asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his department has made investigations with regard to the allegations which have been submitted to his Department concerning the infringements of Part I of the Cinematograph Films Act; and can he say what action his Department has taken in the matter?

I have nothing at present to add to the answers I have already given on the subject.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any special officers with a special knowledge of this business who can investigate these allegations?

I think, partly owing to the assistance given by the hon. Member during the passage of the Bill through Committee, all my officers have special knowledge.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any agreement has been reached between the Treasury and the Air Ministry to enable the erection of an experimental station for the rotating loop-direction finding system at Orfordness, and have the contracts for the erection of this temporary station been placed?

A decision has not yet been reached, and contracts have therefore not been made.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is holding up the decision between the Treasury and the Air Ministry?

I think that question had better be addressed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Food Council is reconsidering the question of holding an inquiry into the prices of market-garden produce?

As the hon. Member is aware, the Food Council reported in April that there was no indication either from growers or consumers that an inquiry was called for in the public interests. The Council would, accordingly, require evidence that the situation had changed, before reconsidering the question of holding an inquiry.

Did the Food Council invite consumers to appear before them to give evidence?

I understand that they were prepared to consider any representations that were made, but the difficulty was to get anyone to come forward.

Did the Food Council issue any special invitations to any body of consumers to give evidence on this question, or did they merely leave it to the option of anyone to come forward?

I do not think, speaking from memory, that they sent out special invitations to everybody who might be consumers. They had one or two representations made to them, but they found it difficult to get people to proceed with their complaints.

Can the reply which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman be regarded as an invitation to the public to send complaints to the Food Council, and, if the Food Council consider them of sufficient importance, that they will investigate them?

It is one of the functions of the Food Council to investigate any substantial complaint that is made. They showed their willingness to hold an inquiry into this matter, but they found that there were no complainants who were prepared to proceed with their complaints.

Is it not a fact that when the Food Council ask them a very large number of people refuse to give evidence? What action is taken in such cases?

That is quite a different question. I do not think that where an inquiry has been held there has been any question of people being unwilling to come forward. Here there was a suggestion that an inquiry should immediately take place, as originally proposed by hon. Members in this House, but it was found that among those who were primarily interested in regard to the margin between the producer and the consumer, no one was prepared to come forward and prosecute the case.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Belgian Customs authorities have announced their intention to increase their Customs tariff on special steel from 5 per cent. to 15 per cent. ad valorem; that the French Customs duties on similar steels have been increased from 95 francs per 100 kilos in 1922 by successive stages to 300 francs per 100 kilos, which took effect from 2nd March. 1928, the last increase being nearly 100 per cent., viz., from 160 francs to 300 francs per 100 kilos; and whether, in the circumstances, he will consider penalising similar imports into this country from both the countries named?

I am aware that the Belgian Government have been pressed to increase the existing duty on special steel, but I have no information as to a definite decision in the sense indicated in the question. Inquiries are, however, being made through His Majesty's Embassy at Brussels. As regards France the facts are as stated in the question. The present duty of 300 francs or about 48 shillings compares with one of 50 gold francs or about £2 before the War. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

How long are we to allow foreign countries to keep putting tariffs against us, without our taking some action?

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that high-speed steel contains from 15 to 21 per cent. of tungsten; and, as on tungsten imported into this country there is a duty of 33 per cent., whether he will consider placing high-speed steel on the same footing as tungsten as regards import duty?

I am aware that steels containing a percentage of tungsten are imported into this country. The duties imposed by the Safeguarding of Industries Act do not extend to such steels, and I do not see my way to adopt the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to an inquiry being held as to the possibility of bringing high-speed steel under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

In the first place, we have no indication from the makers of high-speed steel in this country that they desire any such action to be taken. In the second place, I do not believe that it will be found practicable to levy a duty on small tools and so on containing tungsten, because no one could ascertain what proportion of tungsten there is in the small tools made of high-speed steel.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to any competition from other countries with regard to high-speed steel?

I think that by long experience and an early obtained lead we are holding our own with the whole world in this high-speed steel, in spite of competition.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain for the benefit of Sheffield why safeguarding is so efficacious in the case of safety razors and other cutlery and is not supposed to be of any value in respect of high-speed steel?

I beg to move,

"That the thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker for his distinguished services in the Chair for more than seven years; that he be assured that this House fully appreciates the zeal, ability, and impartiality with which he has discharged the duties of his high office through a period of unusual labour, difficulty, and anxiety, and the judgment and firmness with which be has maintained its privileges and dignity; and that this House feels the strongest sense of his unremitting attention to the constantly increasing business of Parliament, and the uniform urbanity and kindness which have earned for him the respect and esteem of this House."

None of us who were in this House seven years ago, when you were asked if you would take the Chair, can have forgotten how you said to the House "They must take me as I am." And the House took you as you were. They took you with confidence, and they have never regretted it. They part from you to-day with sorrow. For 18 years you have occupied high and responsible positions among us, for the greater part of that time presiding over this Table at which I speak and for the last seven years as Speaker. While it has been a period of shattering and recasting of political parties in this country, not a single tremor has disturbed the foundations of that Chair upon which you sit.

Tributes have been paid in the past, as they might well be paid to you to-day, for certain qualities which we always expect to find and do find in our Speakers—dignity, urbanity, impartiality, courage, firmness, with liability to sudden seizures of either deafness or blindness speedily recovered from. But, Sir, there is one characteristic, I venture to think, which in you has been perhaps more prominent than in any previous Speaker, and for which I think you will be long remembered, and that is your wide humanity. Although seven years is not a long period of years, yet it has meant no fewer than five Administrations, each Administration bringing in its train fresh problems and a large influx of fresh Members in this House; and with each Parliament you, Sir, by your character have instilled in all of us, from the oldest Member to the youngest, that same love for this House, that same respect for it, that you have yourself.

More than previous Speakers have you exercised your great influence beneficently and usefully in other directions. Your knowledge of, your interest in, and your love of these historic buildings has made you do more, perhaps, for the beautifying and preservation of them than has been done by any of your predecessors; and you have specially taken under your charge the growing interests of the Empire Parliamentary Association, realising how much may be done by contact, by frequent visits, by frequent intercourse between the Parliaments of the Empire. The growth of the visits from Members of Parliament at home to the Dominions and from those of the Dominions to home, has been helped in great measure by the sympathetic understanding which you have given to it. If, for one moment, I may trespass on something still more private, I am certain, from my own knowledge, that the hospitality which was so freely given in your house, during your term of office, to the Members of the Dominion Parliaments has been among their most treasured recollections when they have gone home.

This great Parliament over which you have presided is co-eternal with British freedom. The two things stand or fall together, but the spirit of Parliament—far more important than the forms—owes more to the Speakers of this House than to any individual, however great his position may be in it, and we rejoice to think that that spirit during these years has been preserved by you in its plenitude and handed down undimmed and untarnished to your successor. When you leave us, it will not only be the passing of a well-known figure from that Chair in which you sit; it will be the passing from this Chamber of a man with whom everyone of us feels linked by some measure of personal friendship. When these Resolutions are passed, as they will be passed, unanimously, then, Sir, your work in this House will be finished, but I have to ask you, and I am sure every Member joins with me in this, that you will think fit to come back once more into the Chair to-night, and adjourn the House for the last time, and let us all shake you by the hand and wish you "Good-bye".

