As I was observing when we were interrupted, paragraph (c) may cover cases not only of war potential but cases of what I might call ultimate war potential in the distant future, and it may go even wider than that. My hon. Friends may say that in the case of factories, of course, you could make a case for their acquisition under paragraph (a) of the Clause. Well, that would depend on what the extent of the Government contribution had been to the cost of the factories. There might be cases where the Government contribution was not substantial enough to justify the Commission approving a purchase under paragraph (a), but paragraph (c), I think, goes even further. There are the cases of the deep shelters, for example, which may have little or no value in that value is not related to expenditure. They may have no commercial value of any kind. The Government may not wish to own them themselves or to use them themselves, but they may wish that their use may be controlled and that they should not be destroyed. There may also be cases of airfields where the runways are not in themselves of very much value in relation to the land but, at the same time, the Government wish to control the use in the interests of a proper development of civil aviation, or something of that kind. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will see that his words, which I admit are the words I used on the Committee Stage, are not appropriate to an Act of Parliament and are, in fact, too narrow for the purposes which we have in mind.

I quite appreciate the intention of the Government with regard to paragraph (c). I think there is no doubt that the object of retaining factories, runways, or whatever it might be, as war potential for future use, is a very admirable one, but I think it is a very limited one indeed and there can be comparatively few occasions when such use is likely to be required. In the majority of such cases the Government have other powers than the power given in paragraph (c). For instance, I believe it is desired to ensure that runways shall be retained to function as runways. That result can be secured in other ways than by paragraph (c). The Clause is much wider than that, and goes far beyond the scope of anything which seems to be required. The right to determine the use to which these works shall be put refers not only to works such as we have been discussing, but to works in a very much wider sphere, and it is difficult to see where the powers given under this paragraph would end. It is also difficult to see how the Government could put this paragraph into practical, effect. They have the power of acquisition of land—and one has to bear in mind that the whole of this Clause deals with the acquisition of land—and if they are to retain the land which they have acquired for themselves on the ground that it is right that they should determine the use of the works, then, obviously, they would do it, because they would have the right to use the works themselves.

The only practical time when paragraph (c) would be invoked is when the Government want to dispose of land for which it is first necessary to acquire the land, and then, having disposed of the land, to ensure that it is used only for certain specific purposes. If they are going to adopt that course I cannot see how it will be practicable. They are going to put upon the land—I see no other way of doing it—a covenant to ensure that that land shall not be used at any future time for any other purpose than the one they have described, for instance, the manufacture of radio equipment. A manufacturer interested for the moment in radio equipment might be prepared to take a lease of land, subject to that condition, but I cannot conceive his investing capital in the acquisition of land which is subject to such a limited right of user as that. The possibility of recovering his outlay on purchase is practically gone, because he could only sell to a competitor in his own market. I cannot see that there would be any value whatsoever to the Government in achieving the object which they have in mind by the use of this paragraph. On the other hand, the Clause is so wide and the powers may be used for unforeseeable and unexpected purposes, that there is grave danger in it, and I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider it with a view to limiting the extravagance of the powers in some appropriate way, perhaps in another place.

I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that this Clause is unnecessarily restrictive. In my constituency, along the Bath Road, there are many small garages which have been taken over, wholly or partly, by the Government for use in connection with work at nearby factories. These garages may be taken over altogether under this Clause, and I am sure that that is not the intention. My right hon. Friend talked about runways and underground shelters which it would be necessary to take over. Surely that is the object of the Amendment. Small roadside garages are not potential war works, and why should the Government have the right to determine what use they should be put to when they are not potential war works?

I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in his attempt to limit paragraph (c) of this Clause. I recognise that the actual words used in the Amendment are probably not appropriate, that the words "war potential" are too vague, but I would like to impress upon the Government that the existing words of the Clause are very wide, and may be used in an unforeseeable manner. I would also like to impress upon the Government this fact, that there is a good deal of public anxiety and feeling on the width of this particular paragraph, particularly among small men, who are not very well versed in legislation, and, in any case, this Bill is a very difficult one to understand. It is those people we want to protect, if we possibly can, against the over-wide powers which we think are contained in this paragraph. The Government, in paragraphs (a) and (b), have already almost as wide powers as they need, I think. Quite possibly, there will be exceptional cases for which paragraph (c) is necessary, but surely, for these few examples, it should be possible to define more clearly the exact purposes and conditions under which this paragraph should be used. I hope my right hon. Friend will have another look at this Clause and, if he cannot accept the Amendment, will see whether it can be amended in another place.

As my hon. and gallant Friend has just admitted, the words which it is proposed to introduce into the Clause are too narrow and too vague—

On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman allowed to address the House without first asking its leave?

I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friends in support of the Amendment, and I cannot help feeling that since they have been content to pass the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Clause they are now rather straining at a gnat, having swallowed a camel. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) was quite right when he said that the provisions of 5 (1, c) will, in fact, apply only to a comparatively limited category but it is an important category. I think the House should realise that from the first introduction of this Bill there have been three clearly recognised and distinguished categories of case in which the Government desired to obtain power to acquire land. First, to realise its value; second, to be able to continue to use the land themselves; and, third, to be able to control the use. If this Amendment were carried the purposes of my hon. Friends would not, in practice, be realised. The only consequence might be—because we do not intend to use the provisions of 5 (1, c) except where the public interest justifies it—to compel the Government to have recourse to 5 (1, b) and thus to hold and use continuously all the property in question.

Take the ordinary case of a shadow factory. It may be very difficult to establish that the factory has, and will continue to have, war potential, but nevertheless, a limited number of factories of a particular type might be thought to fall in the third category, to be factories which the Government would not wish to run continuously, but which they would not wish to dispose of outright, which they would allow to be used for non-martial purposes, retaining in some form or another power to resume possession if the public interest, at some future date, required it. That is one of the classes of case in which the right to control use might be of value in the public interest. My hon. Friends have had to admit that the actual words of the Amendment would not be satisfactory—

I altered the words in the Debate.

One can use words in conversation and Debate which are not apt in a legal instrument or an Act of Parliament. I used some words myself some time ago which found their way into a Clause, and later I had to say that I thought they must come out. The words my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) used even for the purposes of Debate were too narrow, and they will not do in the Clause. A suggestion has been made—and I want to be reasonable in dealing with thesematters—that perhaps we might consider doing something in another place. In present circumstances, I do not think it would be prudent to encourage a hope of that kind. I do not particularly want to see this Bill again when it goes from here, and I am not going to lend myself to a suggested arrangement by which the Bill should undergo changes elsewhere and then come back here for further consideration. I think my hon. Friends have been unnecessarily alarmed. I am sure there is no question of small roadside garages being acquired under this provision in order that the Government may control their use against some future contingency.

Why not put in some words to guarantee it?

I am not going to put in words to guard against any risk that some Government at some future date will apply the provisions of this Measure in a wholly unreasonable way. We have got on very well in the discussions on the Bill, and I suggest that after the explanations that have been given by my right hon. Friend and by me my hon. Friends might well be content to allow the matter to rest where it is.

I gather that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) does not wish to press his Amendment in page 3, line 30.

I do not propose to press this Amendment, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down an Amendment to be taken later which meets my objections and those of my hon. Friends.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "Where," insert:

"there are Government war works on any land constructed at the expense of the person who is the owner of that land and."

This Amendment and the three following Amendments are purely of a drafting nature.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, leave out from "in," to "a," in line 10, and insert " the manner hereinafter specified."

I think it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if I dealt with this Amendment and the two following Amendments in line 14 and line 15 together, since they set out an amended formula as to the persons on whom the notices of proposal are to be served. The House will observe that the Bill at present requires that the Minister shall publish a notice

"in such manner as appears to him best adapted for informing persons interested and the local planning authority."

We had some discussion upon that in Committee, and we now suggest that it should be extended as is proposed in these Amendments. The first half of the Amendment in line 15 provides that the notice shall be given and the copy shall be served first of all on the person getting compensation, secondly, to every person appearing from the register to be an owner or lessee, and thirdly, to the local planning authority. The House will see that the Amendment then goes on to provide that the Minister shall

"cause to be published a copy thereof in such newspapers, if any, and in such other manner, if any, as appear to him to be appropriate."

I hope it will be in Order for me to say a word about that, rather glancing forward to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is to move, as the two things are very linked up. On the question of newspapers, we provide that the Minister can cause to be published a copy of the notice in a newspaper, but that is to be discretionary for him. We feel that it would be unnecessary in every case to have publication in a newspaper. There might be cases in which only one person would be concerned, and it would be a waste of time and money. Similarly, we could not accede to the suggestion that everybody who might possibly have an interest should be served, because that would mean so much referring as to make delay and expense inevitable. Therefore, we have tried to meet the wishes of a number of my hon. Friends by making the provision which I have just outlined. I do not think I need deal with the second part of the Amendment in any detail, because it follows, with very slight adaptation, several precedents, including that of the Housing Act, 1936, Section 167. I hope my hon. Friends will feel that we have gone a considerable way to meet their point, and that the House will accept these Amendments.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, at the end, insert:

"The said notice shall be published as follows, that is to say, the Minister shall—

(a) serve a copy thereof on any person to whom compensation under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two or Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is in course of payment in respect of the land and, where the land is registered land within the meaning of the Land Registration Act, 1925, on every person appearing from the register to be an owner or a lessee of the land; and

(b) serve a copy thereof on the local planning authority within whose area the land is situated; and

(c) cause to be published a copy thereof in such newspapers, if any, and in such other manner, if any, as appear to him to be appropriate,

and the Minister shall also cause to be deposited with the said local planning authority a map identifying the land, and the authority shall permit that map to be inspected at all reasonable hours without payment.

Any notice required to be served under this Sub-section may be served either—

(i) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served; or

(ii) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode of that person; or

(iii) by sending it in a prepaid registered letter addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode; or

(iv) in the case of an incorporated company or body, by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at their registered or principal office or sending it in a prepaid registered letter addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office; or

(v) if it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the address of the person on whom it should be served, by addressing it to him and delivering it to some person on the land, or, if there is no person on the, land to whom it can be delivered, by displaying it in a prominent position on the land."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 10, leave out "newspapers, if any," and insert:

"local or other newspapers."

May I say, in general, that I and my hon. Friends are grateful for the main part of the Chancellor's proposed Amendment? It meets a great many of the points that we made in Committee, but not the major point. The major point is that we should in this Bill treat this matter of notice of proposals as in the case of Private Bill Procedure, or follow the very many precedents in similar Measures where it has been laid down that there should be an advertisement in two successive weeks in a local or national newspaper. My Amendment to the proposed Amendment is really a compromise. The provision that the Chancellor may publish the notice in a newspaper if he wishes is really, with great respect to the Chancellor, no concession at all. Of course, if the Chancellor or any Minister wishes to publish the fact that he intends to take some land, he can do so, and the words in the proposed Amendment really mean nothing at all. I cannot understand why the Government should be frightened of this precaution of advertising these proposals so that nothing shall be done by any Government Department secretly and in the dark and the rights of the people shall not be taken away quietly. I recognise that there might be some cases in which it would be sufficient if the proposal were advertised in one newspaper and perhaps on one occasion. For that reason, my Amendment does not go as far as my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and many of my hon. Friends originally intended to go. My Amendment is an attempt to get a last minute concession and a compromise concession out of the Government. It would only the tie Minister's hands to the extent that he would have to give some publication to his proprosal. The Amendment gives him a very wide choice. He can choose any newspaper in the whole of Britain for the advertisement. Surely the Government can grant us this small concession, which would be in line with all the precedents.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I feel it is essential that this information should be published in the newspapers. The provision as it stands gives the Chancellor a chance of running out on us. There are local newspapers in all the more populated parts of the country; they publish details of farm sales and other sales, details of properties and so on, and they are followed by business people, solicitors, land agents and so forth. Even the sparsely populated parts of the country have some representative newspaper. In another connection there are legal obligations to give notice in such newspapers. For instance, if anybody proposes to close a footpath, he has to publish the fact in a local newspaper, and I have never heard of anybody being unable to find such a local newspaper. If an effort is made a newspaper can always be found. I ask the Chancellor to consider favourably this very small Amendment, which would be of real value.

I have had occasion to remark before that hon. Members opposite are never satisfied. The land-grabbers are always on the grab. It is pathetic to sit here and realise the amount of hardship and suffering that there is outside, and then to witness the meticulous care that is taken to ensure that these fellows are paid compensation for land that has been stolen. Every care is taken—

I must point out to the hon. Member that this Amendment deals only with notices in local or other newspapers.

