House Of Commons
Monday, 24th February, 1930.
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
Private Business
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Barry and Scarborough) Bill (by Order).
Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers To Questions
India
Officers, Peshawar (Housing)
1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the situation created by the shortage of bungalows for the purpose of housing officers and their families in Peshawar, in the North-West Frontier Province of India, has now been remedied; and can he say when the last Report on the general question of housing officers in this province was received?
I hope that before April there will be 30 additional quarters available. I am constantly in correspondence with the Government of India on the general question.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position is now satisfactory?
No. I do not like to say that, but I think there has been an improvement.
Marriage (Age Limit)
2.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the present minimum age for marriage in India; and whether he is aware of any protests by Indian natives against the recent law relating thereto?
The recent Act, which comes into operation on the 1st April next, penalises the contracting, performance or promotion of a marriage if the husband is less than 18 years of age or the wife less than 14. Protests against the Act have been made.
Great Indian Peninsular Railway (Dispute)
3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the railway strike on the Great Indian Peninsular Railway has been settled and on what terms; what are the present wages of each class of workers on this railway; and is there any variation in wages or conditions contemplated or promised?
Only a small percentage of the employés are participating in the dispute. No settlement had been reached last Friday, and I have had no later news From the Government of India's communique, which I am having circulated, my hon. Friend will see that the conditions of service of the employés had for some time been receiving careful and sympathetic consideration of Government, whose proposals were reaching the final stage when the dispute occurred.
Is it not a fact that there have been, in addition to the proposals which have been made, considerable advances in wages within the last few years on the railways in India?
I have not the detailed knowledge to answer the question, but I think the lower paid grades were recently improved.
Following is the communique:
COMMUNIQUÉ, DATED 7TH FEBRUARY, 1930.
"The Government of India wish to place before the public the latest information in their possession with regard to the strike at present occurring on the Great Indian Peninsula Railway. From a report which they have received from the Agent of the railway, it appears that about 20,000 men struck work on the 4th February, of whom 13,000 were employed in the workshops at Parel, Matunga, Jhansi and Manmad, and 7,000 were staff concerned with the movement of traffic On the following day the workshop hands at Jhansi and most of those at Manmad, a total of nearly 5,000 men, returned to duty and over a thousand of the other staff also came back to work. But on the 6th February the men in the Jhansi shops again went on strike and on that day therefore there were about 12,500 workshop employés out, and about 6,000 staff concerned with the movement of traffic.
The principal area affected by the strike of the operating staff is in the lower portion of the Bombay Division. The Jubbulpore Division has not been affected at all, and the trouble on the Bhusawal, Jhansi and Sholapur Divisions is of a minor character. Passenger traffic is moving freely all over the line and so is goods traffic except in the Bombay Division. It should be added that the total number of the staff on the Great Indian Peninsula Railway concerned with the moving of traffic is nearly 100,000, of whom only some 7,000 have gone on strike.
The Government of India wish gratefully to acknowledge the loyalty of the great majority of their employés on the railway who have refused to join the strike, in spite of the pressure put on them to do so. The Government of India also desire to explain the position with regard to the demands of the union, as was explained by the Agent of the railway in a statement which he issued to the Press.
When the President and the Standing Committee of the Great Indian Peninsula Railwaymen's Union threatened to declare this strike, the demands put forward by the union on behalf of its members had either been dealt with already or were being actively and considerately examined both by the Railway Administration and by the Government of India, and the Government of India wish to give their employés an assurance that the least possible time will be allowed to elapse before the outstanding requests of the men are dealt with.
In particular, new and more generous leave rules for the lower-paid staff have been prepared and are likely to be brought into force in the course of a few weeks and a revision of the scales of pay of the lower-paid employés has been engaging attention for several months, and their proposals in regard to it are nearly ready. This was explained to the union before the strike was declared.
The Government of India are content to leave it to the public to judge whether, at a time when it was known to the union that the demands of the men were under active and sympathetic consideration, it was in the best interests of the men themselves to call a strike, and especially a strike which, so far as it affected public utility services, was bound to cause inconvenience to the public, and whether the choice of the time does not indicate that the action of the union in calling the strike was dictated not by a regard for the economic interests of its members, but by outside influences."