I rise to associate myself with both the language and the tone of the speech of the Leader of the House. I do not know, Sir, if you really understand with what deep regret we are to say "Good-bye" to you at Eleven o'clock to-night. Your departure, for one thing, is a most uncomfortable reminder to many of your colleagues, who appeared in this House about the same time as yourself, that the years do not only go, but that they are going very quickly. We shall always remember your great kindness, and the infinite pains you have taken to accommodate yourself to us and us to you. Approach to you has always been easy, and the help which you have given us has been both ready and generous. You have shown us in a most remarkable way how to be patient and courteous without being lax; how to be strict and severe without being mechanical and formal; and you have also demonstrated to us, in a way that few of your predecessors have done, how gentleness can rule and how persuasiveness can subdue.

I am afraid, Sir, we have given you some trying moments, but I know that you will forgive us. I am almost inclined to recall them without a blush and without an apology, because they were the occasions for you to give us displays of your great qualities of human understanding and of your diplomatic genius. You had the eye, not only to see but to see into, and you have encouraged that capacity to show itself on every occasion that presented itself to you. You referred, Sir, in that rather moving announcement made to us yesterday, to the troubles that you often take to your pillow. One of those troubles was that you had to turn a blind eye to a great many Members who had most wonderful speeches to deliver. I wonder whether it is the Member whom you call, or the Member whom you do not call, who has the greatest grievance against you? In any event, Sir, the Member whom you did not call, you allowed to retain in his mind his speeches as dream children, children speeches, like Charles Lamb's dream children. They have never been born, and therefore they remain very beautiful and very successful. You have called some of us, Sir, and the pains of your pillow may have been great; but I can assure you, when the speeches were born, to a great many of us their birth was attended by far more pain than the pain of conscience which you took to bed with you at night when you had refrained from seeing others who wished to address this House.

You have presided over us when the burdens of public work have been enormously increasing. Whatever may be said about democracy, this undoubtedly has to be said about it. It is a very hard taskmaster, and, while you have made us wonder how it was possible for you to carry your load, you lightened the load that we were carrying by the example that you set us. The Leader of the House has referred to one of your great activities and I leave it with him, but I should like to add a sentence to it. Your love of this House has extended in a peculiar way to love of its fabric. The Prime Minister said that you beautified the House. Sir, I think you have done more. In the work that you have done to give us pictures of our past, to restore to us some memory of what was within these walls, you have done more than engage in the pursuit of the beautiful; you have also done something to restore to us the soul of British representative institutions.

In 1921, we called you to that position of high authority, of august respect, and of exacting labour, and you have amply filled it. From the moment you appeared there in your official garb, you set aside your party predelictions; you belonged to the House, and neither to the Government nor to the Opposition. No predecessor has surpassed you in impartiality. This House, its powers, its distinctions, its honour, is the only inheritance of hundreds of thousands of humble folk in this country, and you, Mr. Speaker, are its guardian. Prime Ministers and other high officials of State rise and become discredited, and nobody is a penny the worse, but Speakers must retain the serenity and the authority of their position. We congratulate you most heartily upon your guardianship. When your name is added to that long list on our Library walls of men who have presided over us, it will recall to us, who were your contemporaries and your colleagues, nothing but years of happy association, of grateful memory, and of valued friendship. From the bottom of our hearts we bid you a regretful "Good-bye," and we hope that many years of peaceful life and of public service are still in store for you.

I rise, on behalf of the Members with whom I am associated, to support the Motion which has been submitted by the Leader of the House, and has been supported by the Leader of the Opposition. I have nothing to add to the very eloquent tributes which they have paid to your conduct in the Chair. I have a certain satisfaction in listening to them, because I was the head of the Government which had the responsibility of first nominating you to that position, and I think that they were a vindication of the choice which we then made, a choice which was based upon a great deal of experience of your conduct in the Chair. For over a generation, it has been a very trying and testing time for Parliamentary institutions throughout the world, and some of them have barely survived. The conduct of the officers who preside over the deliberations of these assemblies is a very important element in the authority and prestige of Parliamentary institutions. We owe a good deal to the great Speakers, of whom you are one, Mr. Speaker, who for a whole generation have maintained the authority, the influence, and the power of Parliament in this country at a time when it was so essential to the life of the nation.

I am, I think, one of about four Members present here to-day, who witnessed the very grim conflict between a very redoubtable Parliamentary party and the authority of the House of Commons. We have always the recollection of Mr. Speaker Peel, one of the greatest Speakers who ever occupied that Chair —stem, dignified, majestic—who, on behalf of the House of Commons, fought that grave conflict. You, Sir, have not been confronted with quite the same trials as he was, but your difficulties have been very great; they have been very complicated, and it is due, not merely to the urbanity, but to the tact, the forbearance, and the good temper which you have exhibited, that the House has overcome many of those difficulties without impairing its authority or prestige in the public mind. For all that, those who believe in Parliamentary institutions owe you a deep debt of grati- tude. You have rendered an immortal service to democracy and liberty by that achievement, and for that reason I associate myself sincerely with the tributes that have been paid to you.

I think it would be a little short of impertinence on my part if I stood up with any idea that anything could be added by me to the very remarkable series of speeches to which we have just listened, but, as one who has had continuous service as the oldest Member of the House, as the one who had the honour of first presenting your name to the House as Speaker, and as one who in forty-seven years of Parliamentary life has seen many Speakers come and go, I feel that I would be a little wanting in respect to the House and to you if I did not add a very few words to what has been said by those who have preceded me. I never had any doubt of your capacity for the great position which you have occupied. May I say, in no pedagogic spirit, but at a result of great experience, that you were entitled to, and won your position, long before you reached it, by silent, obscure and very often unknown service to the conduct of this great House.

There is no body in the world where the good apprentice so surely ultimately reaches his reward as the House of Commons; the good apprentice I have in mind is not merely the man who, on occasions, rises to great heights of eloquence, or to masterly strokes of strategy, but the man who takes his share in that obscure, very often unknown, work by which the machinery of this House is carried on behind the great front scene of set debate. If we had no such men here, who in silence and obscurity saw to the proper ordering of our proceedings, this House would soon be very much diminished in value and authority. You, Sir, were willing to begin your apprenticeship when you were a Parliamentary boy, by taking an obscure position in the semi-official life of the House by becoming an unpaid Parliamentary Whip, but, when you occupied that humbler position, then, as afterwards when you attained to greater influence, everybody, on seeing you pass to that outer Lobby could rely on your being ready to help, and could be secure in the knowledge that everything would go smoothly. Therefore, you are the most remarkable instance, in my know- ledge of the Speakers of the House of Commons, of the men who earned their greatness by their assiduity and sincerity in performing small things.

Another word I must say. I think you have fully maintained the traditions of your great predecessors, some greater than others, with the majesty which can only belong to true greatness. I have listened to many tributes which were paid to them at the expiration of their terms of office. They were worthy of the men who made them, and worthy of the men of whom they were made, but may I just say, merely as a hint, merely as a suggestion, that amid all these lofty and deserved encomiums paid to you and them, I think I perceive in the tributes paid to you a note of intimate, sincere and warm affection which has never been surpassed in the case of any previous Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we part from you not only with respect but with deep and profound affection.