I want to come to the Amendment. Already in the Amendment that was moved by the Chancellor and accepted by the House there is every consideration given—far too much consideration given—to those people; and now we get this Amendment to the Amendment. It is not enough that the Chancellor should take power to publish a notice in a newspaper. They must have him tied down to publish it whether it is necessary to publish it or not. I do not suppose that they are contemplating publishing it in the "Daily Worker." Consider this for a moment. A piece of land is affected and there are one or two owners ready to grab at compensation. The Chancellor serves a notice on them and then notifies the planning authority. Does the hon. Member mean to insist that the Chancellor must in that situation, quite unnecessarily, publish a notice in a local paper? Has he no respect for the right hon. Gentleman's intelligence?

I gather that the hon. Member is addressing his question to me. On most pieces of land there are rights of way to a village or a town. If this is done in a hole-and-corner way, the rights of the people are disregarded.

Surely the hon. Member is not trying to put it across me that he is interested in the rights of the people. You can easily get a situation where the owner or lessee of a piece of land is known and can be approached at any time, so each individual who has a claim on the land has a notice.

Suppose the individuals are soldiers serving in Burma.

What good will a local newspaper be to them?

If the owners and the town planning authority are served with notices, do hon. Members insist that the Chancellor must put a notice in a local paper? Of course, if he cannot get in touch with the owners or lessees it may be necessary to put a notice in a local paper, or a national paper, or a Burmese paper if he has an idea that the owner is abroad on service, but to suggest that, willy-nilly, whether it is necessary or not, the Chancellor must be put to the trouble and expense of inserting a notice in a local paper is really going beyond any bound of intelligence at all. The Chancellor has the power to make certain that every interest will get to know what is going to happen, and the Amendment should be rejected.

I think the hon. Member has not read the Clause to which the Amendment refers. The Minister is obliged to enter into this publication of details in cases where he proposes to discharge or modify any restriction as to the user of any land. In other words, notice is required before the Minister enters into discussion with the local individual in order that his rights may be restored to him. I am astonished that the hon. Member does not wish this publication to take place in case some right wing Tory Government does a deal with a right wing Tory individual over a piece of land. The point about the Amendment is that we should have as much publication as we can get in these local newspapers. I do not understand why the Government is being so difficult in this matter. We had considerable discussion on it on the Town and Country Planning Bill. The Second Schedule lays down very clearly the procedure which has to be followed in regard to publication and the words there are very nearly, if not almost precisely, those which we used in the Amendment on the preceding page of the Order Paper. We are not going as far as that to-day. We only wish to include the words to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has referred. I do not understand why the Government should be so recalcitrant.

May I, before coming to the subject matter of the Amendment, tender to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my congratulations on the position in which you appear for the first time? I will do my best to explain to my hon. Friends who have accused the Government of trying to run out and of being recalcitrant, why we see difficulty in accepting the Amendment. In the first place, in criticising the new Clause, which is the result of very careful consideration of the arguments which were advanced at an earlier stage, my hon. Friends seem to me to have left entirely out of account certain very important considerations. They argue as if, unless the Government are more or less tied hand and foot they are liable to do unreasonable things. The Government has not got a free hand. Under the Clause as proposed to be amended the Minister concerned will still be under the most specific obligation to publish in such manner as appears to him best adapted for informing the persons affected. The scheme of the Amendment is perfectly simple. It is that notice should be given directly to all persons known to be directly affected and, apart from that, other means should be adopted where appropriate, of informing other persons who may be concerned.

There is another point that my hon. Friends have left out of account, no doubt inadvertently. The local authority has to be informed and a map has to be deposited, and at an earlier stage the Government gave an assurance that they would arrange with local authorities for access to be obtainable to the notice and the map. I think we have gone a very long way indeed towards meeting the perfectly reasonable arguments put forward at an earlier stage. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) suggested that the reference to newspapers in the Government Amendment was quite valueless because the words "if any" qualify the reference, but his Amendment would not be watertight. If the Government are to be suspected of running out, there is a considerable space through which they could escape in the Amendment, because the reference to newspapers is still qualified by the word "appro- priate" and, if the publication is not appropriate in a particular case, I should have thought the Amendment would not impose on the Government any obligation to publish. Take the simple case of a plot of land with no right of way, with a building on it, which the Government have used and desire to retain. If the owner of the building is effectively notified of the proposal and the local authority is told, is there any need to publish in a newspaper?

The Government do not in the least desire to avoid any form of publication which will serve a useful purpose, but to have to publish where such publication adds nothing to the information appears to me a foolish proceeding, especially at this time when it is a matter of considerable difficulty in some cases to find an opportunity for publication in a newspaper without incurring considerable delay. The Government Amendment has this definite advantage, that the reference to newspapers suffices to call the attention of the Department concerned to that method of publication. It puts them in the position of having to apply their minds to the question whether the case is one in which publication in the newspaper would be appropriate. If my hon. Friends will look at the proposals of the Government as a whole, I think they will agree that we really have in substance met the case which was argued so fully in Committee.

I want to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. There are some 11 or 12 Parliamentary days left and there are 62 Clauses in the Bill. We are dealing with the third Amendment to Clause 8. No one, not even the movers of the Amendment, can regard this as a serious or substantial Amendment. There is no question of principle involved. It is a pure point of administrative detail. If in these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman is going to give a long, careful, detailed answer to every kind of argument which can possibly be raised, he is placing a powerful weapon in the hands of those who may desire to obstruct him in the passage of the Bill. It is not in the least necessary at this stage of this Bill in this Parliament to devote so much time and care and argument to a point which never had any substance at all.

I had no intention of speaking until the hon. Gentleman spoke. I will at once deny any intention of obstructing the passage of the Bill, and I would like your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has stated that I have been obstructing this Bill, and I understand it is not in Order to impute obstruction.

It is certainly not in Order to impute obstruction.

I withdraw anything I have said that was improper, but it has not usually been held to be out of Order to say of a particular Amendment or speech that, in the opinion of the speaker, it is an obstructive Amendment or speech.

I naturally accept the withdrawal of the hon. Member. The only other thing I would like to say, in view of the hon. Gentleman's speech, is that this is a complicated Bill and that the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) deal with points that were left over on the Committee stage. It is only a cleaning-up process that is being done now, and there is no intention of obstruction or delay. I hope that the Bill, which we all recognise is necessary for the unwinding of the war effort, will be passed and that there will be no unnecessary waste of time on any side of the House.

In view of the arguments that have been advanced, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out "the progress of scientific research or".

On the Committee stage we accepted an Amendment to safeguard the interests of societies interested in the progress of scientific research. This and the two following Amendments are merely redrafting in order to meet the point which was raised in Committee.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "he shall," and insert "then."

This and the following two Amendments deal with a different point. During the Committee stage it was suggested that, owing to the time limit to the initiation of proceedings under this part of the Bill for compulsory purchase, the Department might, in order to safeguard their position, serve a multitude of notices and then take no proceedings whatever to follow the matter up. The point was a genuine one, and we undertook to consider it. These Amendments are put down to meet it, and they provide that, if objection to a proposal is made, the Minister must take the matter to the Commission within a period of two months.

This is a most valuable concession, and we are grateful to, the Government for making it.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, after "Sub-section," insert:

"or to any other person who appears to them to be interested or to any local authority, society or body the character and membership of which is such that it is in the opinion of the Commission proper that their views should be considered."

Even with the Minister's last Amendment, it may well be that a body which some Minister has decided shall not be accounted a proper body to object, will not be able later to go before the Commission. All parties want the scope of the Commission to be unfettered and they shall be able to decide whom they think are the relevant persons to object to any proposal. If the Chancellor is going to give way on the Amendment I will curtail my remarks.

No.

I thought my right hon. Friend was expressing favour with what I said. This Clause, which deals with who shall be heard by whom, is very complicated, and not at all clear. I regret that the Chancellor did not explain his last Amendment in page 5, line 36. It makes the position better than it was before, but it is still complicated. First of all, the Minister decides who is a fit and proper person to object. We then have the Commission calling before them, I hope, whomsoever they select, and then we have the Commission holding a local inquiry. Then it would seem, that the only people who can appear at the inquiry are those whom the Minister has decided to be the right people to object. It is all very confusing and is rather like the Order which the Financial Secretary was explaining at a late hour last night. It would be unfortunate if a Bill over which we have taken so much time went out in this rather difficult form. If the words I am suggesting were put in, it will be a good deal clearer than it is.

I beg to second the Amendment.

Do I understand my hon. and learned Friend to say that, in his view, the Commission should not be entitled to hear a body if the Minister has said that it is not a proper body to be heard, and that there will be no appeal from such a decision of the Minister?

That is the field for the Minister. The objection is made to him. He examines it at that early stage. He has the circumstances of the body before him and if, in his opinion, it is not proper that their views should be considered I suggest to the House that we should agree with the view of the Committee when this point was discussed that that is a proper matter for ministerial decision.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, at end, insert:

"(5) Where the Board of Trade certify—

(a) that the land which is to be acquired or for the benefit of which the easement or right to be acquired or which is subject to the restriction to be discharged or modified, as the case may be, is or is part of industrial premises; and

(b) that those premises in substance owe their existing character, so far as the buildings and structures thereon are concerned, to Government war work; and

(c) that in the interests of an orderly transition from war conditions to peace conditions it is expedient that the ability of the Crown to dispose of the premises, together with all necessary easements and other rights over and in relation to other land, should be established without delay.

and the Minister of Town and Country Planning certifies that the proposals are, in his opinion, consistent in all the circumstances with the proper use and development of land, the preceding provisions of this Section shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say, for the reference in Sub-section (1) thereof to a period of three months there shall be substituted a reference to a period of fourteen days, and Sub-section (4) thereof shall not apply:

Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the proposals are for the acquisition of land which includes the whole or any part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment or is the property of any local authority.

In this Sub-section the expression 'industrial premises' includes industrial premises in an incomplete state, and the expression 'buildings and structures' shall be construed accordingly."

Hon. Members will recall that during the Committee stage it was agreed that Sub-section (5) of Clause 8, dealing with works which were certified by the President of the Board of Trade, should be withdrawn and that at this stage there should be moved a provision in somewhat different terms the effect of which would be not to withdraw entirely from the scope of the Commission works to which Subsection (5) of Clause 8 related, but to provide for dealing with them under a simplified and expedited procedure. I trust my hon. Friends who were interested in this matter on the Committee stage will agree that the proposed new Sub-section fully and faithfully carries out the undertakings which were given during the Committee stage. That being so, I need not address the House at any length. I would merely point out that we have preserved the position of the Minister of Town and Country Planning in rather a different form. We require from him here a preliminary certificate, and that, of course, makes unnecessary the provision which appears elsewhere under which where planning considerations appear to be involved the Commission has to refer specially to a Minister. We also preserve the exclusion of common lands from the provisions of this particular Sub-section.

I desire to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works for this Amendment. It was he who thought of this idea and suggested it to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure hon. Members, at any rate on this side of the House, join with me in thanking my hon. Friend.

I am sure that not only hon. Members on the other side of the House, but hon. Members on this side, will join in thanking the Government for the way in which they have met the wishes expressed on all sides concerning the further safeguarding of open spaces and commons, and also for the very ingenious way in which the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has been given a place in this Clause of the Bill.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, after "forthwith," insert:

"send a copy thereof to any person from whom he received any such objection as is specified in Sub-section (2) of this Section and."

This Amendment and the two others on this Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend are designed to carry out an undertaking given by the Attorney-General on the Committee stage. Their effect is to ensure that a copy of the Commission's Report will be sent to all persons from whom a notice of objection was received.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, after "land," insert:

"and the land consists either of the site of the works or of land contiguous or adjacent thereto which was occupied with the site of the works for the whole or any part of the period after the construction thereof and, in the opinion of the Minister, must be held therewith if the works are to be properly utilised and maintained."

This Amendment, although it appears a little complicated, is designed to meet a point about which some of my hon. Friends have been concerned. It relates to the acquisition not of the war works but of land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto. The effect of the Amendment is that it will make the decision of the Commission final in cases where there is a proposal to acquire contiguous or adjacent land, if that contiguous or adjacent land has not been occupied with war works during the war period. It will allay the fear that new areas of land not used with the war works during the war period may be acquired by the Government under their powers of acquiring contiguous or adjacent land, but that the Commission might report against such a proposal and that the Minister might then ask for an affirmative Resolution to over-ride the Commission.

I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for this Amendment. It meets the point of the Amendment which other hon. Members and I put down on an earlier Clause, and I wish to express our thanks.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, after "a," insert:

"building occupied with or a."

During the Committee stage some of my hon. Friends expressed fears that the definition of "dwelling houses," to which special protection is given by the Bill, was somewhat narrow and they desired that outbuildings and possibly farm buildings occupied together with a dwelling-house should have the same protection, so that there should not be severance of a dwelling-house from other buildings occupied with it. These words are designed to meet the point which my hon. Friends had in view.

