Thurtle: Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, arising from your statement,

1369
that the Prime Minister is already aware of the acute dissatisfaction under which the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) is suffering?
Mr. Speaker: I have noticed that myself.

BILL PRESENTED.
  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL,
  "to extend the powers of the Board of Trade to give guarantees for the purpose of establishing or encouraging overseas trade," presented by Mr. Stanley; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. R. S. Hudson; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

PUBLIC HEALTH (COAL, MINE REFUSE) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 15.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Local authorities' contributions.)
    3.50 p.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, in page 7, line 35, to leave out from "Act," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
    "and in respect of accommodation deemed to be a new house in respect of which the Department have undertaken to make a contribution under Sub-section (4) of the said Section one, two pounds fifteen shillings:
    Provided that in respect of a house completed after the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-two, the appropriate sum shall be

    (a) the appropriate sum as hereinbefore defined; or

    (b) a sum equal to one-half of the Department's contribution including any such additional contribution as aforesaid

    whichever is the less."
    In the first place, I must apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is confined to his bed with a severe cold. I am sure the House will condole with him in being deprived of the satisfaction of taking part in the concluding stages of a Bill to the preparation of which he has devoted so much labour, and in whose purpose he is so deeply interested.
    As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend attaches the greatest importance to consultation with the local authorities on matters of the kind now before us. As he explained, the local authorities, with whom he has been in consultation for many months, agreed to the financial provisions of the Bill, with one exception, which is the subject of the Amendment which is the only Amendment on the Order Paper. In the Bill as it stands, when the subsidy period expires in September, 1942, the rate contribution of the local authorities would automatically become one-half of the Exchequer contribution. But my right hon. Friend has already said that it is to be hoped that by that time housing costs may have
    1388
    fallen substantially and that the contribution from the local authorities, amounting to one-half of the Exchequer contribution that might be necessary, in those circumstances need not mean an increase of the present contribution, but might even mean a reduction. Nevertheless, there was unquestionably a great deal of anxiety expressed lest the rate of contribution should automatically be raised. That view was expressed in Committee by several hon. Members of all parties, and my right hon. Friend thereupon undertook to put clown this Amendment on Report, which provides that after the expiry of this subsidy period, the rate contribution shall be a sum equal to one-half of the Exchequer contribution or of the amount which they are paying under this Measure when it becomes law, whichever is the less. That is to say, the rate contribution in 1942, unless there is legislation to that effect, cannot be automatically increased.
    3.54 p.m.
    Mr. T. Johnston: I join, and so will my hon. Friends, in the regret expressed by the Under-Secretary for the reasons which have caused the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon. We all trust that he will soon be restored to his normal health.
    The Amendment which has been proposed in nowise meets the difficulties expressed by the local authorities in Scotland. It will be remembered that on the Second Reading of the Bill the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary both indicated that the local authorities had agreed to the financial terms of the Measure. Great surprise at that statement was expressed by myself and other hon. Members; but in view of the fact that a very substantial amount of the provisions of the Bill had undoubtedly been agreed upon by the local authorities in Scotland, in consultation with the Secretary of State, we found considerable difficulty in seeking to amend the Bill.
    It was very difficult to ask for the Amendment of a Bill which appeared to be an agreed Bill with the people who are to administer it; but in the course of the Committee stage it transpired that there were at least one-half of the financial terms of the Bill to which the local authorities had not agreed, and against which they had protested. That was the part of the Financial Clauses which declares that

    1389
    after a given date in 1942 the local authorities' contributions shall be stabilised at the ratio of one to two, that is, two for the Government and one for the local authorities. That ratio has never been accepted by the local authorities. It has never hitherto been imported into an Act of Parliament. True, in the Act of 1924 there was a similar proportionate grant, but that ratio was amended and limited by the power of dealing with rents which the local authorities possessed. The two to one basis has always been objected to by the local authorities, and to-day some of us have received telegrams from Scottish local authorities protesting even against the concession which the Under-Secretary has proposed in the Amendment, and declaring that it is still inadequate. The town clerk of Edinburgh, for example, has sent a wire declaring that the Amendment is unacceptable as it secures for the Government the principle of the two to one ratio.
    It is very difficult at this stage of the Measure for the Opposition to know precisely what to do. We know that the Government were compelled to have the Report stage and Third Reading two days after getting the Bill through the Committee stage. For that reason there has been no opportunity for consultation with the local authorities in Scotland, and we are faced this afternoon with the problem: Shall we or shall we not accept without further question the concession which the Under-Secretary, on behalf of the Government, has offered? My hon. Friends and I do not see our way to go into the Division Lobby against it, but we wish to register our respectful protest against the fact that the local authorities in Scotland are having something imposed upon them without their consent, without their good will, that has never hitherto been imposed upon them—something to which, altogether apart from party politics, they are unanimously opposed.
    I am not blaming the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State in this matter. It is doubtless a fact that they have fought as hard as they could with their colleagues. Perhaps Treasury necessities at the moment have beaten them—I do not know—but whether that be so or not, let us face the fact frankly that this is an added impost upon the local authorities in Scotland after 1942, despite the concession of the Secretary of State that the figures in the Bill will not be exceeded,
    1390
    and that at the worst all that can happen as far as the local authorities' contribution is concerned, is already specified in the Bill. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends want to speak further on the matter, but I would say, in conclusion, that we do not think that the Government have given the people of Scotland any concession. They have only modified their impost. That is all that can be said for the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    I would like, in the first place, to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the easy passage which this Bill has enjoyed and for the useful character of the discussions which have taken place upon it. While a number of criticisms have been directed at various points, there has been substantial agreement in all parts of the House, and I do not think it will be necessary for me to offer anything more than one or two very brief observations of a general nature in moving the Third Reading. This Bill, with one very substantial exception, follows the principle which has governed all our housing legislation since the end of the War. That is to say that the local authority is the body responsible for housing conditions in its own area, assisted by grants of money from the Exchequer. The exception to that principle is the provision that is made in the Bill for the work of the Housing Association, which is expected to build 20,000 houses inside and 8,500 houses outside the Special Areas. That work is not intended to be a substitute for anything which the local authorities might otherwise have been able to achieve, and the responsibility of the local authorities for the removal of slums and overcrowding is still continued as it always has been. So long as this principle remains, so long as it is the local authorities who build the house, who own the house, who determine the amount of rent to be charged and who decide who shall occupy the house, it is obviously right that some part of the expense should be borne by the local authority, that the ratepayer should bear some fraction of the burden as well as the taxpayer.

    1391
    When we were discussing in the Committee what the amount of these rate contributions ought to be it was suggested that even a moderate addition to the rates might furnish a reactionary local authority with an excuse, or at least with a motive, for doing very little indeed. I think that that is perfectly true. If a local authority lacks the real will to abolish slums and remove overcrowding there are only two kinds of pressure that can be brought upon it: There is the pressure from the Department of Health, which cannot, of course, amount to compulsion, and there is the pressure of public opinion which in a democratic country ought to be the most effective. If we find that public opinion in any area is not sufficiently alive to the urgency of our problem, the only course that is open to us is the democratic course of raising public opinion by speech or by writing or by any other legitimate means, unless or until Parliament should decide to deprive local authorities of this part of their function.
    Let me now turn to that part of the Bill which does introduce some direct action on the part of the State. I said on the Second Reading, and I wish to repeat now, that the purpose of this Housing Association will not be fulfilled if it is thought that the work which they are about to undertake is intended to be a substitute for other work which the local authorities might be able to do in any case. It is intended to be an addition to the maximum effort which the local authorities are able to make. In the Special Areas this contribution from the State over the normal local authority programmes will amount to 20,000 houses, in addition to the 5,000 already approved by the old Special Areas Housing Association. That will cover a great part of the industrial belt of Scotland where the housing conditions are most in need of attention, and in these areas the provision of 25,000 houses will, I think, be a very valuable contribution to the whole of the problem.
    Outside the Special Areas the number to be built by this association is 8,500. It is, of course, only a very small fraction of our requirements. Its value will consist in demonstrating to housing authorities all over the country the very great extent to which these new methods of building can be employed, the great rapidity with which large numbers of
    1392
    houses of the most excellent type, approved in all respects by the Department of Health, can be put up, and I hope, as most of us do, that every advantage will be taken of the opportunities provided by these new methods. If you exclude the Special Areas, unquestionably the places where the housing problem is most acute are the four large cities, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen. Not nearly enough has been done in any of those areas. All of them ought to aim at least at doubling their present rate of building, and in the case of Glasgow at least multiplying it by three.
    What are the obstacles to an acceleration of housing of that order? It would not be appropriate or in order on the Third Reading of the Bill to go again into the labour question; but, as the House is aware, in every area machinery does exist and can be used to relieve that shortage. As for materials we have been in close touch with the brick manufacturers for a long time. I am glad to say that the increase that has taken place in the last year has been very great indeed and is now fully up to any requirements that we may expect. But we have always made it plain that while we want to increase building by the existing methods to the greatest possible extent, we do not believe that that will be sufficient, and we are anxious and ready to give local authorities every help possible in supplementing their programme by the alternative methods which are necessary if our problem is to be solved within a reasonable period of time. We are ready to put the local authorities in touch with any firm that is capable of producing either concrete or timber houses. Many such firms are now established in Scotland; one which has put up the specimen houses at Dunlop, which is well known by local authorities; another which put up the specimens at Carfin, at the time of the Glasgow Exhibition; another one which began at Hull; another which is now starting in Dundee, and I hope that more will come into being. All of them are anxious for orders. I have already indicated that sources of supply in Sweden are almost unlimited. That is a source which can be drawn on to a very great extent in order to supplement any deficiences which may be found in home production, with a view to pushing on rapidly the completion of the programme that we want.
    Mr. Stephen: The Under-Secretary has suggested that Glasgow ought to accelerate its programme threefold, and he said that the materials are now there in sufficient quantities, and the labour. Would there be material and labour for a three-fold increase?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I think there would be no difficulty about materials. The output of bricks has increased in the last year by something like 3o per cent., but I have said on many occasions in the House that I did not think there would be a sufficiency of labour unless you were to get the unions to agree to very nearly double the existing number of bricklayers, and since that is almost certainly impracticable it is an additional reason for pressing on now—not sitting down and examining possibilities, but pressing on now to the fullest extent with those alternative methods of construction that are to be demonstrated by this Housing Association, whose work is provided for in the Bill. I would conclude by saying that I hope every one in Scotland who has any responsibility or any concern with our very great housing needs will acquaint himself with these possibilities and will leave nothing undone which may assist in a very rapid acceleration of our present building programme in all parts of our country.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: The Secretary of State went a little bit further and referred to the possibility of using the Housing Association to relieve the difficulties of small burghs which have heavy rating burdens. I imagined from an inclination of the Under-Secretary's head that he was going to expand that statement a little to-day. Can he say anything more about it?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think it possible to promise now that the Housing Association will build houses in such and such a burgh. They have now the authority to build 8,500 outside the Special Areas for purposes of demonstration, and as there are a great many burghs which, owing to the fact that they are Royal Burghs, are their own housing authorities, although they are very small, that would obviously be a consideration to be taken into account by the Housing Association in determining in what parts of the country they will distribute these demonstration schemes.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Westwood: There are two points to which I want to draw the attention of the House. We have been told that with one exception the Bill follows the lines of previous Housing Bills for Scotland. The exception is that the Housing Association is to carry on the work of providing houses in the Special Areas and to some extent outside the Special Areas, whereas every other Housing Bill has left the problem of housing to the local authorities. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) has just drawn attention to the fact that a promise was given in Committee that the work of this Housing Association might be, could be, and with the urge of the Scottish Office would be, used in the smaller burghs and in the more impoverished areas with a view to solving the housing problem. I would urge upon the Under-Secretary to give the fullest possible interpretation to that pledge so as to enable the small burghs and the more impoverished areas to proceed with housing. It would partly meet the problem of the small burghs and the more impoverished areas if full advantage were taken of the work of the Housing Association and the pledge received the widest interpretation.
    But I do not agree that there is only one exception to the general run of Housing Bills for Scotland. There is a second objection. I know of no other Act of Parliament dealing with Scotland in which a ratio of two to one has been set down. It is true that there is, apparently, a ratio of two to one in the 1924 Act, but that ratio was a maximum, and if a local authority could prove that it could let houses at rents similar to those charged for similar accommodation in the area, there was no compulsion on the authority to pay the£4 10s. rate contribution in return for the State contribution of£9. The only other case is the 1923 Housing Act in which there was a fifty-fifty basis for the purpose of dealing with slums, but no other Act of Parliament dealing with finance and housing in Scotland has laid down a two to one ratio. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) has said that it has been made perfectly clear by the local authorities that they have always protested against this ratio, they have never accepted it, and although the House has accepted the Amendment moved by

    1395
    the Government on Report, there will still be dissatisfaction among local authorities in Scotland that the ratio of two to one has now been incorporated in the Bill.
    The second point to which I want to draw attention is the apparent threat to local authorities. I am not sure that the Under-Secretary meant it as a threat, but very often words used by the Government convey a threat and then they attempt to get out of it. Dealing with recalcitrant and reactionary authorities which may not get on with the work of housing, it has been made clear that the powers for dealing with housing must remain with the local authorities until or unless Parliament determines to take these functions from them. There was a similar threat when we were dealing with the unemployed problem. Because of the generosity of some local authorities there was a threat to take away these powers. Later on the powers of local authorities to deal with this particular matter were taken from them and given to the Unemployment Assistance Board. There is now no real Parliamentary, and certainly no local control whatever. I am wondering whether it was a threat to local authorities in the Third Reading speech of the Under-Secretary of State that if they are dissatisfied with the financial provisions of the Bill and say that it is impossible to carry through duties which they are anxious to carry through, the Government are going to say that because they will not carry through the work with the financial arrangements which are made they will take these powers away and work on the same lines as the Unemployment Assistance Board and rate the people in the area to meet the case. I am wondering whether there was any such threat in the speech of the Under-Secretary.
    There are one or two complaints I have to make. The Bill has had to be rushed through because it is necessary to have these financial arrangements on the Statute Book by 31st December to enable the new grants to be made from 1st January next. As a result of this rushing, it has been impossible for local authorities to get in touch with their representatives in this House and to put forward proposals for further improving the Bill, which every Member of the Scottish Grand Committee wanted to make a more workable Bill.
    1396
    The Bill has become necessary because of the higher costs of building, which have been created by the rearmament policy of the Government. The rearmament policy of the Government became necessary because of the foreign policy of the Government and, therefore, it is the policy of the Government which has created the increased costs of building materials and likewise of the buildings themselves. There is an old saying that the sins of the fathers shall be visited on the children unto the third and fourth generations. It is obvious that the mishandling of our foreign policy by the Government will be visited on the tenants of municipal houses for the next three or four decades, because the increased cost of buildings will have to be paid for by increased rents. The provisions of the Bill are altogether inadequate to meet the conditions which now apply. In fact, the financial provisions only stabilise the present State contribution while it increases the rate contribution. Let me read from a statement provided by one of the leading burgh chamberlains in Scotland:
    "The new rates of grant will, as applied to some of our housing authorities, work out at about 11.23 per house, only a fractional improvement on the present situation."
    The town of Kirkcaldy has an average State grant of 11.03 in the£.The new provisions will give it 11.23, an increase of 4s. per house—with a rate increase of anything from 15s. 6d. to 18s. per house—to meet an increased cost per house of approximately £150. This burgh chamberlain has calculated what the increased cost will be in the way of rent. Borrowing money at 3½ per cent. he estimates that if we have a rate solely and wholly for the houses we are now building, at an increase of £150 per house, we should, despite the alleged increase in the State assistance which is 4s. per house, have to increase the rents by £6 per year. You cannot solve housing problems by finance of that character. You make it impossible for poor people for whom you are building the houses to occupy them; they cannot pay the rent. This burgh chamberlain also says:
    "If the present rates of grant had been continued there might have been a gradual decrease in the average grant under the 1930 Housing Act."
    Despite that fact, the finance of the present Bill merely stabilises the infinitesimal amount which has been provided as additional State assistance to deal with a

    1397
    problem of housing created at the moment by the increased cost of building.
    With all these facts before me I am justified in claiming that the Bill will not materially help to solve the housing problem in Scotland. I am inclined to think it will throw bricks in the wheels. There is a need for a consolidation of the Housing Acts and for a great comprehensive housing scheme for Scotland. This Bill does not meet any of these requirements. It ought to be merely a stepping stone for a real measure, big enough and comprehensive enough, to enable this vital problem for Scotland to be dealt with in a statesmanlike manner. We are not going to oppose the Third Reading, but we shall continue to fight for a real, comprehensive measure dealing with Scottish housing problems in a businesslike and statesmanlike way, which this Bill does not do.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: I wish to put a question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in regard to the Housing Association. I was a little disappointed with his reply a few minutes ago, because it seemed to me to be not as satisfactory as that given by the Secretary of State. I hope I have misjudged him, but if he can, at the end of the Debate, reassure me, he will reassure also a good many anxious housing conveners in many parts of Scotland. The Under-Secretary of State stressed the experimental nature of the work of this new Housing Association outside of the Special Areas. One understands the vital necessity of that experimental work, but the Secretary of State went a bit further at the last meeting of the Standing Committee when referring to the admitted difficulties that are felt in many small burghs. I speak with feeling on this matter, because there are more small burghs in Fife than in any other county in Scotland, and I have nearly all of them in my constituency, which the Under-Secretary knows as well as I do. The Secretary of State recognised the particular difficulties and burdens of many of these small burghs, and that because of their rating burdens they would be handicapped in their further housing efforts, and, having recognised that, he said:
    "I have in mind that we may be able to give some measure of assistance to certain of the small authorities placed in that particular
    1398
    difficulty by the proposals in that part of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 6th December, 1938; col. 46.]
    That phrase "some measure of assistance" seemed to indicate a second purpose for this new Housing Association, not only experimental and demonstration, but actual, direct assistance. I asked the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee what that undertaking meant. He said it was not a pledge. An hon. Member opposite described it as a promise. I wish that I had felt that it was, but when I put it to the right hon. Gentleman he rather hedged. I am most anxious about this matter. I put to my right hon. Friend three questions—three times I asked him a question—on this matter, and on each occasion he rather interrupted me and said that he did not want me to take this too exactly. What is the position? Is this an undertaking or is it not, and if it is, what kind of undertaking is it? For example, does it mean that the Department of Health, when this Bill becomes law, will instruct this Housing Association to seek opportunities, not only for demonstration work, but for direct assistance to these small depressed local authorities, or is the Department to inform these authorities that they may represent their claims to the Housing Association? In other words, where is the initiative to come from? Is it to be taken by the Government or by the local authorities?
    I must emphasise that this is a matter of very great importance. You are going to erect 8,500 houses of this kind without any cost to the local authorities. It is admitted that the demonstration must be widespread. It would not do to have it all in the West or all in the East. All local authorities, or most of them, must see that demonstration, and if the demonstration is to be of any value in assisting these authorities—in the words of the Secretary of State himself, "some measure of assistance"—I submit that the Housing Association must be given instructions to operate in those areas where the financial need is urgent. Since there is between us some misunderstanding about the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, in that I myself did not regard it as a complete pledge, but hon. Members opposite did so regard it, let us be quite clear about it. The Under-

    1399
    Secretary has an opportunity to-day, which I beg him to take, of clearing up this misunderstanding.
    4.35 p.m.
    Mr. Stephen: It is already evident from the speeches that have been made that in no part of the House is there a feeling that this Bill will deal materially with the housing problem in Scotland. Scottish Members of all parties realise how great is the problem that we have to face. The circumstances in my own constituency, every time that I visit it, make me feel ashamed of the efforts that have been made in the past. The people there are living under the most intolerable conditions, and yet, with another Housing Bill being put upon the Statute Book, with the Third Reading of that Bill before the House of Commons to-day, there is no feeling in the House that we are yet getting sufficiently to grips with the problem to remove these terrible conditions.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), on the Second Reading, took a somewhat different line from that taken by any other Member who contributed to the Debate, and he expressed the view that this matter of Scottish housing could satisfactorily be dealt with only by the nationalisation of the house-building industry in Scotland. I agree with him profoundly in his view. Like the hon. Member above the gangway, I realise that one has to be thankful for small mercies and that this Bill will make some little contribution. The Under-Secretary of State has referred to the feature in the Bill of the introduction of a Housing Association on the new scale that is contemplated in the Bill, and I can see that it is possible that as a result of the demonstration houses that are to be built local authorities may be persuaded afterwards to do much more than has been done in the past with regard to alternative building methods. At the same time, I am convinced that at the kernel of the problem there is the question of finance.
    As I understand this Bill, the bigger contribution to the local authorities with regard to their housing programmes will be the increased subsidy that they will get as compared with the 1935 Act. In the Committee it was pointed out that the contributions under the 1930 Act would now tend to become less, owing to the way in which many of the bigger families that
    1400
    had had a certain amount of rehousing provided for them had been dealt with, and what we can expect from this Bill in connection with the subsidy is whatever renewed efforts the local authorities can make as compared with the finance that was given to them under the 1935 Act. I am not in the least bit hopeful about it. In the Committee we wrangled over the difference between the £3 5s. and the £4 10s. of the local subsidy, and that increase disturbed the minds of many hon. Members of the Committee, but when faced up with it Members would agree that the £3 5s. of so many of the local authorities itself contributed a factor that made them hesitate in regard to big housing schemes The rate burden in so many of the places in Scotland, owing to the heavy unemployment problem there, makes even the £3 5s. contribution seem to them a contribution that would involve great difficulties if rehousing was to be carried through on a big scale.
    I regret that the Government seemingly have not come to a proper realisation of the difficulties of the local authorities with regard to the burden of rates in connection with the rehousing of the people. It is true that a bigger State subsidy is being provided in this Bill, but even with that the local authorities will not have the encouragement to operate on a great scale that they would have if their commitments had been limited by a certah rate rather than by a block sum like £3 5s. or £4 10s. If, for example, the Government had come forward with their proposals and had indicated to the local authorities that they were prepared, say, to act on the basis that there would be a maximum 2d. rate or even a 3d. rate with regard to housing, I think the Government would be surprised at the advances that might be made by many of the local authorities. I must confess that I have the very greatest disappointment that we are now having another Housing Act for Scotland, with the general agreement practically of the House that it will not lead to any material improvement in the position. Nearly everyone who has taken part in the Debate has made that admission. The Government themselves have had to admit that, while they are seeking to do the best that is within their power, they are still thinking in terms of a programme that will not go to the roots of the problem.

    1401
    Why should we allow the position to continue? Why should we not, as Scotsmen, decide to put this matter right? I know there are very many other factors in connection with it, such as the increased cost of housing, but if an examination of the problem leads to the conclusion that the only way to deal with it is nationalisation of the materials and also centralised effort in co-operation with the local authorities, then surely any Government should be prepared to face up to that necessity, in view of the tragedy of the housing situation in Scotland. I am sorry that I cannot be very hopeful about what will come out of this Bill. I certainly think that it may lead to increased house-building on a minor scale in various parts of the country, and even for small mercies we are thankful, but I would press upon the Under-Secretary of State and upon the Secretary of State that as this Measure is put upon the Statute Book and as they carefully watch its effects, if my pessimistic outlook with regard to it is being realised by no great increase in the programmes, they will seriously con-skier the proposal for the nationalisation of the house-building industry in Scotland in order to solve the problem.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. A. Young: It is an unwritten law in the House that Members in my situation should not address the House on matters affecting their own Department, but I feel so strongly on the subject of Scottish housing that I have asked the special permission of the Under-Secretary of State to be allowed to address the House on the Third Reading of this Bill. I hope I shall say something that will be of value.
    There are not on this side of the House many Members representing the city of Glasgow who are able to speak on the matter of housing, for either they are Cabinet Ministers or Members of the Government, or are engaged in other important matters. I have spent all my working life in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and the constituency of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) is not very far away, and I know conditions there. Because of what I have seen in Bridgeton and in my own constituency of Partick, I have always been deeply concerned with the problem of improving the conditions in which so many of our citizens are com
    1402
    pelled to live. I do not intend to weary the House by quoting figures, for we all know the conditions with regard to housing in Glasgow. Our problem is that we have something like 61,000 houses to build in order to do away with slums and overcrowding, and the rate of building for the last few years has given an output of only about 2,000.
    I welcome this Bill because I think it will create—I hope it will create—a new atmosphere in regard to our housing problem. The housing problem is not merely one of money. To my mind, it is far more a question of willing co-operation between all the parties concerned. I often feel that the problem is clogged with legislation and red tape, and I make an appeal to all members of the community who are concerned with this problem, from the Department and the corporation committees down to the contractors and the trade unions, to co-operate in every way possible in tackling this terrible problem that we have to overcome.
    There is another good feature in the Bill, and that is the provision which enables the Scottish Housing Association to operate outside the Special Areas. It is true that this provides only for 8,500 houses, but I hope that the Glasgow Corporation will see to it that they make application, and try to have as many as possible of those 8,500 houses built within the city area. We have in Glasgow a very energetic Lord Provost, and I understand that already he has some plans in operation for building houses by alternative methods. In conclusion, I would only say that, in my opinion, the housing problem ought not to be a political problem. Housing Acts have come from both sides of the House. Let us not discuss their relative merits—it is usually a question of who can get the most money out of the Treasury—but let us rather get together, with all the powers of our eloquence, and persuade all those who are concerned to tackle this problem and remove this great blot from Scotland.
    4.50 p.m.
    Mr. Garro Jones: It is most depressing to those who realise the magnitude of the problem which remains to be solved to listen to the complacency of the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State about the part being played by the Government in relation to the part being played by the local authorities. I do not

    1403
    think anything in the record of the hon. Gentleman entitled him to come with phylacteries to the House, as though he was a great driver and stimulator of the local authorities to proceed with their plans. I must say that I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). This Bill will do nothing more than take another peck at the problem. The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Young) knows well enough that at the rate at which we are proceeding now, the housing problem will remain for his children and his grandchildren after him to settle in this House. Slums are being created and overcrowding is developing at almost as fast a rate as that at which they are being cured, and even the Under-Secretary of State cannot deny that.
    Why is it not possible to get a real grip on this problem? It is said that there is sufficient material; even the present Government say that finance is no longer an obstacle; and with regard to labour the Under-Secretary admitted that much remains to be done to make the available labour supplies larger and even to divert labour from unessential requirements to requirements which demand priority, such as the clearing of the slums and the getting rid of overcrowding; but the simple fact is that if there is one bottleneck other than finance, we always hear the Government stressing it. They are always glad if they can to find one excuse or another. I do not wish to make any sort of party capital about this. I think it is contemptible to compare the progress made in Glasgow, for example, with the progress made in Aberdeen. I believe that local authorities often compare what they are doing with, what is being done by the opposite party in some other Division. That does not get us any further. The fact remains that in practically every one of these large burghs in Scotland the problem is not being tackled at a sufficiently rapid rate.
    I want to make one or two proposals. I think the Housing Association, such as it is, under the Bill, has got the germ of a good idea in it. I think that with the powers at present conferred upon it, it will achieve very little; but if it can be made the instrument of a survey and a drive for these problems, in order to bring to the notice of the Government the shortcomings and mistakes that are
    1404
    being made by the local authorities, with a much larger authority than that with which it is at present entrusted, then I think it may prove to be a very effective weapon. I do not share the apprehension my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) regarding what he termed the threat made by the Under-Secretary against the local authorities. I would complain at no amount of pressure put upon the local authorities, whatever might be the complexion of the Government in power, in order to bring home to them the magnitude of this problem.
    I will give an example of what has happened in my own constituency, where the housing problem is a very severe one, in spite of the magnificence of that city in many other respects. There happened to be available in the middle of a city a small site suitable for building a number of houses, not a very large number, but a number that would be a useful contribution to the problem. The financial authorities of the city looked at the site, made some inquiries, and found that they could make a rent profit of £30 a year if, instead of building houses on it, they sold it to some private contractor for some other purpose. The sight of that£30 profit, as the sight of a profit so often does to those who believe it to be the criterion and test of all things, hypnotised that leader of local opinion, and he said, "It would be a terrible mistake to build houses on this site if you can sell it for some other purpose and get a profit of a year£30 for the city and build houses a couple of miles out"—at a much more inconvenient place. That is indicative of the type of outlook on problems of this sort which the Government could do a great deal to sweep away, and if they would utilise the Housing Association provided under the Bill for bringing facts and attitudes of this kind before the local authorities, it might do something to contribute at least to the psychological aspect of the problem.
    I would like to suggest another thing. We all know that the Under-Secretary has a sincere desire, in the leisurely and unhurried way which is characteristic of him, to do something to improve housing in Scotland, but I wonder whether he would not act with a little more vigour and spirit if he fertilised his imagination

    1405
    by more frequent visits to what I would call the battlefront. I dare say that the hon. Gentleman gets, as does every hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, a number of most poignant letters describing the conditions in which his constituents have to live. I get such letters by almost every post. At one time I used to spend a large amount of time in visiting each one of these houses, visiting the local authorities, begging them to do something in each individual case, until I really brought within my own understanding the magnitude of the problem, and recognised that, if I got 10 or 20 letters a week, they were only indicative of 300 or 400 other cases just as bad, if not worse.
    I would like the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary to make visits such as I have described at least once every six months. It would not be a disproportionate allocation of their time if they spent one month in every six months in visiting the conditions which represent the gravest problem with which Scotland has to deal at the present time, with all its repercussions on the health and national efficiency of Scotland. I say that it would not be a disproportionate allocation of the hon. Gentleman's time if he spent a few weeks in every year in investigating these conditions with a view to stimulating and fertilising his own imagination to tackle the problem on a larger scale. I would like to see recited in the Preamble of every Bill that shameful figure of the number of houses which are overcrowded in Scotland as compared even with the overcrowding in England. I believe that 23 per cent. is still approximately the figure for Scotland, as compared with 4 or 5 per cent. of houses in England which remain overcrowded. I appeal to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary not to think that they have put the necessary instruments in the hands of the local authorities, for in 20 years time we shall be very little further ahead with the present rate.
    I come now to a more detailed suggestion with regard to the types of alternative construction. The city which I have the honour to represent is constructed as to 95 per cent. of granite houses, and I believe that I should not have been too ready to advocate, a year
    1406
    or two ago, any departure from that scheme of building granite houses. Having seen the terrible conditions under which many of the inhabitants of that city live, my objections to the use of materials other than granite have long since vanished, and I am prepared to see every kind of alternative material in use, beginning with brick, and proceeding to cement and even to wooden houses. I do not share the objections which have been expressed to wooden houses, provided they are properly built, and I think the Housing Association will do a great deal of good. If some of my hon. Friends saw the wooden houses which I have seen in the United States and Canada, and compared the comfortable conditions in those houses with the conditions under which so many of our people are living in Scotland to-day, I think they would modify their views.
    I would say, however, that there is a tendency to construct these wooden houses on certain systems of joinery and the adaptation of materials, which involve the payment of royalties to some person or other. Occasionally we get in a burgh a preliminary publicity campaign about the advantages of some particular form of patented timber construction. Anyone who knows anything about patents is not going to pay much attention to that form of propaganda. I would suggest that every type of patented house should be ruled out, and that authorities should proceed to build the best type, without the complications and additional charges involved in any kind of patent. If the Housing Association allows itself to be deceived about the advantages of so-called patents which, if challenged, are seldom sustainable, and, if sustained, are of very doubtful advantage over more commonplace systems, then I think they will not be carrying out their duty efficiently. As regards Aberdeen, I think it will not be long before there is a change in the composition of the city council of that burgh, and then, at any rate, I can promise hon. Members that that city will not be backward in utilising to the full the powers which various Statutes confer upon it.
    5.4 p.m
    Mr. Allan Chapman: I was very interested in the observations of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro

    1407
    Jones) on the subject of visiting condemned houses, but I want to touch on that matter from a rather different point of view. There is the danger that when one goes round and inspects these houses the unfortunate people who are living in them credit their unfortunate Member of Parliament with powers which, unhappily, he does not possess. I confess that I have hesitated to make wholesale inspections of this kind lest I should raise false hopes. In view of the conditions under which some of them have to live it would be the refinement of cruelty to do so until there was some hope. Every Member of this House sitting for a Scottish seat in whose constituency there are industrial or mining areas knows perfectly well, despite what has been said and written, that the slum kitchen which was exhibited in the Glasgow Exhibition was no exaggeration. When I saw some of the observations which were made upon it in the Press I was anxious to take the gentlemen who made them to my own division where I could have shown them housing conditions almost as bad.
    The suggestion of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary should inspect personally the areas where housing is particularly bad is like pushing at an open door. During the Recess I hardly picked up a Scottish newspaper without discovering that either the Secretary of State, or the Under-Secretary was inspecting houses or going here there and everywhere on other missions. But I agree that it is well both for the officers of State and the back-benchers of this House to keep in practical touch with the problem. My difficulty as I said is to do so without raising hopes which I know cannot be fulfilled for a long time to come. There are areas in my division where 88 per cent. of the housing needs have yet to be met, which shows the magnitude of our problem. To-day we are passing a general judgment on this Bill and I approve of it on the understanding that it is only to be regarded as one method of tackling the problem. I do not believe that by this Bill alone we can overtake this task; therefore I trust I am correct in assuming that the method of the municipal building is not to be the sole agency employed.
    We must realise that the Bill will make a large call on rates and taxes and the test
    1408
    of the Bill for the taxpayer and the ratepayer will be, "Will it get the houses?" I believe that, to a certain extent, it will, but I reserve judgment on the question of whether or not it will provide the incentive for that great drive of which so many hon. Members have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Partick (Mr. Young), whose attractive speech we were all glad to hear, alluded to conditions in Glasgow. The great city of Glasgow is in a unique position to give a lead in this matter and I am sure there is a general desire in Glasgow to give that lead to Scotland. One knows the terrific problems of housing which, in common with other large cities, it has to face. I do not minimise the difficulties but a great city like Glasgow has the organisation, the resources and the experience to deal with the task. I do not think it can be said at the moment that Glasgow is giving us the lead which we would like to see and which would be followed by the rest of the country. That may be due to circumstances beyond its control.
    Glasgow's problem affects neighbouring constituencies. A shortage of houses in Glasgow sends people out to my own division and other divisions to look for houses and thus the problem is accentuated. If we extend hospitality to refugees and numbers of them come to Scotland there will be a tendency for them to go to the large cities and the problem will be still further accentuated. Therefore the problem of Glasgow's housing is not a local one: it is, in a sense, a national one. That is why I allude to it and I do so in no carping spirit. But the fact remains that 6,380 houses were completed in 1929. I know there were special circumstances at the time but I do not propose to go into that in detail. The fact remains that the number of houses completed in the first ten months of this year was only 2,217. That is a big discrepancy. I do not doubt that Glasgow is planning a great many more houses in view of that fall. In 1936 the number of houses completed was 1,985 and in 1937 the number was 1,841. It is encouraging to know that there has been the beginning of a drive and that the figures are on the upgrade. There is need for all, whatever their political views, to join in getting this drive under way. As the Under-Secretary has said, one of the key points of the problem, and I was glad to hear that it is being tackled, is the question of labour. If it is dealt

    1409
    with sympathetically and understandingly I am sure we shall get that kind of team work by which alone we can solve the problem. Let us face the facts that Glasgow's need is 54,728 houses and as was said earlier, that is a 20-year or perhaps a 30-year task. At the moment, this Bill goes a certain way along the road but the Bill alone will never overtake the task before us. I hope, therefore, that other agencies will be used. One has a natural bias in favour of one's own division, and while there is still a great deal to be done in the Rutherglen division I would point to the fact that the Royal Burgh of Rutherglen, which got its charter 80 years before Glasgow is still leading Glasgow by a short head as regards housing. In Glasgow since 1929 132 per 1,000 of the population have been rehoused and in Rutherglen, though I agree that the proposition there is a much smaller one, the figure is 146 per 1,000. I suggest that that is a challenge to Glasgow, a challenge which, I feel, will be taken up in the near future. Glasgow is a great city with great traditions and great pride and a craftsmanship unequalled in the world. I decline to believe that Glasgow cannot carry out a tremendous campaign to show how this scourge of bad housing can be swept away. When we have our housing as it ought to be I feel that we shall then be justified in that toast which we hear so often in Scotland and which I rather hesitate to pronounce:
    "Here's tae us; wha's like us?"
    Hon. Members: Finish it!
    Mr. Mathers: Will the hon. Member not give the answer which is:
    "Deil a yin"?
    Mr. Chapman: I was not going to give the answer. I thank the hon. Member for doing so. When we have our housing in such a condition as to ensure the greatest possible health and happiness for our people then I feel that that toast will have a little more significance in Scotland than it has at the present time.
    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. McLean Watson: The Bill to which we are now asked to give the Third Reading is for the purpose of providing the 250,000 houses which we require in Scotland for the re-housing of our people. We are given two agencies for the provision of these houses, namely, the local authori-
    1410
    ties and the housing association. As far as the local authorities are concerned, I dare say they will, to the utmost of their ability, take advantage of this Measure. Certain local authorities however will be under a handicap, because owing to conditions in their areas they will not be in a position to take advantage of the Measure, and I venture to say that when we come to discuss the next Housing Bill, we shall find a considerable problem still waiting, to be dealt with in Scotland. The local authorities, particularly the burgh councils, will, I dare say, take immediate advantage of these new arrangements, not that the financial provisions will place them in any better position than they have been in up to now. We simply have the two grants merged into one, and, as far as they are concerned, there will be little difference in the position.
    The Under-Secretary devoted a great part of his speech to the Housing Association, and, in spite of what has been said on Second Reading and in the Committee, he still hopes to get great results from it. It was a good thing for the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) that he happened to be out of the Chamber when the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. Young) was making his speech, for I am not sure that he would have enjoyed the hon. Member urging that Glasgow Corporation should get as many of these 8,500 houses as they possibly could. If the Housing Association is to devote its time building experimental houses in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen, the large burghs and some of the small burghs, without touching the smallest burghs, I do not see how any experimental houses can be built in East Fife. The Housing Association which is to undertake part of the work planned in this Measure is to engage in experimental building. Timber and concrete houses have been mentioned as alternative types of building, and it is evidently in these two directions that the Association will carry on its work.
    In the Committee stage I drew the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that local authorities which had already planned the building of timber houses had cancelled the plans because the timber houses were more expensive than brick. It may be that, despite the slightly increased cost, the Housing Association may go on with building timber houses. I

    1411
    dare say that a comfortable timber house can be built, even in Scotland, but it is evident that at present prices it cannot be built as cheaply as the ordinary brick house. I would like to hear whether it is the intention of the Housing Association to go on building timber houses in view of that fact. Concrete houses will certainly not be suitable in certain areas. They may be suitable in parts of East Fife, where they are not troubled with undermining, but wherever there is danger of subsidence they are not advisable. A considerable part of our housing problem exists in those areas, and concrete is not the type of building that can be undertaken there.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh) emphasised that the Housing Association which is operating in the Special Areas in Scotland had been able to build a considerable number of concrete houses because they were building a large number on one given spot. It may be possible to build concrete houses at something like the present cost of brick building, or even less, if they are erected in comparatively large numbers. Where small burghs require only half a dozen or so, building with poured concrete may not be very economical. I am not looking for any great result from the Housing Association, which is so elaborately set out in the Measure we are discussing.
    Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would timber houses suit the mining areas?
    Mr. Watson: I dare say they could be erected in mining areas. As a matter of fact, Fife County Council had planned to erect timber houses in one part of the constituency represented by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) because of the undermining, and in the opinion of the local authority such houses would resist undermining better than concrete or brick houses. As I have pointed out, however, local authorities which have planned to build timber houses have abandoned them because the price of timber rose enormously. I dare say the hope of the Secretary of State is that the Housing Association will be able to erect a considerable number of concrete houses, but he has yet to convince us that these houses can be built at something approaching the cost of brick houses.
    The Under-Secretary has told us that in his opinion building materials will be
    1412
    available in sufficient quantities to allow the local authorities to go on with a considerable drive in the provision of new houses. I do not know whether that applies to all sections of the building industry, or only to bricklayers and joiners and one or two other tradesmen. I would like the Under-Secretary to tell us what is the position in regard to plasterers, because my information is that some of the local authorities have the greatest difficulty in getting the necessary number. There appears to be no shortage of bricklayers at the moment, and the joiners seem to be able to carry on the work they are required to do, but beyond that there is a hold-up on a number of housing schemes owing to a shortage of labour in some of the other trades.
    I do not expect great things from the Housing Association. It may be able to give us houses that will be satisfactory, but we will wait and see. I hope that, without spending much time with the Association, the Under-Secretary will encourage the burgh councils and the larger corporations to go on under this Bill with their housing schemes, and whatever assistance can be given to county areas or the smaller burghs by the Housing Association will be welcomed. I must confess, however, that I am not expecting great things, especially from the Housing Association, but I believe that with the necessary encouragement the local authorities will go on with the building of houses under the provisions of this Bill.
    3.36 p.m.
    Sir Henry Fildes: I would like the Under-Secretary of State to give us some explanation why private enterprise in the building trade does not try to render the same service to the community in Scotland as it does in England. Private enterprise has gone a long way without the aid of subsidies greatly to improve the position of affairs in housing in England. It is a mystery to me, and I am sure the House will be interested to know the circumstances in Scotland which cause private enterprise to languish and to lead nowhere in the solution of the housing problem. I agree with one of the previous speakers who mentioned matters in regard to labour difficulties. In my constituency, for 16 or 17 weeks, housing has been held up because there

    1413
    is a dispute in the plumbing industry about one halfpenny per hour. Surely it should be possible to come to some arrangement with the trade unions to let the men go on working at the old rates and, when the difficulties are settled, if it is agreed that the additional halfpenny shall be paid, to grant it to the men. The housing problem is urgent, and it is a sad mockery that weeks and weeks are being wasted over a petty dispute about a halfpenny per hour. I feel that the urgency of the housing problem is such that steps ought to be taken to make some arrangement for the men to go on with the work, and, when the dispute is settled, either to pay the extra sum or to leave the matter where it stands if the extra sum is not agreed upon.
    If we are genuine in our expression of horror at the housing conditions that prevail in a great part of Scotland, it is the duty of the local authorities to make the most of this Bill. They get better terms in the next four years, and at the end of that time the amount of money that has to be spent on armaments may have been reduced, and the Secretary of State may then be able to give the municipal authorities a little better terms than the Treasury are able to give to-day. In view of the urgency of the problem let us get right into this job now, taking advantage of the next four years during which we are getting better terms. An old man whom I used to know always said, "Never take your hat off to the devil till he speaks." Four years is a long time ahead, and let us get on with the job because I feel that under this Bill there are opportunities to relieve the distressing conditions in which Scottish housing finds itself now and has found itself for a considerable number of years past.
    5.31 p.m.
    Mr. MacLaren: I am intervening upon the Third Reading of this Bill from the most disinterested motives. I do not represent a Scottish division, but I was born and brought up in the City of Glasgow and I know Scottish housing conditions at first hand, and I have been asked to say something by a number of Scottish people whom I may define as being of strong Scottish radical opinions. This Bill embodies all the heresies and fallacies and economic nonsense which have marked all the Housing Bills since
    1414
    the War, and I am amazed at the complacent way in which Scotsmen are accepting it. If there was anything upon which Scotsmen once prided themselves it was that in the science of economics they were usually about 250 years ahead of the English, but of recent years, from what I have observed in this House, that superiority in the Scottish understanding of economic problems seems to have evaporated. Scotland is being dragged behind England in housing, in unemployment and in this, that and the other thing. Here we have the same recurring chorus, almost like the Greek Trinity, that the only way to overcome the housing problem is by some form of State subsidy. That is provided for in Clause 1, and we get the same charming device when we come to page 2 of the Bill, which says, in effect, that in the event of a town having to find building accommodation upon a site which is rather expensive, the State will come in to assist by giving an extra grant to cover the cost of that site. One would have thought that after all the years of radical campaigning Scotland would have been far ahead of proposals of that kind.
    When I was a boy the idea that we could solve the housing problem by subsidies was laughed at. We always said, "That is what the English do," because we had seen in Glasgow that all the devices resorted to there in order to mitigate the housing difficulties, such as building tramways and taking the people away from the slum areas to the outside districts, the provision of health services and all the rest of it, did not cure Glasgow's slum problem. I do not know what the position may be now, but in those days Glasgow could boast of having the finest slums in Europe, although it had its tram system and had tried all means of getting the poor people away from the congested areas to more spacious surroundings outside. But what had happened? What any Scotsman would have expected. Boards appeared proclaiming, "Highly valuable building land for sale. Trams will be here next week or the week after." We knew all that then, and it is mystifying that the recollection seems to have evaporated from the Scottish mind that the explanation of the housing situation is to be found in the land system, in the rating system and in low-wage conditions. It is hoped to cure this big problem by dishing out State subsidies,

    1415
    but of course we shall not cure it in this way.
    What has happened in this country since the War? Fortunes have been poured out in subsidies for housing is it curing the problem? What have we heard to-day about Glasgow? That Glasgow needs 60,000 houses. And what is the rate of progress in providing the houses? Something like 2,000 or 3,000 a year, even with enormous subsidies. You will never cure the problem in Scotland by subsidies—never on this earth. Even hon. Members opposite have to confess that despite all that has been done the present rate of progress must make them distrust whether they can ever hope to see a solution of the problem in their lifetime. Therefore, if I am doing nothing more by intervening in this Debate, I am sounding the clarion call of those who did understand the housing problem and knew that this was not the way to cure it.
    The Under-Secretary did his best to-day in the circumstances, but he did not once suggest that this Bill would cure the housing problem. Like so many other Measures before it, this Bill will have this net economic result—I predict it and I defy any challenge—that the people in control of vacant sites will enhance site values because they know there is to be a demand for housing. That is point No. 1. The next point is that those who have created "rings" in all the ramifications of the industries supplying house-building materials will, now that they see this housing subsidy coming, advance prices. The economic result of subsidies is to make the case still more difficult. What have I listened to to-day from almost every side of the House? The complaint that despite the subsidies, despite the devices within the four corners of these petty Measures, rates will still become heavier in Glasgow and Edinburgh and Dundee as the result of the Bill. We get into this vicious circle—subsidies to rehouse, as a result of the subsidies a "skying" of the prices for land, and then more rates to pay a contribution to the housing subsidies. More rates will be levied upon the houses we have been building. You increase the price of the basic thing, the land you need for the site of the houses, and then you have to put extra rates on to the users of the houses.
    1416
    Rates will be rising and then we get this sad story from the Government Front Bench—it was almost naive of the Under-Secretary to talk as he did—that the local authorities must clear away the slums and the ratepayers should pay a little. They are always paying a little. He said that reactionary councils do not move quickly owing to the rates and that public opinion ought to drive those reactionary bodies. How can you enthuse people who are paying high rates in the housing problem if they know that its solution will rebound upon them in the shape of higher rates? More especially should I like to know how long it will take an Under-Secretary to convince Scotsmen that they should pay more and more rates for ideal houses for somebody else. It is going to take a lot of doing. And to think that it is all unnecessary.
    I hope that to-morrow the Scottish people will read this Debate and that they will think back upon the days when Alexander Ure and a few more of us were in Glasgow, not dealing with housing in this pettifogging manner, but dealing with it radically, realising that bad housing in Glasgow, Edinburgh and elsewhere was due to the rating system and to the land system. We argued then, and it is just as true to-day, that you must abolish the system whereby you rate people on their houses and instead put the rates upon site values, so as to break open the land and enable people to build houses without a subsidy. By rating site values you will throw open more land and create more opportunities for men to employ themselves and wages and bound to rise. As we are acting now results will run in the opposite direction, and how long Scotland will go in that way I do not know. I sometimes think that after the War there was a snap in the intellect of the Scottish people, and that all that Adam Smith had told them, all that the great Dr. Anderson had told them, all that the Physiocrats had told them from the writings of the Edinburgh philosophers, has evaporated, and that now Scotsmen have no intellectual conceptions or understandings of these matters, and must run, like the old Fabian Society, to the Treasury to see if there is anything to be got out of it.
    These subsidies pass right through the hands of the people whom we would like to benefit and go back into the basic fund of rent, and the position of the

    1417
    people is just as bad as it was. Every housing site which is developed in Glasgow, Edinburgh or elsewhere is advancing the value of contiguous land, and then we have to come back for more subsidies and there is more talk about so much being found by the rates. After all, why should the rates pay one portion and the State pay two portions? Rates and taxes are a common penalty upon the industry of this country, and whether the subsidies are paid out of rates or taxes matters very little in the long run. Both of them are only different parts of the same dead weight. I hope that the Scottish people will read this Debate to-day and I am hoping, in all humility, that they will read what I have said, and that it may have some effect in driving the Scottish mind back to a basic understanding of these problems, so that we shall stop this tinkering, this burning of public money in ways which solve no problem and only create more difficulties in connection with the problem.
    I am speaking with some feeling, because I can never look back upon my time in Glasgow as a boy without a feeling that is a veritable nightmare. The conditions under which people lived there then and live under now make me wonder that men can be complacent, that men will continue to put up with them for so long. There are districts in Scotland which are veritable wens, disease dens, and yet we cannot clear them, and we never shall so long as we proceed along these lines. I invite Scotsmen to go back to the Commissions of 1880 and 1883, to read some of the findings of the very able bodies set up to make inquiries into local rating, the last one presided over by Lord Strathclyde, and they will find that they had an advantage then which will be lost if we continue along this line of subsidies, more subsidies and more bureaucratic control. The crux of the housing question is a matter of the distribution of the wealth of society and of stopping the encroachment of vested interests that paralyse every attempt that is made either to house or to feed men.
    5.46 p.m.
    Mr. Muff: I will not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). His speech takes my mind back to the time when I, too, sat at the feet of the late Alexander Ure. I
    1418
    intervene as an Englishman because this is an unopposed Bill. On the face of it, it therefore has the good will of this House. I would, in passing, remind the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) that he is wrong in thinking that English municipal authorities have solved their housing problem in any way by means of private enterprise in our great boroughs arid county boroughs. The private enterprise business firms erected houses, and still erect them, to own. I presume that the purpose of the Bill is to build houses to let. In England we have set about building these houses to let, and we have had to do it through the public authorities. We received our inspiration at the beginning from an Irishman sent to us from Glasgow, who was Minister of Health, the late John Wheatley.
    I intervene also because the Under-Secretary of State has mentioned that there must be an enlightened public opinion as one of the levers to try to bring about housing reform in Scotland. In these Debates, but especially during the speeches from the Front Bench opposite on the Second Reading, I, as an Englishman, and I emphasise the word "Englishman," was absolutely horrified at the condition of affairs obtaining in some of the large burghs in Scotland. A well-brought-up Conservative once told me that if he lived in Motherwell he would join the extreme of extremist political parties as a protest at the conditions existing in cities like Dundee and Glasgow. Here we have a Bill. I agree that it is a half-measure, but I would remind the benches opposite that they have been in control of the Scottish Office for 17 years out of the last 20 years, and that they cannot get one scrap of consolation for their efforts in the past. There seems to be something lacking in the Scottish mentality.
    My final word is that I wish Scotsmen would try to catch the grit, the determination and the thrift which obtain South of the Tweed, to catch the glow from Englishmen and to put their house in order; not let Scotland be, as it is to-day, a blot upon our fair fame, so far as housing is concerned.
    Mr. A. Chapman: Would the hon. Member tell the House how many houses were built when the Government represented by those benches was in office?
    Mr. Muff: I have no idea. I did not get up to make debating points about the administration of Scotland, which is a sort of Poo-Bah arrangement, so far as I understand it. In England, Englishmen have done this thing, and I wish that Scotsmen would do the same.
    5.51 p.m.
    Mr. Gallacher: I would like to tell the House that the Scotsmen of to-day have not the slightest intention of listening to the clarion call from the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) to go back. Scotsmen of to-day desire to go forward, and in that desire we will contemplate the Bill that is before the House. Houses must be built, but the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland informs us that the local authorities should contribute their share from their rates towards the cost of doing so. That is the spirit that can handicap, and has handicapped, the race which local authorities are engaged in against overcrowding and slums. It is the spirit that should never prevail. The question is not whether the local authorities should pay their share but that a great evil stands before us, in the housing conditions of Scotland—an evil that cannot be exaggerated. The responsibility of the Government is not to consider how much they can get out of the local authorities, but how quickly the evil can be got rid of.
    The problem has two sides: the necessity of building houses at the most rapid possible rate—houses for the people—and, secondly, to ensure that the rents of those houses come within the budgets of the people who go into them. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to face this question: What would he do if, week after week, he had to face the problem whether he should buy food for his children or pay the rent? In view of the fact that the rent must be paid, he would be left in the position that he could not buy food for his children. That problem faces thousands of families every day in these new houses. Did hon. Members hear how easy it was for the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes) to talk about a halfpenny an hour? It was such a trivial thing, he said. Of course it is a trivial thing for the hon. Member for Dumfries, but when a man and his wife have to face the question of whether they will buy food or pay the rent, a halfpenny
    1420
    an hour is an entirely different proposition. In facing this problem the Government should not concern themselves with how much they can get out of the local authorities, but with how rapidly they can build houses, and the first thing should be that the Government should take responsibility for providing the full subsidy.
    After the various reports that have been made and the discussions that have taken place, this serious problem now comes before us in all its evil meaning for the people of the country. Bill after Bill has been introduced, but to-day we are faced with the problem in a way in which we have never been faced with it before. The Government should come forward prepared to pay every halfpenny of the subsidy, sufficient to ensure that the houses would be built in the most rapid manner and that people would be able to pay the rents. In a pamphlet I have just read there is an instance in which one authority in London had to pay £6,000,000 an acre for land. It sounds almost unbelievable.
    Mr. MacLaren: That is where you get the subsidy.
    Mr. Gallacher: The same thing is going on to a lesser extent in Scotland. It has to be dealt with, but we do not say that you cannot build houses until you deal with it, because that would be madness. You can go on building houses and dealing with these questions as you go along. The great thing is to get houses. The Government should pay the full subsidy, take control of materials in order to ensure that there is a plentiful supply of them and, as was suggested in Committee, come to an understanding with the building trade unions to bring more men into the industry in return for guarantees from the Government that their trade union rights would be protected.
    The other point on which I wish to insist also came up on the Committee stage, and relates to experiments to be carried out by the Housing Association. There is a tendency to treat this problem in such a fashion that, because people—working-class people—are living in slums and are overcrowded, anything is good enough for them as a substitute for the slums that are overcrowded. You can easily get a type of mind on the Government Benches, and even in sections of the Housing Association, that would stick

    1421
    up any kind of house, since they are only for workers, and the poorest workers, to live in. Anything is good enough. No experiment should be made by the Housing Association unless it is for a superior house to those which are already up, but never for an inferior house.
    Wooden houses were mentioned by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), but that may mean any kind of house, even an old hut. Later on he referred to timber houses, an expression with a somewhat different meaning from the general term "wooden houses." What is recognised as a timber house is the type of house that exists in Canada and America. I have lived in those houses in Canada and America and I would not mind living in one here, but I am certain that that type of house would cost half as much again, and perhaps twice as much, as the present brick house. I have no objection to such timber houses or to log houses. You can get some beautiful ones and some splendid architectural designs, even with the logs. If experiments are to be made in such superior types of house I am all in favour of them, or even of concrete houses; but if the Housing Association are to experiment with them in order to encourage the erection of inferior houses to those that are being built now, I am against it. I am against the Housing Association being used to provide that sort of substitute.
    The Government should face the problem in the way in which it should be faced, supplying all the subsidy and with Government control of materials to ensure continual supply, control of building sites and an understanding with the trade unions that will bring new labour into the building trade unions. I believe that if that policy were followed a terrific acceleration could be given to the building of houses and that we should take at last a real step towards solving the problem of slums and overcrowding.
    5.59 P.m.
    Mr. Wedderburn: I do not propose to make another speech, but perhaps I might, by the leave of the House, reply very briefly to a few of the questions that have been put to me in the course of the Debate. On the subject of the contrast between English and Scottish conditions, I always like to see English Members taking part in our Scottish Debates, and
    1422
    I was particularly glad to hear the observations of the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff). The real difference is that Scotland started a long way behind England in this business of rehousing. Since the War, practically 300,000 new houses have been built in Scotland—a number sufficient to house the whole population of Glasgow. In fact, we have built the equivalent of a new Glasgow since the War. The reason why we are so far behind is that, both during and before the industrial revolution, people in Scotland were accustomed to inhabit a type of house which was very much more below our modern requirements than the type of houses that we are now building. The fact that we have 22 per cent. of overcrowding as against only 3.8 per cent. in England is an illustration of that. The difference is not that we are doing less, but that we start with about six times as much to do. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) had no wish to go back to 1883 and the laissez faire Governments of that time, who refused to entertain the idea of subsidies—
    Mr. MacLaren: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman referring to that, but I think he ought to give a fair representation of what I mean. You may go back to the Ten Commandments, which are very much older than that, but which are very much up to date if they are put into practice in accordance with modem ideas. I was suggesting that there was more profound thinking done in those days than there is now.
    Mr. Wedderburn: It may be that there was more profound thinking, but there was very little slum clearance. In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) about site values, I do not want to enter into an argument on land values, but in the case of the working-class houses that are being built in Scotland the average site value is only about £;15 a house. That is a very small fraction—only something like 3 per cent. or a little more—of the total cost. There was, I thought, some contrast between the remarks of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) and those of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) and of the hon. Member for West Fife. The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk was a little afraid that my entirely well-meant and, I hope, harmless observations might

    1423
    involve some threat of what he called Fascism, by which he meant the assumption by the State of the whole business of housing, and the taking of it away from the local authorities. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Camlachie and the hon. Member for West Fife went to the very extreme of Fascism which was so much deprecated by the hon. Gentleman opposite. They thought that the only solution was for the State to build all the houses, to take the matter out of the hands of the local authorities—
    Mr. Gallacher: I said that the Government should supply the whole of the subsidy and should control the materials in order to make sure that the local authorities would have a continual supply, but I made it quite clear that it would be the local authorities who would build the houses.
    Mr. Westwood: Does not the hon. Gentleman misunderstand the whole position? Surely, it would be quite competent for the local authorities, if there were complete Government control of the building of houses, to act as the agents of the Government and to build the houses for the Government, who would provide the finance.
    Mr. Wedderburn: Surely, if the Government were to pay the whole cost, and if the Government were to supply all the materials, the Government would then have to say exactly what type of houses should be built, and would have to control every item of expense throughout, to determine the rents of the houses, and to allocate them among the different people who applied for them. There would be no difference at all between doing that and putting the whole thing under a national housing board, which I believe was suggested by some hon. Members a few years ago.
    The hon. Member for Camlachie thought that the expense to the local authorities ought to be kept down to a 2d. rate, but I think that that would come, in the end, to very much the same thing, because any local authority which has been doing this job properly must have at least a 2d. rate by now, although there are some authorities, I believe, which have less. I have every sympathy with the rating difficulties of the local
    1424
    authorities; do not let anyone suppose that I have not; but I think that, if a community is really anxious to get rid of the slums in its midst, and if it undertakes, through its locally elected authority, that responsibility, it ought to be willing to bear a few pence on the rates for the purpose of achieving that end.
    The other questions I have been asked have all been about the Housing Association. I was asked about the quality of the houses, about the different types, about the expense, and whether I could give a more specific pledge about the distribution of those built outside the Special Area. I was glad to hear the support which the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) gave to the new types of houses, about which some hon. Members still seem to be suspicious. By timber houses, we mean prefabricated timber houses such as are now being produced, not only in Sweden, but by a number of new firms in this country, and which are approved by the Department of Health in all respects. I am not sure which of the types, if any, are produced under patent, but the Department of Health always bring to the attention of all local authorities every suitable type that is being produced, and encourage them to choose between them and to take offers from all of them. Other things being equal, they would, of course, accept the least expensive, but, in order to be approved by the Department, the houses must reach the same standard of quality as the other houses which are being built for the same purpose.
    The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) asked me whether it was the intention of the Housing Association to build timber houses if they were more expensive than brick houses. I have a table here, though I do not want to take up time by going into it, showing the average costs of three types—brick, timber and concrete—which have been approved during the period from 1st January to 31st October of the present year, 1938. Of course, the hon. Member will understand that the price of brick houses varies enormously from one area to another, and so also does the price of different types of timber houses, but, on the whole, there is not, and there ought not to be, very much difference between

    1425
    timber and brick, and according to this table the level of costs in the case of timber houses is generally lower.
    Mr. Stephen: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the price of brick houses varies enormously from one area to another?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think it would be in order to pursue that point on the Third Reading of a Bill, but I did go into it at length on the Estimates last summer. The main reason is that in some areas the labour shortage is very much more acute than it is in others. I find that in the industrial districts the average prices of houses of ail types in brick has been £471, and in timber £424. In the Special Area the average prices of houses of all types in concrete is £519, and in timber £462. I do not want to go at length into these figures, but certainly there has been no marked increase in the cost of timber houses as compared with brick houses, and there is no particular reason why they should be much lower, because they are of equally good quality. It is our hope that, if the construction of these timber houses is encouraged on a large scale, not only may the cost of the timber houses be reduced, but that that may tend to bring down the price of brick houses also.
    Mr. Watson: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that several local authorities have cancelled the building of timber houses, schemes for which they prepared some time ago. Why did those local authorities cancel the building of timber houses if the figures given by the hon. Gentleman are correct? I am not challenging them; I daresay they are perfectly correct; but there must be some other reason why the local authorities are cancelling the building of timber houses.
    Mr. Wedderburn: If a local authority contemplate the building of a number of timber houses, and if, when they get their offers in, they find that they are more expensive than a similar quality of brick houses, and if they can get those brick houses built, naturally they would choose the brick houses for their scheme. There is nothing difficult to understand about that. On the other hand, there are other local authorities who have accepted contracts for timber houses. Of course, our intention is that they should go in for
    1426
    both, because, however much we increase the building of brick houses—and we want to increase it as much as possible—we wish local authorities, in addition, to contemplate as extensively as possible schemes involving alternative methods of construction.
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) was very anxious to extract from me a more specific pledge regarding the kind of places in which some of the 8,500 houses which are to be built outside the Special Area will be put up, but I am afraid he did not greatly increase his chances of getting such a pledge from me by explaining that he had already on three occasions unsuccessfully attempted to extract one from the Secretary of State. I am afraid cannot add anything to what my right hon. Friend said in Committee. I happened to say on the first day that there were some small burghs which only needed 20 or 30 houses to solve their problem altogether, but where a 1d. rate would only produce an exceedingly small sum, and I said:
    "I do not know whether it would be possible to bear that fact in mind when considering whether any small lots of demonstration houses might be put under the proposals in another part of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee on Scottish Bills), 1st December, 1938; col. 29.]
    In the course of the second day's proceedings my right hon. Friend said that I had mentioned the point, but that he would mention it again, that there is pro-vision in the Bill for the building of a certain number of houses outside the Special Area, and he said:
    "I have in mind that we may be able to give some measure of assistance to certain of the small authorities placed in that particular difficulty by the proposals in that part of the Bill."
    He went on to say:
    "I cannot put it higher than that, but it may be found to be helpful."
    My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife interrupted him twice, by my right hon. Friend replied:
    "I would rather my hon. Friend did not put it too specifically, because it is the aim of the Association to build in many parts of Scotland, and I could not accept the view that it would be particularly directed to small burghs. But their problem would be borne in mind. and the machinery would be used to help them where necessary."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT (Standing Committee of Scottish Bills), 6th December, 1938; cols. 46–48.]