I hope the House will pardon me for uttering one or two sentences. I realise that in my own person I am one of the least important and most obscure Members of this House. There are circumstances which have rendered my position in this House peculiarly exceptional at times, and I have realised that more often than the House has been a difficulty for me I may have been a difficulty for you. I sincerely join in the expressions of opinion which we have heard, for not only have I enjoyed perfect and impartial protection at your hands but on all those occasions when you had to turn me down your informative advice to me was even of greater value than the opportunity of speaking. Just one more word. The Leader of the House paid a tribute to your hospitality and the impression created by it upon the Dominion representatives. I say without exaggeration and with complete sincerity that my friends and countrymen from India who have come here and come in contact with you through the Parliamentary Association and your leadership of it have invariably gone away with the impression, however unfair it may appear to others, that in you they have met the finest gentleman of Britain; and there is not the slightest doubt that the feeling expressed to-day that there has been com- plete satisfaction with your Speaker-ship is absolutely true without any exaggeration or exception.

I beg to move,

"That this Resolution be recorded as having been agreed to nemine contradicente."

then addressed the House, as followeth (all Members being uncovered):

I beg to move,

"That the thanks of this House be given to Mr. Speaker for what he has said this day to the House; and that the same be printed in the Votes of this day and entered in the Journals of this House."

I beg to move,

"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty that He will be most Graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of His Royal Favour upon the Right Honourable John Henry Whitley, Speaker of this House, for his eminent services during the important period in which he has with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, and assuring His Majesty that whatever expense His Majesty shall think fit to be incurred upon that account this House will make good the same."

I believe it is not necessary to Second this Motion, but I should very much like to be associated with it.

I beg to move,

"That this Resolution be recorded as having been agreed to nemine contradicente."

I observe that since yesterday a number of additional Amendments have been placed on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). I notice that the hoe. Member has divided his former Amendment into a number of parts and has added some new propositions. One of them which relates to tramways, has been disposed of by another discussion. With regard to the majority of the ethers, I think that they would come in more properly on Clause 3, as they appear to relate to hereditaments of an industrial character or which might be argued to be complementary or ancillary to industry. When that has been said, there remain some seven Amendments which cannot be said to have an industrial character at all, and they relate to cemeteries, sewage, tithe, health service, professional business, public recreation and education. With regard to these proposals, I shall be willing to do one of two things: Either the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green can move them altogether in the form set out yesterday, or, if he prefers it, he can select any one of them in order to discuss whether the hereditaments provided for in Clause I should be added to or not.

May I make one or two suggestions? I quite agree that it would not be desirable to discuss all these things separately, but there are some issues which are separate and are very vital. For instance, the question of retail shops raises a definite and important and working-class dwellings raise quite a different issue. I can quite see the force of what you say, Mr. Chairman, when you state that to raise a Debate on all these matters would not lead to any real elucidation of the problem. These Amendments raise two very definite issues which formed part of the essential criticisms of the scheme on the Second Beading, and it would be very difficult to combine them now. I think it is only fair that the House of Commons should be allowed to express its opinions upon these two vital matters in the Division Lobby. If it be agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman, to allow us to take these two points and debate them separately, then I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green not to proceed with the other matters, but those two points I have mentioned are very vital matters.

I think I may say that those are two of the matters that might be argued on Clause 3 as being what I described as complementary or ancillary to industry, and, as a matter of fact, those two points could not arise on Clause 3 even if no new Amendment were put in. What I wanted to point out was that while these hereditaments, if it were claimed that they had an industrial character, would come up for argument on Clause 3, some of the other subjects which, I think, could not in any way be associated with industry, would not be arguable on Clause 3. Obviously, the principle of selection could not be extended to all those subjects separately, and, therefore, I would suggest that the hon. Member either moves these as one Amendment, or he might select one or more of the more important; but he would not be in order in raising the point on Clause 3.

Clause 1 makes a distinction of hereditaments in the valuation list, and is limited to three divisions. Is it not reasonable to suggest that there should be a larger number of divisions, so as to include four, five or six different headings? That is, after all, the purpose of my Amendment.

And therefore I suggest that the hon. Member might raise those subjects which are clearly non-industrial. I might remark that I yesterday referred to Clause 3 an Amendment extending the scope of industries to which hon. Members on my left attach importance, and in view of that I must maintain that those Amendments which may be complementary or ancillary to industry must be argued on Clause 3. As a matter of fact some of them will have to be argued anyhow in some form or other on Clause 3, because the points are already raised there.

I think the course you suggest would certainly be the best one to follow. The thing to which we attach a great deal of importance is that nothing that we do under this Clause should prejudice a full discussion upon Clause 3. I understand that the suggestion is that the non-industrial Amendments which are on the Amendment Paper to Clause 1 might be taken now, but those which are purely industrial, and therefore would come more properly on Clause 3, might be postponed until we reach that Clause.

I do not necessarily say whether they are, properly speaking, industrial or not, but it might be urged that they were necessarily complementary to industry.

With regard to warehouse hereditaments, it would be rather difficult to argue that question on Clause 3, because it also comes up on Clause 5.

I should say that this is just one of those things which might be described as complementary to industry, and, if hon. Members will notice, the question of storage is referred to in Clause 3. I do not know whether the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) would like to move any one Amendment specially.

We attach the greatest importance to (m) and (o).

In my judgment, the subjects which have no connection with industry at all are cemeteries, sewage, tithes, health service, professional business, public recreation and education.

Do I understand that you will not allow me to move (m) and (o) together?

I have already said so.

I will, therefore, move the two Amendments (m) and (o).

I must point out that the Amendments which the hon. Member can move as a whole, or from which he can select one in case that has a stronger claim than the others, are (h), (i), (k), (q), (t), (u) and (v).

I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:

(u) public recreation hereditaments."

Obviously, this is the most important of the paragraphs mentioned. It is clear that there is a very strong case for public recreation grounds of every character and every kind to be specially classified. There has been for some time an agitation owing to the lack of opportunities for games and recreation in various parts of the country. So strong has been that agitation that it has been found necessary to create an organisation specially for the purpose of encouraging the provision of more open spaces. It is inevitable in a country of overcrowded towns like ours that the difficulty of getting land for recreation purposes becomes greater every year. It would be an immense encouragement if in the valuation list open spaces were classified separately, and special treatment were given to them, so that at any rate they would be free from having to pay full rates. To some extent in the centre of London we have been fortunate, but in the outskirts of London the difficulty is increasing almost every year.

There has been comment at different times about the enormous number of people who appear at football matches —the enormous percentage of the population who are mere spectators, and are not able to take part in the game, and it has been suggested that it is a sign that we are becoming a degenerate people, a nation of lookers-on rather than active participants in sport. But there are so few opportunities for young men and young women to play games of football, tennis and so on. If public recreation grounds were assured protection from the rate collector, it would be a great stimulus to laying out grounds and, what is more important, their preservation from the builder, so that games could be encouraged. The same, of course, applies to parks and gardens. In the great industrial areas of the North of England there are miles and miles of main streets and factories, and in those congested areas there are very few opportunities for pleasure grounds, and very few signs of trees and open spaces. Local authorities are prevented from carrying out their duties and responsibilities under the Town Planning Act, and I think it would be a valuable contribution to this problem if we could have open spaces and pleasure grounds specially scheduled in the valuation list, so that there would, be some hope that some of the money which the Minister has to give out in largess would be used in this way for the relief of the ratepayer.