Once again I have to express our thanks to my right hon. Friend for inserting words which meet the point of the Amendment which we had put down. In this case, I think it is an important point because if agricultural buildings which form part of the general homestead of a farm—farm buildings surrounding a farmhouse—were not excluded, there would be a very real gap in this Bill in the protection of agriculture. The words which are now proposed to be inserted, "building occupied with or a" meet the point, and I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, leave out:

"to which the public have rights of access or an," and insert "or."

As hon. Members will remember, we discussed the definition of commons and open spaces at some length on the Committee stage. Special protection is now to be given to commons and open spaces in that unless substituted land is made available there will have to be an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. We suggested that the proper definition of "common" was a common to which the public had right of access. Those words involved difficulty on further consideration, and we propose to omit them.

As my right hon. Friend has said, it will be within the recollection of the House that on the Committee stage there was expressed in all quarters of the House a general feeling that certain protection should be given to commons and open spaces. It is only because that feeling was very general that I desire to say a word about it this afternoon. I think my right hon. Friend has met us very handsomely. After a little pressure, if I may be allowed to say so, he introduced a new Clause to give protection to these open spaces. The new Clause in due course appeared on the Paper, but it then turned out that by reason of a certain difficulty in the matter of the definition to which my right hon. Friend has referred, the new Clause did not, in fact, afford the intended protection to a very large number of commons. Most of the rural commons would actually not have been protected. My right hon. Friend saw the point when his attention was directed to it. Now this Amendment puts the matter right.

I desire to say that the right hon. Gentleman has really met my point completely, and we can now be satisfied that we have complete protection for all forms of open spaces, rural commons and all classes of land on which the public have enjoyed access, under the terms of some Act of Parliament or by long established usage or in any other way. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for what he has done, and to express to him the gratitude which I believe will be felt in all quarters of the House for the complete manner in which he has met us on this rather difficult point.

I desire to associate myself with the remarks that have just been made from the other side of the House.

As one who has strenuously fought all through the proceedings of this Bill for some reference to this sort of common I desire to say that I am extremely grateful to the Chancellor for having met us so handsomely. The matter affects a very large area of land in my constituency.

I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, leave out "or expedient."

This is a very important matter. The House will remember that we inserted the words "in the public interest," during the Committee stage and that it was the now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works who, before he reached that high office, suggested that the words were meaningless unless we left out the words "or expedient." The Government undertook to reconsider the drafting of this matter, and I hope that they are now satisfied that the words "or expedient" should come out.

I beg to second the Amendment.

My hon. Friend is correct. It was myself who undertook that the words should be considered. The words have been considered, and I am afraid that I am still of the same opinion that the Clause would be too narrow if those words were left out. I appreciate the dialectical point of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works who, as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), raised this point during the Committee stage, but it seems to me that there may well be a broad and clear distinction between what a Minister would be prepared to say was necessary in the public interest and what was expedient. One has to look at a phrase like this in accordance with the subject matter. When one is considering the stopping up of some highway, for instance, which may be concerned with some other hereditament, factory or the like, it may be difficult to say that it is absolutely necessary, while it is clear that it is expedient for the better use of the other properties involved. I am sorry that I cannot meet my hon. Friends on the point, because I know the attention that they have given to it, but those who have to deal with the actual administration have considered the proposal from their point of view. We have all considered it from the point of view of the legal effect, and we now ask the House to allow us to have the wider form of words.

In view of the explanation given by the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 14, line 19, after "month," insert:

"not enjoying the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts, 1920."

The House will recollect that we inserted a definition during the Committee stage of Clause 17 as to who was to be served with a notice of proposal coming under this part of the Bill. I raised the question of what would happen to a tenant under the Rent Restriction Acts and suggested that he had as great an interest in his occupation as any tenant, if not a greater interest than any tenant, outside those Acts and with a longer tenancy. The present Home Secretary then said that there was something in the point, and that he would look into the matter and try to put it right. As the Government had not, by last night, apparently reached the position of knowing what Amendment would be required, I have tried my hand at drafting one. I am not very happy at the drafting, and no doubt the Government can devise better words, but I do claim that a tenant who has the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts should also be protected by this Measure. He should be told, when proposals are being made which will affect his security of tenure. I cannot believe that the House and the country would wish such tenants to be dispossessed of their cottages because they have not had sufficient notice to enable them to make objection under this part of the Measure. This is a matter of great importance and it differs from the Amendment I last moved in that there is a point of justice involved in it.

I beg to second the Amendment.

We have carried out the pledge and looked into this point with some care. The notice in question is one of intention compulsorily to acquire the land, if the Commission report in favour of the proposal. I do not want to go into the metaphysics of the definition of "tenancy." Under the Rent Restriction Acts with which my hon. Friend, in a former manifestation, was very familiar some years ago, but I think he would agree with me that a tenant under those Acts has, in law, no such interest in land as we contemplate here. For that purpose, it would be inappropriate on the technical side to include him in the list of those to whom the notice should be sent. I am sure that the House is much more concerned with the practical side of what is going to happen in these circumstances. I want to deal with that point very shortly.

The primary effect will be the change of landlord. With his knowledge of these matters I am sure my hon. Friend had in mind the question of the Crown not being bound in certain circumstances by the Rent Restriction Acts, but I am happy to inform him that as a matter of practice the Crown do treat themselves as bound, and give notice to tenants to which they would be entitled, whether they are protected tenants or not. More than that, the Crown fall in with the necessity of providing alternative accommodation and taking any steps to see that that accommodation is there. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend that the protected tenants will not in practice be damnified. I hope that with that assurance he will believe that his point has been considered and will not press it further on this occasion.

In view of the general attitude of the Government I would like to say that I am not persuaded on this occasion, and that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 18, line 11, to leave out "months", and insert:

"weeks, unless the Commission in their Report have otherwise recommended."

I apologise to the House for having put in a manuscript Amendment embodying this proposal. Actually, I drafted it last night, but by an oversight it did not go in with the other Amendments.

This is a matter which we considered at great length on the Committee stage, when it was pointed out that at the termination of the continuous stopping-up of a highway there might be a delay of six months before people could enjoy, their right of way. The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport explained that in normal cases he would require only a few weeks, but that there might be cases which would present great engineering difficulties. For that reason we have altered our original proposal to make "six months" into "28 days"; we suggest a compromise proposal to meet the case of great engineering difficulty. I hope the Government will accept this compromise.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I have not much to add to what has been said by the mover. The Clause as it stands at present seems to legislate for the exception rather than for the general rule. It will be exceptional for any longer period to be required; we have that on the authority of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. I believe that his successor, whom I venture to congratulate upon his first appearance upon the Treasury Bench, agrees with that view. It is for that reason that we framed the Amendment in these words, which will make it possible for the longer period to be available, in the case of engineering or other difficulties making it impossible for highways to be completed in a normal time.

I should like to ask the Attorney-General what is the effect of this Amendment, and whether it will interfere with the general practice which is followed when a public highway is to be closed. The present practice is for an advertisement to be inserted in the Press, people who wish to object can object and then, my experience as a magistrate has been, two magistrates certify the matter, and it goes to Quarter Sessions. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether the effect of the Amendment is to depart from the ancient practice of this country.

With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, I have consulted the Attorney-General, and the answer is "None." That is under a different procedure from the procedure under this Bill. The old procedure under the Highway Act is not affected. As to the points raised by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, I think that the House would be in general sympathy with the aim they have in view, which is, that once a decision has been taken to open up a highway the quicker it is done the better. I hope to persuade them that their Amendment does not quite achieve that object. There are two points to be considered. The first is the question of time. They agree that there will be some cases, I hope not many, in which a period of up to six months might be necessary. That longer period is not required as a matter of administrative convenience but as a matter of hard engineering fact. Some of these roadways have in fact been buried under 10 feet of earth, they have ceased to exist for perhaps 1,000 yards, and it is quite a feat to restore them as proper roads. How soon that can be done depends on the labour available, the number of bulldozers, etc., so that in some cases a longer period will be required.

I do not think it will speed things up if a shorter period is put into the Bill. I would say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield Sir G. Jeffreys) that just as it is no use giving a soldier an order which he cannot carry out, it is no use inserting in an Act of Parliament a time limit which cannot be kept. My hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) say, "Very well, if you require a longer period, surely you can go along to the Commission and ask for it." At first sight that is an attractive proposition, but the job of this Commission, broadly speaking, is to say whether the war works are to stay or go. If there is imposed on the Commission the additional burden of deciding things like time limits, and how long it will take for the work to be carried out, it is putting on them the sort of responsibility which is put on the official referee in the courts. All sorts of matters will have to be argued as to the availability of labour and contractors. I think the Commission will have plenty to do without having that burden put upon them.

It may be that the Minister himself may decide to abandon the proposals. He makes the proposals, and three months have to elapse while objections can be sent in. Possibly my hon. and gallant Friend might come along and seek to persuade the Minister to abandon the proposals on his own account. If he has the responsibility of doing in six weeks a job which is likely to take five or six months he is very unlikely to abandon the proposals. He will wait until the Commission can sit so as to get an extension of time. The mover and seconder of the Amendment may come to the conclusion that if it were accepted it would tend further to delay the opening of these highways. In conclusion, I would say that the Ministry of War Transport is really on the same side as my hon. Friends. I have not been there long, but so far as I can understand their object it is that traffic should flow about the country. We do not want to stop up highways but to open them. We are on the side of the angels in this. If I have not persuaded my hon. Friends entirely, I hope that on the assurance that expedition will be the order of the day, they will see their way to withdraw this Amendment.

I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his first appearance at the Box, but really when he recollects his own performances when a certain Act was before the House last year, and when I sat in front of him, he will realise that there are very few angels on the back benches, when they move Amendments against their own Government. I think the point that has been raised is one of great importance—this question of the reopening of highways that have been closed, some of them important highways linking up small towns and villages. I hope that what the Parliamentary Secretary has said with regard to the attitude of his Ministry will, in fact, be carried out. I am very nervous about the effects of the war on highway law generally. Previously there was a very different method of dealing with the closing and diversion of highways. I hope that the speeches that have been made this afternoon by the Attorney-General and by the Parliamentary Secretary indicate that we are to get back very shortly to the time when there will only be the way that existed before the war for diverting and closing highways, namely, the action of justices in Quarter Sessions, a special Act of Parliament or a town planning scheme. I think the third method was a very disastrous innovation, and I hope we are not to have any further extension of the way in which the public can be inconvenienced by the closing of ancient highways.

I would like to pay my tribute to the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the House in this matter, and to say how much we appreciate it. The only possible further extension of the good will of the House would have been given had the Parliamentary Secretary seen his way to accept this Amendment. It was an unfortunate omission in his maiden speech from the Front Bench. We should have welcomed it very much. I cannot believe there is any practical difficulty in the matter, whereas there is a substantial question of principle involved here. We have an emergency authority which has been given to the Government to stop up these highways, but after that authority has been brought to an end the public should have their right restored to them, and to extend the date is undoubtedly to give a further six months in which to deprive the public of their use of the highway. I cannot feel that that is right.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the practical difficulties in the matter. I cannot really see them. There is the exceptional case of a road buried under 10 feet of soil for a length of a thousand yards, but in such a case as that there will be very little difficulty in adjusting the time so that the requisite work could be done within a specific time limit, without requiring an additional six months' time-lag before access to the road is restored to the public. I feel also that the other case mentioned merely involves a matter of administration which could be surmounted perfectly easily. I hope my hon. Friend will look again at this matter. I appreciate that he has not had quite so much time to consider it from his present point of view as perhaps from his previous point of view, but I hope that with the advice, ingenuity and experience now at his disposal he will be able to find a way out of this delay in restoring to the public what they are entitled to have.

In view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 21, line 32, leave out "Minister of Home Security," and insert "Secretary of State."

This Amendment is consequential on changes that have taken place within the last few days. Hon. Members may perhaps know that two days ago an Order-in-Council was passed, bringing to an end the Ministry of Home Security. That change imposes upon us the necessity of making a small Amendment in the Bill.

This Amendment is not consequential in a Parliamentary sense.

I beg to move, in page 24, line 7, after "land," insert:

"or where the value of any land has been diminished by damage caused by Government war use thereof."