    1427
    I think it would be impossible to give any sort of undertaking specifically as to where these houses were going to be built, and I think that in Committee my right hon. Friend said as much as could be reasonably expected at that time. In conclusion, I would like to say that I very much appreciated the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. A. Chapman) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Partick (Mr. A. Young) to the Debate, and I was glad to hear their appeal for unity on this subject among all sections, whether political, local or industrial, who are engaged in or have any responsibility for this subject of housing. I am confident that, if all interests and sections in the country are prepared to co-operate, we shall be able to accelerate our progress and bring about a speedier solution of this problem, which it is the desire of all of us to do.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Leonard: I want to press one point on the Under-Secretary. It is a matter which came to my knowledge since the Committee stage of the Bill. It is with regard to the Maupang system of fabricating concrete houses, which is popular in Paris, and in France generally. I was of opinion that that had already been tried in this country, and that it had not been successful. Because of that I did not press the matter in Committee. But since then I have received guidance to the effect that the way this system was carried out in this country was a travesty of the method in France. I am informed that some investigation has been made into the position in the hon. Member's Department, and I would press upon him the desirability of reopening the inquiry into this system, and investigating the method which is adopted in Paris, which, I am informed, is not to use wooden shuttering but to use highly burnished steel patterns, which turn out sections with surfaces like glass, together with other unique features of proved worth. Will the hon. Member see whether it is not possible to try this method in Scotland as well?
    Mr. Wedderburn indicated assent.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MINING INDUSTRY (WELFARE FUND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
6.17 p.m.
The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is both short and limited, I hope I am not asking the House to embark upon so arduous and continuous a journey as I did last year. This Bill deals only with the question of pithead baths. I do not think it is necessary, at this time of day, to give in this House, or, indeed, anywhere in the country, the arguments for the increase in the number of pithead baths. If the question was put, the whole House would go into the "Aye" Lobby to say that such baths were desirable. I think there could be few greater advantages brought to a colliery village than a pithead bath: alike from the point of view of cleanliness; of amenity—because those hon. Members from colliery areas where these buildings have been put up will agree that they add greatly to the general amenities of the district, particularly where, as is often the case, there are trees, shrubs and flowers put around them; from the point of view of the reduction of drudgery for the women folk, who do not have to provide baths at home, and also because of the contribution they make to the health of the miners. I do not mean only from the point of view of having a bath as soon as the man comes out of the pit, but also because in most, if not all, the modern installations there is a first-aid room, provided with an attendant of knowledge and experience who can take small cuts in hand at once. As hon. Members know, there is always a grave risk that a small and apparently harmless injury may develop into something serious; if it is looked at at once, health, and even life, may be saved. So I think it is not necessary to discuss the advantages of pithead baths as such.
The Bill has only three Clauses. The first is the important, operative one. What it does—no doubt in very impressive legal language—is to increase the output levy from 1d. to 1d. for the next five years, and to earmark the whole of that increase for pithead baths. That is all the Bill does. It is concerned only with Section

1429
20, as subsequently amended, of the Mining Industry Act, 1920. It does not and is not intended to raise the more general problems of the Miners' Welfare Fund. It is important to remember, however, that what we are dealing with is not State money. It is money raised for the purposes of baths, either by the levy on output or by the levy, which is called the royalty welfare levy, raised among coal royalty owners.
May I just explain to the House what is the history of the baths fund of the Miners' Welfare Fund? The Miners' Welfare Fund was set up by the Act of 1920. In the earlier days there was comparatively little demand for baths, but in the; Act of 1926 a royalty welfare levy was instituted, amounting to 1s. in the pound on the value of mineral rents. That is permanent under our existing legislation; there is no time limit. By the Act of 1926, the amount raised by that levy was specifically earmarked for pithead baths. We may take a general figure of about £200,000 coming in from that source. In 1934, after the whole problem of the Miners' Welfare Fund had been considered by a committee, the House decided to reduce the output levy from 1d. to ½d. That is the levy on every ton of coal produced; it has nothing to do with the royalty levy. But an addition was made, in spite of that, to the income of the baths fund committees because at that time it was generally accepted that the baths were the most outstanding part of the work of the Miners' Welfare Fund; and, therefore, the Act laid down that each year a sufficient sum should be allocated for baths to reach the total of £375,000. That is to say, there was £200,000 coming from the royalty welfare levy, and the balance of the £375,000 was to be made up from the general funds at the disposal of the Miners' Welfare Committee. In other words, there was, from 1934 onwards, £375,000 available annually as a fixed figure for the purpose of baths. Of course many of the figures I have quoted are rough figures: they depend on mineral rentals on the one hand and output on the other; but the £375,000 is a fixed figure.
The committee then sketched out a programme which, in their view, would be sufficient to complete the baths programme in 18 years from then, at a cost estimated at just under £7,000,000. But, of course, they had to cut their coat ac-
1430
cording to their cloth, and, even for that expenditure, they contemplated that the baths would be provided only where there was a reasonably long expectation of life for the collieries, and where there were a substantial number of men employed. But, contrary to what had occurred in the early days of bath building, the demand for baths has increased, which shows the value put upon them by the mining community. We had a Debate in this House on the subject, almost exactly two years ago, which indicated the desirability of speeding up the programme as far as possible.
One of the things to be remembered is that there is a considerable time lag between the date when a plan is devised, or even when a contract is entered into, and the date when the contract is actually carried out. It may be as much as two years. By 1936, there were already considerable accumulated balances. In order to speed up the programme, the committee decided to accelerate it by drawing upon these accumulated balances, and they drew up the further programme of expenditure at the rate of £625,000 a year. By using the accumulated balances which they had, they have been able to do that, since 1936, without any further financial support being required.
From that point of view, they are already financed until the end of next year; but, unless this Measure is passed, they will then have to go back to their statutory authority of £375,000, and the programme, instead of being accelerated, will be slowed down. If, on the other hand, they were able to spend at the rate of the last three years—a rate of £625,000—they estimate that they should be able to break the back of the baths programme in eight years from 1936, at a cost of some £5,000,000. In view of the generally expressed opinion in all parts of the House that it was desirable to speed up the programme, rather than to slow it down, the Government thought that they should take this matter seriously into consideration. During the early part of the year, I had discussions with the industry on this problem, and explored a variety of methods by which financial help could be given. I came to the conclusion, and announced it in this House on 29th July, that in our view the best plan would be to raise the output levy by an extra ½d. for five years, and to earmark all that comes from that for

1431
pithead baths. That is the proposal in the Bill.
Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that, so far as other welfare requirements are concerned, they are dependent on a ½d. levy?
Captain Crookshank: It does not affect the position of the Welfare Fund at all as it now stands under the 1934 Act.
Mr. Shinwell: As far as other schemes are concerned it is not being exercised; they are dependent on the ½d. levy?
Captain Crookshank: That is quite right. The present position is that out of the money available from the royalties welfare levy and the existing halfpenny, £375,000 is automatically allocated under Statute for pithead baths. In the present proposal, that figure of £375,000 will be raised by a halfpenny on the output for the next five years. It leaves the question of what is to happen after five years completely open, and it does not raise the general issue of the Miners' Welfare Fund at all.
Mr. Lee: In order to get £375,000 the National Committee have had to get a certain amount from district funds, and last year it was £166,000. Is that to continue? They will get more than the £375,000 by this means, will they not?
Captain Crookshank: These figures are very confusing and difficult and perhaps I ought to make the position clear. We came to the conclusion—without prejudging the position as to what might happen after five years that this was the best way of doing it, and we have found considerable agreement. This will bring in rather more than the £625,000 which is the general programme now being carried out, and there is a reason for that. It has become clear that, first of all, there is some demand still, and no doubt it will increase for some type of baths—it may not be on the same scale—for smaller mines and also for mines whose life is not expected to be very long. That is what one might call some form of supplementary programme, over and above the one which is presented of £625,000. There is a margin available. If we raise this halfpenny more funds will be available for that purpose. The result of this will be—again these are rough estimates—to add something like £2,400,000 to the funds available to the Committee up to
1432
the end of 1943. That extra £2,000,000 would be sufficient to complete the placing of the contracts of the general programme upon which they have been working, and over and above that there will be something between £375,000 and £400,000 available in that period for such further similar additions as may be required. After the expiration of these five years the anticipation will be that the back of the building programme will have been broken, but unless and until it is decided otherwise, the provisions of the 1934 Act will still be running on and there will still be £375,000 per annum available for bath purposes unless, taking advantage of the powers within the Act, it is decided that the appropriation is no longer necessary for baths. But one should continue making it clear that some provision, as far as one can see, is likely to be required, because there are problems of renewals and so on. I hope that I have made the general position clear.
I pass to the Bill itself. The wording of Clause r, Sub-section (2), as I say, is proper legal phraseology. It implies that the halfpenny which is used for baths will be used within the ambit of the Act of 1934, which allows the provision of ancillary amenities such as canteens and cycle sheds, which the more modern installations find it a good thing to use. Though the words in line 18, "for the purposes for which the proceeds," etc., are cumbersome words, that is what they refer to.
Clause 2 of the Bill and the First Schedule seem alarming, but there is nothing of consequence in them at all. They do not in any way alter the functions or composition of the Miners' Welfare Committee, but what they do is to incorporate it, that is all. This is the procedure, lifted out of other Acts of Parliament when corporate bodies have been established, to change the Miners' Welfare Committee from an incorporate body into a corporate body. Hon. Gentlemen may wonder, no doubt, why that will be necessary, and I will give them two reasons. The Miners' Welfare Committee suggested that it should be done, which is quite a good reason, because it means that they have met certain small legal difficulties which they thought might be obviated by becoming incorporated. One example I give is that the building contracts of the baths are arranged by the staff of the committee—that is the normal procedure

1433
—but the actual contracts for building—I am not talking about maintenance after opening the baths—have to be entered into by trustees, because not being a corporate body the Welfare Committee cannot enter into these contracts. Hon. Members will realise that in certain cases it would be desirable that the committee itself should be a party to a contract for building baths.
Another slight difficulty which they have met from time to time is that they might wish to enter into agreement with a local authority or colliery company with regard to the maintenance of some building or other, but at present they cannot do so because they are not a corporate body, despite the fact that everybody concerned would desire the committee to be able to enter into such a contract. That is all that this Clause does. It changes the name of the committee to that of a commission, because you cannot have an incorporated committee, and again that is purely legal. The same personnel and the same functions are all there, though I would add that the words of Sub-section (1 c) of Clause 2 envisage the time when the new Coal Commission will be the owner of the minerals, and, as at present, a representative of the royalty owners will have to be appointed, and, therefore, words have to be found in order to make the necessary alteration. Clause 3 is the interpretation Clause.
Mr. Batey: Can the Minister explain the reason for an increase in numbers as provided in Clause 2?
Captain Crookshank: The position is exactly as at present. There is no change in the functions, composition, membership or in the people who have to be consulted in regard to membership; there is no change whatever.
Mr. T. Smith: They will still be part-time, as now?
Captain Crookshank: Exactly as now, and this is the common form Clause which is put into all Acts in which bodies are incorporated. The only thing is that the name is changed from committee to commission because, I understand, you cannot properly incorporate a committee.
Mr. Batey: Will the Minister explain paragraph (c) in Clause 2, as one fails to see how they are going to appoint a repre
1434
sentative. Does it means that a new commission is to be appointed and that they are to appoint a representative to sit upon this Commission?
Captain Crookshank: The new Coal Commission, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, under the Act which was passed last Session, is to continue to pay the welfare levy, and this makes provision for somebody to take the place of the representative of the existing royalty owners.
Mr. Batey: And nothing more?
Captain Crookshank: Nothing more. The present royalty owners will cease to exist as such, and it seems right that their successors should have the same representation on the Committee as now. This merely provides for someone representing persons liable to pay the royalties welfare levy to be on the Commission. I hope that I have made this matter clear. It is a fairly simple Bill, but I believe that it is one that everybody would like to see passed as soon as possible. The work which the Miners' Welfare Fund does in the provision of pithead baths is of such enormous importance that any assistance that this House can give to accelerate the work in the interests of the mining community is one which should find a response in all parts of the House.
6.41 p.m.
Sir Charles Edwards: It is wonderful the amount of work the present Government have brought upon themselves through not listening to us and following our suggestions. If that had been done we should not have had this Bill to consider to-day. I suppose that this sort of Bill is useful sometimes when they have had to withdraw a big Bill like the Milk Bill, and so on. These little things come in handy to keep the House going. That is the reason why we have this matter before us to-day. The Minister has had a pleasing task, because he knows that there will be very little opposition. We are not going to vote against the Bill. In fact, we welcome it, and believe that it ought to have operated all the way through, and that there should have been no changes. In 1920 the welfare scheme was set up, first of all, for five years, and it was extended again in 1925, in 1931 and in 1934. The demand for pithead baths has not been satisfied by any means. I have been an advocate for

1435
pithead baths for 40 years. About 40 years ago we sent Mr. Robert Smillie and Mr. Alfred Onions to Germany to see the pithead baths there, and they came back and reported. There was a pamphlet issued at that time, and some of us have advocated the project ever since. There was a lot of prejudice against pithead baths in those days, and some of that prejudice exists to-day even where they have been in operation for some time. There are a few men who do not use them. It is a surprising thing, but it is the fact. There are one or two colliers that I know very well who go home in their pit clothes while others go home wearing collars and ties and dressed as they should be.
That prejudice lasts, but the demand for pithead baths has not been met by any means. The number completed or under construction is only 313, accommodating about 400,000 men. There are 71 installations in preparation, which means, I suppose, that they are drawing up the plans. There are also no fewer than 169 installations already applied for, so that there are something like 240 schemes that have not yet been touched, and anyone can see from that, that a lot of money will be required to complete the building programme. There are 1,232 collieries which have not yet applied for permission to build, and 700 of these are small collieries employing fewer than 50 workmen. But I do not see why small collieries as well as large collieries should not have pithead baths. It is not numbers of men, but the life of the colliery which should be the determining factor as to whether there should be pithead baths or not.
In 1926 a levy of 5 per cent, was imposed on the royalty owners. I never had any sympathy with royalty owners, and I think that if a levy of 95 per cent. had been taken and they had been left with only 5 per cent., they ought to have been satisfied. What is a royalty owner? Royalty owners do not develop the collieries. I have never known them to put any money into a colliery. They have left that business to other people, but as soon as they have got the first tram-load of coal out of the pit, they have always been there to take their toll. Therefore, it was a very generous act towards the royalty owners when a levy of only 5 per cent. was imposed upon them. It was
1436
estimated that £375,000 would be needed annually, but in the first year £196,000 only came from the royalty owners, and the rest had to be made up from the ordinary fund.
Then there came an agitation by the coalowners for a reduction of ½d. per ton in the levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) was then Minister of Mines. We were a minority Government, and we found difficulties, as we always have done in this House when we have formed a Government, in face of the tremendous demand from the coalowners for the reduction. They had a large number of friends in this House, as they always have. My hon. Friend could not and would not agree to the suggested reduction, but he set up a committee to consider it. That is a Government way out of difficulties, and it is very often practised. My hon. Friend was criticised for this, but in the circumstances I do not see how he could have done anything different. When the Debate took place in regard to the reduction, the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was criticised because he had been a member of the committee and had agreed to recommend the reduction. He is here to-day and I am sure he will favour the course that is to be adopted in restoring that amount. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) spoke at that time on behalf of the Miners' Federation and opposed the reduction as strongly as he could. He also criticised the actions that had been taken towards bringing about the reduction. However, the proposal was carried and the reduction was made. Now, it is to be restored.
It is a pleasure to me to vote for compelling the coalowners to do anything. I have had a long experience of them. We meet them here individually and get on very well with them, but when we meet them as an organised body we find that they are hard, unsympathetic and even callous. You get nothing out of them except by force, either Parliamentary force, a strike, or the threat of a strike. I have never known anything to come from the mineowners, except by forcing them. Therefore, it is a pleasure to me to give a vote to compel them to do something. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!"] I am very glad to find that some of my hon. Friends agree with me on that point. I think President Wilson

1437
must have had the same experience of employers generally as I have had of coalowners, because when he was trying to improve the position of the workers he used these words:
"If employers will not do their duty to those who work for them, and will not accept their responsibilities, then they should be compelled to."
That is what we are doing to-day. We are going to compel the coalowners to make this increased contribution once again, and it is the pleasure of my life to do it. Over 20 years ago we agitated for a minimum wage. I do not think there was any industry in the country at that time that had not a minimum wage, except the mining industry. The minimum wage paid in other callings may have been low, but so far as the mining industry was concerned we had no guarantee of any wage. We had to be satisfied with the wage that we could take home at the end of the week, and any little extra that there might be. We worried the Government and eventually the minimum wage came, as most things come, as the result of a strike. That has been my experience.
Pithead baths are the only real improvements that have been effected since then, and they are a real improvement. The pride of our women folk in their homes has been a very great thing in the mining districts. With all the dirt coming into the home, it has been wonderful to find the homes so clean. I know the homes of miners best in South Wales, and I know the pride that the women used to take in their homes. They were like little palaces, notwithstanding the fact that morning, afternoon and night men were coming home carrying all the dirt of the mine with them. The pithead baths have been a great blessing to the women who take such a pride in their homes. It is much easier to keep the homes clean now than it was formerly. The provision of pithead baths has certainly been a great thing for the improvement of the homes. Instead of having to dry their wet and dirty clothes before the fire, the miners have left them behind and have come home clean. The health of the miners, too, is better than it used to be. In former years we had to walk to and from our work, because there were no omnibuses as there are now. Speaking from experience, we have often been wet to the skin in going to our work, and then
1438
we have had to work in our wet clothes all day. Miners have had to work in water and other wet places and have had to leave their work and go home, no matter how far, before they could get the clothes off to be dried. Therefore, the health of the miners has been greatly improved, because they do not get their clothes wet when they are going to and from their work.
Some of my hon. Friends think that all this money should not be spent on pithead baths but that the disposal of a certain amount of the money in other ways should be left to the Committee as before. I do not agree with' that, but I am speaking for myself. I have seen the advantages of the welfare levy in many ways. I have seen mining towns and villages where playing fields and other things have been provided and where the amenities of the district have been very much improved, and all this has done a great deal of good; but I consider that when money is taken out of an industry it ought to go to the benefit of the people in that industry, for the benefit of those who produce the money that is used. Under the welfare schemes, where cricket pitches and other amenities have been provided they have, of course, been improvements for the benefit of everybody living in the district, but around mining localities you get all sorts of people besides miners, and I am not sure that it has not been more to the advantage of these other people than to the miners, because many of those people are not engaged in the same arduous work as the miners, and therefore they have been the better able to take part in the games. I have always thought that the local authority ought to provide those amenities, and that they should not be provided out of money taken from any particular industry. Therefore, I advocate the use of the money for pithead baths.
In 1934 there was a lot of talk about pensions in the mining industry, and the opinion was expressed that some of the Welfare Fund ought to be used for pensions. I do not think it would do very much in that respect. My opinion is that the pension ought to be a national pension, big enough to allow people to live in decency and comfort, and not a pension that comes out of one industry. I am strongly in favour of pithead baths, because I believe that they benefit directly

1439
those who produce the money in the mining industry.
The status of the miners has also been raised as a result of the provision of pithead baths. I remember the workmen's dirty old trains that we used to have, with their broken windows and their shabby appearance. They were a disgrace. If our men travelled by ordinary passenger train the railway companies used to put on a lot of old, dirty coaches for them. If they travelled in a bus, everybody would try to avoid contact with them because of their dirty clothes and their grimy appearance. I have seen miners standing on the step of a bus and having to get off every time the bus stopped, in order that people could pass in and out of the bus without touching them. It is not so now. The men who use the pithead baths go home clean, and not as they used to do years ago, when they were regarded as something different from ordinary people, something that must not be touched, a sort of leper, until they could get home and have a bath. The men who use the pithead baths to-day become ordinary citizens when they leave their work and can travel without being ashamed. I am proud of that fact, because I have been a miner myself and I like to see the status of the miner going up. They are the best men in the world, and yet there used to be all this differentiation by people who did not want to stand by or walk past miners in their dirty clothes. All that has been changed by the provision of pithead baths.
I want to see the number of the pithead baths increased. I want to see them provided at a much faster rate. The Minister has told us that in the past two years they have been spending at the rate of £600,000 per year. That may not have been wholly spent, but that sum has been allocated. Unless this Bill is passed the sum will have to come down to £375,000. I should be sorry to see that happen. If the Bill goes through, as it will, because we are not objecting to it, the income will be about £850,000 a year for the next five years. That sum should lead to the accelerated building which we all desire. In regard to this estimate, they have been trading or banking on the future credit of the country, and I certainly do not blame them for that, because I am a firm believer in pithead
1440
baths, and I hope to see them extended very considerably. My hon. Friend who was Minister for Mines may have something to say later, because he knows all the intricacies that are involved. Personally, I welcome the Bill and want to see it passed into law. I hope that the money will be used for pithead baths, because they directly benefit the men who produce the money.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. Peake: Although I cannot agree with everything that was said by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) we all welcome his intervention which is unfortunately rare in our Debates. I should like to associate myself with the tribute he paid to the splendid work that has been done during the last 17 years by the Miners' Welfare Fund. We have had 17 years experience of that work, and I do not think that any party in the industry would like to see the work of the committees hampered for lack of funds. The money has been well spent and has undoubtedly been of great social advantage, not only to the mining community but to the community as a whole. Moreover, the operation of the schemes has brought the owners and the men round a common table, knowing that, at any rate, there was one thing about which they need not feel it to be their bounden duty to disagree.
Although we all approve of the work of the committees, we are equally interested, both miners and owners, to see that there is no waste in the operation of the schemes. The hon. Member said that it gave him great pleasure to compel the owners to do something. We must, however, realise that the owners are not the only and sometimes not the largest contributors to the output levy, but that the greater part of the burden may fall upon the wages of the man. Therefore, we are all jointly anxious to see that there is no waste in the expenditure of the funds at the disposal of the committees. We are all agreed that of the expenditure which the fund has undertaken that spent on pithead baths confers the greatest benefit on the mining population. In the early stages there was a difficulty in getting schemes for baths put forward because of the traditional conservatism of the miner so far as his habits were concerned. It is rather surprising that at the end of 1937 out of £17,000,000 collected and disbursed by the fund only a little over

1441
£4,000,000 has been spent upon pithead baths, and that after 17 years only half the industry is provided with that form of benefit which we all agree is the greatest that the miner can enjoy under the welfare scheme. On more than one occasion Governments have made efforts to promote a more rapid development of pithead baths, notably in 1926, when the royalty levy was brought into operation for that specific purpose, and again in 1934, when the Bill of that year set aside a definite minimum sum of £375,000 a year to be expended on baths. There has been a complete change in opinion. Many innovations which are unpopular at the start become very popular later on and it is now impossible to build baths quickly enough to supply the demand for them.
The Minister has outlined the scheme of the Central Welfare Committee for meeting this new demand and my only point of criticism or question on the Bill arises upon the details of that scheme. In the annual report of the Welfare Fund for 1937 the committee describe the position as it then existed. They say:
"In these circumstances"—
that is the financial circumstances then existing—
"the Central Committee obtained the agreement of the Secretary for Mines to their making preparations to continue the building programme on the expanded basis of £625,000 a year beyond 1938, in fact until 1944. This cannot be done out of the present resources of the Welfare Fund, which will have to be supplemented in one way or another by Government action. By 1944 provision will, it was estimated, have been made for practically all the requirements for baths except at very small collieries and those which for one reason or another will not have to be dealt with."
That is to say that the committee estimated at the time they made this report that an expenditure of £625,000 a year, continued until 1944, would virtually complete the pithead baths programme. They go on in subsequent paragraphs to explain why it is inadvisable to accelerate the programme beyond the rate of £625,000 a year. They say it is a matter of considerable practical difficulty to build pithead baths at more than a certain rate, and the point of the quotation that I have read is that they estimate that by 1944, spending £625,000 a year, they would complete the whole of the baths programme. The whole of the additional ½d. a ton is to be allocated to pithead baths in
1442
addition to the present sum of £375,000 a year which is earmarked for that purpose. On the output of last year, which was rather exceptionally high, ½d. a ton would produce £500,000 a year and, if you add that sum to the present earmarked sum of £375,000, the committee are going to be under a statutory obligation to spend £875,000 a year during the next five years. As they have estimated that by spending £625,000 they will complete the scheme by 1944 and express the opinion that it is inadvisable and impracticable to accelerate the rate of building beyond that amount, it seems to me that the Bill is providing more money than they will be able to spend on baths in the period that they have laid down.
There is, of course, evidence in the Committee's report that under the ½d. levy some of the district schemes have found themselves rather hard up, and if there is going to be put into the fund over the next five years, to meet an estimated deficiency on the programme of £250,000, a sum which will total £500,000, it would seem to me advisable that greater liberty for spending the money on other objects should be included in the Bill. I hope the Minister may be able to give some explanation of the figures that I have quoted. I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
7.7 p.m.
Mr. Mender: I support the Second Reading wholeheartedly and I take the opportunity, which does not occur too often, of congratulating the Government on bringing in the Measure. It is not the first time that one has been able to do it in connection with coal. I am interested in this question, partly because I represent a certain number of miners and partly-because I became, as a Member of the Departmental Committee, exceedingly interested in the whole question and made a number of visits to different parts of the country. No one was more wholeheartedly in favour of maintaining the 1d. rate than I was, but there comes a time in the history of all committees and commissions when, unless someone is prepared to make a compromise, there is a possibility, as there would have been in this case of no report at all being presented. It seemed to me that there were other advantages so important as to justify some temporary abatement of the rate in view of the then economic condition of the country, but I

1443
took the view very strongly that, as soon as the condition of the industry justified it, the ½d. should be raised to a 1d., and naturally, I warmly support the Bill, because it is carrying out one of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, and none too soon, because it might well have been justified a year or so before now.
When visiting the various welfare schemes in South Wales and elsewhere at that time, I think in 1931, one saw the beginning of developments in connection with pithead baths. Miners were not so much used to them then and there was a certain amount of diffidence, but it was possible to appreciate even then the enormous difference that they were making and now, as is admitted by everyone, do make in the ordinary daily life of the mining population. We are very anxious to do anything we can to support the development of pithead baths, and I hope it is going to be possible to carry out the whole programme in five years. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said it was without prejudice to what might happen after five years, but I hope that the 1d. is going to remain in force for an indefinitely longer period, until every conceivable scheme has been put into operation in connection with every mine in the country.
Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Member appreciate that it is not intended to increase the general levy at all? What is intended is to increase the levy for pithead baths.
Mr. Mander: I understand that perfectly. I was making the general remark that I want to see every possible scheme considered desirable carried out. I agree very much with what the last speaker said, that in the unfortunate history of the mining industry, with so much misunderstanding and so little sympathy on the part of the owners, and so many reactionary tendencies, the welfare committees have been the means of bringing the two sides together, forming contacts and developing a certain amount of understanding and good will which must have been of great advantage to the industry as a whole. I agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) as to the importance of not overlooking the small colliery which has a consider-
1444
able period of life before it. There are some such in connection with my own constituency. I certainly hope that in carrying out these schemes attention will not be given simply to the big collieries where large sums are going to be expended, but that the needs of those on a smaller scale will have proper consideration, too. It has always seemed to me that this development of the Miners' Welfare Committees, one of the happiest experiments that we have made in the industrial life of the country, where we have made so many experiments of general advantages from time to time, has shown what can be done. I should very much like to see the idea extended to other industries where adequate facilities of this kind do not exist, either by means of a levy or some charge on raw material or something of that kind, so that the precedent set here might be extended to other industries where the need is perhaps not quite so much but still exists. I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.
7.14 p.m.
Mr. George Griffiths: I wish to offer a few suggestions on the Bill. I served on the Miners' Welfare Committee of South Yorkshire for over 10 years and, as the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said, the owners' and the workmen's representatives have been able to agree and it has been almost like a chapel prayer meeting. There have seldom been any cross-currents. It has been a proper round-table conference. I also agree that there was a lot of waste and a lot of profit for the contractors when we first started these schemes in the different districts. I hope the Secretary for Mines will see that we do not have any more of these big baths. Let me explain what I mean. At the present moment the baths which are being installed enable every man to have a bath of his own—he wants it. We do not want big baths into which all the men have to go. At the small pits they should have the same privileges as are found at big pithead baths.
Like the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards), our Chief Whip, I do not like the five-year business. I do not see why we cannot have the penny put on for all time as long as the mines are going and as long as the money is needed. When the five years are over there will be some coalowners who will say that the

1445
penny is too heavy, and that if it is made a halfpenny they will be able to make a little profit. That was their cry. Some of them have said it in this House, but they do not say it here now; they say it somewhere else. I am sorry the five-year limit has been put in. I think the time should be undefined. I do not agree with our Chief Whip that the money should be used exclusively for one purpose. The Miners' Welfare Fund has revolutionised mining districts. The welfare schemes have raised the health of the miner, his wife and his children.
In my own division we have schemes which we should never have had but for the Welfare Fund. The authority has not the finance to begin them. The schemes are a pleasure and a joy. Old men can play bowls, young men and maidens play tennis, we have open air swimming baths, crickets pitches and dart clubs, an up-to-date ambulance and a nursing association. These schemes could not have been carried out had it not been for the Miners' Welfare Fund finding the capital for them. I am all for pithead baths, but I hope that all these other schemes will be considered, because unless there is some fund to keep them going they will become derelict. At the present moment the local authority in my own division is levying a 5d. rate in order to maintain these welfare centres. There are a certain number who are not miners, railwaymen and shop assistants, but the great majority are mineworkers, and these centres are a great blessing to the health of the people. I agree with our Chief Whip that pithead baths are a blessing to the men. I speak from an experience of not being able to have a bath when I was a miner.
When I started work as a lad some 45 years ago I never saw daylight until the Sabbath Day. I went down the mine at a quarter to seven in the morning when it was dark and came out at half-past four when it was dark. And at night there was a fight between seven brothers as to who should have the first bath. It makes a great difference for a father and mother to see their sons coming home at night with clean faces and clean hands, and with a clean collar on. I do not know how my mother lived through it all. She had to get up at five o'clock in the morning for the first shift and had to wait until 10 o'clock for the second shift to come home. She got to
1446
bed at half-past eleven, and was up early the next morning. I thank Heaven that that sort of thing has been done away with in mining villages. But there are still some 300,000 miners who take the muck home. There are enough of them in Yorkshire. In my own township we have 4,000 miners working at a pit which has not yet a pithead bath, although we made application for one years ago. We were put on the priority list, but the first plot of grass has not yet been turned. I am delighted that this Bill is to be passed, but I want the Secretary for Mines not to forget that we shall still require money to help these other welfare schemes which are bringing joy and happiness to the community.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Lee: I want to emphasise one or two points. I have been the Vice-Chairman of a district committee since the Act came into force, and I want to make a plea for the district fund. I agree with the hon. Member who has said that the Committee cannot build any faster than they have been doing for the last two years. I am not opposing the Bill, but I think that pithead baths are taking more out of the Fund than can be effectively used. Last year it took out £168,000 to make up the £275,000, and that has been crippling the district fund. I think that at least the first half of this money should not be touched, because the pithead baths fund will get as much money as it can spend during the remaining years. I do not like the retrospective application of the Bill. It goes back to January of this year, and that means that an extra half year has to be collected. This means that in the districts where they are being paid over the minimum the men will pay 85 per cent. of that extra money. That is going to be rather awkward when payment comes to be made in March of next year. Whether it is going to be paid as a lump sum or not I do not know, but it will come as a hardship on the men.
There still seems to be some misconception, even a little suspicion, with regard to pithead baths. At one place, where I opened a pithead bath a woman said to me, "It is all right Mr. Lee, but if my man comes home clean every day, how am I to know that he has been at work." I said, "You will know on Friday night." I agree that the district schemes have found a difficulty in keep-