Statutory Commission (Report)
4.
asked the Secretary of State for India when the Simon Commission Report will be ready?
If my hon. Friend will repeat his question in about a week's time, I hope to be able to give him an answer.
Will the Secretary of State for India press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) the desirability of giving Parliament and the country the advantage of his Report as early as possible?
I think I must leave the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley to take his own time.
Congress Members (Resignations)
7.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many resignations of Congress members there have been in the central and provincial legislatures; and how this number com pares with the total previously holding seats?
One further resignation in Madras must be added to the list printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 3rd February.
Can the right Hon. Gentleman say if any Congress candidates are standing for any of these vacancies?
I have seen in the newspapers that that is so, but, if my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will give him full particulars.
National Debt
8.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the National Debt per head of the population in India; and what is the total amount borrowed outside the country?
On 31st March, 1929, the interest-bearing obligations of the Government of India and the Provincial Governments are estimated to have been about Rs.610 crores in India and £354,000,000 in England. On the basis of these figures the debt per head of the population of British India is approximately, Rs.42, or say £3 3s. I may add that about 80 per cent. of this debt is covered by productive assets.
Is it correct to say that, according to these figures, India is probably, of all countries in the world, in the most fortunate financial position?
Yes, the financial position of India is very sound.
Does that apply to the natives in India?
I was speaking about the financial position in India.
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that there was a scene created in this House by the use of the word "native"?
We speak of the inhabitants of India as Indians.
Is it not the case that the workers in India are about the poorest paid workers in the world?
Russia!
Dutch Aeroplane Service
9.
asked the Secretary of State for India under what conditions a Dutch aeroplane service between Holland and the Dutch East Indies has been permitted to fly across Indian territory and make use of Indian aerodromes and landing grounds; how many such flights have taken place; whether their continuance is to be permitted; and, if not, will he state the reasons?
The grant of facilities across India by the Government of India to a series of nine fortnightly flights by Dutch aircraft from Holland to Batavia and back which commenced on 12th September last was conditional on the outward flights being completed during 1929. Upon their completion in December last the Netherlands Minister asked that these facilities might be extended to a further series of nine or 10 trial flights up to June next. This request is at present under consideration by His Majesty's Government in consultation with the Government of India and no decision has yet been reached in the matter.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in future all the Dutch landing grounds will be extremely valuable to us in connection with flying to Australia, and will he press upon the Government of India to give every facility to the Dutch aeroplanes?
That matter is being considered, and I can add nothing to my answer.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, if there is in any way a dog-in-the-manger policy, there will be reprisals against us?
Air Mail Service
10.
asked the Secretary of State for India when it is proposed to extend the present Indian air mail service beyond Delhi: when it is proposed to commence a regular air service to Bombay; and if he is aware of the value and convenience an air line for passengers and mails to and from Bombay and other important Indian cities would prove to be?
The Government of India hope to extend the London-Delhi air service to Calcutta next autumn and to Rangoon shortly afterwards. It may, however, be necessary temporarily to discontinue the service between Calcutta and Rangoon during the monsoon of 1931. As regards the establishment of a service to Bombay I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given on the 3rd February.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole position of civil aviation in India is very backward, and will he try to stir up the Government in this matter?
Without accepting the premises of the hon. and gallant Member, I am very anxious to see civil aviation extended in India.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with one line between Karachi and Delhi in that huge country?
No one is ever satisfied. We all desire to progress.
In view of the great importance of this question, would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper or placing a statement in the Library about our air communications in India when the Government proposals are in their final state, and have been approved by the right hon. Gentleman, so that we may know the terms and conditions of these services and other matters of that kind?
I have no reason to suppose that the Government of India lacks in the least a desire to get on with this job. I shall be very glad to place before Parliament all the information available as soon as we receive it.
Army And Air Force Cadets (Training)
11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can report any further steps that have been taken by the Government of India for the training of suitable Indian gentlemen in India for commissions in His Majesty's Indian Army and Air Force?
The policy of continuing to train Indian cadets in this country for the present was recommended by the Indian Sandhurst Committee, and is still being followed.