This Amendment and the next two standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer originated with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Clause 29 gives the Minister powers to remove works constructed on land, and to do such other work on land for the purpose of restoring the land as he thinks fit, and he can also, in order to carry out those two purposes, enter upon any other land of which he is not in possession. But the Minister's powers under Clause 29 are limited to the case in which Government war work has been done on the land. My hon. Friends desire to extend the powers of the Minister to a further class of case, which is, where the value of any land has been diminished by damage caused by Government war use. We think this Amendment is a good one. It increases the powers of the Executive, and I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on appreciating, perhaps rather late in the day, the beneficent character of this Measure.

I am grateful to the Government for having accepted these words. It is quite true that when the Chancellor first introduced this Bill I should never have trusted him with the powers of restoring land up and down the country, but we have made it our object in the whole of the fight on this Bill to see that the land of Britain is restored, whether it has been damaged or ravaged by the war. This is a great opportunity which I hope Government Departments will use, where land has been damaged by war use. One can think of training grounds, bomb damage—[Interruption.] Open-cast coal is a case where the Government have already acted, I believe not with full powers. This will give them legal justification for so acting.

I hope that now the Government have accepted this principle, they will instruct all Government Departments to restore the damage they have created up and down Britain.

I beg to move, in page 24, line 16, after "as," insert:

"after obtaining the opinion of the Minister of Town and Country Planning as to the general measures considered by him desirable for the restoration of land in that district."

The House will remember that when we discussed this matter earlier the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an assurance that in cases of restoration by a Government Department the regional planning officer of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning would be consulted. This was so valuable an assurance that we felt that we would like to have it in the Bill; not that we distrust the Chancellor, but because we think that the attention of Departments may not have been drawn to it, especially in view of the changes in the Government. It is valuable for each Government Department to be able to see that they should consult the regional planning officers, who have a considerable position in the country, before they deal with works of restoration. I would ask the Chancellor to consider very carefully whether he could insert these words, which have the approval of such bodies as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England.

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is true that I gave the assurance to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I do not in any way recede from what I said; but, as to putting words into the Bill to impose upon Ministers who may be primarily concerned in proceedings under the Bill a statutory duty of consulting with specified colleagues, I see very great objection in principle. The Government cannot carry on its business in the complex situation with which we have to deal unless there is continual consultation between Minister and Minister, and it is wrong, I respectfully submit, to try to provide for such consultations in particular cases by specifying statutory requirements, which would be quite unenforceable, which would add nothing to the general duty—which, indeed, would tend to subtract from the general obligation—of Ministers at all points to consult those of their colleagues who may be concerned. We have inserted in this Bill, in order to reassure hon. Members, provisions requiring the intervention of particular Ministers where specific obligations of such Ministers in relation to proceedings under this Bill could be defined. We have provided, for example, for certificates by the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Town and Country Planning in certain circumstances. But it is quite a different matter to provide by specific statutory words for mere consultation. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will agree not to press this Amendment.

In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has repeated the assurance, which I am sure will be read by all the new Ministers, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 29, line 27, leave out "fourteen days," and insert "two months."

Under Sub-section (1) of this Clause the Minister, if he is of opinion that he will be unable, or unable without undue delay, to acquire an easement or right by agreement may execute a deed poll at any time after 14 days of the service of the notice. This limit seemed, on consideration, a little summary, and the Amendment substitutes two months, so as to give the parties time to negotiate.

I beg to move, in page 30, line 3, after "shall," insert:

"except for the purposes of proceedings commenced not later than two years after the execution thereof."

I am glad to inform the House that this also is an Amendment of relaxation. Under Sub-section (4), a statement in a deed poll, made in the acquiring of an easement, is held to be conclusive evidence. The requirements deal with various matters, including the service of notice to treat for an easement relating to water in which a special procedure is involved. While we do not think that the question should be unconditionally open to litigation, we have again, on consideration, thought that we might have been rather strict, and it is desired to leave the possibility of questioning the matter on the ground of publication open for a period of two years.

I beg to move, in page 38, line 5, at end, insert:

"(3) Where, whether before or after the commencement of this Act and in connection with the construction of any Government war works on any land, an undertaking in writing that the works shall be removed or the land restored has, whether during, before or after the time of the construction thereof, been given by or on behalf of any Minister to any society or body concerned with the preservation of amenities enjoyed by the public or to any local authority, no Minister, local authority or combination of local authorities shall, by reason only of the construction of the works, be entitled to acquire the land or any interest in or rights over that land under Part II or Part V of this Act without the consent of that society or body or authority."

During the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) had some criticism of this Clause. The purpose of the Clause was to prevent the Bill being used to override written agreements given at the time of requisitioning. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Clause covered agreements with persons having an interest in the land; but, in his view, it did not go far enough, because there were cases where undertakings had been given in writing to societies interested in amenity questions, to local authorities, and possibly to other similar bodies. We have drafted this Amendment to meet my hon. Friend's point.

My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pointed out during the Committee stage that assurances given to local authorities or to amenity societies, unless they happened to be the owners of the land in question, were not enforceable, because there was no consideration, and he went so far as to suggest that because they were not enforceable they could be torn up if the owner of the land did not want them carried out. The Committee took strong exception to that view, and I am glad that the Government have accepted the criticism of the Committee and have, by their Amendment, given statutory force to undertakings given to local authorities and to amenity societies to remove war works or restore the land.

I beg to move, in page 47, line 23, after "to," insert:

"registered land within the meaning of the Land Registration Act, 1925, there shall be substituted a reference to registered land to which the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, applies, and for any reference to."

This Amendment and the three following Amendments merely co-ordinate the provisions of this Bill with the existing legislation in Northern Ireland.

When the Government introduced this Bill they fully realised that it was complicated and highly technical, that it raised many points of principle, and that a variety of interests, public as well as private, were affected by it. Therefore, it was no surprise to the Government that a large number of Amendments should have appeared on the Order Paper and have been keenly debated. While, at certain points, it did seem as if proceedings on the Bill were rather halting, I myself, and I think I can speak for my right hon. Friends on this Bench, never at any time felt that there was any intention in any quarter to obstruct the proceedings. As a result of deliberations in Committee and on Report, a number of Amendments have been made. I hope that my hon. Friends who have felt that they were under a special obligation to exercise continuous vigilance while the Bill went through its process of examination in Committee will feel that, in the result, their efforts have been adequately rewarded.

I would like, for my part, to say—and this is my honest belief—that the Bill in its present form is a better Bill than the one that we introduced some months ago. I know there is other business before the House and I do not want to take up time, but I should just like to say that I am very sensible of the consideration that has been shown to the Government in all quarters while we have been discussing these difficult and technical matters, and I, personally, am grateful to my hon. Friends for the consideration that they have shown to me and my right hon. Friends on this Bench.

When this Bill was introduced, I and a number of my hon. Friends felt strongly that the Bill went far beyond the purposes of what was required, and I remember at that stage defining those purposes under three headings—that the Government should be allowed to obtain land for defence purposes as speedily as possible, that, in order to secure full employment, there should be an accelerated procedure for obtaining factories, and, lastly, that the land of Britain should be restored wherever possible where it had been ravaged or damaged by war. The Debates on this Bill have secured those objects, and have taken away a lot of the infringements of the rights of private individuals and commoners and safeguards of the interests of the reinstatement of Britain after the war. I should like, on my part, to pay my tribute to the work that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary have done in steering this Bill through the House. I think it has been as difficult a Bill to steer as any put in the hands of Ministers in recent years, and they have only got it through by their skill in Parliamentary Debate and by the conciliatory attitude which they have adopted towards those of us who have tried to improve the Bill within the objects which we had in mind.

I should like to say how pleased I am that we have got this restoration of Britain implanted in the Bill now in two Clauses—Clause 29 and 52—and I hope that the Government will circularise Government Departments to insist that this land is restored, wherever possible. It is far better to have the land restored by a Government Department than to pay out compensation to other persons, because, for all we know, when compensation is paid, it might not get right into the land, whereas, if the Government carry out the work of restoration that, we know, will be done.

The whole merit of this Bill will depend on the Commission and on who the Government select for the Commission. In our view, it is more likely that the Commission will be a good one now that it is no longer to be appointed by the Treasury, but will be a Commission appointed by His Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister. I appeal to the Government to select men on the Commission who have both knowledge and affection for rural England. I think it is very important that these men should not merely be lawyers. It is not the lawyer type that we want, though, no doubt, legal qualities are very valuable. It is men who have got real affection and knowledge of rural England who will be required to determine these problems that will come between Government Departments and the individual, and I have great hopes that, if we get a strong and wise Commission, we will, by this Bill, have secured that Britain is changed over from war to peace in a condition in which the right of private enterprise will be respected, and in which Britain, a battered but resisting bastion against Europe, will come to a peaceful, happier and more fruitful stage after the war.

I have had the opportunity on several occasions of listening in to the Debates on the Committee stage of this Bill, and there is no question about it that the Chancellor, having a responsibility for seeing to it that the best possible use was made of the works that have been built out of the exigencies and necessities of war, has had a tough time of it putting this Bill through. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was no intention to make obstruction. That may be so, but the one thing that has been made as clear as anything is that, in the process of carrying through what should be quite a simple Bill, the one thing that stands out most is that the landowners of this country are not prepared to give up an inch of land without the most tenacious fight—no, not a blade of grass. The hon. Member who has just spoken has made a fight all the way for the landowners. He says, "Of course, the Government have the right to get land for war purposes." Such condescension. We have got a Government representing the people of this country. We have got millions of soldiers fighting to defend this country. The Government, presumably, are representing the people, but the landowners can get up and say, "We will allow the Government to take a small piece of land here or there for war purposes." What a situation.

The Chancellor comes to us on the Report stage and says that it is a complicated and highly technical Bill, when it is the simplest question that ever could be presented to the people. Here are war works on land, and, in order to dispose of them, it is necessary that there should be control of the land on which they are built and control of the land adjacent to the factories, so that there can be entry and egress. It is a simple proposition, but it has got to be made complicated and highly technical because of the land system that operates in this country. The hon. Member who represents the landowners wants to get the land back to the landlords, he wants to retain the private ownership of land. But millions of men, fighting and battling to save this country from the slavery of Fascism, are not going to stand for a few parasitic individuals claiming to own the land, when they themselves come back and are crowded into the smallest possible space because of the inability of the Government to obtain areas of land for the purpose of developing the country.

I say to the Government, and to the Government that will follow this Government in a very short period, that there should be no need whatever for a complicated and highly technical Bill. I am certain that, if there was a popular publication of the discussions that have gone on in the Committee stage of this Bill, the Tories would be swept out of this House with such a flood that they would never dare to show themselves again. Take the people crowded into the cities—

I have been trying very hard to see exactly where these things come into the Bill. It is a rather narrow Bill, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, and I do not think that the Third Reading is the occasion to raise questions of nationalisation or housing.

I just wanted to say to the Government, and to the Government which will succeed it, that there should be no need whatever for what the Chancellor calls a complicated and highly technical Bill on such a simple question. All the Government have to do, speaking in the name of 45,000,000 people, is to say, "We are going to take that land because it is necessary in the interest of the people and in order to rebuild Britain."

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that is exactly what is not in the Bill, and, on Third Reading, we are only allowed to talk about what is in the Bill. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman to leave that line alone.

What is in the Bill is a complicated and very highly technical way of dealing with the land on which war works are built or adjacent land. Why should it be necessary to have a complicated and highly technical Bill for that? All you have got to say is that the land on which the works are built and the land adjacent, which is necessary for the works, is going to be taken over, and that, if anybody can come along and prove that they have any right to that land, you will listen to them. The Chancellor and the Tory Government—it was a Tory-dominated Government even before the pilgrims came home—

I am sorry, but this matter of returning pilgrims is not in the Bill.

The Chancellor and the Government were in the position of having to avoid exposing the landowners of this country and exposing the fact that they have no right to the land whatever, and that is why they have got to make the Bill complicated. The Chancellor is perfectly well aware of the fact that large numbers of people affected by the Bill could never have proved their right to the land. The Government should have said that it was necessary, for realising the value of the works or because the land was necessary for the development of the works to take it over. Then the hon. Member who speaks for the landowners would have had the right to come along and try to prove that he had a right to that land. But no, when dealing with a matter of this kind it is necessary to have a complicated and highly technical Bill. Put the onus on proving their claim on the owners, and you will not have to pay compensation to any of them.

I have been in the Chamber during the proceedings on this Bill as much as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I have been here all through, not only when matters that concern the private landlord were being discussed but also when the discussions affected equally the public landlord, the National Trust, those who enjoy common rights, the municipal owners of land, catchment area authorities and so on. Their battle has occupied just as much time as that of any private landlord. In addition, the House was most crowded when the Clauses which concern open spaces and footpaths were considered, far more so than was the case when the matter concerned the private landlord. At the beginning of the Second Reading Debate, I was one of those associated with moving the rejection of the Bill because I felt that it was difficult to see how it could be re-drafted and brought in again. That action was not taken and in the course of time we have really attained the objective for which we hoped.