1447
ing themselves going, and that they want money from somewhere. They have a very small income. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) that these centres should be reserved entirely for miners. In a small district where there are agricultural labourers as well it is all the better that they should mingle together.
In my own district we have had to cut down our expenses in a way we do not like. We have been giving grants to boys and girls to go to secondary schools after they have won a scholarship, but we have found that the district fund takes so much of our money that we have had to cut down these grants. I do not like it. If you have a lad who shows promise of something better than the ordinary, you are not wasting your money by helping him to a better education. If we could keep something of this extra amount we should be able to continue that sort of work. I plead that something of this extra amount to be taken for pithead baths should go into the district fund, on the assumption that the pithead baths fund cannot usefully spend more than £615,000.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Ritson: We are all delighted that the Secretary for Mines has brought forward this Bill. I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) that the fundamental idea was to have pithead baths, and that as long as these are not provided at every colliery it is our duty to see that they are provided. I can assure the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) that I had the same sort of experience as he had in his youth. I have seen six of us getting home rather late at night and, there being only one bath, a scuffle as to who should have the first bath. There is something bigger than that, and that is the question of the woman in the house. While I agree with everything that has been said with regard to other necessities, such as tennis courts, cricket fields, and so on, the most essential thing to consider is the mother and the wife in the home. Nobody knows what it means to her. Even a man in the home does not understand always. The woman in Durham, which is rather different from Yorkshire, used to rise at a quarter to three in the morning. She would not lie in bed as long as there was a husband or a son
1448
who had to go out, for if she did not get up, she might never see him again, and so she would insist on getting up. My mother got up at a quarter to three every morning in her life, practically speaking, and we had three and four shifts bringing home from the colliery dirt that to-day is left where it ought to be left.
I know there were some stupid and bigoted men who, sooner than have pithead baths, believed all that was said about their catching rheumatism or pneumonia in them. There was scarcely a disease scheduled under any Act that they were not liable to get if they went into a bath, so they said, but that prejudice is now dying out, and it is being killed the quickest by the women, not by the men. I was in this House at the time in the early days of these baths, and I was asked to address my old Lodge with regard to pithead baths. I said: "Why not allow the women to be there?" They told me they were afraid that the men would not vote for the baths by the majority that was necessary under the Act, so the women were there, and they managed their husbands all right. There were stupid men who said they would not pay 5d. a week to run the risk of getting colds or rheumatism and so on. When a miner's wife saw John Brown passing the window, clean, and asked if he had been at work and was told that he had, she said, "But he is coming home clean." The wives of the miners know their husbands by their colour more than by anything else. When she was told that John Brown had been to a pithead bath, she said to her husband, "Why haven't you been to the pithead bath?" and immediately she laid it down, in her own interest and in the interest of the family, that her husband was to pay the necessary levy.
There is a moral side to it, too. After all, as our Chief Whip said, we prided ourselves on keeping our homes clean, so clean indeed that there was often competition, because they kept more brass dogs on the mantelpiece to clean at the weekend than were necessary. We prided ourselves on the cleanliness of our homes generally, but I can assure the House that there was another side again to that. It was not decent for big, grown-up men of 17, 18, or 19 years of age to strip and wash before the younger members of the family, but you could not help yourself.

1449
There was nowhere else to go. You could not in winter time go outside the house or send the others out either, and it was not decent for mixed families to be sitting there when you washed. But what happens now? It is worth a lot to me and to us all that now a man can go to the pit and come back home like a civilised being and go out again like a respectable person.
I remember once going with a woman to church. I am old fashioned enough for that, and I have never apologised for it. I said to her, "How do you like the pithead baths?" She said, "They are 5o years behind the times. Now I have not to lay out the dirty clothes and try to dry them by laying them along the fireplace on the Sunday night, and I don't know myself." I say that there is a great moral advancement, with regard to keeping the home clean and decent, in having these pithead baths. If I may take the other side for a minute, I agree that these funds may need revising. My lodge gave £3,000 surplus in the fund to a new hospital when we began to develop that side of welfare work. I thought that that was for the local public to do, but the district knew its own work best. I feel that the provision of pithead baths ought to be speeded up. They are healthy and useful. I was born on the Pennine Range, nearly 2,000 feet up, and I had to work in a place in a pit 18 inches high. I was a good deal bigger then than I am now, and I had to lie in about four inches of water. When you got home from work like that, on a cold March morning, and took off your trousers, they would stand there where you took them off, they were so frozen. It was a terrible strain, and only the healthy vigour of youth allowed you to go through it.
I wish to plead for the smaller collieries that are looked at askance. They have a life of their own that is as valuable to the community as that of the larger collieries, and I hope we shall get consideration from the Minister for them and that he will speed up this question of I he provision of pithead baths. If anything has been done in this House to give us a new outlook in life, it is the institution of these baths. When you were coming home in the old days you had no buses, and you sometimes had to take a waggon for a ride, but you dared not sit beside some of the men in it because of the filth that was hanging about. These baths have
1450
been a great boon and blessing to us, and I hope we shall not limit this goodness to five years. I think the Government should let us go on until such time as we have completed that which we set out to do. I am sure the Minister of Mines will find himself able tonight to put on a wonderful smile, as he can do when he likes, because of the great blessing which these baths mean to our people.
7.39 p.m.
Sir Hugh Seely: I am glad the Government have found time to bring in this Bill, because there is no doubt that this is one of the most important matters in the mining industry. The baths which are now being used have been found to be necessary in practically every pit. The difficulty that everyone had in starting these baths was due, as has been explained, to their novelty, and it took a long time before people got accustomed to them and, therefore, put forward their demands for baths. Although in listening to this Debate one might think that these pithead baths were very common, the fact is that they are nothing like it at the present time. If you take South Nottinghamshire, which is a large district, there are only now 11 pithead baths constructed, which is a very small number as compared with the total number of pits there. Applications are now in hand for only 10 out of the whole of Nottinghamshire, which shows how very small is the amount of work that has been done on this question.
I know the difficulties which we have had, in pits with which I am connected, in getting these baths put up in the past, and we have now another difficulty where we are sinking a new pit and wish to get a bath installed. Where you are sinking a new pit, you must attract miners to it, and you cannot expect them to come from other places to a new pit unless you have the proper, modern idea of a pithead bath there. Otherwise you will not get the men. What happens now is that you are put at the bottom of the list, and there is no hope of your getting a pithead bath there for ever so long. I agree very much with what the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Lee) said on the question of the central committee and the district committees with regard to the levy. I hope that every effort will be used by the Minister to see that the district committees get the whole of the halfpenny for this purpose, because it is they

1451
who have to deal with it, and in more enlightened districts where the baths have proved a success the demand comes along very quickly, and those are the districts which want them installed at the time and which then have a very heavy charge suddenly put upon them. Under the present constitution even the passing of this Bill will not bring these baths unless you have altered the question of the district and central committees.
I also agree very strongly, because I am a complete believer in these baths, with what has been said as to their value from a health point of view, and even from the economic point of view of compensation, from the owners' point of view. They are a fairly large element tending towards safety. If hon. Members go through the figures, they will find that it is in the smaller pits that you have the highest difficulties in regard to casualties and accidents, and there is no doubt that if you could get a smaller type of bath put up, you would be doing a great deal towards combating the great danger of accidents growing. They may be quite small at the start, but they grow much greater afterwards.
It may be asked why this is going to be limited to five years. No doubt the Minister will say that, after all, in five years they will have completed the whole programme. I never quite trust the Ministry of Mines, and I must say that I think there is a little element of slyness in this, as regards what they have just done to the royalty owners, when they bought them out for a certain sum, and from the sum which they gave them they took off, saying that it was to be in perpetuity, 1s., which was going and had to go towards this fund. They are now putting a burden on the whole industry for five years, which means that the Coal Commission in the end will own the royalties and will have that benefit, which, after all, they took from the royalty owners at the time. They certainly did, because it was used as part of the calculation in arriving at the original figure that the figure had to be paid towards pithead baths. This question will not, in my opinion, be disposed of in five years. I hope that when the time conies for pushing on with these baths, the Government will not merely let the matter rest, putting on this extra levy and thinking that in so doing they will get the baths com
1452
pleted. A great deal more has to be done by the district funds and the central fund, and I hope that the Secretary for Mines will see that these baths are provided.
7.46 p.m.
Mr. T. Smith: Hon. Members have referred to the five years' period, but I am not unduly concerned about that, because I recognise that once there has been established a fund such as the Miners' Welfare Fund, no Government will dare to take it off as long as there is need for spending the money. I well remember that in 1912, when Parliament passed the Minimum Wages Act, it was passed for a period of only three years, but it is still in operation, and from time to time it is continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. In 1934, when the last Miners' Welfare Bill was before the House, I, along with my colleagues on these benches, took great joy in criticising the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Labour for bringing in a Bill to reduce the welfare levy from 1d. to ½d. I thought it was a scandal, and I did not believe it would make the slightest difference to the depression in the coal trade.
Having done my best to criticise past holders of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's office, let me say that I join other hon. Members on this side in welcoming this Bill which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has brought forward. I welcome the great change of outlook that has taken place in the coal-mining industry with regard to pithead baths, both on the part of the mineworkers and the mineowners. The hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) talked about slyness, but if he looks into the history of the mining industry, he will find that the mineowners cannot take a great deal of credit for the social conditions in that industry. One must not forget that the Miners' Welfare Act, 1920, was put on to the Statute Book after a most searching inquiry by the Sankey Commission, and I am right in saying that the whole country was shocked by the evidence given to that Commission regarding the social conditions in the mining areas.
There is a history attached to the question of pithead baths. It did not start with the Miners' Welfare Fund. Section 77 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, made

1453
it possible for pits to have baths attached to them, but I believe there was a limitation inserted concerning the amount that could be spent which made it absolutely impracticable for the baths to be provided. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) spoke of the great change which has taken place in the industry in this respect. I remember that when I represented a certain part of Sheffield, the Sheffield Tramways Committee refused to allow mineworkers to ride inside the trams when coming from the pitheads. We protested against that by means of deputations, because we felt that we were being insulted and slighted. Since that time there has been a complete change of outlook. Moreover, in those days, the men did not want baths; but where there are pithead baths at the present time, the men use them and value them. I remember that at one time I was discussing this question in a certain branch room, and one of the men said, "What, wash your back every day! It will weaken it." Somebody else said, "Well, you've been washing your head for the last 25 years, to my knowledge." There has been a change, and to-day we have some excellent pithead baths.
There was one point that I did not quite follow in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). He talked about an all-in bath. There are no all-in pithead baths that I know of. I remember that in 1923, when I visited a pit at Essen in the Ruhr—I believe it was connected with Krupp's works—for the purpose of looking at their pithead baths to see whether I could learn something from them, I found that everybody bathed openly. There was almost the same gradation in the pithead baths as there is in the baths in the Army. The general body of workmen bathed in the open, and then there was a gradation until the manager had an up-to-date bath to himself. Great credit is due to those who have planned some of the present pithead baths. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines and I happened to be at the opening of some pithead baths not many weeks ago in my own constituency. They are excellent baths, under cover, so that the men need have no fear of catching cold. The only complaint I have to make is that the provision of these baths is not proceeding quickly enough. I would like to make
1454
a plea for some of the smaller pits, of which I have had some experience. I remember having to go to settle a dispute at a small pit in West Yorkshire, and when I came out of the pit, I asked whether I could have a bath. I was told, "There is a bucket there." I had to wash myself behind a shed, and it would not be permissible to repeat here what I told the manager of the pit afterwards. I want to make a plea for some attention to be given to the smaller collieries.
One could, if one wished, make some fairly general criticisms with regard to the need for spending more money, but now is not the time for discussing that. I am very pleased that the Bill has been brought forward, and I hope that the result will be that, earlier than we anticipate, every pit in the country will have a pithead bath, for from the social point of view one cannot doubt the great benefits which are derived from them. The women know the value of these baths. I remember that some years ago I went to a certain colliery with my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), and the general manager told us that he had had great difficulty in getting the men to use the baths when they had been erected. We asked him how he had managed to get them to use the baths, and he replied, "Well, we decided to invite the miners' wives and daughters to tea on Saturday, and after tea we had a little chat on the benefits of pithead baths, and then we showed them the facilities for washing; and it only took three parties to get the baths used." When the women had seen the facilities that existed, they soon removed every objection that the men had to using them. I conclude by saying that I welcome this Bill and wish it God-speed in its effort to give every pit in the country a decent pithead bath.
7.55 p.m.
Mr. A. Jenkins: I join my hon. Friends in welcoming this Measure. During the course of the Debate, we have heard something of the history connected with pithead baths, and we have also heard something with regard to the welfare levy. I think that the amount of good that has been done by the welfare levy can hardly be described by any speaker in the course of this Debate. In early days, there was a great deal of opposition to the welfare

1455
fund by the colliery owners. Probably they did not understand how much good might be wrought by a levy of this kind, and that may have accounted for their opposition. I remember that a friend of mine, once a Member of the House, Thomas Richards, once described this 1d. levy as the "magic penny," and I think that he well described it; for it has accomplished a very great deal.
In supporting this Bill, I want to pay one or two tributes to people who have done so much to make pithead baths possible. I remember that under the 1911 Act, we had a ballot in the colliery in which I was employed. A majority of the workmen taking part in the ballot was in favour of pithead baths, but because of some difference over a comma in the Clause in the Act, funds were not provided in the early days, and if those people had used the baths, they would have had to pay for them in certain conditions. A great many efforts have been made in the post-war period to make pithead baths possible. I remember how difficult it was to get many miners to use them, and I would like to mention the name of one person from the Mines Department who did an enormous amount of propaganda work in order to make the pithead baths more popular amongst the coalowners and the workmen. I refer to Commander Coote, who went from one colliery village to another, explaining, with the aid of lantern slides, the type of things that pithead baths would be. Those were difficult days. I remember that in my own division, as late as 1928, a suggestion was made to a colliery company to supply an up-to-date pithead bath, and the suggestion was rejected by the company. There were about 1,500 men employed in the colliery, and recently there were opened at that colliery modern pithead baths, which should be of inestimable advantage to the workmen concerned. I would like to pay a tribute to the people in the Mines Department who have overcome so many difficulties in building these pithead baths on extremely difficult sites. They have had to meet difficulties connected with subsidence, and on occasion it has been extremely difficult to get proper foundations for the baths; but in every case in which the attempt has been made so far, they have succeeded, and they deserve congratulations on the efforts they have made.
1456
The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said that he thought that the£500,000 that would be obtained from the levy to be provided by this Measure would be more than the Welfare Committee said could be properly spent, that is, if regard was had to all the difficulties concerning material, labour and so on, in providing pithead baths. I have not gone into that matter, and no doubt the Minister will have something to say about it at a later stage; but if that be the case, it is a substantial reason for not limiting the whole of this sum to expenditure on pithead baths. There is plenty of room for that money to be used in connection with other schemes, and I hope the Minister will give some attention to this matter.
I also would like to make a plea for the small collieries, some of which have been more or less neglected. In many cases the small collieries are working higher seams, and often they have more water to contend with than the deeper collieries. I think it was the intention of the Miners' Welfare Committee some time ago to carry out an experiment in Scotland in connection with smaller collieries. What has been done I do not know. I know that proposals were put forward in South Wales for the provision of baths at the small collieries, but they have not been provided. A difficulty confronts those who desire to establish baths at small collieries. There are fewer men employed at those collieries, and the weekly income from the men is smaller. It is difficult, therefore, to provide the necessary staff unless the men pay a very high weekly contribution. In some cases it is as high as is. per week in small collieries, whereas in larger collieries it may be as low as 4d. a week. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that matter.
As regards the welfare levy generally, there is no doubt about the fact that it has done enormous good. It has provided those excellent welfare grounds which have been of such benefit in the mining districts. It has provided, too, those splendid little halls in the mining villages, some of which are remote from the towns, enabling the people in those villages to hold social gatherings where miners and other members of the community can come together and enjoy each other's company. I welcome the Bill and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), I am not

1457
much afraid of the five-year limit. I feel that this scheme will prove so popular that at the end of the five-year period, provided that the situation of the industry is normal, the pressure in favour of the continuance of the levy will be so strong that the Government of that day will be unable to resist it.
8.3 p.m.
Mr. Tinker: There is one point in the Bill about which I was inclined to feel some regret, namely the five-year limitation, but on thinking over the matter I have revised my opinion, because I hope that at the end of five years we who now sit on these benches will be on the benches opposite. If so, there will be no doubt about the continuance of this levy. Many hon. Members will recall the fight we had to retain this levy. The employers were the chief cause of our difficulty then. They resisted the proposal, very ill-advisedly as I thought at the time, and I think they now regret having done so. We have heard the view expressed on behalf of the coalowners themselves that as regards the health of the men the employers are getting full value for the levy. If you want to get the best out of a workman it is necessary to keep him in proper health, and the provision of baths at the collieries, has been an advantage, not only to the men but to the colliery owners.
Another advantage of these baths, is that it enables the men to have small cuts and bruises, which might otherwise be overlooked, attended to immediately. Miners are very hardy men and seldom if ever complain. Formerly they took home these minor scratches and cuts without having them seen to, and in many cases serious consequences developed. I had an experience of this myself about two years ago when I had to go down and examine a very deep mine. I came up thoroughly exhausted and with a number of slight bruises and cuts and when I went into the pithead bath, the attendant saw my plight and spent some little time in applying Friar's Balsam to my hurts. I very much appreciated that attention. It brought home to me what these baths meant to the ordinary workmen in this respect, as well as in regard to cleanliness.
The present position in relation to pithead baths is very different from that -which existed formerly. I remember the
1458
amount of prejudice which we had to overcome, not only among the employers but among our own men, when we suggested pithead baths. It was difficult to convince even the men of the utility and benefit of these baths. Miners' leaders were continually holding meetings for the sole purpose of impressing upon the men the wisdom of this step. A lot of spade work was required, but now we appear to have got on to the right road, and, apparently, everybody in the industry is agreed about the desirability of these baths. When the Lancashire and Cheshire coalowners and the miners' representatives meet at the wages board, applications come in from those parts of the district which have not yet got pithead baths, claiming the right to be considered first in the allocation. Only a certain number can be dealt with, and the result is that some of these applications are put back time and again. The Bill will help in that respect and I hope that in a very short time every colliery will have pithead baths.
The Bill is a step in the right direction and the mine workers will not begrudge what is required by it. An hon. Member opposite suggested that they might object to this levy coming out of the allocation, but I assure him that they will not object. I feel sure that the public will not object and, after all, this levy comes from the public in the first instance. I am satisfied that neither the public, nor the mine workers, nor the coal owners, will object to this allocation for the purpose set out in the Bill. I consider it to be one of the greatest things that has ever come to the industry as far as amenities are concerned. I join in expressing my gratification at the fact that the Government have done this. The Secretary for Mines was advertised to go into my constituency yesterday. I expect he told the people there about this Bill. If he did, I am sure they welcomed his presence there, as they would welcome the announcer of any improvement in the mining industry.
Captain Crookshank: I thought it would be wiser to wait and see whether the House was going to accept the proposal or not.
Mr. Tinker: All Ministers are not so careful in what they say. If they are going to do anything for the people, they generally mention it and try to get the

1459
credit for it, and I would not have blamed the hon. and gallant Gentleman had he told my constituents of what he intended to put in the Bill. However the Bill is here, and I hope it will pass into law. I am sure that it will receive from the miners' representatives in this House all the help that can be given to it. Most of us have been miners, we realise what it means to be without these baths and we are very glad to think that those who are coming after us will get the benefit which is made available by this Bill.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. Sexton: After all the complimentary speeches we have heard, it would be very ungracious not to join in this wonderfully unanimous chorus. I come from a mining area and I can remember the prejudice which existed among the miners themselves 30 years ago against pithead baths. Of course the miner, as everybody knows, has very strong prejudices in many directions. Not very long ago, a miner who was taking a bath was very particular that he should not have his back washed because he believed that it would weaken his back. At the same time he did not hesitate to wash his head. Since that time we have realised the importance of brain as well as brawn and now the miner enjoys his bath whether at the pithead or at home.
Something has been said already about the effect which the provision of pithead baths will have on the amenities of the home. I have vivid recollections of the scene in a miner's home when the man was having his bath. The man would come in from the pit, all wet and dirty. The good woman of the house would prepare on the hearthrug, in front of the fire, a huge zinc bath full of hot water. There were, generally, three or four children playing around while the hot water was being put into the bath and there was grave danger of scalding those bairns. Many in fact were scalded and suffered very severely. Then the miner stripped himself almost naked. It is true that he kept on what we called his "clouts" or his little shorts, which did not give him much more protection, as far as decency is concerned, than the fig-leaf which we read of in the story of the Garden of Eden. There, in the face of all corners, men, women and children, he took his bath in front of the fire. Any of his
1460
friends who were visiting him at the time had to take a back seat because the hearthrug was entirely occupied by the bath.
The provision of pithead baths not only removes the danger to the children; it increases the decency with which the worker can take his bath and it increases his opportunities of showing hospitality to his friends. There is the relief to the woman that she is not constantly preparing baths, because in some cases, it was not only the man of the house but his sons as well who had to get baths. Then all round about the fire there were wet clothes and boots which had to be dried, and every day the good woman of the house was reminded of work, work, work. I believe that the miners to-day are far more enlightened than they were upon health matters and that the demand for pithead baths will grow and grow. I can recall seeing the long straggling lines of half-naked men walking from the pits to their homes in all kinds of weather. Where there are pithead baths one sees no such sights to-day. The men come spruce and clean from the pits, well washed and well rubbed down and physically more fit than the men whom one used to see trailing home through the snow and slush. Many of our miners are great sportsmen. You would have no Arsenal and no Aston Villa if you had no miners. They have played their part in athletics and boxing. I believe that the provision of pithead baths will do much to improve their sporting proclivities, and that in the years to come we shall be able to look to the miners to fill up the vacancies in our First League football teams.
Before pithead baths were instituted, miners as they walked home or travelled home by conveyance were ostracised because of their filthy clothes and boots. Miners have often been blamed for being uncouth. If they were uncouth, the savagery of their surroundings ought to have part of the blame. Now that we are abolishing some of the savagery of their surroundings, the improvement in their manners and deportment is becoming more and more evident as the years go by. In the old days the miner was well known for his silk muffler; you could pick him out in a crowd. I defy anybody now to go to a crowd of people and select the miner because of his dress. He is now well dressed and carries himself well. All this improvement, I believe, is

1461
due to the increased amenities which the Welfare Fund has provided. It is an amazing list of good things—pithead baths, recreation and social welfare grounds, institutes and halls, health and education. I believe that more good could be done by the Welfare Fund towards increasing opportunities for the education of the young miner. Whether the young miners are not taking much interest in it, I am not prepared to say, but I would urge upon them to take advantage of the education which they can get from the Welfare Fund. Then there is the important research work for the welfare of miners. It is an amazing list of wonderful benefits. We on this side of the House believe more good yet can be brought out of the fund and we will do our best to help it to be done.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Dunn: Like every other Member who has taken part in the Debate, I welcome this small Bill, belated though it is, because I believe that the raising of the halfpenny per ton to one penny for miners' welfare purposes, and particularly for pithead baths, will be a real boon and blessing to the mining community. I welcome it, also, because I believe that pithead baths and their utilisation are a real contribution to the health and happiness not merely of the miner, but of his wife and children. For that reason, I want to offer to the Minister my appreciation for introducing this Bill. I was one who in the early days took a different line with regard to this question of miners' welfare and pithead baths from many of my colleagues in the country. When we at the mine with which I was connected received the first contribution from the Miners Welfare Fund we acted in anticipation of the bath scheme, and not only spent all the money in installing one of the old types of pithead baths, but, in addition, spent nearly 50 per cent. of the second allocation on that purpose. Therefore, instead of spending our money, as we might have done, on some of the things to which reference has been made, we spent the whole of it in anticipation of pithead bath schemes in installing baths.
The miner is one of the finest types of men the country has produced, whether at sport, at play or at work, and this demand for pithead baths indicates the true type of man to be found in British mines. It is strange that in a workhouse
1462
or public institution of any kind one of the essential things, even 5o years ago, was the installation of bathing accommodation. In prisons, too, where all types of people are to be found, bathing accommodation is considered necessary. In the mining industry in the past, however, it was thought that the worst type of house in which there was no bathing accommodation was good for the miner, and the demand for pithead baths indicates a new type of mind coming into the mining communities, and it is really a case of the miner coming into his own. I appreciate what the Fund has done in other directions, such as recreation grounds, halls, education facilities, convalescent homes, and all sorts of things. The scheme has made a remarkable contribution to the sick and injured miners.
I want to take a line slightly different from the line so far taken in the Debate. I understood the Minister to say that if, when the baths are completed, which he anticipates in six or seven years' time, any money is available, the Fund will be used for other objects. He also said something about renewals to the baths. I do not know whether he wanted the House to understand that renewals would in some measure be a charge upon any residue that there might be in the Fund, or on the Fund itself. The Minister called attention to the fact that in the newer installations of baths provisions for canteens were made and had proved useful. I would much rather the miner, coming out of the pit and having to travel a long distance, took advantage of the canteen provisions, and particularly of the milk supplied, than find himself in much more objectionable places.
It seemed to me that there were only two discordant notes in the Debate. One was struck by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) when he called attention to the cost, how the money would be raised, and the ratios which would be borne by the miners and owners. The other discordant note came from the hon. Member for Berwick (Sir H. Seely) who called attention to the position of royalty owners. I should have thought that both those hon. Members who are so directly connected with the coal industry would have had something to say on the question of how some scheme for electrical treatment could be interwoven into the newer installations of pithead baths and

1463
provision made for treating the minor injuries, cuts and bruises, of miners. Among the illnesses to which miners are subject and to which due regard has not so far been paid are chest troubles—as distinct from silicosis—and rheumatism. I should have liked to hear from the Minister some indication of whether, in addition to canteens and cycle sheds, he would look with favour upon the installation of electrical equipment, so that therapy treatment may be given to miners when they come out of the pit, and provision should be made for the treatment of minor injuries. If electrical treatment could be provided as part of the welfare scheme it would be not only beneficial to the health of the miners themselves but would mean a considerable saving in workmen's compensation and an enormous saving to national health funds. If that could be done, and it may be competent to do it within the scheme as part of the newer installations, then I am satisfied that the miners of the country will be doing well. Like all my hon. Friends I have much pleasure in welcoming this Bill.
8.29 p.m.
Mr. Watson: A welcome has been given to this Bill from almost every part of the coalfield with the exception of Scotland, and on behalf of that area of the British coalfield I wish to extend the same cordial welcome to it. The luck of the Ballot two years ago gave my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) an opportunity to introduce a discussion upon pithead baths, and I then had the opportunity of dealing rather fully with the matter and do not intend to take up very much time to-night. I dare say that my hon. Friend surprised the House when he brought forward such a practical and useful proposal as the installation of pithead baths instead of some subject like world revolution, but he did a very useful bit of work two years ago, because we see to-night the result of the agitation which has been going on persistently since that time to have the levy increased from ½d. to 1d. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) mentioned that the Secretary for Mines was in his constituency yesterday. He was in my constituency last night. Evidently he is getting around before we have the discussion upon safety in mines and an opportunity of discussing his report. I dare say he saw something worth
1464
seeing when he was in Fife. He would see what was being done about pithead baths at the new colliery there. The baths are not there yet, but the plans are all ready for baths at that new colliery, which I think will he just about the first of its kind in Scotland when it is in operation.
I would like to put in a plea for baths at the smaller collieries; they should not be confined to the larger ones. I do not suggest that baths should be installed at any colliery which is so small that the provision of baths would be ridiculous, but leaving those cases aside there should be only one test and that is the probable life of a colliery. Nobody would suggest that this money, which is so much required in so many areas, should be squandered upon providing pithead baths at any colliery which is likely to go out of operation in a year or two, but apart from that every endeavour should be made to have baths at every colliery, and I dare say that that is the intention of the Ministry in getting an increase of the welfare levy from ½d. to 1d. I am not going into the arguments which have been already put forward so ably in favour of the completion of this programme of pithead baths. I wish the discussion had been on broader lines, covering the whole range of welfare administration, because there are other aspects of it upon which we could have had an interesting discussion with, perhaps, a great deal more division of opinion than we get on the narrow issue before us.
I dare say the hon. and gallant Member has had his attention drawn to the fact that in connection with many welfare schemes there is considerable difficulty in keeping the institutes going, and if it had been possible to-night to discuss institutes and recreation facilities generally we might have had some interesting expressions of opinion. I should like to point out what the miner has contributed to the maintenance of these pithead baths. He does not get the use of the baths gratis, because a contribution towards the running of the baths is deducted from his wages week by week. The miner has many calls made upon him in other directions. A miner's pay ticket shows deductions for a number of different items which total a very considerable amount. You have 1d. for this and 2d. for something else deducted, and altogether