The point which has been raised by the hon. Member is one which, obviously, applies to other kinds of property as well as recreation grounds, and the arguments which he has brought forward in support of his proposal might be easily applied, with modification, to voluntary hospitals, for instance. I do not think there can be any Member of this House who is more anxious than I am to see an increase in the number of open spaces in this country. I have on many occasions expressed views to that effect both in public and in private, and I have from time to time done what I could to, promote the extension of open spaces for public recreation. But this is not the occasion to bring forward a proposal of that kind. It is one which lies outside the whole scope and intention of this Bill. What we are trying to do by this Bill is to prepare the way for a stimulation of trade and industry throughout the country. The question of open spaces has but a very remote and indirect connection with that object, and while, therefore, I entirely sympathise with the views which have been expressed by the hon. Member, I do feel—and I think the Committee will feel—that we must find some more suitable occasion to bring forward a practical proposal to that end, and that any relief with regard to the rating of recreation grounds and similar hereditaments must be reserved for another time.

I fear that the Minister's reply has been more in the nature of side-tracking. Be suggests that some other occasion would be a more proper one than the present for raising this question. I can see that whenever this matter might arise, if it were not pressed to-day, it would be suggested that, seeing that £30,000,000 has been spent in the relief of rates, therefore this could not then be tackled as a single item, and ought to have been included in a much larger measure. The Minister of Health is interested in open spaces, and I would ask him whether he has heard from police authorities in towns like Birmingham, Nottingham and other large industrial areas as to the great importance of open spaces from the point of view of the diminution of juvenile crime. According to the extent that children have access to open spaces, whereby they can enjoy themselves and play games, so do we find that fewer children are brought into the police courts of the country. That, in itself, is a very important item, because, to the extent that we can provide these facilities, we obviously do away with the necessity for much of our police supervision, and much of the suffering and degradation associated with our children's courts. For that reason alone I should like the Minister of Health to give us some expression of opinion, if this be not an appropriate occasion on which recreation grounds may be discussed, as to when that appropriate occasion will arise.

The Minister has said that the proposals of this Bill are proposals for the relief of industry, or, rather, the stimulation of industry, which I think was the phrase that he used. I rather think that that is an argument in favour of this Amendment, because, if we can extend our playing fields, that will surely add to the health of the community, and, if we have a healthy community, they will be better and more efficient workmen. Therefore, I think that on that ground alone the Minister is wrong in stating that this Amendment ought to be resisted. On the contrary, it ought to be supported. It is, of course, in accordance with the usual policy of the Minister to say, of anything that is suggested by the Opposition, that now is not the time. Of course, we can appreciate the Minister's sympathy with the demand for more playing fields. We remember the kind of sympathy that was expressed in "The Walrus and the Carpenter," and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is expressing exactly the same kind of sympathy now. He says that these facilities may be given at some time in the future, but not now. I think that, in all the circumstances, the Amendment ought to be accepted.

I agree with my hon. Friends who have spoken thus far in favour of this Amendment, that there is no more important question from the point of view of the improvement of the health of the people, and especially of the well-being of the youth of the community, than the provision of open spaces. Those who a short time ago made an investigation into the housing conditions in some of the most hard-pressed areas in our great cities were appalled at the absence of any opportunities for recreation for the children living in those densely populated areas. In a great many areas in the East End of London the only open space which is available for the children is the cemetery, and, for the rest, the children have to play outside in the dingy streets, running very considerable risks in consequence of the traffic. Apart from that, there is no doubt at all that these conditions have a very deleterious effect upon the chances of these children to develop into healthy men and women.

The importance of this Amendment is that it helps to elucidate more clearly what the purpose of the Bill is. The Minister of Health made a declaration that, however great may be the need for open spaces, and although the provision to meet that need must necessarily be crippled by any burden, whether of rates or otherwise, upon the spaces provided, and however great may be the need for voluntary hospitals, the virtues of this Bill are not going to be denied to distilleries; they are to have three-fourths of their rates taken off. There is to be nothing for open spaces for the children, and nothing, as I understand, for voluntary hospitals, which are struggling hard to make both ends meet in order to provide an essential service for the people of this country; but when you come to institutions which are by no means hygienic institutions, or, at least, not institutions for the promotion of hygiene, like the breweries and distilleries of the country—

The right hon. Gentleman will find an appropriate place at which to propose their omission later on.

I am looking forward to that prospect, and to the satisfaction of seeing hon. Gentlemen, who will have to face their constituents, voting first of all against rate relief for open spaces and voluntary hospitals, and afterwards voting for relief for distilleries and breweries.

The last words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) enable us to see what is the object of this Amendment. The object is, apparently, to get the Conservative party to vote against open spaces and to vote for distilleries. The right hon. Gentleman is quite honest about that, and we see now why so many of these Amendments have been put down by the Liberals, namely, in order to make it quite certain that we shall so vote that they may have some unpleasant electoral cries. They will not be able to discuss sewage, which is referred to in paragraph (i)—

We are not discussing paragraph (i).

The right hon. Gentleman was clever enough to introduce the subject, of distilleries, and I was hoping that I might be able to do the same. I should like to say that we in this party draw the line at being led into a political crime by the Liberal party, and we are not afraid of facing the facts. The Liberal party do not have to find the money. The money is found by the Government for a particular purpose, as shown in this Bill, and, although the Liberal party may possibly make some party capital out of it, I, for one, shall not have the least hesitation in voting against these Amendments.

The decision of the Minister to resist this Amendment shows in strong relief the unsatisfactory character of the rating relief provided in this Bill. If the rating relief had taken its normal and proper form, then, wherever the rates were unduly high, they would have been relieved. If you take an area where the rates are far above the normal, the cost of providing some recreation service, whether out of doors or indoors, is made prohibitive in such an area by reason of the rates, and what we should have liked to see in those highly rated districts would have been a reduction of the rates in all cases, and, in that event, the reduction would have applied to recreation facilities. The Minister has seen fit to take an entirely different course. He has confined his rating relief to factories and workshops, as set out in a later Clause of this Measure, and, after this Bill has been carried, if, indeed, it be carried, which, with its many difficulties upon its head, I very much doubt, the position of recreative hereditaments will not merely he as it was before, but will be very much worse, because, relief having been given to a different type of of hereditament, a very strong argument will he brought forward that no such relief as will be reasonable can be given in the direction in which we ask for it.

The hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) has said that he is not going to be stampeded into voting for this Amendment on the ground that it would be electorally inadvisable to vote against it. Very good; he can do exactly what he pleases. The Amendment is put forward because it is a sound proposal for benefiting— [Interruption.] It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said that, if the Amendment were rejected, and if hon. Members opposite voted against it, they would find that their constituents did not agree with them. That is perfectly true, but that does not mean that it is merely an electoral proposal; it means that it is a proposal for the improvement of the Bill, and, if hon. Members opposite choose to vote against it, and bring the wrath of their constituents upon their heads, that is not the fault of either of the Opposition parties. We give them the opportunity. If, in blind obedience and subservience to the Minister of Health, they choose to throw away that opportunity, they, and they alone, must bear the blame for their action.