I wish to thank the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries on the Front Bench who listened to the arguments we brought forward, and, in many cases, saw the force of them and agreed to alter the Bill in many ways. I would also like to pay a tribute to a private Member—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—who has been the spirit of the reformation we have achieved in this Bill. We did not want in any way to interfere with factories which might affect employment, and at the same time we did not want to risk the Government losing valuable capital which had been put into war works. We were out to see that there should be no retention of commons and open spaces and that they should be handed back as soon as possible to those who should enjoy them, with the least possible damage accruing as a result of the war. Lastly, there was the limited and very precious agricultural land of England which should be reduced as little as might be through the effects of the war. I support the plea made by my hon. Friend that, as far as possible, land which has been damaged during the war, land which has been used for tanks and artillery and cut up by obstacles to tanks and so on, should be restored by the Government. They have the money, the machines and the services and I believe they have, in prisoner-of-war labour, a great pool of labour which might be used, and I hope that it will be used. That is all I have to say, and I congratulate the Minister upon having got the Bill through.

As one of those who, it the outset, seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, I would like to say how much this Bill has been improved in Committee, and how much we recognise the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary have met many of our objections, and, indeed, have adopted bodily a good many of our Amendments. It is hardly too much to say that the parents of this Bill would not recognise the Bill if they were to look at it now, as compared with what it was when it was brought into the House, so much has it been altered and so much, in our estimation, has it been improved. There is only one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and that is, that the Bill is, and was, unduly complicated. I believe that a Bill could have been brought on which would have been equally effective and very much less complicated. That is a matter largely of drafting, and it is a pity that it was not drafted in a more simple manner.

In all the Amendments which I and my hon. Friends have moved and supported in the course of these proceedings, we have never lost sight of the desirability of saving public money. That is not an unimportant point. I would say with reference to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton(Mr. Turton) have said, with regard to the undertaking by Government Departments of the restoration and rehabilitation of land, that that is not only desirable in itself because the Government have the power to do it more effectively than any private owners or groups of private owners, but if that course is adopted it will save public money.

The hon. and gallant Member's colleague who spoke a short time ago spoke for private enterprise in England. Are we to take it from the hon. and gallant Member that he is opposing him and proposing that the Government can do the job better than private enterprise?

I do not know that it is really necessary for me to answer the hon. Member. I was making my point in my own way and I hope that I may be allowed to do so. I suggest, in particular, that where there are some great works, or a series of works which take up, as in the case of some of the biggest airfields and their surroundings, a large amount of the land and property of a variety of owners, some of them big and some of them small—I have personal knowledge of a very formidable tank obstacle extending for many miles over the properties of many persons, large owners and small owners—where it is a question of restoring the land damaged by such works, it is obvious that one authority, and that preferably a Government Department, could command the labour, machinery and the means generally of doing the work, not excluding the priorities which would be granted to Government Departments.

What about the coalmines?

I said nothing about coalmines.

It is the same principle.

It is obvious that, in a case of that kind, a Government Department could do the work not only quicker, but probably more economically than if it were left to a number of private owners. Some private owners would probably be very small men without the means to do it at all. If they were paid a lump sum, some parts of the land would never be filled in at all. Other parts might be filled in by those who had more means with which to do it. Therefore, in those cases the Government would get value for their money if they carried out the work themselves, particularly with the aid of prisoners of war.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that it is possible on the Third Reading of a Bill for an hon. Member to deal with omissions from the Bill?

It is clear that an hon. Member can only talk of what is in the Bill and not on what he would like to have seen in the Bill, and, therefore, omissions from the Bill are out of Order.

I was not referring to omissions from the Bill but to what is in the Bill, in Clause 39. I was supporting the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, and by another hon. Member also, that the provisions of that particular Clause ought to be taken advantage of in all possible cases by the Government, and that, if they were taken advantage of, not only would the work be likely to be more effectively done, but public money would be likely to be saved.

Good old private enterprise.

I have nothing further to add. I have apparently given some satisfaction in my views to the hon. Member opposite. This Bill has been enormously improved in its course through Committee and many of us have cause to be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way in which he has met our objections and adopted our Amendments, and the Bill is now a very much better Bill than when it was first introduced.

When this Bill was first introduced it aroused serious misgivings in the minds of local authorities and in the minds of other persons who were the owners or responsible for the administration of public open spaces, commons and places of that nature. I believe that all those misgivings ought now to be dispelled. The Bill now provides adequate protection. It will ensure that those open spaces and commons which have been diverted to other purposes during the war will be returned to their original use and will again be made available for public enjoyment. It is right that we should express to my right hon. Friend the thanks of those who are interested in these places for the manner in which he has dealt with the matter in this Bill.

There is only one other observation which I desire to make. I would remind my right hon. Friend that in the case of many of these open spaces and, in particular, in the case of the rural commons and the metropolitan commons which have been taken over for war purposes, there are really no means at the disposal of those who are responsible for these commons to rehabilitate them for use as public open spaces. My right hon. Friend has taken certain powers in this Bill and I hope that he will exercise those powers and do for those who are responsible for the management of these places that which they have not the funds to do for themselves.

I was not a Member of the Committee dealing with this Bill, but I would like to say on Third Reading that I think the Bill in its present form is rather lacking in omitting to direct what kind of individuals are to compose the Commission. I think it is somewhat unfortunate that there is not a clearer distinction in this Bill as to the qualifications of the future members. I think, in particular, acquaintance with the timber trade ought to have been specifically named as a qualification for appointment to this new Commission, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider that when this matter comes up for consideration.

I wish to say how grateful Scottish Members are to see the Solicitor-General in his place, because this Bill applies to Scot- land, and we are grateful also that the Under-Secretary of State is present. However, I must express the regret of the Scottish Members that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not even within ear shot of this first success of the new régime.

I am sure we are all glad that this valuable Bill has gone through Committee unscathed for I do not think it has been damaged at all in that dangerous process. I am sure the House will give it its Third Reading with great pleasure, as I support it very gladly. Although this Bill only occupies 14 pages of paper, it is in my view one of the greatest Measures this Parliament has carried. Its effects will be very long-term and will make a valuable accretion to the wealth of our country. The development of our forestry has obviously long been necessary. The depredations of two wars have made it imperative, and the new Measure ensures that the industry will become a great one, will employ a large number of people, and will add very greatly to the wealth of the country.

I venture to say that the provisions as to the appointment of the Commissioners will work out satisfactorily. Fears are generally groundless when things are done in the English way. The appointment of Commissioners has always been made carefully and, with the good advice of whatever Minister makes arrangements for them, I have every confidence that this will be sensibly carried out. The strengthening of the composition of the Commissioners is very commendable in my judgment. Indeed, this is a model Bill for public enterprise. Those who have to carry out its provisions will act under a Minister whose duty it will be to safeguard and defend and help them in their work when once this House, through the Ministry, has agreed upon forestry policy, and undoubtedly it will be based on the splendid reports which we have had in the past from the Commissioners, who have acted in a detached way. That will be the foundation for future policy and, in my judgment, that policy will be strengthened as time goes on. Indeed, undertakings were given on Second Reading that there would be a good progressive policy in forestry, and I feel confident that those undertakings will be carried out.

I thought the suggestion a good one that the House can lay down a line of policy and the Commissioners, whose duty it will he to execute it, will be undisturbed in their work. Whether General Elections happen or do not happen, the Commissioners can go on as an executive body—they are advisory and they are consultative, but they are also executive. An example of how things would work was given in the Debate, namely, what had happened in regard to the Colonies, where the House had agreed upon a development policy involving an expenditure of about £120,000,000 spread over 10 years. I would like to see something like that done for forestry for then we should know that the work would go on for 10 years without let or hindrance regardless of political happenings in this country or elsewhere. We on this side of the House are very pleased with this Bill. We think it will enable the Commissioners to do their work still better in the future when the control of the operations will be with this House and not detached, as in the case of some statutory bodies.

While I still have the right to say a word in this House as a Forestry Commissioner I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for the consideration and assurance which he has given in respect of some of the misgivings which my colleagues on the Forestry Commission and I have expressed with regard to the Bill. By the time it left the Committee yesterday we were satisfied in all reasonable ways. I hope my right hon. Friend will always receive the same courteous consideration at Question Time that the House has shown me in forestry matters for a great many years.

Before the Bill leaves this House I would like to express on behalf of the Government, and I am sure on behalf of all Members of the House, our appreciation of the work that has been done by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) during the years that he has been associated with the Forestry Commission. I should like also to express to him my personal thanks in a very sincere way for the attitude he has adopted throughout. I know that in the early days of the discussions he did not approve of all the proposals—which was very natural and very understandable—but I hope and think we have succeeded in allaying his apprehensions. I am most grateful to him for the very generous way in which he has met the various suggestions which I, and my right hon Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), have made from time to time.

I would only say one word in answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail). We discussed this question yesterday upstairs, and I explained, in answer to an Amendment suggesting that representatives of certain interests should be appointed to the Committee, that we thought, in order to get a really businesslike Commission to carry on this job properly, it was better not to have representatives of any one interest, because otherwise it would inevitably result in claims being put forward by other interests to be represented.

The Bill as it stands indicates that the Commission should be composed wholly of one interest—

No.

—namely, persons concerned in forestry. It would at least have been reasonable to have one Member who was concerned with consuming the products of forestry.

We intend to try to get the best people, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walk-den) suggested, and the personnel of the future Commission, I feel sure, will satisfy my hon. Friend when he sees who are eventually appointed. I hope his fears will be as much allayed as those of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye. I am much obliged to the House for their kindness in passing the Bill through so quickly.

I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a very short Bill. I wish that all Bills were as short. In particular, I wish that all Education Bills were as short as this. But it is also an extremely good Bill, and I do not think that anyone on either side of the House will have cause to dispute its passage now. Another great advantage that this Bill has, it seems to me, is that everything it has to say is really said in the short title. It is entitled:

"An Act to transfer the functions of the Minister of Health under the Camps Act, 1939, to the Minister of Education."

I cannot believe that in any quarter of the House there will be any objection to that course, but I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I went back a little and refreshed the minds of hon. Members on the antecedents of this Bill.

Some years ago now, in those far-off days when wax seemed likely to come, there was presented to the House—in March, 1939—a Bill which I think was called the Camps Bill, the purpose of which was to provide, in country districts, camps which could be used in an emergency to help with the evacuation of school-children and to supplement the billeting arrangements which had been made. It was always envisaged, even at that time, that if the emergency did not occur, or when the emergency had passed, these camps should revert to educational purposes. It is still our intention, now that the emergency has passed, that these camps should be used as school and holiday camps. However, if these camps are to revert, not so much to their original purpose as to the purpose that was originally contemplated, I think the House will agree that it is only sensible and appropriate that they should come under the Minister of Education instead of the Minister of Health. It is the sole purpose of this Bill to make that transfer and to bring these camps under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education.

I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate upon the merits of having these camps. That was agreed in 1939, before the war, and I am sure that we must all be very glad indeed to think that at any rate one of the instruments of war—because that is what these camps were—is now to be converted to the arts of peace. There is no doubt whatever that the children of this country will benefit enor- mously from the existence of these camps, and I hope there will be no opposition to the passage of this Bill on either side of the House.

I think this Measure is very appropriately brought in at this stage as one of the first Measures that this House is asked to consider after the end of the European war. These camps have, done good work during the war. I had the privilege of visiting several of them myself, and some most valuable experimental educational work has been carried out, especially in the way of providing residential education for children who had not previously had the advantage of participating in that form of education. I recollect visiting two very fine camps which took children from the City of Birmingham, and which were situated in Cannock Chase. One, at Pipe-wood, which was used by girls, became quite famous for the success of the experiment which was there carried on, and I can only say that I hope there will be a very wide extension of these facilities for children. Two years ago there was an amazing response to a questionnaire sent out by the Federation of Women's Institutes. Ninety-nine per cent. of the replies from women's institutes all over the country said they thought every child should have a period of residential qualification during its senior school career. That represents a substantial alteration in the outlook of working-class parents on this problem of residential education. The advantages of these places also consist in their not being so formalised that only the routine of education, as practised in the ordinary schools, is carried on. There are opportunities for experiment, both in class arrangement and the way in which studies are managed.