1465
they mean a very considerable sum taken in some areas from the miners' wages. In the county of Fife a special contribution is collected at the collieries for the maintenance, not of baths but of other things connected with welfare schemes, which I do not intend to discuss on this occasion, because we may have another opportunity of discussing this question of welfare on a broader issue than that which is now before us.
I want to give a welcome to this Measure. In Scotland we require a great many more baths than we have at the present moment. In commendation of recent developments in connection with baths I would say that I am glad to see that those who are responsible for planning baths and selecting sites are beginning to give more attention to the situation of the baths, and to see that baths are put in as good a position as possible in the colliery. It is necessary that baths should be in places where they harmonise with the general surroundings. The newer collieries, where electric power is used, not only for lighting but for all purposes—winding and everything else—are on a higher level than they ever were before. There is no steam, smoke or dirt about them such as there was in all collieries only 10 or 12 years ago. The coalowners themselves are beginning to take a little pride. I do not know whether this is due to the development of baths, institutes and other things connected with welfare schemes, but during recent years coalowners are paying more attention to the general appearance of their collieries than they did in my early days. I am not saying that this is general, but that in the new collieries a great deal more attention is being paid to tidiness at the pithead than was the case a few years ago. That is all to the good and it is, I believe, largely due to the welfare work that is being done that all these changes have been brought about.
8.38 p.m.
Mr. Shinwell: If I am expected to join in the general enthusiasm upon the introduction of this Measure, I am afraid that I shall prove a disappointment to hon. Members. It happens that I have some acquaintance with the history of this legislation. I can recall the setting up of a committee in 1931 to consider the general scope and purpose of the Miners' Welfare Fund. Subsequently, the Govern-
1466
ment of which the hon. and gallant Member is a supporter, reduced the welfare levy. If it had not been for the action taken in 1934 by the National Government it would have been unnecessary to introduce this legislation to-day. It may be permissible to ask why the legislation is being introduced. Are the Government in a state of reform? Are they penitent because of the action they took in 1934? I very much doubt it. The fact is that, because of the demands which are being made upon the fund and particularly that part of it upon which is borne the expenditure for pithead baths, and because of the difficulties associated with those demands and with the finance of the scheme, the Government have been compelled to come forward with this legislation.
Moreover, we ought not to forget that washing and drying facilities associated with the mines of the country are valuable, not only as a means for washing and drying, but because they may become a very useful asset in times of national emergency for purposes of national defence. In a majority of places where there are washing and drying facilities, these are linked with ambulance stations and first-aid equipment. They are very valuable institutions for use if ever we should be called upon to undertake all the trials of national defence. So, although I should be one of the first to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman or the Government for this Measure, in so far as its introduction was rendered necessary, it is belated. It ought to have been introduced long ago. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself indicated in his speech, this is not a case of the Government making a gift to the miners or to the mining industry. This legislation is not costing the Government one penny piece, because the cost comes out of the mining industry.
For what have we to thank the Government? There have been negotiations in the industry and there has been agreement. The Government have responded to the united demands of the industry, plus the submissions of the Miners' Welfare Committee. Why should we go on our knees and thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in spite of his amiability? I can recall occasions when we were in office and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was one of the severest critics

1467
of the Labour Government. At the same time, I am far from looking a gift-horse in the mouth. I agree that pithead baths are essential for the welfare of mineworkers and are a valuable asset in the industry. I shall not dilate on the iniquities of the past, and the degrading conditions under which miners had to wash in their homes. Those are matters upon which those who have had more experience than myself—practical experience—can talk with greater feeling and more emotion, revealing facts at the same time.
This I know, that when I was at the Mines Department in 1924 and in 1931 I was made fully conscious of the needs of the miners in regard to pithead baths. So conscious was I of the clamant need for pithead baths in the country that I ventured to present a short Bill to the House, which never had its Second Reading—for reasons which are well known to us here. If it had been accepted, either by the industry or by this House, the Bill would have provided pithead baths for every miner in this country, without exception. Owing to the difficulties which had been created in relation to the fund upon which the pithead baths expenditure was borne, I found it necessary to offer the suggestion of compulsion, and I go so far now as to declare that the industry itself, without legislation of this kind, ought from the very outset to have provided washing and drying facilities for mine workers. It is done in other industries and in other countries. Why should not the mineowners of the country, plus the royalty owners, provide the necessary facilities for this human and social purpose—I go further, this industrial purpose? Although I do not share in the general appreciation of this Bill, at the same time I welcome anything that is going to assist the mine workers, that is going to lift from the homes of the mine workers that drudgery which was so characteristic. I know also how appreciative the wives of the miners have been, and are, of the facilities that are provided.
Let us examine the proposal that is before use. It is proposed to increase the levy. So far, so good. But it is only to be increased for a period of five years. I believe that that is pernicious. Even the committee which I myself established, and which reported adversely, as I
1468
thought, on the amount of the levy, itself recommended that the levy should be continued for a period of 20 years, and I certainly do not believe that a period of five years is ample for the purpose that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in view. All sorts of difficulties will crop up, in connection with material, equipment, labour and the like, which will present obstacles to the provision of all the baths that are required. Indeed, the Miners' Welfare Committee themselves, on page 16 of their last report, indicate what the difficulties are. They maintain that at the moment, because of good employment and high prices—I am not so sure about the good employment myself, but for the moment I accept what they say—building is expensive, and they hope it will become cheaper presently. There is no indication at all that in the next few years the difficulties which are now present to their minds will be entirely removed, and so I do not believe that in five years it will be possible to complete this comprehensive programme. I wish it were. I wish it could be done in the course of a year, or two years at the most. There is every reason, therefore, why the duration of the increase should not be limited to five years.
There is another difficulty about this limitation. It is that the levy is to be specially earmarked for pithead baths. That leaves the remainder of the welfare schemes high and dry, which is most unsatisfactory. It must not be assumed for a moment that we have exhausted all the possibilities of welfare, in recreation centres, in miners' homes, in convalescent homes, in research and in education. We are far from that position; a great deal of money is required, and much remains to be done. The assumption is that the ordinary levy is sufficient for the purpose of miners' welfare, but that ½d. is required for the purpose of pithead baths. I do not accept that view at all. It is just as important to provide funds for ordinary welfare schemes as it is to provide funds for pithead baths.
At the same time, I agree that many mistakes have been made as regards the kind of schemes that have been established—not altogether by the Miners' Welfare Committee, to whom I pay my tribute for the magnificent work they have undertaken and accomplished, but partly by those in the districts who in moments of enthusiasm presented schemes

1469
which are now regarded as of little value. The other day I was in a district in my constituency where I was told of tennis courts which were not used by the mine workers at all, and, indeed, were used by hardly anybody. Further, I was informed that they would have liked to have miners' halls, which would have been very much more useful. But I have been in other parts of the country where halls are of little value and are hardly used. A great deal more foresight is required in connection with the kind of schemes that are instituted. If I had to choose between these schemes and pithead baths, I should, having regard to the imperative need for washing and drying facilities, plump for pithead baths. But, on the other hand, let us not forget that schemes have been instituted, and that out of those schemes demands have arisen; and over and above that—and here I come to one of the principal difficulties that have been created—maintenance charges are imposed upon the district committees and upon individual schemes which have become burdensome and almost intolerable.
That brings me to a point which, I believe, is of real substance. Let us assume that certain pithead bath schemes have been established, and that others are to be established. There may be in one pit 500 men employed, and there is a certain maintenance charge, which is averaged over the mine workers who pay their contributions; and may I say in parentheses that these mine workers very often pay individual contributions which are too high having regard to the wages they earn, although they pay them gladly. I have heard of contributions of 6d. and 8d. weekly, which is a lot of money for a mine worker to pay out of his standing wages, having regard to the deductions that are made for many other things associated with his work. But suppose that there are 500 men employed in a mine where pithead bath provisions are available, and suppose that in course of time, perhaps a year or two, the number of men is reduced to 300. The maintenance charges remain the same, but they are spread over the remaining men, and increase the burden imposed upon those men. That is a very serious matter. I deplore having to say it, but we have to deal with facts, and it is a fact that there is a contraction in the mining industry, because of mechanisation and because
1470
of diminution in exports and in the consumption of coal owing to the use of other kinds of fuel—matters with which I cannot, of course, deal to-night. Because of that contraction, fewer men will be employed in individual pits, taking them by and large—there may be exceptions—and in consequence the maintenance charges on the men will be increased.
That is a matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman must give his attention. How does he propose to deal with it? I will make a suggestion. I have expressed my disappointment at the amount of funds available for ordinary welfare schemes, and I repeat that now, but, if there should be a margin after the expenditure on pithead baths for the next five years has been met, that margin ought to be made available in order to meet these increased maintenance charges. I know the views of the Miners' Welfare Committee on maintenance charges. Quite properly, they have jibbed at the proposal, which has been made from time to time, that maintenance charges should be met out of the general fund. Although, I think, here and there they have given way, on the whole they have preferred not to accept the proposition. I can appreciate their difficulty, and I see many obstacles to the proposition. There ought to be a wide discretion invested in the committee; and, more particularly, the central committee should take notice of what the district committees have to say on these matters. I hope the Miners' Welfare Committee will give some attention to what I believe is a very important consideration.
In connection with the pithead baths themselves, I was very interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) said. He expressed a view which, I believe, is becoming more common among miners in the country who have availed themselves of these washing and drying facilities, namely, that these facilities might be extended for the treatment of people suffering from rheumatism and other complaints. I understand that at one pit in my own constituency—I believe it is one of the largest pits in the country—they have already instituted a rheumatism clinic. I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley that another has been instituted at Mansfield. That is very desirable. This is a very useful innovation, and I hope it will be ex-

1471
tended. If it is to be extended, perhaps some part of the margin available can be used for meeting the expenditure incurred.
I do not want to discuss the general question of miners' welfare to-night, but I want to say something about the principle involved. I am glad the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has reappeared; I make no complaint, of course, about his absence. Perhaps he will do me the honour of reading something I have ventured to say about the matter, but one thing that I can say in his presence is this: Why should not the owners spend some of their profits on welfare schemes? Why should these schemes depend entirely on the Welfare Fund? Why assume that the money must come out of this levy, and that, because of this levy, no mine-owner is to adopt any kind of welfare scheme? After all, the mineowners are making profits now. There was a period of economic depression undoubtedly, but they are doing well now; some mining undertakings have done well all the time. Surely the owners might provide some of these miners' welfare schemes without waiting for a fund to be made available for the purpose. I hope the mineowners will take note of that suggestion.
Of course we accept the Bill; it would be suicidal not to, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew at the beginning that we should accept it. But we shall watch very carefully the next report of the Welfare Committee to see the progress of these pithead bath schemes. We shall expect a steady acceleration of these schemes, and at the same time we shall continue to press for them until every mining village in the country and every mine is fully catered for in respect of miners' welfare. That is the very least we can expect. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) said, in what I thought was one of the most interesting speeches we have heard for some time—I wish he could speak more often than he does—we accept this proposal; and we hope that it will continue to be useful for the mineworkers and their wives and families. I go further and say—perhaps I do not agree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty—that we do not even object to the outside public sharing in some of
1472
the benefits which arise under these schemes.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Ellis Smith: I would be lacking in my duty if I did not make a few observations on the Bill. On behalf of the area I represent, I welcome the Bill; and I congratulate the Secretary for Mines and his Department for several reasons. The first reason is that while I have been sitting here I have been thinking of the stories that were told to me by the acting-president of the Mineworkers' Federation of this country a few weeks ago about the treatment of miners in Germany. I hope that what he told me on that occasion will be broadcast throughout the country, and that a contrast will be drawn between the reactionary policy adopted towards the miners in that country, with hours increasing and fewer safety regulations than ever, and the treatment meted out in this country.
My second reason is the improvements that I have seen even in my short time. I remember, as a boy, travelling through mining areas within a few miles of where I lived, where it was common to see the miners coming out of the pits with no opportunities to wash themselves; and I contrast those conditions with the present conditions. I see that it is proposed to allocate to the North Staffordshire area for the last year a sum of £94,000. As I have moved amongst the mining population in that area, and particularly amongst the wives, I have seen eyes light up when we have talked about the provision of these pithead baths.
Some people were critical of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) some time ago, because they thought he should have done this, that or the other thing, instead of which he introduced a concrete proposal which was going to bring immediate benefit to the mining community of this country. If some people understood Socialist philosophy better, they would see that it is not only a question of talking, but that when you have an opportunity of translating that philosophy into reality it is better to do so. People throughout the world are now seeing a ray of hope in one country, New Zealand, where more concrete benefits are being brought to the people, and they contrast what is being done there with what other people failed to do in years gone by.

1473
Another reason why I welcome this Bill is this: Some time ago I had an experience which I shall never forget, an experience which has burned itself into my thoughts. That happened when I went to a pit bank where 30 men had lost their lives, and saw the rescuers prepared to go down into that pit. Knowing that 30 men who had gone down previously had lost their lives, these rescue workers were prepared, without any regard to their own welfare, to go into that pit to see if some of their comrades could still be saved. When the Secretary for Mines sent out an invitation to Members of this House to visit the Buxton research station, which carries on a wonderful work, I readily accepted it, and it would be interesting to know how many hon. Members of this House did accept that invitation.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must remind the hon. Member that the research station does not come within the purview of this Bill.
Mr. Smith: Are we not considering the Miners' Welfare Fund? If you would be good enough to turn to Clause 2, on page 2, you will see that it provides for the incorporation of the Miners' Welfare Commission, and that it says that this Commission
"may enter into such agreements, acquire such property,…and may dispose as it thinks fit of any property acquired by it."
It also goes on to say how the Miners' Welfare Fund can be used for the purposes about which I am speaking. The Safety of Mines Research Department at Buxton is run, I understand, out of this fund.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is where the hon. Member is in error; it is not maintained from this fund.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. Although it is true that this is not run out of the fund there is a contribution from the Miners' Welfare Fund to the Safety in Mines Research Board.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I agree, but I think that the hon. Member is stretching the point a little too far.
Mr. Smith: I shall accept your guidance and will at this point be very careful. I looked at the Miners' Welfare Fund seventeenth annual report to see what was being done, and I want to pay a tribute to
1474
the work that is being done at the Buxton research station, and particularly to the civil servants who are carrying on under the present conditions. As a result of the invitation of the Secretary for Mines, I visited the research station with a number of boys from St. Helens and Wigan, and we had a wonderful experience. Therefore I think that I ought to take the opportunity on this occasion to place on record my appreciation, on behalf of the people that I represent, of the introduction of this Bill and of the good work that is being done at the Safety in Mines Research Station at Buxton.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. Gallacher: Reference has been made to a discussion which took place in this House upon a Motion which I had the opportunity of presenting, and I would like to remark, in view of the fact that that has been brought up, that it has taken the Secretary for Mines two years to catch up with that discussion. I do not like the continual repetition in this House of stories about miners and the reluctance of miners to wash. These stories are not true. Thirty odd years ago I went round one of the most poverty-stricken mining areas in Scotland—in Lanarkshire—and I found that when the miner came home he always stripped and washed. I know that miners used to have objections to the idea of baths at the pit. They could not see the feasibility of bathing at the pit and then going out and walking home in their dirty clothes. There was no understanding at that time of the character of pit baths and of the arrangements for transfer of clothes and so on. Wherever the idea got about that it was injurious to the miners to wash it was inculcated by the coalowners and their agents. We have all had, during the War especially, a superstition about three persons and a match. The third to use the same match would have bad luck. Where did that superstition come from? Did it come from the clouds? It came from those who were exploiting the match industry. In the case of the miners the coalowners of this country were prepared to give the worst possible conditions conceivable to those whom they employed.
Look at the houses in which the miners had to live. My wife's family were engaged in the mining industry, and many years ago when I used to go around with her visiting her relations one

1475
found one big room—not two rooms—with a stone floor, and no amenities of any kind. These places were built by the coalowners and rented to the miners. The mineowners of this country were prepared to give the worst conditions imaginable to the men and to try to bring into the minds of the miners ideas consistent with these conditions: "For goodness sake do not get the idea into your head that you have to wash or you will want baths in your houses." All these notions which may have existed did not originate with the miners. The miners wanted to be clean just as everybody else wanted to be clean.
I hope that if any of these stories are raised again in this House the responsibility for them will he placed upon the proper shoulders. It was the mine-owners who were interested in the provision of stone floors and single-apartment houses and the awful and unspeakable conditions that existed in mining villages. I can tell the House of mining villages in Lanarkshire where there were and are appalling sanitary conditions that would revolt anyone. The miners have organised and have continually struggled to raise themselves above the terrible conditions that the mineowners have imposed upon them.
For years the miners in the area that I represent have been clamouring for pit baths, and the Minister himself knows that it is the fact. The trades union branches have been passing resolutions. They have been clamouring for baths. Therefore I hope that this Bill will be used in order to get baths installed with the utmost possible speed in every pit in the country. In my constituency at the time I moved my Motion the various branches of the miners' union wanted to know how soon they could obtain baths at their pits. I hope that the greatest possible speed will be developed in getting pit baths.
I remember one day last summer the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) brought a party of women from his constituency on a visit round this House. They came into one of the rooms where we were sitting and told us that on the previous afternoon pithead baths had been opened in their district. It was pleasing to notice the appreciation of those women of what those baths meant to their
1476
homes. Reference has been made to the development of housing schemes in various mining villages, and certainly those improved houses demand that the miners should go home clean from the pit. When we consider what cleanliness means to the miners, the mothers and the wives, we must realise how important it is to utilise this Bill in order to get pithead baths installed with the utmost rapidity at every pit in the country. In my constituency installations are taking place at certain pits, but there are others where so far there has been no mention of installation, and the miners are desperate to get the baths.
The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has referred to the question of maintenance. There is not only the question of maintenance but also the question of renewals. The hon. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) made reference to renewals in the future. If we take into account some of the modern pits, with their modern pithead baths, and contrast them with some of the earlier installations at other pits, we realise that already the question of renewals of baths to bring them up to more modern style needs to be considered. One thing that I am seriously concerned about is that the Government and the Secretary for Mines still have the idea of harking back to the halfpenny. It was an offence to the miners when the levy was reduced, because it meant the holding up of the installations of pit baths and other welfare development. Now, when they have been forced to take action, because of the clamour of miners all over the country for more rapid installation of baths, they are still hankering to get back to the halfpenny. They ought by this time to have got beyond that stage. If five years hence we have baths at every pit there will be the question of maintenance and also the question of the amenities that are necessary to be developed in the mining villages.
There is surely not a coalowner who to-day cherishes the old ideas as to the conditions under which the miners had to work. They ought rather to be prepared to support generously not only the provision of pithead baths but full maintenance and also the development of amenities over a wide field. I was speaking at Steelend on Sunday afternoon and a schoolmaster was present from the neighbouring village of Saline, begging

1477
that something might be done to provide a playing-field in the village. There is there a piece of land which is available, but nothing can be done with it because it has been handed over on condition that the Dunfermline district of the Fife County Council are not allowed to spend one penny of the cost of putting the ground in order, or maintaining it. Therefore, the land is unusable so far as the miners and their children are concerned.
There are many directions in which the welfare fund can be expended. I hope that in the Committee stage the Minister will agree to withdraw the five years, and that he will increase the levy, go ahead with the utmost speed in seeing that baths are installed in every pit, and then see to it that full provision is made for maintenance and for using the rest of the fund for development of the various welfare schemes, some of which have been mentioned to-night and others of which will be proposed by the miners. I hope that every step will be taken to ensure that the mining villages become healthy happy villages in every sense of the term.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. David Adams: Coming from a mining area I should regard it as unfortunate if I did not utter a word or two at the conclusion of this Debate. There can be no controversy as to the fact that the mineworkers have been for many years the most abused of the industrial workers, and that if they had received an adequate return for the services they have rendered to the community and to a basic industry, the mining villages should be earthly paradises. Instead of that, we still have, as in my constituency of Consett, an absence of pithead baths and an absence of open spaces and playgrounds for children; yet no one will deny that in that area many millions of pounds have been taken out of the mining industry and have passed into other hands.
I want to offer my congratulations not to the Government but to the Miners' Federation of Great Britain for having doggedly insisted that the penny levy should once again be restored. The Government have beneficently permitted the mineworkers to find this out of their own pockets. If justice were to be done there would be an actuarial estimate taken of the amount which has hitherto been ex-
1478
pended from the resources of the mineworkers, and a statutory enactment would be made that an equal amount should be contributed to the general Welfare Fund out of the net profits of mineowners in this country, plus the royalty owners. That would, however, be a step so extraordinary to the mind of this Government, which is the lord high protector of capitalism in every form, that it is not, I suppose, to be thought of; and yet it is a normal act of justice to a much ill-used section of the community.
In my division, hundreds of miners return home in an entirely unwashed condition, but the blame is very freely apportioned and is well known to be a liability upon the National Government for having reduced the amount of the levy. Therefore, the proposed increase will give great satisfaction to the workers. Often the miner has to wash himself in the small, restricted space of his home, which has only perhaps two or three rooms for a large family, and he has to wash himself before the kitchen fire. During my election some of our lady canvassers when calling upon the good wife were told that she was busy washing her man's back, and that if a lady canvasser cared to take her place the wife would immediately go out to vote. I think in no case was the invitation accepted. That just illustrates the gross disability, and it is indeed a disability that we should have these diminutive homes for workers lacking in these elementary facilities.
The Durham Miners' Association have established convalescent homes for their menfolk. I am glad to see that a resolution has been passed that, if and when funds are available, a similar convalescent home should be established for the women and children, who probably require an opportunity for convalescing as much as the men do, and it would have been a reasonable thing, in view of the great and clamant necessity for all sorts of social requirements in our mining villages, if this levy could have been raised to 2d. and used for what in my judgment is an imperious necessity in the national interest as well as in that of the industry itself, in order to establish a pensions fund for getting the older workers out of the industry. In many districts, certainly in parts of Durham, we still require halls and institutes and open spaces. Anyone who reads the local Press will see with almost mathematical

1479
regularity prosecutions of young folks, and even of children, for the offence of kicking footballs in the streets or doing a little damage to fences and so forth because of the lack of open spaces. When I have approached certain municipalities the answer is, "We are too poor to purchase land to make this necessary provision." So that, though we cannot get it in that way, through the rates, we ought to be able to get it in the way that I indicate.
There is still great want of educational and health facilities of a much more advanced character than exist at present. Ambulance stations could be improved and, as we have heard, rheumatism clinics ought to be established. I am certain that the Government are taking an incorrect line when they are about to expend perhaps huge sums upon the cure, or at any rate the relief, of cancer. There is an infinitely more widespread disease affecting more particularly the workers in mining areas, and that is rheumatism, due to the occupation and the disabilities under which they are driven to suffer in their work.
I have made this small contribution feeling that the sense of gratitude to the Government on the part of some of my colleagues for what they have done is entirely misplaced. There is no warrant or justification for it; nor is there any warrant or justification for the mine-owners to solace themselves with being participants in this levy fund, for they have in the past grossly neglected their liabilities and responsibilities to the workers. I hope from now onwards there will be a sense of profound obligation that a portion of their profits should be set aside for the benefit of welfare schemes for those who have served them and the community with such loyalty and patriotism, both local and national, in this, one of our great basic industries.
9.30 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: The Bill has received a most hearty welcome from all the benches, slightly modified by my predecessor on the Front Bench opposite and curiously enough, by another Durham Member. There is, perhaps, some local grievance on the subject. I have made it clear that there is no question of State money in this. It is money that comes from the industry. It is interesting to
1480
observe that the hon. Members who spoke first and last from the Opposition benches have attributed its origin to entirely different sources, because the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards) said he would be glad to support the Bill because the money would come out of the owners' pockets, whereas the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) says we are graciously allocating something that comes out of the miners' pockets. The problem is, therefore, unsolved where the halfpenny is coming from, except that it does not come from the Government or from the taxpayer.
I would take exception to a point that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) made when he said, with reference to a Debate which he initiated two years ago, that it had taken us two years to catch up with his view. If he reads what I said on that occasion he will notice that the Miners' Welfare Committee had already decided to accelerate their programme by spending £600,000 in the two ensuing years, 1937 and 1938. Actually the expenditure was £629,000 and £635,000, and it is only now that it is necessary to consider the provision of further funds in order to keep up that sort of rate and, if possible, increase upon it. So that the general demand for pithead baths had already found considerable expression even at the time the hon. Member spoke, though possibly the pressure from all sides of the House on that occasion drew more attention to the problem than it might have received in other circumstances.
I should like to thank hon. Members several of whom have made kind remarks both about the staff of my Department and about the Miners' Welfare Committee. The hon. Member for Bedwellty said he remembered 4o years ago someone going to Germany to see what was being done there in the way of baths, and it may interest hon. Members to know that now people come from all over the world to see what we have been doing. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is as it should be."] I am glad we all appreciate that the work done by the architects of the committee is such that it receives the congratulations of the technical Press and that people come to see it. Only recently there were delegates from Rumania concerned with some kind of baths in their country, and they wanted to see how it was done here.

1481
I am obliged to hon. Members for what they have said, but there were some adjectives used about the period of five years for the halfpenny levy, ending up with the description of it by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). as pernicious. I cannot accept that it is very pernicious. It seems to me that the position is this. According to estimates which can best be made at present, the greater part of the programme will be completed when the committee gets the money represented by a halfpenny on the output over the next five years. I must enter a caveat. That does not necessarily mean that in five years time every single pitbath on the programme will be finished. As a matter of fact, an hon. Member on these benches has pointed out that we are going to collect more than the amount which the Miners' Welfare Committee consider they can spend. They say that £625,000 a year is about as much as can be done. They say:
"To build faster may well be advocated by some in a desire to provide baths all at once, but apart from the major problem of obtaining the necessary amount of money there are other considerations which should not be overlooked."
The major problem is to get more money, and that is being done. They also pointed out, in effect, that if expenditure is at a much higher rate, there is some risk of waste and some possibility that the best hopes will not be fulfilled. I am sure that no one wants to see any waste, and I am not defending anything of that kind, but if there is a risk, perhaps in view of the demand which has arisen, it should be taken. As I pointed out, there has been an increasing demand that more should be done for the smaller pits. The original programme envisaged by the Miners' Welfare Committee was limited more particularly to the larger pits and those with a long life. They have now taken into consideration the fact that something should be done for the smaller pits and for those with a comparatively short life. In that case it may be that they will have to modify the plans of existing installations and put in something of a different nature and, therefore, it may be that the demand for this new construction will not be a burden on those who are building to the programme of £625,000. There is, therefore, scope in the next year or two for more money to be spent, not only in an accelerated programme, but also in the possibility of
1482
helping smaller and, if I may call them, dying pits.
Mr. Jenkins: Will the Secretary for Mines say whether the experiments which were contemplated in Scotland at small collieries have been carried out, and, if so, what has been the result?
Captain Crookshank: I cannot remember offhand, but I will let the hon. Member know. If he will put a question down I will give him a full answer. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) and other hon. Members have objected to the limit of five years. The impression I got was that they thought that we should take the opportunity now to make it possible for the ½d. to go on after five years for other purposes. We, on the other hand, came to the conclusion, accepting the view of the Miners' Welfare Committee, that the important thing is to get on with an accelerated pithead bath programme, to concentrate upon that, and for that purpose to raise the extra Id. After the five years are over there may be a good deal to be said for other questions to be considered, and hon. Members will be in a much better position to say what the money should be used for. But at the moment I think the House is agreed that the thing to do is to get on with the pithead bath programme and to leave questions as to what ought to be done after the five years are over to a time when we are nearer the termination of that period.
I think the hon. Member for Berwickon-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) is under a misapprehension regarding the royalties levy. The levy which is collected from royalty owners is not Is. a ton but 1s. in the £ on the value of the mineral rentals, and the point is that it is permanent. It has been a permanent levy from its inception, in the sense that there has never been any time limit. The original Miners' Welfare Levy was for five years, but it has been extended and the present period is until 1951. But the levy on royalties is permanent, and it has always been understood that it was a burden which would be passed on to the new owners of coal when the royalties were acquired. That is in the Act which was passed last year. That money has always been allocated to pithead baths and will continue to be so allocated, except when the Board of Trade considers that the sum is no longer required for pithead baths, in which case it may be allocated to some

1483
other purposes. That of course does not mean that the levy comes to an end.
The question has been raised as to whether these services could include some provision for electrical treatment for rheumatism. The hon. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) may not know that some of his colleagues came to see me as a deputation—I do not know whether they represented the party as a whole—and asked whether the Miners' Welfare Fund could take this problem into consideration. As a matter of fact, I wrote to one of them the other day to say that the Miners' Welfare Committee were still making investigations and inquiries into the matter. I know that there are a couple of schemes in existence but I cannot say whether they are financed by the Miners' Welfare Fund. I cannot give him a more definite answer at the moment. As to his other point whether the Miners' Welfare Committee can spend their money on this service, that depends on the interpretation of the words "ancillary purposes" in the Act of 1934, which says that they can spend money on the provision of such accommodation and facilities for workers which they think can be conveniently and properly combined. These are matters which will have to be looked into in order to see whether it is within their power. My function in the matter is only to see that they do not break the law by spending their funds on things which are not covered by the legislation. But their own policy in that matter and in the question of maintenance is for them to decide. Generally speaking, they leave questions of maintenance and ordinary replacements to the local committees to deal with, and incidentally, as one hon. Member said that the weekly charges were high in many areas, I understand that in 86 per cent. the charges are fixed at 6d., or less, so that where they are higher than that is only in a comparatively small number of cases, and the committee tries to arrange so that they can he no higher than 6d.
Mr. Shinwell: That is not borne out by the committee's report. On page 22 it says, as to workmen's weekly subscription towards upkeep, that it was none in two cases, less than 3d. in two, 3d. or 3½d. in 17, 4d. or 4½d. in 28, 5d. or 5½d. in 13, 6d. in 80, and up to 9d. in 23 cases.
Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the figure of 86 per cent. represents men as contrasted with installations, but it is the figure quoted on page 22 of the Miners' Welfare Committee's report for 1937 and I dare say that is the explanation of the discrepancy. It is not a very great point. The general policy is to try and get these contributions not higher than 6d. When you come to renewals, I think, generally speaking, that what the Committee had in mind was the case that was quoted by the hon. Member for West Fife, that there might be some very old baths installed and it might be desirable to modernise them altogether or even to build others in their place. That is really what I had in mind when I spoke at the beginning. I am very much obliged for the way in which the Bill has been received.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 5914, on the application of the Sunderland Gas Company, which was presented on the 14th day of November and published, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Ashby-de-la-Zouch Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 8th day of November and published, he approved."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Dartmouth Gas Coke and Coal Company, Limited, which was presented on the 8th day of November and published, he approved."—[Mr. Cross.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Furness.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes before Ten o'Clock.