I desire to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) when he said that the health of the workpeople was an essential part of industry, and that anything that could be done to improve the health of the workpeople, by making it more easy to provide recreational facilities for them in their spare time, would undoubtedly be of benefit in making the industry in which those workpeople are engaged successful in comparison with its foreign rivals. Therefore even on the narrow ground with which this Bill professes to deal, namely, the improvement of industry and the relief of the burden which rests upon it, this Amendment ought to be supported. In that connection I should like to ask one question of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary. There are now, in many productive works, welfare centres in which recreative facilities are provided for the workpeople, and I should like to know whether, when they come either within or outside the 10 per cent. provided in this Bill, the hereditaments applying to those welfare centres will or will not be included in the relief to be provided under this Measure.

I am rather surprised that the Minister is not going to accept this Amendment, because I understood him to say yesterday, and, indeed, it seems to be so from the Clause, that it does not follow that, if an extra classification of this kind is put into Clause I, relief will necessarily be granted under it. We are now drawing a distinction in the valuation list between certain kinds of property, and what we desire is, not to settle the question whether there is to be relief or not, but to settle what distinctions are to be drawn when the valuation is made. With regard to some of the eight paragraphs which you, Mr. Hope, have ruled as being in common with this one, they are evidently included already in the valuations that are now made. In the Minister's own White Paper, item No. 14, on page 1, namely, cemeteries and burial grounds, must obviously be at least partially distinguished in the present valuation, or the Minister could not have given the return of rates from those properties in the County of London as amounting to £9,209, in the county boroughs to £18,138, and in the rating areas in the administrative counties to £14,000, making a total for England and Wales of £41,000. We cannot tell what the figures are for Scotland, because, unfortunately, we have not a White Paper for Scotland, even to-day. If you go down to the next item on the list—

The bon. Member must not go down the list. The hon. Member's colleague has chosen one par-titular Amendment, and I must ask him to keep to that Amendment.

I understood you to say that you ruled that the eight paragraphs in question were somewhat similar in basis, and my colleague was asked to choose one of them.

I said that the hon. Member might move the seven in the united form in which he put them down yesterday, or that, if he preferred to do so, he might choose one which he considered to be the most important.

Do I understand that it is in order for us to move the others separately if we so wish?

Certainly not. It is against my Ruling, and, as a matter of fact, now it would be out of order even if I relented.

I will come back to the White Paper on this issue. Section 19 includes, without giving a separate and distinct classification, these public recreation grounds that are referred to in the Amendment. They are described as follows:

"Land not elsewhere included separately, including woodlands, parks, sports grounds and rights of sporting."

The total rates now paid in England and Wales for that kind of property this year amount to £912,000. The Minister has often expressed himself in favour of the need for open spaces for the people. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) need not be surprised at party points being made in this House. I remember in the last Parliament no considerations of the party effect of Amendments in the country ever prevented the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench from moving in Committee against the Labour Government any Amendment they cared to move.

Does the hon. Member agree that he is making a party point?

Not at all. All I say is that if an Amendment is sound, it is a very awkward thing for the party opposing it to vote against it. For purposes of illustration I may call attention to a fact. There was a particular Amendment—

The hon. Member is going a long way unless this is an illustration of public recreation.

As a matter of fact, it had to do with the relief of hospitals, a very difficult thing to vote against, but there were Members who did vote against it. The Amendment in my judgment is sound in itself and the fact of the hon. and gallant Gentleman having to vote against it is due not to the fact that it is a party Amendment but to its intrinsic soundness. It is an Amendment expressing the vital need for the relief of public recreation grounds, and it will be heartily welcomed throughout the country. Owners of land and other properties not separately assessed, including parks, do not show clearly in the rate books of the various county boroughs, administrative counties and the County of London how much is paid in rates by the public recreation grounds of the people. I am surprised that the Minister takes the view that we ought not to have this separate distinction. Fat aldermen and others who preside at great public dinners are always making speeches about the need of having fewer people looking on at football and cricket and more playing. The Division on this Amendment will clearly show to the public those who support the point of view that we ought to have more young people and fewer professionals playing.

I was somewhat astonished at the Minister's statement. He began by assuring us that he has always been in favour of additional playing grounds for children. I do not doubt that, but I would remind him that the children of working-class parents have only the streets, and they are being run off the street's by policemen. In the district where I am living now in London, there are continual troubles for the good-hearted policemen, one in charge of the traffic and the other in charge of the footpaths. There is a school quite near and the children come out to play, as children will. There are all these difficulties to contend with. The children of the working classes, according to the Minister, have to be sacrificed in order to pay a subvention to Courtaulds. That seems to be the only logic left in the Minister's statement, that the working-class child is to be sacrificed in order to pay pensions to people who do not require them. He made another statement that I do not disbelieve, but again I wonder whether he expects it will be accepted. He told us about his sympathy with the hospitals. I do not doubt that, but anyone thinking the thing out will see that he did not mean it any more than he meant his statement in regard to playing grounds for the children. The greatest antidote for hospitals is playing grounds for children. The more playing grounds you have, the healthier you build up your adults and the less need there is going to be for hospitals. He seems to be quite prepared to express sympathy and the rest of it with regard to working-class children, but he is prepared to use his power as a Minister and to use the machinery of a reactionary Government in order to sacrifice the children of the working class and to give big subventions to his friends.

I do not at all wonder at the right hon. Gentleman not accepting the Amendment, but on that account I feel the greatest pleasure in supporting it. The position seems to me to be this. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that undoubtedly recreation grounds are a very necessary thing and that if the appropriate time arrives he will facilitate and encourage them in every possible way. I doubt if he would deny what has just been said, that indirectly they add to the efficiency by adding to the health of the nation, and therefore to its industrial power, but that is so indirect that I will not press it. The point is this. Here is a Bill brought in with a view to granting relief in respect of certain classes. The Minister says in the Bill, "The classes to whom I desire to grant relief, amongst others, are the industrial classes." We find that there are a large number of the industrial classes who are exceedingly well off and do not need any relief at all. We find that there are a vast number of children who badly need recreation grounds. It is nothing to us that you have chosen to take money from the taxpayers and dole it out to industries. We find that some will get it who are already very well off and do not need it and, therefore, so far from being deterred by the comments made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Louth that by putting down these Amendments we are forcing them to take up a certain position, I assert that we are, and we desire to tell the country that Members of Parliament voted for money coming from the taxpayer and being given not to distressed but to prosperous industries and being denied to recreation grounds.

I am glad the Party that proposed this Amendment intends to push it to a Division. I should have thought it would have appealed to the Minister. He tells us he has the greatest sympathy with its object, but sympathy is not of substantial value to poverty stricken people. He insinuates that, if this were the time, he would gladly assist in promoting the views which have been expressed from this side of the House. I submit that this is the occasion. It is an occasion for arranging the machinery through which £30,000,000 annually of the taxpayers' money wall be distributed. The Minister of Health is fond of telling us that he is not arranging the distribution of the money, he is only arranging the machinery, and that we have really no right to discuss the question of the money. But that argument is no more sound than it would be to say he has no objection to a horse winning a certain race. His only objection is to its being entered for the race. All that is being asked here is that the Valuation and Rating Committees should be free to regard the subject of children's playgrounds as one that might be considered for relief to be given. We are including here not merely some industries, but prosperous industries. We are proposing to compel rating authorities to grant relief to people who are already doing very well out of the industries in which they are engaged. The Minister says his object is to stimulate industry and production. I submit that industry that is paying 50, 20 or even 10 per cent. dividend requires no stimulant. The dividend itself is sufficient stimulant, and they will be no more vigorous after they get this relief than they are at present.