Undoubtedly a difficulty that was inherent at the time these camps were started is that there has been dual control by two Ministries. When one visited a camp as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education one had to ask permission to enter the kitchen, because that was under the control of the Ministry of Health. There were some camps in which the relationship between the staff responsible for cooking and the staff responsible for education was not too happy. By bringing the whole of the administration under one Ministry we can eliminate that, and I hope we shall be able to enforce, more than we have been able to do in the past, the idea that the school meal, especially in a residential school, is no small part of the educational training that the child receives. I hope also that it will mean, in the words of one of the right hon. Gentleman's illustrious predecessors, that the headmaster will be "captain on his own quarter deck," that there will be no doubt that inside the camp the whole of the arrangements will be under his control and that it will be recognised that the whole place is an educational institution.

The future of our educational system is now being shaped in the administration of the somewhat longer Act for which the present Minister of Labour was responsible last year, and which certainly he could never have expected to get through in one evening. I hope that in the administration of that Act the Measure we are passing to-night will be the means of enabling valuable and continuous experiments to be carried out, and that we shall be able to provide, by means of residential education, opportunities for every child to have some experience of camp life. I would like to plead that no camps should be of too short a duration. I have had experience of conducting many boys' camps, and I have found that for the first two nights nobody sleeps and that for the last two days the boys were meeting in committees to decide exactly how little of their remaining pocket money need be spent as a present for mother to persuade her that they had been thinking of her all the time they had been away. When one takes that period out of a week or fortnight it does not leave very much, especially if, in addition, the weather happens to be bad for three or four days—no uncommon thing in England. I welcome this Bill, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House will do everything they can to assist him in its passage.

I think it is a happy thing that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, in his first appearance here in his new office, should be transacting this particular piece of business. I wish him well in his job and, if I may say so, I wish even more well his Parliamentary Secretary. She will remember that before the days of evacuation we were faced with the problem of whether we could, as a side wind, get into the evacuation scheme something which might be more constructive for education. I suppose I have asked the recent Minister of Education at least 20 times when he intended to transfer these camps from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Education. I realised his difficulties; indeed, we were responsible in those days for putting these camps under the Ministry of Health, because it was expected that mothers, and even grand mothers, as well as children and other people, might have to go into these hutments. But soon afterwards, as the Parliamentary Secretary will remember, we had to re-examine the matter, because they were hardly fit for permanent occupation by young children.

I wonder whether the House realises that these camps were the first experiment in residential schools for children between 11 and 14 on any basis other than the open air schools, which previously had been provided by local education authorities. I repeat, what I have said before, what the headmaster of Cranleigh told me. I asked him several times what was the secret of the success of his school and he replied, "It is based on the fact that there is space." At that school the scholars could move about, they reconstructed a lot of the territory and they rebuilt the pavilion. Scholars who came from Ilford constructed an agricultural high school. At another school I visited the county badge system was used under the State authority, and that system, which has been resumed in Hertfordshire, Dorset shire and elsewhere, has been another of the valuable experiments which has come out of the war.

Had they old school ties, too?

These camps are now to be transferred, and the National Camps Corporation is to come under the Ministry of Education. The principle has now been established, and I would like to support everything which was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about the value of a period of residential education. Whatever our views may be about board schools and day schools I think few people would contest what he said, that a period of residence is of enormous value to a boy or girl at that age.

How is it proposed that these 30 or 40 camp schools are to be used? Will they be let to the local education authorities as such, or be retained by the Ministry of Education so that boys and girls can be sent there on a national basis? In other words, are they to be allied with local education authorities and gradually become part of their structure, or are they to be used in a national way? During the Debates on the Education Act many of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made out a case for residential adult colleges, financed from the centre. Are these camps to be financed from the centre, or to come under the local education authorities? At any rate, I hope these camps will be put to their maximum use, and not used solely for sickly and ailing children. I hope they will give normal children from the big towns a period of residential education in the countryside. I welcome the Bill, and I am sure that it will pass with the approval of the whole House.

These camps or schools have become bigger and better as each speaker has succeeded another. The Minister has introduced a Measure entitled the "Camps Bill"; the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expanded the information and talked about residential schools; and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) went one better and talked about adult residential colleges. What are we dealing with? We are dealing with what were intended to be, by the 1939 Act, summer camps. It is quite right that they should be transferred to the Ministry of Education. I gather that some camps are now being usefully used as residential schools, and I would like to ask how many of these camps exist, where they are—I do hot suppose any will be available for Manchester—and how many will be available for use this year.

I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) in congratulating the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on initiating their work, which is of such importance, by this most fruitful Bill. They will have the good will of the whole House in taking up work that was un fortunately suspended by the outbreak of war. The Ministry of Education—the Board of Education as it then was—was the first casualty of the war. At the out set of the war it was turned out of its offices, which was symbolic of what happened to education throughout the country. It is, therefore, fitting that the very beginning of the work of peace should be a renewal of this most import ant work and the taking up again of this extremely valuable experiment. I would like to endorse strongly all that was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I believe this Measure will prove to be of the utmost value to the school life of the country. It will give to thousands of children, who are now able to attend only day schools and who often come from homes that are over crowded, and live all their days under the shadow of the smoke of great cities, an opportunity to live a life of fellowship and comradeship in clean and wholesome surroundings with the atmosphere of the countryside around them. Some 30 or 40 years ago I had for a number of years the experience of taking boys from the East End of London to a camp in the country for a week. I know the difference it made to those boys. It was a revelation. I remember their excitement on leaving London—

Why not improve their homes?

I am all in favour of improving the homes of the people, but while that is being done the children are there, and we can deal with them now while we are making arrangements for better homes. I have seen children as excited by the sight of a frog as many children in happier homes would be at the sight of a rhinoceros. Those children have never before seen such a strange creature as a frog. I have seen the way in which the wonder of the starry night came upon children who have never been able to see the stars for the smoke. That is an experience we want to hold out to thousands of children. It will mean a change of life to some of these town children. I have known children evacuated during this war to the country from the town, who would certainly have lived as town dwellers all their lives if it had not been for that experience, deciding to become country workers. I. know per- sonally of several poor lads who are happily working by their own choice on farms to-day and who would not have been doing that if they had not had this experience of living in the country. That is something we must not neglect in thinking of the work that is opening out and will open out as the result of the passing of this Bill. I hope the Minister will feel that he can go ahead. We look to him to open as many of these camp schools as possible in the near future. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us when it is hoped to open the first schools under the Ministry as a result of the passing of the Bill.

They are already reopened.

Yes, but they are to be rearranged under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. I am sure that the good will of all sections of the House will go with the Minister in carrying out this work.

I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education on the introduction of this Bill. It is a very good augury of his career in this House as Minister of Education. I would like also to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on her first appearance in the House in relation to this Bill. I endorse everything that was said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). I happen to be the chairman of the Birmingham boys' and girls' union, an institution which has organised these country camps over a long period of years. By the generous assistance of public-spirited citizens in Birmingham, we have been able to take these children from the slums of our cities out into the open air, with all the results which the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) has recited.

But I am rather disappointed at one thing. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was until recently Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, spoke about the Pipewood scheme. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether that scheme has been abandoned and if so, why it has been abandoned. The Pipewood scheme was an experiment which commanded the general respect of everybody and it was a really outstanding success. We brought within the ambit of that scheme a great number of young people who were given opportunities of surveying country life at its best and of going into the atmosphere of country life. Has the scheme been abandoned? Will it be revived, and will any steps be taken by the Ministry of Education to continue on that same system other experiments? I congratulate both Ministers on the introduction of this Bill. After all, in these days there is taking place a great new organisation of the educational system of the country. To bring the children of the slums into contact with the wholesome fresh air of the country is one of the finest things that the Ministry could undertake. I hope very much that the camp system will develop as a constituent part of our national education.

This is a useful little Measure, and I hope everybody will support it, but I must protest against the atmosphere which is being created of revolution in this matter. Listening to the speeches that have been made, any one would think that we were really doing something to change the life, surroundings, environment and destiny of the children of our great cities and slums. We are doing nothing of the kind. All that we are doing in this Bill is to enable a very small proportion of the school children of our land to spend a very short time occasionally in better conditions.

The hon. Member said there is nothing new about this.

I did not.

The hon. Member said that too much fuss is being made. Surely he will agree that when it is established that public money can be spent on residential schools for ordinary children, that is a new principle. The more it can be expanded the better.

The hon. Gentleman probably did not hear the first few sentences of my speech in which I said that this is a useful little Bill, and I hope everybody will support it. I do not say it is a bad Bill. It is a very good thing. What I protest against is the attitude of excitement and enthusiasm with which this very small thing is being surrounded. All that is to happen is that a very few children are going for a very short time, very occasionally, to enjoy some of the conditions that better-placed children have all their lives, and having been given a slight taste of what life can be for more fortunate children, they are to be pitch-forked back into the cities and slums, under the grey skies which the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) talked about, just as they were before. I do not want to say a word that will cast any doubt on the advisability of passing this Measure, but let us preserve some sense of proportion and not pretend we are doing more than we are doing. What we are doing is very little.

I am very glad indeed that the first Bill with which my right hon. Friend and I are connected in this House has received such unanimous approval from all sides. I am particularly glad that it has the blessing of two distinguished predecessors of mine in office. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was worried that experiments would not be tried on a broad enough scale in these camp schools. I think I can reassure him and the House on this matter. A circular—Circular No. 17—was sent out last autumn to local authorities emphasising the importance of experiments. I can assure hon. Members that in paragraph 3 of that circular a very wide latitude is given for experiments in these schools and holiday camps. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), who has taken such a very great interest in these camps—and I think I can say that it is largely owing to his enthusiasm that they were started at the time they were—asked whether the camps are to be let by the corporation to local education authorities. As I understand it, the camps will be let to local education authorities, and the arrangements will be agreed upon by my right hon. Friend before they are used. My hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) wanted to know how many of these camps there are. There are 31 at the present time accommodating 8,000 children.

That is the extent of the social revolution.

I think it is a very good start. We shall proceed from there further as time goes on. My hon. Friend asked also whether there is a camp near Manchester. The camps are fairly evenly distributed over the country. I will not bother the House now with a list of the places where the 31 camps are situated, but if my hon. Friend would like to see a list I will gladly show it to him, and he will see which ones are situated nearest to Manchester. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) asked whether the camps were going to be reopened. I understand they are not going to be reopened, because they are all open. They are not going to have a special opening ceremony because they come under the Ministry of Education. We hope they will go straight on with the good work they have been doing.

Will any of them be available this year?

I do not know when the change-over will take place, but I think it will be as soon as the evacuation scheme is finished. It will probably be a fairly quick process now, and I imagine that as soon as this Bill is passed we shall hope to get the camps back to their proper and original functions as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) asked about the Pipe-wood scheme. My right hon. Friend and I have not yet had time to go fully into this scheme. We will do so, and if we may we would like to discuss it with my hon. Friend. I think I have covered the main points that have been raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I feel absolutely convinced that this Bill is right and necessary and that its results will be for the good of a great many children.

I only wish to pronounce a benediction. On various occasions I have raised this matter by Question because it has been my privilege to visit a goodly number of these camp corporation schools. The only drawback in many of them was the dual control of the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, with resultant friction. I am delighted that at last this Bill has been promoted. I believe that these schools have performed a splendid function. There is one in Hertfordshire, where 200 odd boys came from 159 schools from the L.C.C. education authority. They were welded into a happy unit and the atmosphere compares most favourably with many schools with generations of tradition behind them. I wish simply to pronounce a benediction.

:very regret if as the result of short notice I have inconvenienced my right hon. Friend, but I make no apology for raising this question now, owing to the very great gravity of the news that is reaching us from the Levant. I do not know whether the House is in possession of the most recent information. The situation in Syria has greatly worsened. It is very serious indeed. A French airplane has bombed Damascus, the capital, where there is heavy fighting. Other airplanes have bombed Ham a, and Syrian gendarmes shot down one airplane. Syria's President, Shukri Kuwaitly, has appealed to the British Minister now in Damascus and to the United States Minister, for Britain and the United States to intercede immediately in the crisis. The French are using mortars and 75 mm. guns against the Syrians. This is now confirmed in both British and United States quarters in Beirut. Earlier messages said there was great tension everywhere, with the possibility always of a violent explosion. French troops to-day blasted their way into the Syrian Parliament House after blowing up the front gate with a shell from a 75. Later reports said that the Syrian Parliament has now been occupied. Shelling continued until 10 p.m. last night, and then a French airplane strafed the city. Many people have been killed and wounded.

The one satisfactory fact that I know of is that we have a most excellent Minister on the spot, and I am certain that all that can be done locally is being done by him. I feel absolutely certain that public opinion in this country, and indeed all over the world, will be horrified that these things are being done in the name of the French people, who have so recently been suffering from this sort of thing themselves. I am not willing to believe that the French people would endorse this action if they knew that it had taken place. I beg my right hon. Friend to inform the House what the Government propose to do in these tragic circumstances. It is obviously no use now talking of hoping for negotiations between French, Syrians and Lebanese. What is going to be done to stop this bloodshed amongst people whose independence we have guaranteed? The only action that we have taken that we have been told of is the withdrawal of British troops. I venture to suggest that the events of the last few days show that the announcement of the withdrawal of British troops, far from reducing the tension, has actually increased it.