  REUTERS AGENCY.
  REUTERS AGENCY.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  CHINA AND JAPAN.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
  AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.
POLICE.
  PROPERTY PROTECTION (KEYS).
  PROPERTY PROTECTION (KEYS).
  RECRUITMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  RECRUITMENT (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  PHYSICAL TRAINING (DOCTORS).
  PHYSICAL TRAINING (DOCTORS).
  FIRE SERVICES (CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL).
  FIRE SERVICES (CENTRAL ADVISORY COUNCIL).
  MOTOR-DRIVING OFFENCES (PENALTIES).
  MOTOR-DRIVING OFFENCES (PENALTIES).
AGRICULTURE.
  MILK INDUSTRY BILL.
  MILK INDUSTRY BILL.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  GOVERNMENT POLICY.
  BEET MOLASSES PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS.
  BEET MOLASSES PRODUCTION AND EXPORTS.
CIVIL SERVICE.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  DEFENCE PROGRAMME (INCREASE OF STAFFS).
  DEFENCE PROGRAMME (INCREASE OF STAFFS).
  WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
  WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
  ROAD TRANSPORT TAXATION.
  ROAD TRANSPORT TAXATION.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MARRIED SOLDIERS' QUARTERS, WARLEY BARRACKS.
  MARRIED SOLDIERS' QUARTERS, WARLEY BARRACKS.
  RESERVISTS (REINSTATEMENT IN EMPLOYMENT).
  RESERVISTS (REINSTATEMENT IN EMPLOYMENT).
  MENIN GATE MEMORIAL, YPRES.
  MENIN GATE MEMORIAL, YPRES.
CIVIL AVIATION.
  CIVIL AIR GUARD (CARDIFF).
  CIVIL AIR GUARD (CARDIFF).
  AIR MAIL TRAFFIC (INDIA).
  AIR MAIL TRAFFIC (INDIA).
  MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (EMERGENCY CLEARANCES).
  MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (EMERGENCY CLEARANCES).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (FUNERAL BENEFIT).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (FUNERAL BENEFIT).
  VACCINATION STATISTICS.
  VACCINATION STATISTICS.
  MILK (BACTERIAL CONTENT).
  MILK (BACTERIAL CONTENT).
  RURAL HOUSING (WELSH COUNTIES).
  RURAL HOUSING (WELSH COUNTIES).
EDUCATION.
  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.
  MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.
  UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS).
  UNIVERSITY STUDENTS (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  FISHING FLEET (RESERVE).
  FISHING FLEET (RESERVE).
  ANTI-SUBMARINE GUNS (MERCHANT SHIPS).
  ANTI-SUBMARINE GUNS (MERCHANT SHIPS).
  RATINGS AND COMMISSIONS (STATISTICS).
  RATINGS AND COMMISSIONS (STATISTICS).
  RAILWAYS, COASTWISE SHIPPING AND CANALS.
  RAILWAYS, COASTWISE SHIPPING AND CANALS.
  HILLINGTON TRADING ESTATE.
  HILLINGTON TRADING ESTATE.
TRANSPORT.
  MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES (STATISTICS).
  MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES (STATISTICS).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ROMFORD, BARKING AND DAGENHAM.
  ROMFORD, BARKING AND DAGENHAM.
  INSURED POPULATION (DURHAM COUNTY AND SUNDERLAND).
  INSURED POPULATION (DURHAM COUNTY AND SUNDERLAND).
  UNLICENSED WIRELESS SETS.
  UNLICENSED WIRELESS SETS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (HOSPITAL INMATES).
  OLD AGE PENSIONERS (HOSPITAL INMATES).
DEFENCE.
  SUPPLY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LAND REGISTRATION ACT, 1925 (CROYDON ORDER IN COUNCIL).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, the policy of gradually extending the system of compulsory registration of land in this country was accepted in principle by Parliament in passing the Land Registration Act, 1925. By the present Order it is proposed, if your Lordships approve, to extend the principle to the County Borough of Croydon, which, as your Lordships well know, has been greatly increased in population of late years. The step is approved by the Croydon County Borough Council and the Croydon and District Law Society. There has been a report by the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House that no further inquiry is necessary before this House proceeds to a decision on the Motion to approve the Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH GAS ORDER, 1938.
  DARTMOUTH GAS ORDER, 1938.

    SUNDERLAND GAS ORDER, 1938.
    THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
    Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
PAISLEY CORPORATION (CART NAVIGATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).

PALESTINE.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL rose to call attention to the Report of the Palestine Partition Commission and to the statement by His Majesty's Government (Cmd. 5893) which accompanies it; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, you may perhaps feel that this Motion which stands in my name should have been put down for an earlier date. There appeared, however, to be some advantage in not asking your Lordships to consider this important matter until in another place His Majesty's Government had had an opportunity to defend their policy with regard to Palestine in the past, and to state their future policy. My concern for the convenience of the Government has not, however, been adequately rewarded, because they neither defended their policy in the past nor did they venture to reveal what their policy for the future would be. I think the reason was fairly obvious: the past was indefensible and the future is not yet known, even to His Majesty's Government.
I desire to speak on this matter with a proper reserve, and I venture at the outset to say that our English Colonial history provides, in my opinion, no parallel to the record of aimless vacillation, of fugitive proclamations and of half-developed and contradictory devices that our administration of the Palestine Mandate provides. We have had an immense experience in the great and difficult art of nation building, greater perhaps than that of any other nation. Our success on the whole has been extraordinary, and the envy as well as the admiration of other people. Placed in contrast with that record, our administration of Palestine is an affront to our own history and an unmerited humiliation before the world. We

413
should remember that we accepted this very definite obligation, we accepted the Mandate, from more than fifty nations, and no other nation was so well equipped to perform this task as we were. In the whole of our Colonial history no greater opportunity was provided for helping to lead to peace and prosperity a land dear to us all; and also in the whole of our history there has been only one failure of equal magnitude and gravity. If we ask ourselves why this has been, we must each give the answer that appeals to him, and I believe that the answer that is appropriate is that our policy has not been consistent. It has been a policy of a dithering inconsistency, and one of constructive futility. I sometimes feel as if Palestine is the blind spot in our administrative eye, for nowhere else have we so much to repent of.
The excuse is frequently made that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable. We might ask ourselves when that discovery was made, and why, when it was made, we did not in all honesty go back to the Permanent Mandates Committee and ask for such amendments as would make it workable. But to continue to play with the situation, and then to excuse our faults at the end by saying that the Mandate was unworkable, is not really impressive. In fact we have dithered and we have floundered, and we have threatened and we have petted, and it has been difficult even for those of us in this country to know what our policy in Palestine really was. In this matter His Majesty's various Governments have been
"…always in the wrong, … everything by starts and nothing long."
I think it right at this stage, with your Lordships' permission, to say that I do not consider that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies is a proper target for these shafts of criticism. In my judgment he was called to deal with a patient who was very sick, whose illness had been wrongly diagnosed, and whose wounds had been poisoned by false treatment. Mr. MacDonald, as I know, has a very close knowledge of this problem, and he also brings to it a keen sympathy for both races involved, which is a very considerable asset at this particular time.
As I see the Palestine problem our first essential need is the return of order, and our inability to preserve order has cost us clear in life, in substance and, above all, in reputation. The Arab, who is not
414
exactly mentally blind, thought that he saw in the attitude of the Government a sympathy with his cause, and he believed that the Government would respond to violence. The source of this organised violence was perfectly well known. It was indicated in a note of reservation to the Report of the Parliamentary Commission in the early part of 1930, but even when notice had been taken of it the particular source managed to escape, and I feel convinced in my own mind that if he had been a poor Arab, and had stolen a bag of meal to feed his family, his escape would not have been so easy. The reign of terrorism which has existed in Palestine affects the decent Arab people as well as the Jewish people, and our own administrative responsibility. This agitation is not fundamentally anti-Semitic. It is anti-British. It is against the Mandatory Power. It is on behalf of a policy which is known as the policy of independence. It is not a clash, as is frequently believed, of two different races living on the same soil. It is a clash between the economy of the Middle Ages on the one hand and the economy of the twentieth century on the other.
What we are doing in Palestine, or what should be done, is not the only illustration of its kind. We find that in Libya, for instance, the Arabs are displaced to meet the needs of modern cultivation. The "Protector of Islam" has adopted a programme of compulsory transference of Arabs from one territory to another, in the interest of closer settlement. There has been no sort of protest against that. It is apparently approved of by everybody. If it is a right policy in Libya, I cannot see why it is a wrong policy if adopted in Palestine, but when Jews buy land at a high price, and fairly, when they redeem land and make it fruitful, when they give wealth to a population and wealth to a whole community, there is a great outcry. I cannot believe—I am sufficient of an economic student to allow myself that indulgence—I cannot believe that if an energetic people pour into an obsolete land something like £,40,000,000 to £50,000,000 as well as energy and efficiency, the whole community is not going to benefit therefrom. And the whole community has benefited. The population has increased. The natural increase of the Arab peoples has been greater during that time than the whole

415
of the permitted Jewish immigration. Wages are higher, conditions are healthier, and it is only the usurer in Palestine who has a real grievance.
I feel that the second essential need is that the Government, quite firmly, definitely and finally, should make it understood that the Balfour Declaration is not going to be withdrawn, that Jews are not either aliens or intruders in Palestine, but that the Mandate gives to them a special position—a position that we, by accepting the Mandate, are bound to recognise and bound to honour. It is not even within our right to say a Jew should or should not be there. We are acting on behalf of fifty nations, who gave us the Mandate in order to facilitate the establishment of the National Home. The third essential thing is that our policy should not only be firm and consistent but should be enforced, and carried out without regard to what either one party in one place or another or any set of officials may think.
Well now, have the Government as a matter of fact got a policy for the future of Palestine? I do not know, but if they have they do not share it with such a vulgar assembly as the British Parliament. In due course, no doubt, we shall have a plan, which will come from the same factory as that from which the other plans that have departed so quickly from this life also proceeded. In the interests of brevity, as well as for other reasons, I do not think that it is useful for me this afternoon to go in any detail into the question of the Report of the Partition Committee. It is sufficient to say that four persons produced three different plans, and the only thing in which they agreed was to reject the scheme of partition proposed by the Royal Commission of which the late Lord Peel was Chairman. The Government in actual fact have not accepted any of these plans, and in that, for once in a while, I am thoroughly in agreement with His Majesty's Government. At long last we appear to have the opportunity of building from solid earth.
But notice with what reluctance and deviations we have arrived at that point. First of all, the Government threw at Parliament the scheme of a Legislative Council sitting in Jerusalem, which had in it all the elements of racial disorder,
416
and which any student of Palestine could easily have foretold would be a disaster. Then, when Parliament would not have it, of course they had to retreat from that. The second stage was that, without consulting Parliament, the Government were suddenly converted, as if they were now youthful enthusiasts, to a scheme of partition. It was the plan of plans, we were told, the very embodiment of administrative wisdom, from which they would on no account ever retreat. Then, after those affirmations, a new Committee was appointed to see whether there was really any sense in the scheme or not, and it is the Report of that Committee which Parliament now has before it. The scheme of partition is abandoned for something that we do not yet know. This flap-jack, somersault policy of administration is in my view greatly responsible for the present situation.
I would like, in dealing with the proposed Conference, to say that in my judgment it is the first obviously sensible thing that has been done in this matter. It may not succeed, but it has hitherto not been tried. Whether it will succeed or not will depend in great part upon the way in which it is handled. Agreement on a complicated question such as this is not to be obtained by consoling phrases, by pious aspirations or mere expressions of good will. Conciliation has a technique of its own, and that should here be brought into being. We have tried it recently in India, with results which cheer our hearts and give satisfaction I think to all of us. There the principle of it was by giving responsibility to the Indian people to divert their energies away from the smaller things which divided them to the one great thing that united them, love of their common motherland and the desire to serve it. We ought to try to do something of that kind here. I am not so happy about the proposed composition of this Conference. I note that certain Arab rulers outside Palestine are to be invited to sit at the conference table, and for the life of me I cannot quite see what their claim is to sit at such a Conference. It looks to me as if the result of it would be altogether to outweigh the representations that the Jews will themselves be asked to provide. And then, if the Arab rulers are to be invited, why not other countries also? What has the United States of America

417
done that she has not been asked to participate in this discussion? She has certain treaty rights in the matter which should not be overlooked.
In regard to the programme of the Conference, I think it is of immense importance that the problems of immigration in relation to the refugee problem should be discussed with thoroughness and generosity. I hope that, if nothing else can be done, it might be possible to draw on the lists for future years in order at this time to give some help to a people in great distress. I think we should interpret liberally the phrase "absorptive capacity" and bring, as I say, the lists of several years into the current year. The need is urgent, and Palestine of all the nations could make a great immediate contribution to the solution of this problem. There are tens of thousands of tortured human beings knocking at our doors, which we refuse to open. I am told that the Jewish families already in Palestine are ready to be foster parents, to open their doors to and to sustain at least ten thousand Jewish children whose lives at present make one sick to contemplate. So far as I know, His Majesty's Government have as yet made no response to that appeal. I should like to include in the appeal I am making the Arab people. They are a generous and chivalrous race, they have made great contributions to the history of civilisation, and they might be willing, without prejudice to any political view they may hold, to share in that redemptive work which is so immediately urgent. They are not persecuted wanderers on the face of the earth, for a vast territory mostly unexploited is in the hands of their own people.
It is my desire to be as little controversial as possible on a matter on which I feel deeply, but I cannot refrain from reminding your Lordships again that we have made very solemn pledges in regard to the Jewish people, especially in 1917, when their help was very urgently required and generously given. More than half a million Jewish soldiers supported the Allied arms, and a great many of them rest in the cemetery on Mount Scopus, where our fellow countrymen also lie. I feel that it is a pity from many points of view that the late Lord Allenby could not be here to tell us precisely what their contribution was; but remember that while the Jews claim only a small territory, the Arab peoples enjoy lordship over
418
a territory as big as Europe with Russia included. It should also be remembered that a large Jewish population enthusiastically loyal to this country might be of immense use to us in the days which are yet to come.
The Conference, in principle, is to be commended, and I do so commend it. There is only one type of public man whom I always want physically to assault, and it is that inspired nuisance who on every occasion when something happens says, "I told you so." He is one of the by-products of humanity who ought not to be allowed to exist; but nevertheless I venture to remind your Lordships of certain proposals which are at least not new. In the Parliamentary Commission of 1929, on which I had the honour to serve in company with my noble friend Lord Rushcliffe, these matters were discussed, and though I found myself unfortunately in disagreement with my colleagues on the general question, we were all deeply concerned about the ultimate issues. As I saw the problem then—and I have never altered my point of view—it would have been possible at that time to have built a bridge of understanding across the gulf which divided these peoples in Palestine. As I saw the needs at that time, good relationships between the two races were a necessary condition of development; secondly, that development depended upon security and order in the land they wished to develop; and security and order depended upon racial co-operation and good will. Co-operation is a voluntary spiritual principle not to be inspired or maintained by military force.
I venture to read a short extract from the Note of Reservation that I issued at that time because it has still some importance in my own mind if not in the mind of anyone else:
"Peaceful economic and political development in Palestine will be dependent upon a corresponding growth of good will between the two peoples which should be fostered by equal educational opportunities for Jewish and Arab children and a wide expansion of adult training in the possibilities of racial co-operation. It is advisable, therefore, that steps should be taken to spread a knowledge of the history and the culture of the two races and of their respective contributions to civilisation.…
"As a first step towards racial co-operation it would seem that a few men of both races, carefully selected and of unquestioned character and influence, should meet together and explore the possibilities of common effort for agreed ends. Such a meeting might prepare

419
the way for a larger bi-racial conference of a more representative character which could be charged with the duty of securing agreement on specific proposals affecting the welfare of the nation as a whole.…
"Neither the meeting nor the conference nor any committees established in villages or towns should attempt the task of solving the racial problem; these bodies should limit themselves to practical steps towards securing social improvements, inter-racial justice and good will. Their influence would spread throughout the land, practical benefits would ensue, suspicions would be allayed, and out of their efforts would grow a reserve of understanding and the good will to compose racial difficulties and to unite Arab and Jew in the task of building up a happy and prosperous land."
I do not think those views are entirely out of date at the present time, and in a memorandum which I had despatched to people in Jerusalem, in speeches in this country and America, and in articles in the Press I developed those views.
The place to begin, in my judgment, with racial appeasement was in the villages and among people contiguous to the Jewish colonies in Palestine where neighbourly good relationships prevailed. I pointed out the history and importance of the inter-racial committees that had been established in the Southern States of America and had been enormously useful, and had been adapted to the necessities of South Africa also. I refrain from reading particulars of that at this point, but it is needless to say that the Colonial Office did not take the slightest interest in any proposals for racial co-operation either at that time or since. It was enjoying the fable of its own omniscience. I do not dare now, in conclusion, to offer to the Government any advice, but I say to your Lordships that after a definite policy has at length been decided on, it should be supported by educational activity, by such help as the films can give us, by the help of the radio and the Press, by lectures or by broadcasts which would interpret to the Arab and Jewish peoples the spirit and purpose of the Mandatory Power and the way in which democratic institutions work in our own land. If appeasement cannot be furthered on those lines, then I confess I despair and think that no appeasement in Palestine will be possible. But I cannot think of that tortured land, so beloved of the nations of the earth, without a feeling of shame and of humiliation at its present position. The way to peace is not
420
through the valley of indecision and drift, not through bayonets, but through courage and faith and, above all, through wise planning. Let these virtues be accepted as the basis of a new policy, and if they are that policy may be rewarded with peace and good will between two great peoples. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will feel that it is the duty of this House of Parliament at this juncture to consider the question of Palestine, and will be grateful to the noble Lord who has just spoken for bringing the subject to the attention of the House. Our last debate upon Palestine was in July of last year. The Report of the Royal Commission presided over by the late Lord Peel had then just been issued, and the debate centred on its recommendation of a partition of Palestine between a Jewish State and an Arab State with a British enclave. There was a general consensus of opinion that that Report had given to the nation an admirable survey of the past historical events in Palestine and of the then existing situation. But in the minds of a few of us the recommendation of partition was a bad one; indeed I feel convinced that the Commission had no right to make that recommendation without taking any evidence on the subject. It took full and ample evidence on every other aspect both in Palestine and in this country, but when it came to its principal recommendation, whether partition of the country would offer a permanent solution, no one was consulted. There may have been some quite informal consultation of individuals, but no one was formally consulted; no witnesses were summoned; neither of the two highly intelligent and politically-minded communities were asked to express their views.
The proposal was adopted by the Commission precipitately, and then it was accepted by the Government with equal precipitation. The Government at that time received advice from many quarters that it did not matter so much whether their policy was right or wrong, that the important thing was that it should be firm, definite and decisive. They were told from many quarters that there had been too much vacillation, that no matter what the Royal Commission recommended it ought to be accepted straightaway by the Government and carried resolutely

421
into force, and that the Government ought to declare a policy at once and keep to it. That to my mind was very bad advice. The advice was bad, and its acceptance was disastrous. If your system of government is to be based on compulsion and applied by coercion, then a course such as that might be adopted, but if you depend mainly upon government by consent, then to carry through a measure which would affect the fortunes of these two great communities for generations without any opportunity of hearing their views, was to my mind wholly wrong.
The concluding paragraphs of the Peel Report included this observation:
"Partition offers a prospect…of obtaining the inestimable boon of peace."
In the light of subsequent events what irony there is in that opinion! However, this House accepted the recommendation of the Commission, and the policy of the Government. There were in a two days' debate, I observe on referring to the records, eleven speakers, and my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and myself were the only ones who definitely condemned and opposed the policy of partition. But the other House did not accept it; in fact, it referred the matter back for further consideration, and the Mandates Committee of the League of Nations did much the same thing. The reaction of the whole Arab community was immediate and emphatic, and a large part of Jewish opinion also was opposed to partition.
The Government, having been in my view too hasty in accepting the plan, thought to put the matter right by being exceedingly dilatory in revising their policy. After prolonged delay a further inquiry was held. I visited Palestine for a second time last spring and heard there that this Commission, which was appointed subsequent to the recommendations of the Peel Commission, was already nicknamed the Repeal Commission, and indeed it was fairly evident to everyone who was intimately acquainted with the subject that the policy of partition proposed by the Peel Report was utterly impracticable. When you got to close quarters with its proposals with regard to frontiers, to enclaves, to transfer of populations, Customs barriers, defence, finance, public security, this plan was revealed as nothing less than a monstrosity. It could not stand up to close examination, and anyone who reads the new
422
Report, or rather the new Reports, published by the Woodhead Commission must come to the conclusion that partition in any form was impracticable.
Now I submit to your Lordships this fundamental consideration. All those who approach this question from the standpoint of areas, of geographical divisions, are on wrong lines. It is very natural for us to think in merely geographical terms. The whole of our own political system is built upon it. The seven hundred years of the history of Parliament has running all through it this principle of geographical areas represented in a Central Parliament. The minority in any particular area gives way and does not press its view because it relies on people of similar views being in a majority in other constituencies. So whenever there is conflict and controversy our natural course is to say: "Well let us divide the parties." In Ireland if there are Catholics and Protestants, Unionists and Nationalists, and if the majority of each is in particular areas it seems the natural and obvious course to say: "Let us set up one State for the one section and another State for the other." In India that policy was adopted to some extent. We are proceeding on the lines of saying that if certain Provinces are likely to have Hindu majorities let us form other Provinces which are likely to have Moslem majorities, and so on. So the question of Palestine has seemed to the average mind in this country like this: that since there were Arabs and since there were Jews and they did not get on together, why not create an Arab State for the one and a Jewish State for the other? If it should be impracticable to do that, some say: "Let us have cantonisation, still smaller areas here and there, in which the several sections can be concentrated."
For some purposes, no doubt, you must proceed on the basis of geographical areas. For ordinary local services—health, roads and so forth—you must have local divisions. But in dealing with these questions of race and religion you are on wrong lines from the beginning if you try to draw areas on a map. In Palestine they are inextricably intermingled. The Turks, who with centuries of experience had developed a certain amount of wisdom in these matters, recognised this, and they dealt with communities as such

423
under the system known as Millets. When the new civil administration in Palestine was set up immediately after the War, and I was entrusted with the duty of taking over from the military, I came from the very first days to the conclusion that this system of communities was in the main the right one. By "in the main," I mean for most purposes, or for many purposes. Consequently I continued and developed it, and I made it my duty to organise and legalise these communal entities.
The Moslems, having been separated from previous control from Constantinople, had to have provided for them an entirely new constitution. The Jews had already the beginnings of an organisation but those beginnings had to be developed, formalised and legalised. The Orthodox Church had already its organisation although it was somewhat in disrepair and there were great financial difficulties. We made it our business to put it on a better footing and to assist in its operation. The Latin Church also had its own organisation. Education, religious endowments, marriage laws and other matters were dealt with, not in geographical areas, but by communities. The political system of that country should, in my judgment, be based mainly on these lines. Therefore all these proposals of partition and cantonisation ought to be discarded at the outset. I admit of course that this principle ought not to be carried too far. There are, as I have mentioned, many points which must be dealt with on a geographical basis. There are some districts which are almost wholly Jewish and others almost wholly Arab, and you must have that in mind. There may be districts which ought to preserve their Arab character as such, and if desired land purchases by Jewish organisations in these areas might be prohibited.
There is a second fundamental fact in this unhappy controversy which I would venture to submit for your Lordships' attention. The Zionist movement taken as a whole has from the beginning misconceived to a great extent the facts with regard to the Arab situation. The strength of the support for the Zionist movement has been derived mainly from the masses of the Jewish population in Poland and Rumania and in the United States of America. They are remote from the scene and they have no intimate knowledge of
424
the circumstances of Palestine itself. Intent on their own movement, full of fervour and enthusiasm, they have set on foot one of the most remarkable and inspiring idealist movements of the modern world. They have been obliged largely to concentrate their attention upon the amassing of large funds, amounting in the total to many millions, which have been derived mainly from small contributions from the poorest homes in those and other countries. They have been eagerly looking to the prospect of opening a fresh place of refuge for the oppressed and persecuted in Eastern Europe. They have taken the keenest pride, and a justifiable pride, in the achievements of Zionism in Palestine and have looked forward to the restoration of the glories of ancient times. But in that fervour and with that impetus they have been impelled forward so that they did not even see the obstacles that stood in their path. They have been impatient and indignant that anyone should state that these obstacles were there and were real, and should venture to suggest the right means of overcoming them.
When this opposition from the Arabs became clearly manifest and intensified a theory was created to account for it. It was unforeseen and very disturbing, and it was urged that it was really due to a small group of wealthy Arab landowners who saw the day waning of their authority over the fellaheen and who took steps to maintain an agitation in order to preserve their own privileges and power. The deeds of violence, it was said, were committed by brigands, the outrages were the work of paid gangsters, and the funds, it was said, were contributed very largely by European Powers who wished to stir up trouble for the British Empire in the Eastern Mediterranean. All this was assumed to be in large degree the work of one individual, the Mufti of Jerusalem, who for the sake of his own personal power and the advantage of his partisans had fomented, stimulated, directed, almost created the whole of it. And it was further stated that the progress of this movement was due in the main to the weakness and even the connivance of British officials who either secretly or openly favoured the Arabs and hampered the very policy which they were sent there to carry out.
There is possibly some fraction of truth in all these allegations, but they leave out the factor which is more important than

425
any of them—namely, that the Arab national movement exists, that it is a reality and not an artificial creation fostered by British timidity and foreign intervention. To think that is a mere de-lusion. The Arab national movement is a reality. Men by thousands laid down their lives for it during the War and since and men are still willing to lay down their lives for it. That movement is as much to be respected as the Irish national movement or the Indian national movement or the Egyptian national movement or the Jewish revival itself. True, during these disturbances it has been disgraced by the most brutal crimes and shocking massacres and murders, which have brought discredit on the Arab name, but these are not characteristic of the Arab people and are, I am sure, strongly disapproved by the best Arab leaders. The Jews, on the other hand, I think are entitled to great credit for the restraint that they have shown in the face of these outrages, and for not having had recourse to reprisals, except apparently in one or two instances. Even those have not been proved, but in one or two instances it seems possible that some among them have stooped to the crime and the folly of lowering themselves to the level of their opponents. But that has been instantly condemned by the responsible leaders of the Jews in Palestine and elsewhere, and such reprisals were speedily stopped.
May I say a word or two with regard to the Mufti, Haj Amin Al Husseini, whose personality has aroused great interest? I was responsible for his appointment, and, looking back over the circumstances of the case, I have no doubt that that appointment was a right one. If necessary I could give your Lordships the reason, but it would be going into too much detail and would take up too much of your time. During my High Commissionership, for some years, I never knew him to refuse his cooperation in maintaining law and order. On what has since happened I have no first-hand knowledge and therefore cannot speak, but in any case I feel sure of this: that if the Mufti were not there to give his leadership, someone else would be there, for a movement always throws up its leader, and if it were not one individual, then it would be another.
426
There has been published recently a book entitled Palestine Diary, written by the principal representative of the Zionist Organisation who was in Palestine from the year 1923 to 1931. Any one who reads that book will be able to understand why the Zionist movement in Palestine did not command a more general confidence and good will. The author, comparing the attitude of my successor Lord Plumer to my own with regard to submissions put forward on behalf of the Zionist Organisation there, says that Lord Plumer would have taken the attitude of asking himself:
"'Is the request justified under the policy of His Majesty's Government? If so, I must grant it and carry it through. Sir Herbert Samuel's first reaction was, 'What will the Arabs say to this?'"
He there does an injustice, not to me, but to Lord Plumer. I feel sure that anyone in the position of High Commissioner had a duty, in viewing any proposal of any kind, to consider from the outset and at the same time, first, whether the proposal was in accordance with the policy laid down by His Majesty's Government, and also what would be its reaction upon the community who were the great majority of the population. Furthermore, the Balfour Declaration, which is embodied in the Mandate, specifically states that, while favouring the creation of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine, it must be
"clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of other sections of the population."
These are the words of the Declaration.
That is just as integral a part of the Declaration and of the Mandate as the provision with regard to the Jewish National Home, and any High Commissioner who did not give it equal weight with the other would be guilty of a dereliction of the trust confided in him by the Crown as the Mandatory approved by the League of Nations. The policy of considering "What will the Arabs say to this?" and of not excluding from office members of the distinguished Husseini family, who for generations under the Turks had played an eminent part in the administration of the country, at all events had the result of keeping the country at peace. While the Arab leaders always maintained their principles and made it quite clear all

427
through that they did not surrender any of their objectives, there was a considerable measure of co-operation between the communities, and with the Government also. The country from 1921, through Lord Plumer's time and on until 1929, was at peace. There were no disturbances between Jews and Arabs. For eight years not a blow was struck. The Jewish National Home developed far beyond any previous expectations. The population, both Jewish and Arab, rapidly increased, and so did the prosperity of the country and its revenue. From 1929, unhappily, everything has changed and the situation has rapidly deteriorated. In my speech in the former debate I suggested what the reasons may have been, and I do not desire now to repeat those observations.
Now at the present juncture His Majesty's Government have invited the two parties into formal conference. I agree with my noble friend who has just spoken that that was a very wise course, but I disagree with him on one point, and that is about inviting the co-operation of representatives of the surrounding Arab States. That also, I think, is a wise course. You will have there the presence of some trained statesmen, who will be a moderating influence, and therefore you will have a greater prospect of success. Further, the invitation is a visible proof that His Majesty's Government recognise that Palestine is not a merely local question and that, just as it interests Zionists all over the world outside Palestine, so also it interests Arabs outside Palestine wherever they may be, and particularly in the contiguous countries. Is there any possibility of agreement from this Conference? Is there any conceivable plan on which the parties might agree? There, again, I dealt with that question in my earlier speech, and would not wish to trouble your Lordships with a repetition of the proposals which I then ventured to put forward for consideration. I then gave some elaboration to those proposals and to the reasons which might be advanced in support of them, but perhaps I might now be allowed to repeat them in summary form.
I would say again to-day, as I said then, that I hope your Lordships will understand that, in making these proposals, I am not authorised to speak on
428
behalf of anyone. This is not the plan suggested by the Zionists, or by the Jewish community in Palestine, or by anyone else. I have consulted no one, and I am putting forward merely the plan which my experience led me last year to suggest. In very brief and summary form it is this: First, that the British Mandate should continue. Secondly, that Jewish immigration should be limited, for political, apart from economic, reasons, so that it should not exceed for a substantial term of years a specified percentage of the whole. The suggestion that was made was forty per cent.—that is to say, that after a period of ten years, or whatever it might be, the Jews should not have more than forty per cent. of the total population and the Arabs, including Christian Arabs, sixty per cent. Thirdly, I suggest that measures be taken for the development of Trans-Jordan and that a loan, guaranteed by His Majesty's Government but ultimately charged on the revenues of Trans-Jordan itself, should be made in order to promote closer settlement of what is now a very undeveloped country, and thereby enable Arabs, both Trans-Jordanians and Palestinians, to find settlement there, and also a proportion of Jews from Palestine and elsewhere.
Next, that an area within Palestine now entirely Arab should, if the Arabs so desire, be reserved and its character so remain. Then, that a Legislative Council should be created, not at once but after an interval, which should not be elected on a basis of geographical constituencies, but consist of delegations from the governing bodies of the several communities. Again—and this is a matter of great importance—that the Moslem Holy Places should be guaranteed in their present ownership in perpetuity, even if the Mandate should come to an end. This would involve establishing some form of protection by the Moslem States, just as before the War the Orthodox Holy Places were under the protection of Russia, and the Latin Holy Places under the protection of France.
Lastly, there should be extended encouragement to the creation of a confederation of Arab states, in which Palestine and Trans-Jordan should form part. This is not likely to be a rigid association, but there would be an association sufficient to deal with matters of common concern, to indicate a joint interest and