This argument will be more appropriate to a later Clause.

I thank you, Sir, for putting me right. One cannot cut out from his mind the class distinction that runs through the whole of this Bill. You have these people who are getting the relief and do not need it, and the children of the poor who do need it. There can be no doubt that healthy children are essential to healthy production. We have running through the Bill a proposal by which land that is partly farming and partly a playground for the rich can be included in the subjects to which relief may be granted, but relief cannot be granted to any subject in which the poor are interested for recreation. Miners' welfare sports grounds are excluded and now the children of the poor are excluded. I do not know how the Minister and his supporters are to face the country if they oppose this Amendment. Surely, if there is one thing that ought to appeal to the head of a Minister of Health, it is to grant facilities which will enable the children on whom the prosperity of industry, and of everything else national, depends to be included in the largess they are distributing to all sections of the community. I protest most vigorously against the class conduct that is visible here this afternoon, and I am sure that the last has not been heard of it in the present discussion.

I was not present when the Minister made his speech, but, from the speeches that have since been made, I gather that he is not going to accept the Amendment. I have listened to the Minister on many occasions when, after having spoken on an Amendment and giving reasons for refusing it, he has altered his mind. I hope he will see his way to alter his mind on this occasion. I rise to take part in the Debate, because I have had personal experience in regard to this matter. The Minister will no doubt remember that in the Report of the Sankey Commission which dealt with the mining question, it was stated that evidence had been given that in most mining villages and towns up and down the country there were really no recreation grounds. One of the main recommendations of that Commission was that a penny per ton should be stopped in order to develop recreation fields and other amenities. That has been done. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to go and look at some of the things that have been done. This money has been spent in many instances on the provision of public parks the enjoyment of which is not limited to miners and their families. One of the principal difficulties that we have been up against has been the question of upkeep. We supplied the £s. d. for the provision of these recreation grounds, but we found that there was nothing allowed towards the cost of upkeep. The result of this has been that in many cases we have turned over these grounds to the local authorities.

We did the same thing where I live. We had not a yard of recreation ground in the area before the Miners' Welfare Committee turned its public park over to the local authority. Since then, it has been thrown open to the community, and I venture to say that there has been nothing in the district of Bentley that has been so much appreciated as the benefit provided in these circumstances. Being a mining community we found ourselves in some of the difficulties in which most mining communities found themselves, and the question of the upkeep of the recreation ground has occasioned the local authority a good deal of concern. Our rates are about 17s. in the £ and we have had to cut down expenditure in every direction. We have had to do so in connection with the expenditure on this public park. I believe that the last time the auditor came down he pointed out that, though we had not exceeded the amount which we were allowed to spend, we had come very near to doing so, and he gave a very serious warning. Owing to our financial difficulties we have had to cut down a lot of the facilities which we were in the habit of providing year after year. For instance, we used to have a band in the park once a week. This has been cut down to once a fortnight. If the Minister of Health would give relief in this direction he would help the welfare committees which are doing this very desirable work and he would help the local authorities to provide money for the upkeep of these recreation grounds. I hope that even now it is not too late to ask him to change his mind and that, as far as recreation grounds are concerned, he will allow this relief to be given.

I must say that I was very much disappointed by the rather cursory way in which the Minister of Health rejected this Amendment. I say that, because I know that his claim that he is sympathetic with the movement of providing playing grounds for the people of this country is well founded. He is not only sympathetic, but he has shown in many practical forms his sympathy with this movement. I know that his sympathy is sincere, and I cannot help very much regretting that he could not see his way either to accept this Amendment or to give some indication of how the object which we aim at in this Amendment could be met in some other way or, as he said, on some other occasion. The need for these playing fields is really a crying and clamant one. First of all, there is the case of the children, to whom so many hon. Members have already referred. Last year, no fewer than 5,000 children up and down the country were killed in accidents in the streets, and over 100,000 received injuries of one kind or another. This was brought out in a Debate which took place in another place on this question. It was stated, on behalf of the Government, that these accidents took place, not when the children were on their way to and from school, but mainly when they were trying to find places in which to play in the streets of the big cities. That was the time when these children suffered these injuries. That illustrates the real need there is for providing proper playing fields. An hon. Member above the Gangway referred to the question of juvenile delinquency. Only a few weeks ago there was published the Report of the Departmental Committee in Scotland which inquired into the question of juvenile delinquency and in the course of that Report they said that one of the principal factors leading towards predisposing children to delinquency was the absence of playing fields and the absence of proper facilities for recreation.

It is not only the case of the children. It is also the case of an equally important, if not more important class of people—the adolescents—the younger people, those who have passed the school age. It is of vital importance to them. It is vitally important to their health, and, through that, to the prosperity of industry, in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has said that this Amendment has nothing to do with assisting industry. It is of very great importance that these young men should have facilities for playing games. He will say, of course, that a great many of the big firms provide these facilities. That is quite true, and all honour to them for doing it. But there are a great many small firms who cannot possibly provide these facilities and who have not the resources to purchase playing fields on a large scale. Their employés inevitably have to depend upon those public playing fields with which this Amendment is concerned. It would be of immense assistance to these firms and to the movement for providing playing fields generally for the employés of these firms if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to give this encouraging assistance for which we ask and so relieve the burden of expense in those places. When we have times of strife and trouble, and when there are industrial disputes, there is no sneer and better safeguard, no better lightning conductor, than playing fields on which the people can go and work off their bellicose propensities. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what it would cost. I believe it would be a very small figure. Unfortunately, there is no information on that point in White Paper. I believe it will be found that in a great many cases these playing fields have been fully valued and that this additional help which the Amendment would give would be a very great factor in encouraging the provision of playing fields up and down the country.

I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a party question. I really pay him tribute for the part that he has played in forwarding this movement. If he will give some indication that this matter will be dealt with—he says that this is not the occasion—if he will refer us to some occasion or to some legislation that the Government intend to bring forward in which this matter will be dealt with, I believe that my hon. Friends would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I feel so strongly about this matter that if the right lion. Gentleman gave us some assurance regarding it I would withdraw even my personal observations as to his attitude at the present time. I repeat that it is not a party question. It is a question occupying the attention of men of all parties in both Houses of Parliament. They had a Debate, I think it was early in this Session, or, if not, it was in the last Session, in another place, and a very grave view was taken of this question by men of all parties. Last Session, this House passed a Resolution, and passed it unanimously, calling the attention of the Government to the seriousness of the situation and to the need of remedying the deficiency in playing fields. This, it seems to me is the remedy. If the right hon. Gentleman sees a better opportunity, we shall be interested. to hear when that time will come. Meanwhile, we appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this opportunity which now presents itself to him and to the Government, and ask him, if he cannot accept this Amendment, to give us some indication that before the Bill leaves the House he will give some attention to the question.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who made a very interesting speech and one we are accustomed to hear from him, certainly made the real meaning and intention of this Amendment, which the Committee will observe deals with "public recreation hereditaments" very much clearer to me. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has pointed out that lie is not so much concerned with the position of the employés of great firms who provide their own recreation grounds as he is with the employés of the smaller firms who of necessity have to go to some public recreation ground owned by the local authority. Unless we make some provision in respect a recreation grounds owned by public authorities, he is very much afraid it will be a very serious thing indeed for the employés of these small firms.