What are the conditions of the Skeen Committee?
That is the Indian Sandhurst Committee.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Skeen Committee suggested the establishment of a college in India, and is that going to be proceeded with?
The Skeen Committee, which is the Indian Sandhurst Committee, recommended that a college should be set up in India, but not at present.
How does the right hon. Gentleman think Indianisation can be accomplished with 10 officers a year?
May I ask why, in a question from the Labour Benches, the expression "Indian gentlemen" is used? Why should it not be simply "Indian men"?
"Gentlemen" is the right term to apply.
It is not always applied in the same form in this House, so that the right hon. Gentleman's reply does not suit the question.
Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take into his consultations the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)?
Drug Traffic
12.
asked the Secretary of State for India what are the chief purposes of the Measure recently passed by the Indian Legislative Assembly providing for the better control of the drug traffic; and whether the Measure is expected to lead to the complete suppression of the illicit traffic in Malwa opium?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southern Derbyshire (Major Pole) on the 20th of this month.
Railway Rolling Stock (Contracts)
13.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any further contracts for the supply of rolling stock and other material for Indian railways are pending; and if any steps are being taken to secure that these contracts are placed in this country?
I understand that further contracts for rolling stock and other material for Indian railways are pending. The hon. Member is, of course, familiar with the rules governing these matters.
In view of the state of unemployment in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman collect as much information from the Indian Government as to possible contracts which would give employment in this country?
As the hon. Member knows, there is a High Commissioner in London.
Will the Secretary of State for India use his influence in order to see that as far as possible locomotive and rolling stock contracts come to this country at the present juncture when there is so much unemployment?
The hon. Member does not seem to be aware that the decision of the Government of India is governed by the resolution of the Indian Legislative Assembly, which puts Indian interests first.
Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that we get a fair crack of the whip? I have seen that at Krupp's in Essen they were making locomotives for India when our people were idle at the time.
International Agreements
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any international commitments have been made during the previous 18 months that have not been published or laid before the House; and, if so, can he give particulars?
From the 24th August, 1923, until the 6th June, 1929, five international agreements were not published nor laid before the House. With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate details concerning these in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Since the 6th June, 1929, there have been no international agreements made which have not been either published or laid before the House.
Following are the details:
Egypt
15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the recent publication in Cairo of an Egyptian Green Book detailing the negotiations with Mahmoud Pasha, he proposes to issue a corresponding White Paper; and, if so, how soon?
As the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) was informed in a written reply on the 21st February, the fact that the result of my conversations wish Mahmoud Pasha has already been laid as a White Paper renders unnecessary any further publication in this country.
Are we to take it that the documents published by the Egyptians may be considered as authentic?
I think that the late Egyptian Prime Minister has signed the documents, so that they must be authentic so far as he is concerned. I understood that there was nothing of any importance in them.
Russia
Religious Situation
16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government is giving His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow any facilities for investigating the question of religious persecution in Russia?
The Soviet Government have readily furnished His Majesty's Ambassador with the information for which he has asked respecting the legislation in force in the Soviet Union on religious questions. He has not asked the Soviet Government for facilities other than the supply of this information, and could not properly or feasibly do so.
If he does not ask for or receive any facilities, of what use is his report going to be?
We had better wait and see what the report is.
Are we to see the report?
I shall be replying to a question on that point later.
May I ask my right hon. Friend if he has received one single complaint?
21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the instructions given to His Majesty's representative in Moscow to report on the treatment of Christians in Russia, he will instruct His Majesty's representative in Moscow to report also on the treatment of the Mussulman population of the Caucasus, Turkestan, and other parts of the Soviet Union, with special reference to the closing of mosques and compulsory modifications in the Mussulman sacred law reported in organs of the official Soviet Press?
My instructions to His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow called for a general review of the religious situation in the Soviet Union. I mentioned no particular communities by name.
27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to communicate to the House the contents of the report from the British Ambassador at Moscow as to the religious persecutions and situation in Russia?
31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be in a position to make a further statement in regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government in respect of the conditions affecting religious liberty in Russia?
89.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to be in a position to make a statement to the House with regard to religious freedom in Russia?