429
an ultimate common purpose. Any such settlement should be a settlement for a term of years. You cannot determine the future for all time. That was the error of the Treaty of Versailles, to think that the 1919 map of Europe had to be clamped upon the nations indefinitely, without a clear and definite opportunity for review. This association of Palestine with the neighbouring countries might, after no long interval, change the whole aspect of the problem. Further, if for some years Palestine were able to have peace and quiet, and growing economic co-operation between Jews and Arabs, the matter could be approached ultimately in a different spirit from now, and if after a decade, or whatever period of time, the atmosphere were different, it might be that problems up to now insoluble would be then found comparatively easy of settlement. I would say no more on the question of this Conference as a possible solution. I believe we should all be anxious not in any way to embarrass the Colonial Secretary, who is handling a most difficult and complicated problem in a spirit of resolution and wise circumspection. I do not, therefore, deal with the question of immigration, which is now so acute, although in general I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down.
In conclusion, my Lords, of the three parties that are now engaged in this matter, one, Great Britain, has every reason to desire, of course, a speedy settlement. We are all unanimous about that. The present situation is injurious to British prestige, it does damage to the strategical position of the whole Empire, and more than that, it shocks the religious sentiment of all the Christian peoples. The Western world will soon be celebrating Christmas, and it is a tragic and lamentable thing that we can read such a passage as this in a newspaper. It appeared in The Times a few days ago:
"The courtyard in front of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is filled with armoured cars, sandbags, and barbed wire barricades, and in the adjoining monasteries the sandalled tread of the monk has given place to the hobnailed step of the British soldier.…"
Such a statement as that, unavoidable in the circumstances of the moment, offends the deepest feelings of a large section of mankind.
Of the two other partners, Arabs and Jews, both are often hard bargainers, but we can hope that when they go into
430
this Conference they will not carry intransigence too far. The Jews are known of old to be "a stiff-necked people," but I hope that the representatives of the Jewish case in this Conference will not be too intransigent. If they are, they will alienate public opinion in Great Britain, in this Parliament, and in the League of Nations. The Arabs also need peace. They have lost a thousand men, killed in these disturbances. A number of their leaders have been foully murdered, not by the British, not by Jews, but by other Arabs. A large part of the population is being ruined. If there were to be a political settlement there would be a swift economic recovery, and a rapid return to prosperity, for all the elements for such a return are there. The Arabs should remember that it is untrue that their people have been driven out by the Jewish invasion. It is not the fact. Since the War the population of Palestine has been doubled. There were then 700,000, and the population is now 1,400,000. Of that increase of 700,000, 350,000 are Jews and 350,000 Arabs. There is, by coincidence, almost exact equality in the increase of the Arab population in Palestine and the increase of the Jewish population during the period of the creation of the Jewish National Home. This Arab increase, moreover, has not been in spite of, but, as was stated by the Secretary for the Colonies, because of the creation of the Jewish National Home. If there had not been that creation the Arabs would still have been in the same state of stagnation as they were in under Turkish rule.
Let them also recognise that the National Home itself has virtue in it. The Peel Commission said that every impartial investigator who has seen it must wish it well. The new Arab Confederation would find in this Jewish National Home valuable elements that would be lacking to them elsewhere. They would find there a population with great energy, supported by large capital resources, introducing all the most modern scientific methods of industry and agriculture, an example and a stimulus to other surrounding Arab districts, which should be a source of revenue, wealth and employment to the whole region. It would give them also cultural co-operation; in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem the Arabic language and culture is one of the principal studies. In earlier centuries,

431
when the Arabs developed a civilisation which was illustrious in history, they achieved it partly by co-operation with Jewish philosophers and poets, scientists, merchants and Ministers of State, and if the Arabs wish to revive that golden age let them renew the connections which helped to make it so.
There are those in other and unfriendly countries who think that the greatness of the British Empire is on the wane. In India and in Palestine particularly they see decadence and surrender. But they are peoples who see the principal and almost the only element in national greatness in the constant use of force. With a longer Imperial experience the people of this country have learnt better. If in these days Britain can provide India with a framework in which her own national genius may develop once more, in full liberty, a specific Indian culture authentic of the soil; if in the Middle East we can give a helping hand to the Arabs to do the same; and if simultaneously we can in Palestine foster the growth of a Jewish centre in which the moral, intellectual and practical Jewish spirit, which history shows is a thing not to be despised, can flourish and can radiate among millions of Jews, dispersed throughout the world, a stimulus and a hope, then in this and in the coming generations, the British Commonwealth may achieve new elements of greatness and render yet further services to mankind.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I cannot of course claim to speak with anything comparable to the knowledge, the experience and the authority of the noble Viscount who has just spoken, but I naturally take such a profound interest in this subject which is before us that I must be allowed to make a very short contribution to the discussion of it now. The conflict of rights which the late Lord Peel, when he last addressed this House, described truly as a tragedy, has been intensified since he spoke. It is a story we all know, marked by a series of mistakes, misunderstandings and misfortunes. Think of the ambiguities concealed in the MacMahon Correspondence after the War which is still a source of bitter exasperation to the Arabs. Think of the ambiguity involved in the term "The National Home," which has never so far as I know been
432
really faced or clarified. And I am bound to say I seem to see some evidence of that confusion in the speech to which we have just listened with so much admiration, for I found it difficult to understand how the development of Millets up and down the whole country of Palestine could be reconciled with what was intended by a National Home for the Jews. Think of the ambiguities in the terms of the Mandate itself, of which the late Lord Reading said in this House that he had never been confronted with anything more confused, ambiguous or obscure. Naturally the result of all these ambiguities has been a confusion of interpretations, so that at one time an interpretation was given to please the Jews which exasperated the Arabs, and then another interpretation with precisely the reverse effect.
I think we must add to these misfortunes the failure of the Government in Palestine to check disorder at its earlier stages, whatever the admirable motives of not dealing severely with it may have been. Then came the Royal Commission of 1936 when the proposals which we all know were laid before us in their brilliant Report. The Government accepted these proposals, the scheme of partition, in principle. It was eloquently vindicated by the noble Marquess when he spoke. And now, after two years, as the result of another Committee these proposals thus adopted have been abandoned. Therefore we seem to be in the same position in which we were in 1936, but with the very great difference that since then there has been this destruction of life and property, which would be lamentable anywhere but is infinitely more lamentable in a country which is regarded by the three great religions of the world as a Holy Land. I do not think any of us can have failed to have a stab in the conscience when we heard that particular quotation which the noble Viscount has just put before us about the courtyard of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, which I remember so well and where I was myself received with every token of respect by both Arabs and Jews.
It is perhaps profitless to dwell upon this sorry story of the past. Indeed, I am a little apprehensive lest I may be physically assaulted by the noble Lord opposite as coming very near his description of the particular man on whom he desires to exercise these qualities which

433
we have not hitherto associated with him—corning very near, that is, to the person who says "I told you so." But we must look forward now to the future. We have all welcomed the proposal of the Government to invite this Conference of the Arabs and the Arab States and the Jewish Agency to London, to see whether at long last there may be some prospect of mutual agreement between these contending nations. But I cannot but ask why, if that is conspicuously and by common agreement the right step now, it was not taken at an earlier stage. It might perhaps have been taken in those early days about which the noble Lord was speaking, but in this House on July 20, 1937, I ventured to make precisely this proposal. I used the analogy to which the noble Lord referred of the way in which, after the Report of the Royal Commission in India, there was immediately, not a decisive decision on the part of the Government but a Round-Table Conference, and we know how that prepared the way for such ultimate settlement is was reached.
I asked then that a Conference might be assembled of Arabs, of the neighbouring Arab States and of the Jews. I added, I remember, that even if such a Conference failed, at least the parties would feel that an opportunity had been given them for full discussion and the soreness would have been removed, due to the thought that a form of settlement had been merely imposed upon them by the Mandatory Power. But I recollect that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who replied then for the Government, was not even pleased to pay any heed to the suggestion. Yet I believe that if it had been adopted it might conceivably have improved the situation; and your Lordships will understand that I cannot but ask now why the step which the Government regards as of such great importance now was not even considered less than two years ago.
But that is again of the past. Now for the future. I am sure that the Secretary of State has taken every care in the invitations which he has issued to see that the Conference will be in every sense really representative. I had intended this afternoon to press upon the Government that, although for obvious reasons it might not be desirable to allow the Mufti to be present, yet care should be taken that some members of his Party should attend the Conference—they might be men, even if they had been excluded
434
from Palestine or deported, who could have been selected by the six National Arab Committees who form the Arab Higher Committee. But it is needless for me to dwell upon that matter now because I have read with the greatest satisfaction the announcement this morning that such persons will be admissible and available from whom the representatives at this Conference can be chosen. I hope care will be taken to see that the Arab Christians are adequately represented. Although a comparatively small minority, they have made, and are making, a very great contribution to the life of Palestine. I make another suggestion, which I hope may not be inopportune, that possibly there might be some representative or representatives of Jewry not associated with the particular Zionist Organisation. With regard to the presence of members of the Arab States, I agree with the noble Viscount that that is most important because they may have a moderating influence on the Palestinian Arabs such as no one else can possibly have.
In view of this Conference I have no wish to speak on general policy, and therefore I shall not attempt to follow the noble Viscount in his rehearsal of the interesting proposals which I well remember he put before us in July, 1937. I will allow myself to make only one observation. I do not wish to say more now before the Conference because I have some experience of the way in which words spoken by me here have been isolated, misinterpreted, and misunderstood in Palestine; but this one observation I must make. This is no mere Palestinian problem with which we are now confronted, affecting some 400,000 Jews or 900,000 Arabs. It is, even more than it was in 1936, a world problem of unusual magnitude and urgency. It is plain, as has been said, that one main subject that must be dealt with in this Conference is that of Jewish immigration. It is quite plain that that is the main cleavage between the contending parties, and if there is to be any success in this Conference each of the parties must abate some of their extreme claims; but we must regard this question of immigration as at present sub judice. I do not wish to express any opinion about it. Meanwhile I hope, with the noble Lord who introduced the subject, that no obstacle will be raised to the generous offer of the Jewish

435
community in Palestine to make themselves responsible for 10,000 Jewish children, or at least that the largest possible number of them will be allowed to enter without regard to any present limitations upon immigration in general. The condition of these helpless children from every part of the world is one that must needs command general sympathy.
In view of the Conference, like the noble Viscount I have no wish in any way to embarass its task, but let me say just this, for it is something I cannot refrain from saying. None of us in your Lordships' House is wanting in full sympathy with the Arabs, with their history, with their claims, with their deep sentiment about Palestine itself, however much we may deplore their recent excesses; but at the present time our sympathy with the Jews must be stronger, must be most profound. When not tens, but hundreds of thousands of them have been driven from their homes in Europe by a new and relentless persecution on which I forbear to comment, are being treated everywhere with every sort of ignominy, treated as outcasts and aliens, incapable of any kind of civil rights, is this the time to whittle away anything that was hoped for and desired in the phrase, "National Home in Palestine"? It may be the case that the particular scheme of constituting a Jewish State in Palestine advocated by the Royal Commission has been proved to be impracticable, but surely we must all desire intensely that there may still be found some sphere in Palestine where the Jews can live within their own control, which can at least be a symbol of that national unity to which they have so passionately clung through their whole history, a sphere in which, as the noble Viscount said, they can exercise real influence over what may be large Jewish settlements in different parts of the world, a place of their own within the land which the Eternal Wanderer has always regarded as the historic home of his ancient race.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, Lord Snell in the opening part of his very interesting speech—and he, like everyone else who has spoken, is familiar with Palestine—accused not only this but other British Governments in their relations with Palestine of having been continually vacillating and self-contradictory. It is only fair that I, as a recent Secretary of
436
State who was no doubt one of his targets, should remind him that when he was a member of a Government between 1929 and 1931 there was issued the Passfield White Paper which caused a perfect fury throughout the Jewish world. There was then a conference at Downing Street, when the Passfield White Paper was wiped out and the MacDonald letter substituted. Never was there a case of a quicker change or a more complete volte face in policy than took place on that occasion. It was that episode, among other factors that I shall mention, that caused really serious difficulties in Palestine, because both communities, Jewish and above all Arabs, were convinced that you only had to put enough pressure on people in London to get the policy in Palestine changed. That has dogged the footsteps of successive Administrators in Palestine and has led to many false accusations being made against the very loyal Civil Service who have been endeavouring to carry out your policy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said that in spite of the inherent difficulties of the problem, in spite of the fact that under the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate you were inducing the new wine of European Jews, with all their élan and technical ability, into the old Moslem East, the first ten years of the experiment after the War looked to be going well. The real trouble began—and I believe this was the kernel of it—when Jewish persecution became intensified in Central Europe, and the pressure on the Zionist movement, on the Jews themselves, on the British Government in the Administration in Palestine, was inevitably what it is to-day—"Oh can't you take a few more of these persecuted people?" The whole architecture of the National Home was forced into rapid and rather lop-sided growth in Tel Aviv and elsewhere by the pressure of events in Europe.
I speak as a pre-Balfour Declaration Zionist, one who hoped to see the National Home grow, I admit slowly, but on very sure foundations and mainly on the land. My sympathy with the Zionist movement was partly the sympathy that I think anybody familiar with the Bible has with the people who wrote it, and it was partly due to the fact that I believe, rightly or wrongly—with English Jews, German Jews, American Jews, Russian Jews,

437
Polish Jews and all these people, some of them only with a veneer of the civilisation of first one country then the other as they wandered about across the face of Europe—that if you can get a nucleus born and bred in their original home on the land, which they will always regard as the land of their forefathers, there you will get a cultural and spiritual revival that will be good for all the Jews of the world and good for humanity as a whole.
It is what is called the spiritual aspect of the question that attracted me long before the Balfour Declaration. But that could only be achieved as a gradual process, and would probably take two or three generations to bring to fruition, if you had really friendly co-operation with the people already natives in Palestine and if the growth was not too fast. It is the tragedy of the National Home, as I see it, that it tended to become regarded as the National Home for refuge for people flying from persecution. All the trouble comes from that. Why? Because the figures of immigration went up from a few thousand a year to 60,000 or 70,000 a year owing to this pressure of the persecutions, particularly in Germany. That genuinely frightened, not the effendis, not the small number of selected Arabs, but the Arab cultivator and the Arab villager.
The root of the problem in Palestine to-day is still mutual fears concerning the future. The Jews are afraid that their great cultural success, their great achievements of the last twenty years, are to be finally brought to an end and put under the domination of an Arab majority; and, equally, the fear of the Arabs is that vast numbers, with whom we naturally sympathise, who are now being persecuted in countries of Europe, will be dumped into Palestine, and that inevitably in course of time, by numbers, or if not by numbers then by superior organising capacity and by money power, they will overwhelm the Arab civilisation and dominate the Arabs. I am convinced that there is no solution of the problem of Palestine by handing over the Jews to government by Palestinian Arabs. Equally there is no solution by handing over Palestinian Arabs to government by the Jews. I am convinced, Round-Table Conference or no Round-Table Conference, success or failure, that there can be no lasting success unless it is perfectly clear that British administration is going on in Palestine. I think that is a sine qua non.
438
And that is one of the troubles arising from the Mandate. That document has been the bane of all administration by successive Governments in Palestine, not in its general intention but in the details of its articles. It definitely lays down that as in Iraq, as in Syria, the present Mandate is purely temporary, and that it is in accordance with Article 28 of the existing Mandate to have some new Mandate conferred, and that by Article 2 of the existing Mandate our first duty is to hasten and facilitate the creation of self-government in Palestine. Well, as I have already said, I do not believe self-government is practicable. The noble Lord opposite taunted my noble friend Lord Swinton over the attempt to set up a Legislative Council. That was done in order to try to carry out the Mandate. Another thing the noble Lord complained of, and I think Lord Samuel supported him, was the procedure of the Government since the trouble following the Peel Commission.
Everybody agrees that the setting up of the Peel Commission was right. That Commission produced a most remarkable and valuable Report and then, it is said, the Government precipitately adopted it. Why? Because they were faced with this fact. The parties at Geneva had adjourned and demanded from the Mandatory Power an immediate explanation of their policy and an immediate statement. I had to go hot foot to Geneva, which was waiting and had adjourned twice, in order to produce something. As the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said, we only agreed in principle, and I still think that, if the two communities, or even if either of them, had been prepared to accept and work partition, not necessarily with the boundaries proposed by the Commission but with any boundaries, there was a great hope that that policy would have succeeded. But everything pointed to the fact that neither the Jews nor the Arabs were willing to accept partition as a solution, and that therefore no boundaries mattered. None of the Reports in the Woodhead document really are practical politics, because you cannot work self-government or civil administration except with the good will and the consent of the governed. I regret that the idea of partition has been postponed. I will not say sine die but for many years. That is the fact we have to face to-day;

439
that is the all-important new fact. But let us take it as a fact that partition is impracticable to-day, and we have to look again for some alternative solution.
I agree—and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has been courageous in telling the Jewish people—that there is no solution of the Palestine question which either the Arabs in Palestine or any Arabs outside Palestine are likely to accept that does not involve some quite clear, definite limitation of Jewish immigration. One regrets that at this time, when there are literally hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees longing for any place of domicile and naturally most of all for Palestine, but I am quite sure that unless there is some definite limitation of immigration—the Arabs demand complete stoppage, but I hope that will not be agreed to—unless there is some definite limitation of such a kind as to remove the fear of the Arabs that they will be overwhelmed by Jewish numbers, and a quite definite limitation for a considerable period of years, there is no hope of the success of this Conference or of peace in Palestine. One regrets to have to say that, but I believe it is the naked fact.
Now I want to say another thing. The noble Lord, Lord Snell, says that he believes that if more attention had been paid to the very able Report which he added to the Report of Lord Rushcliffe's Commission, following the disturbances of 1929, the foundations of racial co-operation would have been already laid in the villages—primarily in the villages. I can assure him from my own personal knowledge that certainly two men laboured unceasingly, and not without some success, to carry out exactly what he proposed. One of them was Sir Arthur Wauchope, who went round village after village himself preaching that gospel and endeavouring to get joint committees working. Nobody did more than he did to carry out the very proposal which the noble Lord repeats to-day. Another man who stands out in the history of Palestine as carrying out that proposal was Andrews, the man who was murdered—and whose murder, we know, was directly traceable to the Mufti of Jerusalem—when he was succeeding in bringing the Jews and Arabs together.
Next to immigration, of course, the important question is land. If you look
440
anywhere where we have Colonial responsibilities, you will find that sooner or later we have had to have Commissions to demarcate native reserves whenever there has been immigration of a more technically highly qualified race into a country. Sometimes they have come rather late in the day. But look at Kenya. You have to demarcate areas for the native population when you are going to have immigration with great capital and modern science coming into the country. You have got to shut out areas of the country and say that, although by admitting white settlement you would get greater production and the land would be cultivated on more modern lines, you must for political, for social and above all for moral reasons, establish native reserves. And in those native reserves you have to prevent the alienation of land to other than native people. Wherever you get mixed communities of quite different grades of culture and experience you have to come to that sooner or later. In Palestine we have got to have that if there is to be peace. It would be quite unreasonable to expect that every acre of land owned by an Arab should never be owned by a Jew, or vice versa, but it is essential that there should be demarcated areas in Palestine which are reserved for Arab cultivation and Arab cultivators if there is to be peace.
Possibly these are very bitter pills for the Jews to swallow. Naturally they want every acre of land they can get, and naturally they want to get every one of their suffering brethren from Europe into Palestine if they can, but it is the path of political wisdom from their point of view to see that the Jewish National Home cannot possibly succeed in the present atmosphere of Arab hostility. They would be foolish, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to imagine that it is merely because the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El Husseini, has shown himself to be their implacable enemy, as indeed he has shown himself to be our implacable enemy. There is a genuine Arab case, and unless that is met, the geographical position being what it is, there will be no ultimate success of the Jewish National Home. I am quite sure that peace for Palestine is as much a desideratum for the Jews as for ourselves to-day.
Now let me say something about the Conference and its composition. I am

441
delighted that the neighbouring Arab rulers, including the ruler of Egypt, have been invited, but I hope it is not going to be just a conference between Arabs and Jews. It is essential that we should make clear to both that there are British interests in Palestine, that there are Christian interests in Palestine as well as Jewish and Moslem interests, and that the sole reason why Palestine is not part of Syria, and can never be regarded just as any other part of the Arab world, is the fact of the Bible. It is not merely the existence of Jewish and Christian minorities, but the fact that in the history of civilisation Palestine has been unique, is unique, and always will be unique because it has produced the great religious literature which we call the Old Testament and the New Testament. That is the fundamental fact which Arabs always ignore. By all means let a complete guarantee be given by the nations of the world that their Holy Places are sacrosanct and under their control, but they must recognise that we Christians want our Holy Places under our control, and that we are not prepared to hand over control of those Christian Holy Places ever again.
I said that I would say a word about the composition of the Conference. I am very glad that some of the old Arab Higher Committee who were deported to the Seychelles are coming, and I hope others are coming. I became early convinced that Haj Amin El Husseini, as has now been openly said by other Arab leaders with considerable courage in Palestine, has been and is exploiting the clash of the national movements for his own dynastic purposes. We have always known, of course, that he has been bitterly hostile to the Sheriffal families. He was hostile to King Feisul and has always sought to undermine the position of the Emir Abdullah in Trans-Jordan, and the Emir Abdullah has been a loyal friend to us. At the conclusion of the War he was in arms against us. The noble Viscount pardoned him and selected him for the Muftishy. We cannot blame him. It is very easy to be wise after the event. As long as the noble Viscount was there as High Commissioner, I believe this man Haj Amin—who was not selected by the Moslem authority in Palestine but, as the noble Viscount said this afternoon, was selected by him—remained loyal.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: It is not quite accurate to say "selected" by me. The Moslem procedure was adopted, but it is a very complicated matter and much too detailed to go into now.
LORD HARLECH: As I understand, the three names submitted to the noble Viscount were rejected by him, and he suggested to them that they should think again, and let it be known that Haj Amin El Husseini would be favourably received by him, and then they did submit the name. At least, that is the account given in detail in the Peel Commission's Report. But I am not blaming the noble Viscount; probably any other High Commissioner would have done the same in his place. I am merely speaking of my experience during all the time I was at the Colonial Office. I am satisfied that, quite apart from the position that he thereby acquires, he is playing his own dynastic game, and that game undoubtedly is to become, not merely the sovereign of Palestine, not merely the crowned or uncrowned king of Palestine, but first head of Palestine, then of Palestine and Trans-Jordan combined, and then of the whole of Syria, and, of course, in that position to be regarded as the leader of the Sunni world, in view of the great changes that have taken place in Turkey.
He is a man of quite unlimited political ambition. He was a Turkish Staff officer—and incidentally, a Turk who knew him in those days told me he thought that he was the blackest-hearted man in the Middle East. Though King Ibn Saud will be able to hold his position as long as he lives, make no doubt about it that Haj Amin El Husseini's ultimate objective is the control of the Holy Places of Islam in his family, the foundation of a dynasty of the Husseinis, who have a considerable claim by descent, and the domination by him of the Arab world. I am satisfied that he is a deep-seated enemy of Great Britain, just as I am satisfied that King Ibn Saud, the King of Egypt, the King of Iraq and the Amir Abdullah of Trans-Jordan are good friends of this country. Therefore I rejoice that His Majesty's Government are welcoming to this Conference the co-operation of the neighbouring Arab rulers and their representatives, and I am very glad that they are excluding one man—namely, Haj Amin El Husseini,

443
who uses for his own ends the private murder of Arabs in Palestine not friendly to his dynastic ambitions. Members of the other leading families have been foully murdered, men who are just as good Nationalists and almost as prominent leaders in the national cause as he is. That man stands condemned in the Arab world, and if he were admitted he would be a danger to all neighbouring Arab rulers.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it has long been the reputation of this House that it contains within itself a large number of persons who speak with real knowledge and experience on public affairs. We have certainly had a conspicuous illustration to-day that that reputation is true. It is therefore with some hesitation that I rise to speak having had practically no direct contact with Palestine, and therefore bringing to bear on this problem merely the suggestions of a spectator, of one who has been interested in the problem for a good many years, and has read all the documents and has discussed it very largely with people in neighbouring countries, like Egypt and India. It is from that point of view that I venture to make a few suggestions to your Lordships and to the Government to-night. In the first place I am going to put in a plea that the Peel Commission's Report shall not be dismissed, in the way in which it has been dismissed since the Woodhead Commission, as a document almost of little value in dealing with the Palestine problem. The Peel Commission's Report, though not perhaps in the details of its final recommendations, was a very remarkable and profound document, and we should make a big mistake if we did not pay, even now, great attention to its recommendations.
The plain, obvious truth, which is admitted, I think, by almost all the expert speakers to-night, and especially by my noble friend Viscount Samuel and by the noble Lord who has just spoken, is that you have a situation which arises partly out of conflicting promises and partly out of conflicting national movements. Whatever might have been the case fifteen years ago, that is the fact to-day; and they are conflicting national movements which are not merely confined to Palestine; they are world-wide. There is world-wide Jewry on the one side, and there is the Arab world, now supported
444
by the Islamic world, on the other. That is what makes it so difficult to deal with. I have always felt a deep sympathy for the Zionist movement for this reason. One basis of it, as it seems to me, has been the intense and passionate desire of the Jewish people to escape somewhere in the world from being a minority. That is, as I see it, one of the real foundations: "Let us go somewhere where we can create something positive and national, in order that we may escape the effects of two thousand years of being minorities, and persecuted minorities, in every country in the world." I do not think you will ever solve the problem of Palestine without recognising that aspect of it. It is a problem which, I think, was fully dealt with by the Peel Commission.
On the other side you have what the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, very eloquently described: the equally passionate determination of the Arabs not to be dominated by the Jews. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and others have expressed the hope that it will still be possible, either by the maintenance of British administration or by some limitation of immigration, to maintain the unity of Palestine with a National Home within it. I need hardly say that, if that were possible, it would be the best solution, but I confess that I feel that the arguments of the Peel Commission are almost unanswerable: that that to-day is impracticable and that the one thing you cannot do is to go on with a policy which involves any considerable degree of immigration into Palestine by the Jews, and the keeping of that country as a single home.
I venture to ask whether a solution which has been applied in other parts of the British Empire might not be applicable in this case. You all remember the history of Canada, where you had French Canadians and British Canadians. For a great many years attempts were made to solve that problem. There was first of all the attempt to run two separate Governments, a French Canada and a British Canada, each of them independently controlled from Downing Street. You then, after Lord Durham's Report, had the attempt to unite them. It was trying to unite oil and water, and it did not work. It was only when you introduced the federal principle that you got the beginnings of the solution which

445
has finally, as I hope, solved the Canadian problem: an arrangement where each side has real autonomy, real control of its local affairs; where the unity of the country is recognised in some form of federal organisation. That is the principle that has been applied, though as yet without the federal aspect, in Ireland; the basis of the solution has been laid. You have also got it, in a not very perfect degree, in India. Where you are not able to apply it because of too much intermingling, you get the perpetuation of racial antipathy and racial jealousy, which you find in South Africa. That is the answer I would make to my noble friend Lord Samuel, when he talks about the possibility of organising the country in communal communities. Communal communities work all right as long as the country is a dictatorship, but the moment you introduce the principle of self-government the communal community becomes an intolerable source of trouble and friction, because every politician in the country inflames racial feeling in order to get elected.
Therefore I am driven back to the view that there is substantial wisdom in the basic contention of the Peel Commission, that at any rate to-day, whatever the future may bring about, you have got to have—I do not like the word "partition"; I think the Peel Commission went too far in proposing two sovereign States—the principle of administrative division and local autonomy. I believe that is really to-day the only foundation upon which you can found a solution—that you give to the Jews an area in which they are not a minority, in which they can begin to construct something for themselves, in which they can allow immigration more or less at their own discretion within their own area; that you give them territorial limitation but not numerical limitation. On the other hand you give the assurance to the Arab world, which administrative division involves, that they will not be overwhelmed and will not be dominated by the Jews, and that they can obtain unity with other Arab communities.
Is it not possible to find a basis upon which you can get such a solution by agreement, because admittedly you cannot solve any of these problems unless you do get agreement? By giving to the Jews rather greater freedom and a rather greater area for their National Home, in
446
return for introducing the federal principle into the problem, and by bringing in, say, Lebanon and Syria as well as Trans-Jordan as the nucleus of a loose federation you give an assurance to the Arabs that the Arab world will never be dominated, and that assurance might enable them to look at the boundaries in a far more friendly way than they look at them to-day, and it would eliminate the possibility of having to have strategic frontiers, transplantation of populations and other things which make the thing impossible to-day.
I would venture to suggest that that offers a possibility which might reasonably be explored. You give to the Jews an ampler area in which they have complete local control, in return for their accepting membership of a federation which includes a much larger part of the Arab world—the Northern Arab world as well as the Palestinian Arab world. It seems to me that there is a possibility of an agreed solution on that basis which does not appear to be present in any other way to-day. On the other hand, I think that it is difficult to believe that you are going to get agreement unless you are able to bring, not the coercion of force, but the coercion of facts against both sides. If His Majesty's Government meet the Conference and merely do what was done at the beginning of the Indian Round-Table Conference and allow the other side to make all its proposals without having any clear mind of their own, then I think you are going to get into fatal difficulties. You must not only have at any rate a provisional plan. You must also have a plan for dealing with the extremists, and that plan, as I see it, must be something on these lines: on the one hand, of course, law and order; on the other hand, some solution on the lines I have discussed, and proof that if agreement is not reached then both sides are driven back to the old impossible position.
The figures which were used by the Secretary of State in the debate in the House of Commons a fortnight ago seemed to me very significant. He said in effect that for every Jew who enters Palestine another Arab goes with him because of the immense economic development which the pouring in of Jewish capital into Palestine has produced. In other words, the Arab fear of a Jewish