May I correct my hon. and gallant Friend? Some troops have gone into training and are going out at the end of their training, that is all.

I am glad to be told that, but an official announcement was put out that British troops were being withdrawn to reduce the tension.

No one ever said that.

There was a pronouncement to that effect on the B.B.C. If the information was incorrect, so much the better. What was made quite clear by my right hon. Friend yesterday is that French troops were sent to the Levant against his most urgent advice. The advice of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States to the French to take no action that would make things worse has not been heeded either. It seems to me that we cannot possibly escape our responsibility in this matter. It is not only a question of our guarantee of the independence of Syria and the Lebanon. It is not only a question of our pledged word. We have actual responsibilities in the area. The harbour of Beirut, where these French troops landed, is under British Naval Command, and the British Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East is responsible for all troops in the area. We have the means to make those powers effective. I am certain that the Government will have the full support of the whole House, and of opinion everywhere, in taking very strong steps to bring home to the French our insistence that this bloodshed must cease and that they must respect the independence of the two Republics, which they and we have guaranteed.

It is indeed tragic that within the space of one Parliament we should be discussing on the Adjournment two of our Allies, two members of the United Nations, engaged in this very tragic war. All of us who speak must take great care, remembering that both sides are our friends, and that both sides have the most acute susceptibilities in the matter. We know the romantic and historical trend of the French character and how much it is associated with Syria. When the previous crisis arose people tried, not in the House but elsewhere, to cast aspersions on my hon. and gallant Frined the Member for Carlisle (Sir E. Spears), who was then British Minister on the spot, saying that the trouble was due to his conduct. The fact that this far worse incident has come after he has been back for many months, shows how ill founded were those accusations. We cannot divest ourselves of interest in this. Our interest in the Arab world is predominant and vital. There is a danger that this trouble may spread to Transjordania and Palestine and the safety of these regions is vital for our interests and for the prosecution of the Far Eastern war, so that our troops and ships may pass unimpeded.

France equally in the last analysis must rely on the friendship of the Arab world in view of her communications with the Far East, and must have good relations with England and Egypt. The oil which comes through Tripoli depends not on. the mere holding of Tripoli, but on its sources in Iraq, in the neighbouring Arab country. Therefore we must try to get both sides to a settlement, because we cannot fail to intervene if this thing goes on further. I suggest that the way to do it is to try to get a settlement between England and France. This is more than a local affair. We want to get an Anglo-French alliance absolutely close, firm and watertight, which looks after the strategic interests of both, with France not confined in the tiny little port of Beirut. She ought to share with us the possibilities of Alexandria, Gibraltar and Malta, we sharing with her Toulon and Dakar. That is the scale on which we must go, as in 1906, when English and French interests in the Mediterranean were disentangled, the French taking the Western end and England the Eastern, when we were able to form that entente cordiale which took us through the stress and strain of the German crisis. That is the object to aim at. France being very susceptible, and some elements incurably suspicious of us, I hope we shall try to get the new American President to take a prominent part in the alleviation of this trouble, because what does San Francisco mean, and what does the Atlantic Charter mean, if this dispute is to continue in this way?

I should like to say a word of sympathy towards the people in this region. I spent a very happy year there, and I can testify to the friendship of the Syrians and Lebanese to the cause of the United Nations. They have helped us and have been very good friends to us, and we know how Moslems all over the world must feel when one of their most sacred cities, Damascus, is subjected to bombardment twice within 25 years. We can assure the Foreign Secretary that anything that he may do will have the support of all Members of the House.

I could not possibly endorse the views expressed by the last speaker in his dissertation on power politics, in which he talked about the division of power between ourselves and the French. I want, however, to say some words in support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir E. Spears), who brought up this subject. It is a most deplorable story that he has had to tell us, though I agree that it is without complete substantiation. We have only had it ever the wireless and in the Press. I would like to endorse what the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) has said about the work that the hon. and gallant Member has done in that area. I am not a political friend of his—God forbid that I should be—but it is perfectly true that, if you take the ordinary inhabitant, the ordinary man ill that part of the world, he will tell you that the job of work done by the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been greatly to the benefit of the peoples living in those parts.

The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary protested a moment ago when the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that British troops had been withdrawn from the area just recently. I quite appreciate the Foreign Secretary's point that they were there for training purposes and were taken away. It is important that people should realise that, but it has not been made clear to the local inhabitants. When they see troop movements, they think it is for political reasons, and when they see training movements taking place at the same time as political movements, they can easily take them in the wrong light. I am only too glad to emphasise that that movement of troops was purely a training movement and nothing else, and that it does not mean to convey to the French Government that we are in any way relinquishing our views as to what is proper to be done in the Lebanon and Syria.

I do not think that people in this House really understand the history and background of what has been going on in the Lebanon and Syria, and I would like to put on record again what the declarations have been in the past few years. I have turned up what are familiar to the Foreign Secretary, namely, two important declarations by General Catroux. The first was given on 8th June, 1941, when, speaking on behalf of General de Gaulle, he said:

"I come to put an end to the mandatory régime and to proclaim you free and independent. You will be henceforward sovereign and independent peoples able either to' form yourselves into separate states or to unite into a single state. Your independent and sovereign status will be guaranteed by a treaty in which our mutual relations will be defined…"

Not many months later, on 26th November, 1941, at Beirut, in the name of Free France, General Catroux read a declaration declaring the Lebanon an independent sovereign State with power to appoint diplomatic representatives and to form her own military forces. That was admirably elucidated and endorsed by His Majesty's Government in Command Paper 6600, published recently, in which they referred to a statement by His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government, on 8th June, 1941:

"General Catroux, on behalf of General de Gaulle, Chief of the Free French, has issued a declaration to the inhabitants of Syria and the Lebanon before advancing with the object of expelling the Germans. In this he declares the liberty and independence of Syria and the Lebanon. He undertakes to negotiate a treaty to ensure these objects."

With that background, what is puzzling everybody in the Middle East and in this House who knows anything about the subject, is why these countries are not being treated in the way that was guaranteed to them at a time when it was convenient to us to seek their particular and immediate aid and co-operation.

What is the first duty of a mandatory Power? It is to clear out as soon as possible. The mandatory Power is not expected to take political, military or economic advantage to itself. I know that the history of events has shown that it does, but the views of the victims of mandatory Powers do not agree with the views which are held by so many of the people who exercise mandates. The first object should be to train the people to look after themselves. Nobody denies that these countries are capable of administering their own affairs. There is no doubt that they can. You can talk to persons experienced in the Middle East, and nobody will raise a voice and say that these people are not capable of controlling themselves. The position becomes particularly exacerbated when one considers that the French people were the people who invited the Germans in at the worst possible moment, and every Arab knows that. There is no use pretending that it did not happen. His Majesty's Government always seem to me, on these subjects, to be living in a fool's paradise, as if the people in those countries do not know what has happened and the people of this country do not care. The people do not care in this country because they are never properly told by the Press.

By the way in which the French are behaving one would almost think- that they had won the war, and they should be told straight "where they get off." Let us reflect back to what happened in November, 1943. The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle was at Beirut at the time when the French troops swept down and swooped up the whole Government and even invaded the bedroom of the Prime Minister and pulled him out of bed when he was in bed with his wife. That is a thing these people will never forget; it offends everything they stand for and all that is most sacred to them. Then there were tanks killing people right and left. The French will never live down the evil reputation they have got there, and the sooner that is realised by everybody, the better for all of us. I well appreciate what the French are seeking, or say they are; it is some strategic advantage. Let us recognise that if it is to be a strategic advantage, it shall not be one that goes further than anything that is allowed to us in a stategic capacity in Iraq. It is possible that we might persuade these people to agree that the French should have some aerodrome out on the desert, but that is the utmost, and I do not believe it is impossible of achievement. In the present state of affairs it would not be agreed to by anybody. They will never agree to the military occupation of their country.

The fear of these people in the Middle East is that the small countries are going to be betrayed again. They are afraid that they are to be used as pawns in the game, the old, old game of power politics as envisaged by the hon. Member for East Fulham. I say to His Majesty's Government that there will be serious trouble all over the Middle East if what is happening can in any way be taken to be regarded as a likely betrayal of the small nations. Let me remind the Foreign Secretary that there has never been a satisfactory explanation of what I call the Paris negotiations. There is deep suspicion in the mind and heart of every politician in the Middle East about those discussions which took place in Paris between the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, General de Gaulle and the British Ambassador in October or November last year. There has been no clear declaration of what took place. I would aver that the disasters that are now taking place are a direct result of the complete indecision as to policy following on that meeting.

I am grateful to the House for letting me intervene now, because the Cabinet was discussing this matter when it was raised in the House. I have left the discussion and I am anxious to get back. I must take the strongest issue with the last sentence uttered by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). He seems to imply that all that has happened in Syria is due to some discussions which took place between the Prime Minister and myself and General de Gaulle in Paris. There is not a vestige of justification for that. On the contrary, our policy in this matter has been made plain publicly over and over again, and we stand by those public declarations. We have not swerved one inch or one iota from them, nor shall we do so. I am really sorry that the hon. Gentleman impaired his speech with that final insinuation. Our effort in this business, particularly in these last months, and, let me add, the effort of our Minister out there, has been entirely concentrated, as all those who were in the War Cabinet will know very well, to try to reduce the temperature and get conversations opened up that would lead to a final settlement. Before these last events the omens looked better than they had been for a long time past. Although I am ready to take responsibility for anything that I have done, I utterly repudiate the view that anything we have said to the French is responsible for what is going on now. The task of the peacemaker is often a thankless one, and it is so in this case. But, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's charges, we shall persevere.

Let me deal with one or two of the points that have been raised. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir E. Spears) referred to the movement of troops, and I think that there has been a little confusion here. What has happened is this. There are certain British troops who have been stationed in Syria for some time, but, in addition to them, a certain number of troops have been in the habit, a small number at a time, of going into Syria for training purposes and coming out again. That has been a routine movement. That is what has happened in this case, and I am glad that it has been emphasised that it was nothing more than that, a routine movement. Where confusion has arisen, perhaps, is because we made it quite plain, and I thought it desirable that we should make it plain, to our French Allies and others, because of rumours that got about, that we were perfectly prepared to withdraw all our troops from Syria and the Lebanon as soon as an agreement was reached between the French and the States, and as soon as the French movement of troops had in consequence taken place. I wish to make that plain, because I do not want anybody to think that in any circumstances we want to supplant what has hitherto been the French position in the Lebanon, and to make that clear beyond peradventure, I emphasise this about our troops going.

Now a few words about the situation as we see it. Unhappily the news which has reached us in the last few hours on the situation in Syria shows that the position has greatly deteriorated. Reports indicate that there has been considerable shelling of Damascus by French artillery with serious loss of life and destruction of property. Serious disorders have also occurred for some days past at Aleppo, Homs and Hama, so I know I speak for all the House when I say that His Majesty's Government deplore these incidents. I told the House yesterday that for months past we have been trying to promote a final settlement of the situation, the dangers of which were apparent to us all. As a result of these efforts there had been a certain improvement and, as I said just now, the chances of a negotiation between the French and the Levant States were by no means unhopeful, but in the last few days, for the reasons which I explained to the House yesterday, all this improvement has been entirely swept away and, as a result, when this last news reached us, we were engaged in taking a fresh diplomatic initiative to meet the grave events. Now the position has deteriorated still further, and the Cabinet is now considering the new situation created by these events and the action which may as a consequence be required. I know the House will understand that I cannot in these conditions say more at the present time, but I will keep the House fully informed as early as I can of the decisions taken. I would add that, as I know the House would wish, we are now in constant communication with the United States Government on the situation.

:I am sure all hon. Members on this side of the House at any rate are in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. It is a terrible state of affairs. We have just concluded one great war and now there are signs of trouble again from a country whom we have saved in effect. I hope the French people will have some regard for what we have done on their behalf and will listen to an appeal from this country to try to settle this matter wisely and firmly.