I pointed out that one of the difficulties at the present time was the loss of rates on ground taken for playing fields and that if the Government would give a grant corresponding to the rates obtained from these fields it would be an incentive to the local authorities to provide playing fields.

It would be an incentive to local authorities to provide them. I want to be perfectly clear about that, because I knew that the hon. Baronet and other hon. Members would make some observations. The hon. Baronet and most of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken on this matter—and I am including in that, I am sorry to say, the hon. and learned Gentleman who is sitting opposite—are under a great misapprehension—if not, I might even say, showing ignorance—as to what is the exact position of local authorities as regards recreation grounds in connection with rating. I am in a position to assure the hon. Baronet and his Friends that they need have no apprehension as to the case which they have put forward. There was an important case in the Courts dealing with this subject—the Brockwell Park case, Lambeth Overseers v. London County Council. If the hon. Baronet will refer to the law as it at present exists in regard to this matter, I think he will find that he need have no fear at all, because land in the possession of local authorities and used by them for recreation grounds is entirely exempted from rates.

May I say that when I moved the Amendment I was quite aware of that fact, and I was not referring to local authorities, because I never mentioned local authorities' recreation grounds.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary has entirely missed the point. The point is that very few of these recreation fields exist at present, and we want these fields to come into existence in larger numbers. In this Amendment, we are suggesting that advances should be made to the local authorities in respect of the loss of rates which they will suffer should these grounds be brought into existence.

I think that when the hon. Baronet refers to his speech tomorrow morning he will find that I have fairly answered the case which he has put this afternoon and that I have removed any anxiety which he may feel. So far as local authorities who acquire land for this purpose are concerned, they will not be troubled in any way in regard to rating. May I remind the Committee that the decision in the Brockwell Park case was followed in a Manchester case, Mayor, etc., of Manchester v. Chorlton Union. When this case was discussed in the Courts, it was found that land acquired by local authorities for the purpose of recreation grounds was exempted from rates as in the case of Brockwell Park. There was another similar decision in Liverpool, in which the Liverpool Corporation were concerned. Again, in that case the decision in regard to the Brock-well Park case was followed. There need be no anxiety about the children of the poor working-class family who would suffer if relief were given to the industries of the country. Let hon. Members opposite have no anxiety about the poor child who belongs to the working-class family not having a public park in which to play. As a matter of fact, I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) gave his case away in his concluding observations.

While I have endeavoured seriously to answer the arguments this afternoon, it must be borne in upon every Member of the Committee that such a proposal as is indicated in this Amendment is quite foreign to this Bill. This Bill is designed to assist productive industries and to diminish unemployment, and to bring forward a proposal of this kind, of the nature and with the object indicated by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, is quite outside the scope of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be a. great master of political tactics up and down the country. He has indicated to the Committee quite clearly, so far as is possible, in his concluding observations, that the whole object of this Amendment and of the 14 other Amendments put down on the Paper by the Members of the Liberal party is to enable them to say when they go to the country, or to some afternoon fete or something of that kind: "We proposed that all the hospitals should be exempted; we proposed that all the cemeteries should be exempted"—

I do not think that cemeteries come into this Amendment.

I will conclude by saying that when they go to some afternoon fete the Members of the Liberal party will say: "We proposed that your public recreation ground should be exempted from rates, and the wicked Government and their supporters voted it down." [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and his Friends hope to ride back to power on tactic: like that. That will not do. I advise hon. Members opposite not to be led away by these Amendments of the Liberal party, who are present this afternoon in such large numbers. At first, I wondered why eight or nine Members of the Liberal party were present, but now I understand. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has given away his secret, and I ask this Committee—and in my request I include Members of the Labour party—to reject this Amendment.

All this mental activity by the Parliamentary Secretary will not reassure the miners. As the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) pointed out, for years and years in the mining areas we have suffered from the lack of recreation grounds. As a result of the Sankey Commission we are now beginning to get these things under weigh, and we are spending a considerable amount of money. We are anxious to get these things going, and I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman could see the children in the colliery villages enjoying these recreation grounds, which they have never had before, he would only be too anxious to relieve these grounds from any rates. But there is another side of the matter, quite apart from the point of view of the children. There is also the question of the mothers who never had an opportunity, until the welfare movement came into being, of enjoying these recreation fields, and of sitting in them and seeing their children playing in them. Apart from any physical advantages, there is the question of the health of the children. While I am not going to intervene between more expert authorities, but as a simple miner I would say that we value this new factor in the miners' life so much that we are making a direct appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position so far as we are concerned. Take the case of Durham. Durham, as hon. Members know, is nearly bankrupt. How are we to meet the cost of these new institutions unless we get some relief? I make my last appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not allowing the dancing lesson given by him to blind me to the facts. I make an earnest appeal to the Government to give us some comfort in Durham, and to let the children have open air and recreation grounds which we have supplied at the cost one penny per ton, and I ask him to give us what relief he can to carry out that task.

We always admire the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and we always admire his eloquence, but I want to point out that I think he has misunderstood, or misrepresented, the object of the Amendment. There are many local authorities who are careful about rates, and careful about nothing else. If you tell them that by buying a certain field of six or 10 or 20 acres for recreation purposes they are going to lose the rates which at present they get for that land, they will not buy it, but, if you assure them that there will be no loss of rates to them, then that particular local authority will be much more likely to purchase that land. There are a great many enlightened and successful businesses. I may say that most successful businesses are enlightened. In many cases, towns have been built up around some of these huge businesses, and the heads of the businesses have been enlightened enough to recognise their moral responsibility to the people who work for them and on whom they are dependent for their success. Many of them provide open spaces for their staffs, not under the local authorities at all, and they provide them for the people working in the immediate neighbourhood. Take the cases of Port Sunlight, of Bourneville, and other places. These large firms are highly successful, and I would not give them a penny of relief in the way of rates. They are doing extremely well now, and they do not want assistance, particularly assistance from the ordinary petrol user, whether he owns a cab, or a motor trolley, or anything else. They have placed a large amount of ground at the disposal of the people living in their district. They should be given credit for that, and they should be encouraged. They have recognised their duty to the people who live and work for them. If this Amendment were carried, it would give encouragement to other less enlightened firms to follow suit.

People often point to the case of the child born in the slums, and it has been said that it is only the fool who wonders but that the wise man asks why, and everybody knows that there is no more original sin in the child who is born in the slums than the child who is born elsewhere. The reason why he may not be so healthy as other children is because he may not have any opportunity for reasonable recreation. By this Amendment, you would encourage big firms to realise what they owe to the people living in their district; you would encourage them to realise that they owe something to the people who work for them. If the Committee passes the Amendment, they will be doing something to produce a better state of things among the two classes of people whom hon. Members are always saying should be brought into closer relationship; the employer and the employé. Surely, it is only reasonable that before we proceed to give large sums of money to the rich who do not want them, we should encourage these big firms to be generous to those on whom they depend. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment, could he not forecast the introduction of some legislation which would give us that which we require?