I am still awaiting the report of His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow, and, as I informed the House on Monday last, until I have received and considered it, I cannot give any undertaking either for or against publication. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.
Could the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to when he expects to receive the Report?
I have already informed the House that I am hoping that the Ambassador is making the fullest inquiries possible.
Are the instructions to the Ambassador regarded by him as a matter of urgency?
In view of what has passed between the Ambassador and myself, there is no doubt in his mind that it is a matter of urgency.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Christians in Russia are praying to be protected from the Christians in this country?
32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has taken any steps to sound the opinion of any foreign Governments as to the best procedure to be adopted in considering the conditions affecting religious liberty in Russia?
No, Sir. Consultations of the nature suggested would clearly serve no useful purpose.
36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the English church in Moscow is being used for secular purposes; and whether he will make representations on this matter?
No, Sir. The church in question is closed and is not being used at present for any purpose.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a beautiful church in North London is being used as a furniture repository?
British Investments
17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government hold the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics responsible in respect of principal and interest on loans to the municipality of Moscow and other Russian cities?
Yes, Sir.
Would it not also be logical to hold the United States Government responsible for the repudiation of certain debts by Carolina and other States of the American Union?
18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proportion of the obligations in loans repudiated and private undertakings nationalised by the Soviet Government are held by British investors who purchased during the regime of the late Imperial Government; and what proportion are held by British investors who purchased subsequent to the repudiation of loans and the decrees of nationalisation of the Soviet Government?
I am not in a position to state the exact proportions of such obligations held respectively by British investors who purchased their holdings before and after the revolution.
Is there not a distinction between bonâ fide investors in Russian industry before the Decree of Nationalisation and those who purchased shares after the Decree of Nationalisation?
I do not think that that is the question which is on the Order Paper.
Visas
28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many visas have been refused to Russian nationals since the exchange of Ambassadors between Great Britain and the Soviet Republic?
So far as I am aware, only one.
British Press Correspondents
30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any British Press correspondents are allowed in Soviet Russia; and, if so, whether the news they send is subject to Russian censorship?
So far as my information goes, British Press correspondents are allowed in Soviet Russia, but Press telegrams are subject to official censorship.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending an invitation to Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere to visit that country?
Diplomatic Establishments, Moscow
34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state an estimate of the cost to the Government of the various diplomatic establishments of Great Britain to be set up in Soviet Russia as a result of the resumption of diplomatic relations; and the number of officials and servants to be employed therein?
The present estimated annual cost of the diplomatic and commercial diplomatic establishments in Moscow is £29,263, of which the diplomatic establishment accounts for £25,198 and the commercial diplomatic establishment for £4,063. The total number of officials, including clerical staff, is 11, and of officials servants, seven.
What is the proposed salary of the chaplain?
I must have notice of that question. I do not carry these things in my head.
Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to extend commercial representation?
I have already answered a question on that point. We must have the commercial agreement that we are trying to make fixed up before we can say what exactly is best to be done in that respect. The negotiations are proceeding as rapidly as possible.
Great Britain And United States (Visa Charges)
19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any decision has yet been reached in connection with the abolition of visa charges between Great Britain and the United States of America; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay?
Mis Majesty's Government have now thoroughly considered the advisability of reducing or abolishing altogether the present charge, and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that, in view of the financial sacrifice involved, it is not possible to modify the existing fee at present.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there would be a very large increase in the number of American tourists coming here if the fees were abolished, which would largely compensate for the amount lost in fees?
I have no doubt that the Treasury will take that point into consideration.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the extent of the financial sacrifice? How much will the Treasury lose?
Why did not the party opposite put this policy in operation when they were in office?
Wei-Hai-Wei
20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the draft agreement in regard to Wei-Hai-Wei will be brought before the House of Commons for consideration?
The text of the proposed agreement has not yet been definitely settled, but I hope that it will be possible to lay it before the House shortly.
Did the agreement contain any clause permitting His Majesty's ships to visit the place and make use of it as a port of call during part of the year?
I have already said that the terms are not quite settled. I think I must have notice of the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the question that I have asked?
Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put it down.
Siam
22.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British subjects employed by the Siamese Government in official positions as a result of the abolition of extra-territorial privileges?