I would like to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friend. We all agree that the situation which has arisen in Syria is tragic, and everyone is anxious that nothing should be said here which would be likely to make the situation more tragic. I hope that any action which will be taken in this matter will not be taken by this country alone. Just now we are trying to create at San Francisco a means by which international difficulties may be solved not by action by any one Power alone but by united action, and I hope so far as is possible we shall try to ensure, even if the San Francisco proposals are not yet implemented so far as its constitution is concerned, that we do follow the line along which we hope San Francisco will lead us. For that reason I would deprecate that there should be any action by this country alone calculated to tell France "where she gets off" or to try to suggest that she has played an unworthy part in this war or to insist that France should do this or that. We have to bear in mind that our best interest now is to ensure the future peace of the world, and if we are to do that we want a friendly France as well as a friendly Syria and other countries.

We must make full allowance for France. She has passed through extremely difficult times during the war and it may be that, having contributed to her own liberation and having just recovered some of her strength after a period of German domination, she may be throwing her weight about a bit. Let us have regard for her sensitiveness at this juncture and not do anything that is likely to add fuel to an already troubled fire; and in whatever action we take let it not be action taken by ourselves alone, but in combination with the other united Powers, with whom we have fought this war.

In view of the very grave news imparted to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, it behoves every hon. Member who speaks in this Debate to be very careful in what he says.

He should not speak at all.

I intervene only because I believe I am the Member in this House who has served longest in Syria it self. While I was serving in Syria I had the privilege of serving with the French Army and I speak with some slight knowledge of the circumstances. I would like to follow a little on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) developed in his speech—this question of background. He did not, however, go far enough back in studying the background. The troubles to-day have not started in this war. They started in the last war, and those who care to study the history of that part of the world will realise that the French nation has a special position in those countries known as the Levant. It does not date back to the last war, or to the beginning of this century. It dates back two centuries. Even when Syria and the Levant were part of the Turkish Empire, French culture was the culture which was developed throughout those countries. After the last war when Syria and Lebanon were placed under the mandate of France as a result of the Peace Conference, the desire of the peoples of those countries for French culture continued. There was no question of their not wishing to retain their connection with France.

My hon. and gallant Friend is perhaps doing the United States an injustice. The university in Beirut has perhaps played a greater part in the educational life and public enlightenment in the Levant than any other institution, and when my hon. and gallant Friend says the country was in favour of the French mandate, he is mistaken because the Levant wanted the United States mandate to be No. 1, ourselves No. 2, and the French were absolutely nowhere.

It is not quite as simple as that. French culture and influence go back long before there was any American university in Beirut. I know the university very well, and I have had the greatest admiration for the work done by it but let me ask my hon. and gallant Friend one question. Where did the professional classes, the engineers and the lawyers of Syria and the Lebanon go for their education? Not to the American university in Beirut. They went to Paris. French culture is engrained in those people. The tragic events which have happened since the last war are part and parcel of the settlement—unsettlement it was—arrived at after the last war.

Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that because these people have had the advantage of a certain French educational background, they have surrendered their sovereignty? Does he mean to suggest that the mandate given to France after the last war is abrogated by the fact that French influence was there before the mandate was granted?

I mean to say that when we are judging the terrible events which we are discussing to-night, we have to do what my hon. Friend suggested earlier on, look at the background of all this. Let me take my hon. Friend back a little, to the period between the wars. I can remember the time when General Gouraud and General Weygand were High Commissioners in Syria and an attempt was made to murder General Gouraud. The assassins murdered the people in his car and they escaped over the Transjordan frontier, into country which is still under British mandate. The French authorities, through Paris and London, asked us for the extradition of those assassins so as to bring them to trial. What did we reply? We replied through our High Commissioner in Jerusalem that the assassins were political offenders, and not offenders against the criminal law. That stuck in the French mind and has stuck there ever since.

There was a development of that situation later on when we had our own troubles in Palestine, even after the beginning of this war. Where was the murder campaign in Palestine started? Where were the headquarters of the murderers who were operating in Palestine? In Damascus, sheltered there by the French. Tit-for-tat; because we would not help them with the murderers of their High Commissioner, they were not going to. help us to put a stop to the assassinations which were going on in Palestine. The result was that the quarrel between our, two nations caused such a state of friction at the frontiers between Palestine and the Transjordan, that it goes on to this day between French and British junior officers. I am convinced that if the same friction did not exist at the higher levels, and if the working together at those levels were more cordial, in the instructions issued from both sides, we should not have this feeling between the French people and ourselves. They feel frustrated by us. There is no doubt about that.

I apologise for interrupting my hon. and gallant Friend again, but is he saying that because those who attempted to assassinate General Gouraud escaped over the borders in Palestine that justifies the bombardment of Damascus to-day?

No, I do not, but I say that we must look at the background of the events of to-day. I can see that the French have a special position in Syria and the Lebanon. I should be the first to say that the greatest mistake in the world has been made by the French in introducing Senegalese troops into Syria. We advised them against it. They were so advised by the British Government in years gone by. We asked them not to bring in these Senegalese black troops to Syria for the purposes of occupation. That was a very great mistake. I am not seeking to condone the action that has taken place when I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back and to realise the background which shows how all these troubles originally started.

Perhaps I might bring the House back now to the very serious statement which we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is so serious that I think one should concentrate on it rather than endeavour at the present time to go into the details of the pros and cons of how the situation has arisen. When I heard the Foreign Secretary's statement, I am bound to say I realised that it might not be the only serious statement we shall hear from him about a situation outside these islands in the next six months. One consoling feature was the reception the House gave to the statement, and the unanimity exhibited in regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government at this moment in doing everything within their power to bring about an amelioration in the really shocking, terrible and scandalous state of affairs out there in the Levant.

I have one practical suggestion to make which may be of some value to the Government. On the two or three occasions recently when I have been in France I have been immensely interested in the enormous prestige enjoyed by this House of Commons on the Continent, in Western Europe generally and in France in particular. Perhaps we are sometimes inclined to forget that we are the only Parliament that has continued in active operation throughout these five years, and has stood erect, remaining a full Parliament. Our prestige is so great that I cannot help thinking that if the Government took pains—and it would require special attention—to see that public opinion in France is made aware of the unanimity that exists in this House in support of the Government at this time, on this matter, that information might be of service in the attempts which the Government are making. I have said that the matter will need a little special attention. With the minute size of the papers in France at the present time and the difficulties on the technical side, everything that happens in this House of Commons is not automatically reported in the French Press, but I believe that, the French public will be very interested to know what this House thinks and how we reflect opinion. The fact that we are unanimous in all parts of the House should be made known to the French Government and the French people through the various information services that are in operation.

I have some acquaintance with conditions in the ring of Arab States, of which Syria is one, and perhaps it might be of service to the House if I conveyed one or two impressions which I recently gained. One was that there never was a time when there was greater potential good will among the Arab States towards ourselves. The second is that although we read a great deal about Arab unity, the Arab League and so on, the cynics, including many Arabs, will tell you that they will believe in Arab unity when they see it. Yet, on two points all are agreed and all Arab countries are unanimous. One is on Palestine, which does not concern us to-day, and the other is on Syria and the Lebanon. The Arabs feel, rightly or wrongly—and it is no business of mine to say which—that we let them down in that area after the last war. I do not know whether that is right, but that is what they feel. They are looking with the greatest caution for parallels in the present situation—another great war, the same countries involved.

What are we going to do this time? I think it is fair and proper to say that the question of Syria is the second of the only two points upon which the whole Arab world is in fact united. When I was in Syria I put one standard question to everybody to whom I talked there. I said "Do you think the Arab peoples here and in the Lebanon are really in earnest? Otherwise do you think that if they are not given satisfaction in the matter of their independence, etc., they will sulk for a while, perhaps create a few disturbances, and then settle down and say 'We did our best; now we go on as we were before'?" The answer was unanimous. Everybody said "Yes, they are indeed earnest and they really mean it." Again, I do not presume to say whether they are right or wrong. I merely report that that is, for better or worse, their attitude. That is in contradistinction to what the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) has suggested in saying that the professional classes in Syria and the Lebanon habitually went to Paris for their education, and that therefore it was their cultural background That may be so, but I am only acting as a faithful reporter when I say that they will not stand for their independence being menaced.

I am not for the moment suggesting that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should come out with 100 per cent. Arab, 100 per cent. anti-French, policy. Of course I am not suggesting that. My mother-in-law was French, and I nearly won a golf championship in France, and I must be acquitted of any such ridiculous intention. But I ask him to make some sort of statement which will convey the impression to any reasonable Arab that there is no chance of our going back on out guarantee of the independence of Syria and the Lebanon—some statement which will convince the Arab world.

I am sorry that I was not in the House when the Secretary of State made his statement, but I understand the gravity of the nature of what he said. I rise merely to associate myself with what has been said by other Members in support of the Government in this very grave issue. It would be easy to make an inflammatory speech and say things which would cause excitement, but I do not think that would be in the least helpful. It is much better for us to place our confidence in the Foreign Secretary, knowing the admirable way in which he has been conducting the foreign affairs of this country, as I think, and doing his best in that area. It seems to me that the French have behaved in a lamentable manner. Indeed their conduct all through these last few years in the Near East has been rather strange and unsatisfactory, to put it in a most mild way. I feel that we cannot possibly get away from our responsibility which we took at the time when with General Catroux we guaranteed the independence of the Arab States—Syria and the Lebanon. How that can be carried out in the most satisfactory manner we must leave in the hands of the Foreign Secretary and the Government. I only intervene to say that I have confidence in the way that they will approach this matter. I believe that the whole House is behind them. I hope they will be able by reason, persuasion, and good will to arrive at a settlement which will give satisfaction to our Arab friends out there, and keep the French our good Allies and friends too.

On one point I did not quite follow the logic of my hon. and gallant Friend and constituent below me: he seemed to be using mothers-in-law with a very unusual sense of values. I would wish to begin by assuring the House that I am the most Francophil man in it. Indeed I hope I am, because I think I am as Francophil as any Englishman could be, without disloyalty: to his own country. I do regret one or two suggestions that have been made about the necessity of reminding France that France has not perhaps behaved quite so well as we have in some years, or in some parts of the globe. I do not really think that what happened in1940, or what has happened in other years, is a matter of which we need remind anyone: our glories are certain enough. As for whatever small regrets other nations may have, I think we may be sure they are keenly enough conscious on their own, and to make that consciousness keener or more public, can only make negotiations more difficult.

I think there is—I hope I am right in thinking so but I am not at all sure, because on this sort of subject it is very easy to talk nonsense or harmful sense—one other thing which may fairly and properly be said. It is this. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said that the first duty of a mandatory was to clear out. I do not think that can really be right in logic. We all owe God a death, but it is not the first of our duties to pay that debt, otherwise there would not be time to do anything else. It cannot be the first duty of a mandatory to clear out: I think the first duty must be to protect and I think that we must get it into our heads that whereas there were mandatory Powers set up by the League of Nations, about which it is very dubious whether they owed their authority to the conquest which preceded the Treaty of Versailles, or to that Treaty, there are also mandatories in a higher and, I think, more real sense, that is to say, that where a State has avowed and obvious power, there it has a duty to protect.

No one doubts, in any of the Arab States, no one doubts in Russia, I suppose that no one in any part of the world who looks at the Eastern Mediterranean doubts, that we have the power there. When first a very small French ship comes everybody says, "It must be by permission of the British, otherwise how did it get here?" just as much as we should say, if a Belgian steamer came down the Volga, "It must have been by permission of the Russians." When a bigger ship comes everybody assumes it must be by permission of the British. When a third and still bigger ship comes, everybody says, "It must be by permission of the British." I ask the House to remember that this places upon us a duty which we cannot escape. It is no use talking about power politics as if that were an accusation. It is a mere tautology: politics are the application of power in the relations between men and societies, and where we are seen to have the power, the responsibility will be put upon us for what ensues. Profoundly as we may feel, as I certainly feel, affection for France and the French people, keenly as we may be aware—and by heaven none of us can now doubt—that we cannot ever again sleep in our beds unless a strong France is on our side, in these days of V1, V2 and all the rest—keenly as we may be aware of these things, anxious as we must be to have the fullest agreement with France, in my judgment we cannot shuffle off responsibility in the eyes of the world for the preservation of peace and order for the Arab States, including these States.

I have often made speeches and said nothing very much in them, but I have never felt so confident as I am now that hon. Members on every side of the House will wish me to add nothing to the very carefully-considered statement of my right hon. Friend. That seems to me certainly, in these circumstances, to be the path of wisdom. I share the hope of the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) and the sentiments expressed by the Senior Burgess the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pick-thorn) that the unanimity of this House in this short Debate will impress upon the French people the gravity of this situation as we see it. My right hon. Friend gave two assurances. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) raised one of them. He said, "Do not let us proceed alone." My right hon. Friend made it clear that we are in this matter in contact with the United States, and my right hon. Friend also promised that he would come back to this House and make a statement as soon as he could. With the permission of hon. Members, I will, therefore, leave it at that.