447
majority disappears by reason of the efficiency of the Jewish development. And I should like to see His Majesty's Government say: "If you cannot reach agreement, then we take it that unless the absorptive capacity makes it impossible, the Jewish immigration will be 25,000 a year, because the Arab population will increase also by 25,000 to 30,000." In other words, if the extreme view on either side prevails, it still leads to a hopeless deadlock. By maintaining law and order and by saying to the Arabs "Unless you agree to an agreed solution, 25,000 Jews at least going in every year," and by saying to the Jews that in sending in those 25,000 Jews a year you are going to have at least as many Arabs coming in, you have got in front of you the facts which prove to both sides that unless they compromise they are simply going to go on with their present troubles. I would like to suggest that His Majesty's Government when dealing with this matter should consider the possibility of what I might call a loose federal organisation.
The only problem I have not touched there is how is the organism to be defended. Presumably each area can manage its own internal affairs of order, but it obviously is not able to defend itself from outside, and that is, I think, where the principle of the Mandate can be maintained, since Great Britain can not only protect the Holy Places, but make an arrangement whereby it assumes the responsibility for preserving it from attack from the outside world. Unless you can convince both sides that the extreme view cannot possibly succeed, I do not believe you are going to get the temper in which you will get an agreed solution; and unless this Conference arrives at an agreed solution it will arrive nowhere.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I think this debate is very opportune, and I hope it will be productive of more satisfactory results than the debate that took place in 1936. We then debated the question of the new Legislative Council as proposed by the Palestinian Government and endorsed by the Colonial Office. They stated that they intended putting it through whatever happened, even by force. In the debate in this House and in another place there was no
448
sympathy shown towards that proposal, and in the result the Government withdrew from their declaration that they would insist on the plan being put through, and the whole idea of the new Legislative Council collapsed. The Arabs, who had been disappointed at least half a dozen times after inquiries by committees which had reported on the position in Palestine, when they read the reports of the debate felt that they were at their wits' end to know what to do. They recognised that they had not sufficient influence to press upon the Government the necessity of carrying out their declaration. On the contrary, they said that Jewish influence was paramount, and they resorted to what they imagined was the only means to redress their grievances, that is, by guerrilla warfare such as obtained in Ireland. It was a great mistake on their part, no doubt, but still it was a fact that they felt they had not sufficient influence over here as compared with the Jewish influence. In that view there was no doubt some exaggeration, but still it was understandable, as they had not got the social position and the means of associating with the British which the Jews had.
The result is that we now see this very deplorable state of affairs in Palestine and the only means of getting rid of that state of affairs is, I fancy, by this new Conference which it is proposed to hold and which we hope will bring about agreement between the Jews and Arabs, and thereby bring some prosperity to that unfortunate country. If it does not, then I am convinced that the only thing to do is for the Government to pronounce that a Zionist State is impracticable. We have never yet heard on what precise ground the Zionists claimed that they should have a State in Palestine. No one who has studied the Balfour Declaration can understand any such ground, and when last July I asked whether any such promise had ever been made to the Zionists, the answer was to the effect:
"As my noble friend knows, the promises of His Majesty's Government are set out in the Balfour Declaration of 1917."
Where is the promise in that Declaration? It is one of the vaguest Declarations ever put before the country. The noble Lord proceeded in his answer to me to say:
"No private promises have ever been made to any body or individual."
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AvA): Had not the noble Lord better read the final statement of the answer?
LORD LAMINGTON: The concluding portion of the answer was to this effect:
"The terms of the Balfour Declaration did not preclude the possibility of a Jewish state in Palestine."
Surely that is not a promise that they are going to have one. I think my noble friend has rather weakened his case.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I only wanted the full answer, that is all.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am perfectly unable to understand how the Zionists can claim that they have a right to have a Zionist State. The King-Crane Commission appointed by President Wilson went entirely upon what had been a previous opinion as to the right of Zionists to have a share in the governing of Palestine. I am quite confident that if the Government would announce, to-day, that there could not be a Zionist State, and that there would be a limitation on immigration, you would have peace and harmony in Palestine. As I have already said, if the Conference arrives at a solution so much the better, but if it does not then I am confident that the best course would be to take the bull by the horns and say at once that there cannot be a Zionist State. The Jews and Arabs previously lived together in Palestine in perfect harmony, and in 1919, I think it was, Sir Philip Magnus and other leading Jews in London made a deputation to Mr. Balfour, to ask him to reconsider his Declaration, and he would not hear their proposal.
At the present time there are large numbers of Jews who are quite hostile to the proposal that there should be a Zionist State, and Rabbi Dr. Mattuck, speaking on "The Jews in Palestine," on October 4, said:
"Surely the way out was not to emphasize more the nationalism which has caused all hatred, but if possille to sacrifice it. It would not be the first time in Jewish history that they had been forced to sacrifice nationalisms for something higher—for spiritual ends. Whenever Jews had made a sacrifice they had triumphed. Whenever they had refused they were defeated. Only when working for spiritual ends did the Jews show the greatness
450
of their lives. By such a sacrifice Palestine torn might become Palestine healed."
For the most part Zionists come from Central Europe, and are not of the most elevated class. How many British Jews are to be found among the Jewish population? Not one per cent. Yet how many British soldiers and others are to be killed so as to force a majority of foreigners on a people opposed to them?
As I have said before, if this Conference fails our hope must be that the Zionists will see the wisdom of abandoning their claim to a State. After all, a Zionist State, founded on British bayonets and so maintained, is hardly a fulfilment of a Biblical prophecy, nor could it be regarded as a home worthy of the chosen people. If Zionists will realise the position and abandon their claim, then I think they will win the respect and good opinion of the whole world. At the same time they will co-operate with those who are trying internationally to find lands in which Jews could settle in peace, and retain the vision of their religious and cultural home to which they could always freely resort. I hope that this debate will show greater sympathy with the views of the Arabs than did that which took place in 1936.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as one who for four years was responsible, as Colonial Secretary, for the administration in Palestine, and during those four years did my best to work for co-operation, I should not like this debate to pass without taking the opportunity of saying how whole-heartedly I support the action which the Colonial Secretary has taken in summoning this Conference—subject, of course, to two conditions, which I am sure he would endorse as readily as I do. The first is that there can, of course, be no relaxation in the restoration of law and order and the suppression of violence in that land. The second is that this Conference, while having full opportunity to take all matters into consideration, must proceed with reasonable despatch. I know that it is not at all in his mind that this should be a way of gaining time. On the contrary, it is, I believe, a very genuine attempt to get agreement—an agreement which may perhaps he possible to-day, when every alternative has been put forward and when all the facts are so fully presented that the Conference can, as my noble friend Lord Lothian said, be brought up

451
against the facts, which, I agree with him, more than anything else are going to convince and to bring reason.
I think it is profoundly wise to have invited the adjoining countries to take part in this Conference. I do not in the least agree on that point with Lord Snell. It is right that they should be there, because they have a legitimate interest in this matter, and I think it may well be, as has been said, that interested as they are, and standing a little further from the immediate scene of the trouble, they may take a wider, longer, more detached and more balanced view. The most reverend Primate asks why, if this is done now, it was not done before. He joined the "I told you so" school, and said: "I made this proposal, and Lord Swinton, replying for the Government, did not even answer it." Sometimes it is not very easy to answer a proposition which is eminently reasonable in itself but which, on grounds of expediency—and I use the term in its broadest sense—it is not politically practicable to adopt at the time. The Conference will have a better chance of success now that it has the Report of the Woodhead Commission as well as the Report of the Peel Commission before it. I am not shirking my share of responsibility at the time I was in the Government when I say I was never attracted by partition—I disliked it—but faced with the Report of the Peel Commission, with its very definite recommendations, pressed, as Lord Harlech said he was, by the Mandates Commission adjourning from month to month, pressed as the Government were from all quarters to have a definite policy and act when they had appointed the Commission, it would have been very difficult for the Government of the day to do other than they did at the time.
Partition was most emphatically advocated by the Peel Commission. Indeed they said it was the only feasible solution, and it still has its attractions for the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, though he dresses it up in another way. I am bound to say they presented that very definite conclusion on slender evidence, but it would not have been a very easy thing for the Government of the day to act otherwise than in the way they did. The Government were wise to appoint the Woodhead Commission to examine the
452
practicability of this proposal. The findings of the Woodhead Commission are thorough, complete, and conclusive, and so far from partition being the best way out, it is proved to be, economically, a thoroughly unsound and wholly impracticable method. If division is not practicable, we turn back on combination, and on combination which must be made as real as possible.
I do not agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, that it is so wholly impossible to get these two nations to work together that it is necessary to make two enclaves, with the Jew separate in one and the Arab separate in another. That is an almost impossible thing to do in Palestine to-day. When the Royal Commission attempted it, they only found a solution on the basis of saying 250,000 Arabs will either pass into the Jewish State or be transferred out of it—and where on earth they were to be transferred, it passes the wit of man to understand. If it be true—and I am sure it is true—that financially, agriculturally, and industrially the advent of Jewish capital, Jewish experience, and Jewish technique has been of great general value to Palestine, then surely the more that experience, capital, and training can be shared and can inure to the common benefit of Jew and Arab alike, the greater the opportunity not only for peace but for effective development in Palestine.
I believe it is possible for such effective co-operation. It has been done. Long before the Balfour Declaration a great and generous pioneer, the Baron Edmond de Rothschild, founded his colonies in Palestine, founded them with a wide generosity, a wide vision, and without any exclusive characteristic. I very well remember when I was in Palestine, after a long and tiring day in which I had heard many Jews criticising Arabs whom they would not meet and Arabs criticising Jews whom they would not meet, and both parties criticising His Majesty's Government, coming at the end of that day, at evening, to one of Baron Edmond's colonies above the Sea of Galilee. I was met by the Jews and the Arabs together, and together they took me in to their little hall and made me welcome, and both spoke. I shall never forget the end of the old Arab leader's speech. He said:
"We have been together here, Arab and Jew, for many years. We have stood together

453
in good times and in bad. If the stones of the wall hold together, the wall stands. But if the stones fall apart, the wall falls, and much falls with it."
These colonies of Baron Edmond's stood the stress of trouble and the test of time, and seeing that co-operation there, which had gone on—these people living and working together through the insurrection of 1929 and, for aught I know, through these later and more serious troubles—I could not help feeling that there was a real hope for Palestine in that spirit of co-operation in which this great Jewish pioneer had induced these two people to live together for their common good. That experiment succeeded because the co-operation was complete.
In a very courageous and, if I may say so, very wise speech, Lord Samuel said there were facts which the Jews and the Jewish Agency must face up to, and he criticised elements in their policy. I profoundly agree with his criticism. I share with him admiration for the work which they have done—the marvellous research and development, not only agricultural but industrial as well; but there is one thing which the Jewish Agency always insisted upon, and in which I think they were wrong. Where land was bought, that land had to become, and remain, the exclusive property of the Jews. Where the Jewish Agency bought land, the Jews alone remained on that land. I say at once they paid high prices for that land, and generous compensation to smallholders and tenants who were on it. They paid in full, but what happened? The Arab may have been an absentee landlord who got the purchase money. As to the little occupier, the Arab who worked on the land, his compensation money, generous as it was, was soon spent, and there were in a year or two landless and workless Arabs, although it is quite true that the land was producing five and ten times what it had been producing before. The Arab did not see that that accretion of wealth to the country was doing anything to him but turning him off his lard.
The fear of the Arab is terribly real, that however much money he may get—and everyone knows quite well that the Arab will take the money when it is offered—he will become more and more landless. That is the problem. In the future, where these great development and
454
irrigation schemes take place, it should be the principle and the rule that, where there are Arabs on land which is bought by the Jewish Agency for colonisation, those Arabs shall go back on to the land, on to an economic holding irrigated and developed. Then you keep your Arab on the land, the Arab benefits by the cultivation which the Jews can teach him, and nobody knows better how to teach than they do. You will then get the Arab and the Jew side by side with a common interest. Get that in the Huleh basin, get it on some great development scheme down the Jordan Valley, let there be seen that co-operation in being, and who can say how wide then this common work and this common colonisation may not spread? It may well be that once that has been seen in operation the way to settlement in Trans-Jordan may be open, not under the protection of British troops but under the knowledge that it is to the mutual benefit of both the nations. That is the spirit of co-operation which I hope to see.
I would only say this in conclusion. The Jews and the Arabs have their great, their legitimate interests in this land. So have we. It is not depreciating the part which Jewish soldiers or Arab legions played in General Allenby's campaign to say that it was British victory which gave Arabs freedom, it was British victory which gave to the Jews their National Home. Without that victory there would be no Arab States anywhere in the world, there would be no Jewish Home. Arab freedom and Jewish Home alike were bought with British lives.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, the problem of Palestine has now haunted a succession of British Governments for too long a number of years. It was never more complex than it is to-day, but in spite of, indeed because of these difficulties it was never more necessary to find a solution. At the same time neither opportunism nor impatience ought to lead us to snatch at the first solution which comes along, for if any solution is to be valuable it must be lasting, and if it is to be lasting it must be just. So far as I personally am concerned—and I am expressing only a personal view—I have always been in favour of such a Conference as is now being called, and indeed I wish that it had been possible to call it some years ago when the atmosphere was less embittered than it is to-day. It is

455
perhaps not making an excessive claim on behalf of the authorities of the Jewish Agency to say that they have always been anxious and willing that such a Conference should take place, although they have evoked no very ready response up to date. Only during the last few years of lawlessness and violence has that willingness been withdrawn. I have no doubt that their response to-day to the Secretary of State's invitation will be acceptable to him.
I should like, if I may, to reinforce the point which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, made a little while ago. There are, after all, three parties concerned in this matter. There are not only the Arabs and the Jews, but there are the British as well, and I confess that I should like to see the British Government playing a rather more positive and constructive role in this Conference than that of a benevolent but baffled go-between. The Government have had great difficulties. The Peel Commission's Report, in spite of its healthy condition at birth, has apparently perished of malnutrition. The Woodhead Report is apparently stillborn, and the Government are now searching to see if somebody can bring forth a child which they may adopt in the hope that their adopted child may prove of sturdier growth and may grow to be a comfort to them in their old age. All of us who are concerned with this question hope that their anticipations may be fulfilled.
One understands the point of view of this country, which is the predominant point of view in the matter—the great importance of retaining the support and co-operation of the Arab States. The Arab States, very naturally and very rightly, will attach themselves to those who seem to be able to give them the greatest measure of protection in times of trouble, and they will not attach themselves to those who seem prepared to make concessions to violence, nor will they be attracted by the spectacle of derelict railway stations, deserted post offices and abandoned police stations in Palestine. There may also be some virtue in retaining the support of the Jews. So far as the Jews of Palestine are concerned, that ought not to be a very difficult task for this country, for they are, after all, not Poles, or Russians or Germans, but, after a very short time, Palestinians with the
456
interest of that country at heart, with their faces to an Arab hinterland which extends over an illimitable tract before them, and with their backs to the Mediterranean. If they did not turn to Great Britain for support, and if they did not offer their support to Great Britain, to what nation in the world could they turn?
Various schemes have been put before your Lordships this afternoon. The proposed Conference will no doubt have to work out its own salvation, and I only pause to say of those schemes that I know my noble friend Lord Samuel, in putting forward his views, was expressly putting them forward as representing his individual opinion, and it may be that they would not find very wide acceptance in other Jewish circles. But I should be sorry if your Lordships went away with the idea that those who were in a position to deal with this situation from the Jewish aspect were intransigent and exacting on this question. I have had no direct connection with this problem, but I have discussed it during the past months with a number of persons, approaching the problem from the Jewish point of view but from many diverse angles. I have found throughout all discussions with those persons a desire to arrive at any solution consistent with justice, a desire to appreciate the point of view of the Arabs, and, so far as could be done without betraying their own people, to give every possible weight to their contentions.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamington, devoted a large portion of his speech to asking what was the basis upon which the Zionists were claiming a State and taking them severely to task for so doing. The noble Lord is not in his place at the moment, but surely the answer to that is obvious. It is not quite fair to put it on the Zionists. It was the Peel Commission which produced this idea of the Jewish State. It was the Peel Commission which proposed partition and which said that as part of the plan of partition there must be set up a Jewish State. There may perhaps have been a very extreme, and as far as the Jewish Agency is concerned an unofficial, body which always contended that the Balfour Declaration involved a Jewish State, but the responsible authorities of the Jewish Agency made it perfectly clear that it was

457
not their claim. When it was revived it was revived by the Peel Commission. Really the strictures and queries which the noble Lord addressed to the Zionist Organisation can be answered by a very cursory reference to the recommendations of the Peel Commission.
Out of the recent disturbances in Palestine perhaps two factors have emerged which ought not to be passed over in complete silence. The picture has not uncommonly been drawn of the Jews of Palestine cowering behind the British troops, afraid to take any steps in their own defence. That picture I believe to be a travesty of the situation. If until recently they have taken no part in that defence, it was because their repeated and energetic requests to be allowed to take part in it have been consistently refused. They are certainly deeply grateful for the protection that has been given them by the British troops, and most certainly they deeply deplore the casualties which have been inflicted on these troops, but it is not they who have inflicted them. Now in more recent times opportunity has been given them to take part side by side with British troops in the repression of lawlessness and violence, and I think if any of your Lordships inquire from those who have had actual experience of the recent fighting in Palestine, you will find that you will be given an account of the services of those troops which will convince you that they have been gallant, disciplined and hardy soldiers. You will realise that they are only too glad that the moment has now come when they have been at last allowed to take some of the burden of a harassing and exhausting form of warfare from the British troops. The second thing which emerged is that there is, in spite of much lawlessness and much assassination, a moderate party among the Arabs. That has given a real basis for optimism for the success of this Conference, and for what my opinion may be worth I prefer to be an optimist about it.
I only want to say one thing more. In the earlier stages of this debate requests were addressed from more than one quarter to the Government that they should no longer delay decision as to the offer by the Jews of Palestine to give asylum to some ten thousand children from Germany. I have had some very close experience of the refugee problem. I do not propose to dilate on it to-day,
458
but I do trust that they will find it possible at least to throw open the doors to these children, who cannot for many years to come complicate the problem of population, and who will at least be saved from the hell in which their lives are at present laid. On what ground can that request be refused? Is it that it will provoke or offend the Arabs? I cannot help thinking that it is doing an injustice to the Arabs themselves to suggest that if you give a permission of that kind they are going to be offended or outraged by your so doing. If it is doing an injustice to the Arabs, it is certainly also doing an injustice to the Jews. We are not asking for a large access of grown-up men and women to be brought in. All that is being asked is that the children shall be allowed in. There is nowhere else on the face of the world—not in Kenya, and not in British Guiana. Grateful though we are for offers made in that direction, those are long-term proposals. There is nowhere else where, here and now, within a few days or a few weeks, these children can be given a new home, a new life, and a peace of body and of mind which they must have despaired of finding anywhere on the face of the earth.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA): My Lords, I came down to your Lordships' House this afternoon expecting to have much criticism to meet, but that has not been the case. I must confess that I put that largely down to the fact that I have seldom heard so many of your Lordships in the position of having been right all the time while His Majesty's Government have been equally consistently wrong. Speaker after speaker manifested his good temper by praising the Government, when as far as I could make out he was praising himself. Many things have happened since I last addressed your Lordships in July last year about Palestine, and very few of the things that have happened have been good. I am therefore glad that this matter has been raised, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having raised it at a much more convenient time than he might have done. I say that not merely because the debate has provoked a great number of ideas which are going to be very useful to us in the future, but also because it enables me to give your Lordships some account of the present position in Palestine as we see it.

459
I do not want to waste time by going over past history which is familiar to all of us. I would only make this remark about past history since I led off the discussion in which the Government accepted partition. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has accused us of being too tardy and too indecisive. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, accused us at the time of partition of being over-hasty and over-decisive. Whatever we have done we have fallen between two stools. I am prepared to deal later with the criticism that we were tardy and indecisive, but I should like to deal now with the criticism that we rushed into partition without full consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing was more certain to wreck the prospects of partition than a prolonged wrangling in this country about its merits. The only hope was to act, and to act quickly, in the hope, which I still believe might have eventuated, that both sides would be glad to accept as a fait accompli what neither of them really desired but both of them realised to be more or less just. That was why the Government accepted the policy of partition with the speed they did, and I believe they were entirely right in making the attempt.
But many factors, of course, intervened to destroy that effort. The boundary suggested by the Royal Commission was far too vague. The administrative details had not been worked out. A technical Commission had to be set up; its sending out was delayed by riots in Palestine, and its deliberations, of course, took time. All those things were working against us, and while all those things were happening, feeling was rising in Palestine. Gradually the whole Arab resentment was concentrated against partition, and it had ceased to be a panacea and had become a political catchword. That is no unique phenomenon. Time is the essence of modern politics and modern history. It is the one physical factor which has loomed larger than any other in recent political developments. Speed of communication has not lessened that importance of time; it has greatly increased it. On this occasion the time factor was working desperately against us. Therefore, by the time that the Woodhead Commission had reported, we found that not merely were all the Arabs united in opposing partition, but many of them were in
460
actual rebellion against the Government who were investigating its possibility. It was in those circumstances that the Woodhead Commission made its Report, and it immediately became quite clear to the Government that the administrative and financial difficulties of partition were so great that, although they might have been overcome if there had been a real desire on the part of both Arab and Jew to work the scheme, without that desire the scheme was doomed to failure. I am not going into the details of their arguments here, because they are familiar to all. Partition was dead, and His Majesty's Government had to think again and try to discover some other way out of the difficult position in which we found ourselves.
I do not deny that we have changed our view. I do not deny, if the noble Lord likes the word, that we have "vacillated." What I do deny is that we were wrong in so doing. The noble Lord smiles, but throughout his speech he seems to have confused moral wisdom with obstinacy, and political wisdom with decision. Those two things are not correlated. If the noble Lord were to express that modern worship of speed for its own sake in one of your Lordships' transport debates, he would find himself in a very small minority. There is no virtue in speedy decision as such, unless the decision is right. Therefore there is no possible advantage in persisting in crossing a bridge which you know to be rotten merely for the sake of your own obstinacy, merely because at one time you have said: "I think this bridge will take me to the other side," when it is perfectly obvious to any sane man that it will no longer do so. This is a difficult and ever-changing problem, and it is really no serious criticism to make of His Majesty's Government that, instead of charging straight ahead like a bull at a matador's cloak, they have tried to adapt themselves as best they may—I do not say always successfully—to the changing circumstances in which they have found themselves at one time or another. They have changed their ground, always with one object only in view: that of doing justice to both sides in Palestine and bringing about a peaceful settlement there.
Having answered that criticism as best I may, I admit that we were faced, after

461
the presentation of the Woodhead Commission's Report, with an old problem in a new setting: the problem of bringing Jew and Arab into an agreed settlement without partition at a moment when the land was in revolt. The first step to take was that advocated by many of your Lordships and one with which the Government wholeheartedly agree: the restoration of law and order. Troops were poured into the country, and every possible step was taken to obtain the co-operation of the military and the administrative sides so that law and order could be restored as quickly as possible. It is true that at the present moment the Arab campaign of sabotage and terrorism still continues, but there has been during the last month a very great diminution in the number of outrages reported, and since the reinforcements arrived in October we have made very good progress indeed towards the restoration of the authority of Government, particularly in those areas which, I regret to say, had at one stage fallen more or less into the hands of the Arab gang. In November, as your Lordships will remember, the old City of Jerusalem, Gaza, Jaffa, Jericho and Beersheba were all occupied by troops and cleared of terrorists.
I do not think that we can be accused—no one did accuse us—of not having acted decisively in that particular matter; and that policy will continue until by other means—to use a word which I dislike, but which is popular at the moment—"appeasement" is reached in the land. It was quite clear that other means were necessary if we were going to get permanent peace in Palestine. We cannot garrison Palestine for ever with an enormous number of troops; nor is there any solution of the problem by force. Therefore we did attempt to pursue a parallel course of political appeasement, and we decided to hold discussions in London with the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the representatives of the Arab countries near Palestine, as well as with the Jewish Agency. We have had acceptances from Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Trans-Jordan and the Jewish Agency, and we have also sent an invitation to the King of the Yemen. So far as the representation of the Palestinian Arabs is concerned, we have not ruled out any representative except the Mufti from the discussions, and I was
462
very glad indeed to hear that that decision to exclude the Mufti was not merely supported—as I knew it would be from his previous writings—by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition but also, with the accumulated indignation of years, by the former Colonial Secretary, my noble friend Lord Harlech.
But having excluded the Mufti, I would like to make it quite clear that we are most anxious that the Mufti's party should be properly represented at this Conference. We want the Arab delegation to be as representative as it possibly can be, both of moderate and of extreme opinion, because, even though it might perhaps be easier to reach a settlement were the delegation to be more restricted, we do not believe that such a settlement would have half the value of a settlement achieved with a fully representative delegation. In fact, as an earnest of our good intentions, and to make clear what our intentions are, we have not merely said that people excluded from Palestine may come to London, but also we have released the deportees from the Seychelles, and their release is final. If any of them are selected to come to London as representatives, we will consider their names very carefully and no doubt accept them. It of course may be asked how this delegation is to be chosen, and it is certainly difficult, in the lack of any authoritative body in Palestine, to explain exactly how it is possible to select a delegation of this nature, but in the Middle East things are done in a quiet and friendly way, and the Arab Kings are in close contact with each other. No doubt they are also in close contact with the leaders of Palestinian thought, and I have no doubt at all that quite shortly I shall be able to tell your Lordships the names of a reasonably representative Palestinian delegation.
That, I think, explains the personnel of the forthcoming Conference. Now for its form. I was not sure whether one or two speakers quite took in the fact that in the first place we do not intend to, have a Round-Table Conference. I think it was the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who referred to it as though it was a Round-Table Conference. It is not at the moment intended to start as a Round-Table Conference, though we very much hope that it will end up as such. The first method of approach will be separate delegations, interviewing

463
His Majesty's Government separately. So far as matters for discussion are concerned, we have been asked on several occasions during this debate whether we had a plan, and we have been twitted, as Governments are always twitted, with not having a policy. It is not our intention to go to this Conference or to present these delegations with any definite, set plan. We believe, on the contrary, that every subject should be open for discussion at this Conference, and we think that only harm would be done if His Majesty's Government attempted to confine the speeches or the suggestions of delegates into one channel, however wide. But though when the Conference starts we do not produce a hard-and-fast plan, at any rate I will guarantee this, that we will have advanced very far in the direction of thinking out the sort of way in which we should like to see a solution arrived at.
After all, by the nature of things we are bound to have done that, because, should the Conference fail, or should it be prolonged too far, we have announced our intention of imposing a settlement which we hope will do justice to both sides. Therefore I can assure your Lordships that we shall not go entirely empty-minded into these discussions, although we will not flaunt our plan or restrict discussion in any way. That of course means that I need not discuss any of the various plans—either the plan of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, or the plan of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, or any of the other plans which have been suggested this evening. They are all for discussion, none of them is ruled out, none of them is favoured, none of them is opposed. It is for the Arabs and the Jews to decide what is the right and best solution, in consultation with us as the Mandatory Power.
Having said that nothing is ruled out, I would also say that His Majesty's Government enter these discussions in full consciousness of, and bound by, the obligations of the Balfour Declaration and of the Mandate. But should it happen that agreement is reached by both sides on a basis that requires the alteration of the Mandate, then I do not think that we should hesitate to take the proper steps to obtain that alteration. Should agreement not be reached and a settlement have
464
to be imposed, equally we would hold ourselves free to take the proper steps to make a similar alteration.
A noble Lord raised the question of federation. That, of course, is open for discussion. His Majesty's Government would not prevent its being raised in the Conference, but they do very strongly feel that the question of federation is a matter for the Arab States themselves, and we are not prepared either to give them advice or to give them a lead on that matter. As I say, federation is a matter which may be raised, but only on that understanding. The other thing that qualifies my statement that all things are open for discussion is the question of the immigration during the present six months period. His Majesty's Government do not intend to move on that matter. Before this Conference was convened we decided that immigration should be permitted from October to March at the same rate as during the previous six months. For that decision we have been attacked by both sides. We have been attacked by the Jews, who demanded much more, we have been attacked by the Arabs, who demanded the complete cessation of all immigration. The decision is taken, and it is quite obvious that under either of those conditions—the stoppage of immigration or a greatly increased immigration—the future of the Conference would be in danger. In fact, I might almost say that it would be almost certain that one or other side would refuse to come.
I do ask all of your Lordships who have brought in this horrible question of the persecution of the Jews in Germany to regard that as a different matter from the problem of Palestine at the present moment. The first object must be to get this Conference together, and I am afraid that although the matter is still under discussion, it would be difficult for us even to let in those ten thousand children of whom the most reverend Primate and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, have spoken so feelingly, if to do so would mean that the Conference would not take place. Although the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, will disagree with me on that from his heart, I am sure that from his head, having regard to his criticism that we have vacillated and wobbled all through, he would not desire us at this moment, when the Conference is decided upon, to endanger it with yet another change in our

465
policy with regard to immigration. I am afraid it is only too true that Palestine offers in any case no possible solution of the German Jewish problem, or of the Polish Jewish problem either, but I think that it is in the interests of the Jews themselves, at this moment, to get the Conference together and try to reach an agreement. Then, if agreement is reached, Palestine will perhaps be able to make a larger contribution towards the solution of the refugee problem than it is at the present moment.
I would only say a few words on a general line to close my speech. I do not think that anyone who has ever read anything about Zionism can deny what a great and beautiful ideal it is. I do not know anyone who has read history who has failed to be moved at the thought that the Jews, even under the persecutions of Torquemada in Spain, have always had this great desire of Zion before them. We have been accused of trying to smother Zionism by political or other difficulties. That is not so. If the reasons that I could give for the difficulty of realising Zionism were only material or political, His Majesty's Government would not now be putting them forward. The difficulties which have arisen out of Zionist aspirations, or more directly as a result of the Balfour Declaration, are only incidentally political or material. On the contrary, they come from an equally intangible conception: the love of the Arabs of Palestine for the soil that they have cultivated for over a thousand years. I do not deny that there are material and political elements in this argument, but I am convinced that this matter is the result of conflicting ideals and not of conflicting interests.
That is why I think that Lord Snell was wrong when he seemed to imagine that the problem can be solved on economic lines. That is the fallacy, if I may say so, on which Jewish elements have based many of their arguments. It is no good to tell the Arab that his birth-rate has gone up by so many thousands, or that he is able to obtain goods at a lower price. I may perhaps be thought to be speaking as an Arab partisan, but I do want their case to be stated in this House. I remember that Lord Samuel made a wise remark in the course of the passage of the India Bill in another place. I was
466
there in the Gallery and heard it. He said: "I see around me the members for Lancashire, and members representing Scotland, and I ask myself: 'Where is the member for the Punjab, and where is the member for Madras?'" I think as a fairminded man, he will agree that it is right that the Arab case should be heard in this House, just as the case of Jewry has been heard here.
Therefore I beg your Lordships not to take the easy course of believing, on the one hand, that the Jewish ideals are only a question of the money changers trying to get back into the Temple, and, on the other hand, that the Arab revolt is simply a matter of bandits out for loot and plunder. I think that to dismiss this matter in that way is to make a terrible and vital mistake, and I do not believe that the difficulties which we are having now, and the difficulties which we have had for so many years, could have existed, and could have continued, if the Arab case had not been sustained by an idealism equal to that of the Zionist cause. Therefore, having made that case, I cannot help expressing the hope that the Arabs, whose idealism has been so evilly expressed by banditry and sabotage, and who at one time despaired of having their views heard in the councils of the Empire—in some way a not unreasonable despair, although His Majesty's Government had not forgotten the Arab case—will by this Conference have restored to them the confidence that their case is going to be heard in London through the mouths of really representative delegates from the Arabs of Palestine and nearby countries, and that if the Conference fails it will not fail through lack of hard thinking and good will on the part of His Majesty's Government.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for the courtesy of his reply, I should like also to congratulate him, on behalf I think of the whole House, for the way in which he has performed his very difficult task on this occasion. It was a part of one of my duties here to initiate this discussion, which I think has proved to be of a very impressive character, and which I hope will be useful to the Government and contribute towards a settlement in this matter. My duty was to be irritating without being offensive, and I hope I succeeded in that task. I would just

467
like to add one word about the coming Conference, arising out of what the noble Marquess has just said. I hope that in considering representation at the Conference the Government will not exclude a definite Labour representation. Those of us who know the Jewish Federation of Labour know that it has a great deal to contribute, and I should like at the same time to say that I hope, with equal sincerity, that the Arab workers will be represented at the Conference too. They have trade unions of their own. They are going to be increasingly important, and I hope that their claim will not be overlooked. I would just pause to remind your Lordships that in the long, protracted, very difficult, and involved discussions we had in the Round-Table Conferences and the Joint Select Committee of the two Houses over the Indian question, the help of Labour representatives like Mr. Joshi and Dr. Ambedkar, as the noble Marquess, Lord Zetland, and the most reverend Primate know quite well, was of the utmost importance. If we are to have a Conference, let us give it its best chance by making it completely representative. I shall not attempt to have the last word in argument on this matter, but with your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MID-STAFFORDSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I am afraid it will be necessary to ask your Lordships to sit on Monday at a quarter past four o'clock in order to give a Second Reading to the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which has just been received from another place. His Majesty's Government hope that this measure will pass through all its stages and receive the Royal Assent before the Christmas Recess, in order that the Scottish local authorities may enjoy the advantages of the new rates of subsidies provided under the Bill from the beginning of the New Year. With this in view we hope to be able to take the Committee stage of the Bill on Thursday next, December 15, when the House will sit at three o'clock, and the remaining stages early the following week.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before seven o'clock.