According to my latest information, the number of British subjects employed by the Siamese Government in official positions is 64. There have been some changes, but this figure is probably approximately correct still.
Passports And Visas
23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the names of those countries in respect of whose nationals applications for British visas are referred to His Majesty's Government for decision before being granted?
I have been asked to reply to this question. In the case of those countries the nationals of which require a British visa, the types of case required to be referred to His Majesty's Government for decision are set out in the instructions to British Passport Control Officers, which are confidential.
24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, within the last six months any irregularities have occurred in the use of British passports by foreign subjects; and, if so, whether he will give the nationalities of such users?
During the last six months, four cases have occurred in which aliens were found in possession of British passports. The nationalities of three of the persons concerned were Dutch, American and Greek respectively; that of the fourth has not yet been established.
China (Railway Loan Agreement)
25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the British Legation in China has protested and, if so, with what result, against appropriations from the revenues of the Pekin- Mukden Railway on which British loans are secured?
As the answer is rather long, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
I presume that the hon. Member refers to the report which has appeared in the Press that a contract has been signed by the Netherlands Harbour Works and the Pekin-Mukden Railway for the construction of a harbour at Hulutao, and that the cost is to be paid by the allocation of funds from the earnings of the railway.
His Majesty's Minister in China has been instructed to represent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the charging of any new loan on the security of the Pekin-Mukden Railway, except through the British and Chinese Corporation, constitutes a breach of Article 5 of the Railway Loan Agreement concluded between the corporation and China in 1898, against which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom would be obliged vigorously to protest. His Majesty's Minister has also been instructed to urge the Chinese authorities to allocate the surplus earnings of the railway in full for the payment of the outstanding debts of the railway. He has also been instructed to represent to the Chinese Government that the contract reported to have been concluded with the Netherlands Harbour Works should not be put into execution before those debts have been fully met, and until the consent of the corporation has been obtained to any charge being made on the earnings of the railway.
I have received no report as to what has been the result of Sir Miles Lampson's representations to the Chinese authorities.
League Of Nations
Wireless Station
26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government proposes to review the proposal to set up a wireless station as part of the peace machinery of the League?
At the Assembly in September last, the British delegation suggested a resolution affirming the principle that the League of Nations should have special facilities for wireless communication. Negotiations have been proceeding with the Swiss Federal Administration for giving effect to this resolution, and the agreement reached with them will be submitted for approval to the Council.
General Act
48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have signified their approval of the General Act for the settlement of international disputes framed by the Ninth Assembly of the League of Nations; and, if not, whether it is proposed to do so?
I have been asked to reply. The General Act is now being carefully considered by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. We are also in communication with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India on the subject.
Poland (Russian Churches)
33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the fact that 500 orthodox Russian churches in Poland were forcibly confiscated in 1929 and converted to Roman Catholic uses; and if he is proposing to ask the British representative in Poland to inquire into this religious persecution?
I have no information to this effect.
Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to ask the British representative in Poland to make inquiries into this matter?
Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask him whether the Polish Government, under the new Constitution which has been adopted, has not been one of the most tolerant Governments in Europe?
May I have a reply to my supplementary question?
I have read the reply. If any useful information can be secured, I shall have no hesitation in asking the Ambassador to give me a report.
China And Russia
35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further statement to make on the re-establishment of pacific relations in Manchuria?
I have nothing to add to the information which I gave in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich, West (Sir K. Wood) on 5th February.
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the number of troops on both sides of the frontier? Has he no information?
I have nothing to add to the fairly long answer I gave on that occasion.
Codification Of Law (International Convention)
37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will announce the personnel of the British delegation to the International Convention for the Codification of Law, opening at The Hague on 13th March?
The United Kingdom delegates to the Conference will be Sir Maurice Gwyer, His Majesty's Procurator-General and Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury; Mr. O. F. Dowson, Assistant Legal Adviser to the Home Office; and Mr. W. E. Beckett, Second Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office. It has also been decided to appoint a woman as one of the technical delegates, but no definite appointment has yet been made.
Who is paying for these delegates?
I must ask for notice of that question.