I want to go back to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago, when he told us that, by a certain Act of Parliament, recreation grounds were not assessable for rates. In the general summary, issued by the United Kingdom Alliance, of rates levied in England and Wales in 1927, they state that the total rates levied on

"land (not elsewhere included) separately assessed, including woodlands, parks, sports grounds, and rights of sporting"

amount to £912,000 per annum. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell use exactly what proportion of that applies to recreation grounds? If be would, we should know how far we ought to go with him in the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman, with his usual facility, avoided the miners' welfare schemes where, possibly, £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000 have been spent on bowling greens, roundabouts and so forth. He did not tell us that these are not rated. Had he done so, we should have recalled to his mind the Government White Paper in which we have instance after instance of mining villages where previous to the Sankey Commission and the Housing Act of 1919, which lent itself to the extension of recreation grounds, local authorities in various districts were actually engaged in building houses, there were no rates for recreation grounds. Unfortunately, there were few recreation grounds in mining villages, but wherever we have established miners' welfare schemes, as a result of the Sankey Commission and expended the few thousands of pounds available for that purpose in providing outdoor recreation facilities, we have found that the rate has followed automatically. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that that is the wrong policy for local authorities to pursue and that if the local authorities desire, they have no need to rate miners' welfare schemes?

Will he tell us that miners' welfare schemes are not assessable to rates? The right hon. Gentleman does not seem disposed to reply. Therefore we must conclude that while the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary were yesterday talking about differentiations that would accrue if a certain Amendment had been accepted, they are sitting calmly and callously this afternoon and supporting a Bill which has for its purpose the causing of 100 per cent. of rates to be paid on a public recreation ground, while at the same time they are going to relieve the recreation grounds of the great industrial concerns of three-fourths of the charge for rates. Will he deny that? Will he deny, for instance, that at Port Sunlight, a great productive industry, he is going to concede to them 75 per cent. of their rates in the future and that unless their recreation grounds and other hereditaments exceed 10 per cent. of the whole, the recreation grounds will be exempt almost from any rates? What does the right hon. Gentleman imagine shat the miners who live in the mining areas and the other residents in the mining areas, because there are many people besides miners who live there, will think about the differentiation in the Government's proposals? It is true that the right hon. Gentleman can visualise the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) going about the country and talking about the differentiations, but he cannot dispose of them, or he will not dispose of them this afternoon, unless he is willing to accept this Amendment or to intimate what he is willing to do.

The right hon. Gentleman must know that the Sankey Commission was an indictment against those who had been in charge of many districts all over the country, with regard to social amenities in the average mining village. The Government of 1919, with their Housing Act, lent themselves as far as they could to encourage the local authorities to build houses and to set apart land for recreation in the neighbourhood. Those recreation grounds in some cases have been established, or on the land so made available for recreation purposes, miners' welfare funds have been expended, and now the local authorities come along and say: "You must pay rates, because you have made a recreation ground for your children." It seems to me that while the Government are willing to relieve the sporting grounds of the wealthy sections of the community whose land is only partially cultivated and partially maintained for shooting purposes, they ought not to hesitate to relieve public recreation grounds on the lines indicated by this Amendment.

I have a very definite and clear recollection of what has happened in my own district, where we have set aside 25 acres of land. We have spent approximately £18,000 on this welfare scheme. Arrangements have been made for juvenile sandpits, swings for children, bowling greens and tennis courts to divert young men from the public houses and places, where some people think they ought not to go, to healthy outdoor recreation. We have provided a cricket field, which requires maintenance, a football field and so forth, and having done so we have been called upon to pay a certain amount in rates, while three- quarters of a mile away there is a huge landowner who has plently of woodland and pasture land, and the woodland which is maintained by a colliery company for the exclusive luxury of the officials during the shooting period, is to be de-rated under the terms of this Bill. The sport and recreation of the wealthy is to be de-rated, while the recreations of the poor miserable wretches who have had no recreation, or scarcely know the meaning of recreation, are not to get a look in under the Bill.

Here is an opportunity for the Government to do something. Although it is something separate and apart from the original intention and purposes of a Bill for relieving productive industries—one is obliged to make that confession—it is one of those things to which the right hon. Gentleman could apply himself, in order to mete out some sort of equity so far as recreation facilities are concerned and let the people outside see that, so far as they can, the Government are anxious to do the right thing where healthy sport and recreation is concerned, and that they will never put rates upon public playing grounds while they are willing to relieve from rates the big industrial concerns who provide recreation grounds for their employés. When there is relief to be given, it ought to be as equitable as man can make it. I ask the Minister of Health to re-examine this problem and see whether he cannot in mining and other districts do for the residents what he is doing for the sporting public in other parts of the country.

I support the Amendment and I regret the very flippant note adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with the matter. I am not concerned about his accusation that the Liberal party is attempting to indulge in some kind of electioneering stunt. That may or may not be true. The Labour party is not concerned in such matters. Happily, it is the practice of our party to consider questions on their merits and to ignore any electioneering considerations. I am disappointed with the Minister of Health. There is a suspicion abroad, which I think is unjustified, that the Minister of Health is an administrator of the somewhat hard and callous type that he has not only a grain of iron, but a heart of iron also. I have never been able to induce myself to subscribe wholly to that view. I thought he had a tender spot for the children of this country and therefore it was the more surprising to me when I heard him say that he could not accept this Amendment.

Although I come from a very overcrowded district where children, youths, and adults have hardly any space where they can play, I do not wish to argue this case on the ground of the need of children and growing lads for recreation. I want to look at it from a broader standpoint and to consider it in its relation to efficiency in industry, because I think it can be justified even on that ground. I am not an expert in regard to business efficiency, but I do know that very valuable statistics have been produced from time to time showing what an immense loss industry suffers from intermittent ill-health among the workpeople. It has been demonstrated by people who have gone into the subject that the efficiency of many businesses is very seriously imparied owing to the fact that the employés in it frequently suffer from ill-health. It cannot be gainsaid that, other things being equal, the lad or youth or the man who indulges in recreation of some kind is much more likely to remain healthy and efficient than the man or the lad who does not indulge in such recreation. Therefore on that account a case can be made out for this Amendment.

A suggestion was made quite recently, and I say this by way of illustration only, that the efficiency of this House was not what might be desired; that Members were lethargic, somnolent and generally inefficient. That was attributed to the fact that the Members of this House lack physical exercise. I do not know how much truth there may he in that accusation, but even supposing there was a small amount of truth in it, it is an astonishing fact that a charge like that could be justly levelled against Members of this House most of whom are much more fortunately placed than the working class. They have opportunities of indulging in golf, tennis and other recreations which are denied to the ordinary worker. The ordinary working man in the great industrial centres because of the lack of recreation grounds is not able to indulge in these health-giving recreations, and the consequence must be that his efficiency as a unit in the industrial machine is thereby impaired.

If by means of this Amendment more recreational facilities could be provided for the growing lads and workers in industry, surely it is reasonable to argue that we should thereby be promoting the efficiency of industry and should be tending towards that recovery of trade which is desired by the whole House. I would not stand here to argue this case if I felt that the country could not afford it. If it were a fact that the money was not available for this purpose, I would not make the appeal, but it is an undoubted fact that the money will be available,