Francis Lorang
38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is in a position to make any statement to the House on the result of the representations made by His Majesty's Government to the French Government for the extradition of a person named Francis Lorang?
Further evidence and additional charges against Lorang were forwarded to the French Government by His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris on 21st January and 1st February. This evidence is still under examination by the French judicial authorities who are dealing with the case with all possible expedition.
Is there any truth in the announcement in the newspapers that this person has been brought to justice?
I am not responsible for what newspapers say.
Naval And Military Pensions And Grants
42.
asked the Minister of Pensions what changes have been made by him in connection with providing treatment allowances for dependants of disabled men in hospital who were unemployed for some time before going into hospital?
No change has been made in the general position. This was dealt with in the answer given to my hon. Friend on the same point on Thursday last, of which I am sending him a copy.
Is the Minister aware that, when a person is in hospital, he is unable to get one, which is a great injustice to him, and that there is great discontent about this matter, and will he not consider making an alteration?
I shall be glad to consider any representation with regard to the kind of case my hon. Friend mentions, if he will see me.
Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the discontent among the generality of these cases, and will he not consider the general position in order to effect an improvement?
Yes, I shall be glad to consider the general position.
Trade And Commerce
Export Credits (Russia)
43.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department why the limit of five years' credit under the export credits scheme is refused to British exporters to Russia where the importer is the State itself, when it is granted to British exporters to other countries where the importer is only a firm or private individual in the State?
Since the introduction of the present scheme, only one contract involving a five year credit has been entered into. The period of credit for which facilities under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme are granted is a matter within the discretion of the Advisory Committee, and it is not the practice to give reasons for decisions taken on their recommendations.
Can the hon. Gentleman give us the number of applications that have been refused during the last six months?
Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.
Was one of the contracts that has been refused one for 3,000,000 pairs of boots from Northamptonshire footwear firms?
I am just going to answer a question of that kind.
In respect of which country has five years' credit been given?
Argentina.
50.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total in aggregate of guarantees upon bills of exchange accepted by the Soviet trading organisation since the export credits scheme was opened to Russian trade?
51.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total amount of the British Government's guarantee given to current bills of exchange accepted by the Soviet trading organisation under the export credits scheme?
The aggregate total of bills of exchange accepted by Russian trading organisations and guaranteed under contracts entered into by the Export Credits Guarantee Department since the scheme was extended to Russia was, on 22nd February, £408,270. Under these contracts the Department is liable to guarantee further bills for an appreciable amount. It is not the practice to state the amount current on any particular acceptor or country.
What is the average length of these credits to Russia?
I am afraid I cannot give an exact figure, but they are all short credits.
Is that because the Government cannot trust them for long credits?
What is the amount of the Russian applications for exports credits since the scheme was extended which have been refused?
Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.
53.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department by what authority His Majesty's Government has during the past six months guaranteed the credit of foreign Governments other than the Russian Soviet Government; what are the amounts guaranteed in each case; and for what purpose have the guarantees been given?
These guarantees have been given under the export credits guarantee scheme in the normal exercise of the powers conferred upon the Board of Trade by the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920–29. It is not the practice to give figure relating to individual transactions. The guarantees were given in order to assist British exports to obtain finance and carry the risks of the business in question.
Can the House be informed as to the total amount guaranteed to foreign Governments in this connection?
If the hon. Member will give me notice of that question I will try and see if any figures can be given.
Will the hon. Gentleman differentiate between the various Governments with which we are in diplomatic relationship?
The Advisory Committee always considers the position of the different countries when any application is being made.
Can the hon. Gentleman say which are the countries?
Can my hon. Friend say whether it was not the case that the last Government always discriminated between every Government?
Boots And Shoes (Exports To Russia)
44.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his Department is investigating, has investigated, or will investigate, in collaboration with the Northampton boot and shoe manufacturers, the possibility of exporting several million pairs of boots and shoes to Russia?
49.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Depart- ment what steps he is taking to assist British manufacturers to obtain an increase of orders for the export of British footwear; and has he visited Northampton, Leicester and Bristol to discuss plans for securing the large order for boots required by the Russian Government?
92.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will inquire of the Northampton footwear manufacturers whether they require facilities under the Export Credits Scheme to cover five years' credit to enable them to secure the order for footwear which the Soviet delegation desires to place in England; and, if not five years, what the length of credit is that is asked for by the Soviet delegation in relation to this order?
Representatives of the boot and shoe manufacturers have recently seen my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with general reference to export trade with Russia. Subsequently interviews took place with officers of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, but these resulted in no definite proposals being made to the Department. I am always ready to discuss specific proposals for developing trade in any market.
What has caused the hitch in regard to this contract?
I understand that, as far as my Department is concerned, no contract ever has been made; therefore, there was no hitch on our side.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the president of the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers' Association has declared that he is perfectly satisfied that the Government are doing all they can?
I have not seen the statement, but I have been informed of it.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the deputation from Northampton has declared that he is thoroughly dissatisfied with the action of the Labour Government?
If five years' credit cannot be given in the case of this contract, what credit would be given?
When application is made, the Advisory Committee will inform them.
Imperial Preference
46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will defer any alteration in the preferential treatment given to Dominion produce till he has the opportunity of hearing the Dominion points of view at the Imperial Conference in the autumn?
As the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the Debate on the Address last July, so long as the existing duties upon which preferences are given are in operation those preferences will be maintained.
Mexico
54.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the aggregate total of British exports to Mexico for the year 1929?
As stated on page 125 of the Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for January, the total declared value of the produce and manufactures of Great Britain and Northern Ireland exported during the year 1929, which were registered as consigned to Mexico, amounted to £2,537,652.
Is the Minister doing anything to increase this amount?
Did the hon. Member ask me if it was an increase? It is a decrease on the previous year.
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I asked the hon. Gentleman if he was doing anything to try and get the amount increased to-day?
The matter certainly shall receive our consideration.
Russia
55.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, having regard to the expressed policy of the Government in favour of increased trade with Russia, he will inform the House of the specific proposals of the Government with regard to this matter?
I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made to this House on 5th February, on the occasion of the Motion regarding trade with Russia, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough East (Miss Wilkinson), to which I am not in a position to add anything beyond the fact that the two Commercial Secretaries appointed to the staff of His Majesty's Ambassador at Moscow are now at their post and in discharge of their duties.
58.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has made representations through the Soviet Ambassador to the Soviet Government for the purpose of increasing their orders for British goods?
I have been asked to reply. Negotiations are in progress for a Trade Agreement, from which it is hoped that a further increase in trade with the Soviet Union will result. As my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department informed the House on the 5th of February, trade with the Soviet Union has already been increased to a considerable extent.
Railway Rolling Stock (Exports)
56.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the fact that the Council of Jamaica recently placed an order in the United States of America for 40 special railway cars, because British firms were unable to guarantee equally prompt delivery, and that the South African Railways Administration recently placed an order in Germany for six locomotives, Class 16 D. A., because British manufacturers could not deliver by the required date, he will call a meeting of British locomotive manufacturers to consider means by which British firms may be able to deliver within the period stipulated by the purchasers and thereby secure the export orders which are now being lost?
With regard to South Africa we have not been able to ascertain that the placing of the order out of the United Kingdom was solely due to considerations of prompt delivery. With regard to the order from Jamaica, the Crown Agents for the Colonies have already been approached by my Department, and they have taken the matter up with the Jamaican authorities. In the circumstances, I do not think that at the present time any useful purpose would be served by the meeting suggested by the hon. Member.
If it is a fact that we are, unfortunately, losing so many orders for locomotives, is it not advisable for the hon. Gentleman to seek some conference with locomotive makers to see if they cannot put this matter right?
We are in communication with our agent in South Africa on this matter. In any case, I think that we had better receive an answer from him before we follow up the suggestion, but I will certainly bear it in mind.
Does it follow that the hon. Gentleman who put this question is in favour of the quota system?
Motor Industry (Morocco)
57.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether his attention has been drawn to the figures of the export of motor cars and chassis to Morocco; and whether, seeing that they can enter the country on the same terms as other countries, he can draw the attention of the industry to the possibilities of the country?
My Department is well aware of the unsatisfactory sales of British cars and chassis in Morocco. His Majesty's Consular officers stationed in the various zones of that country have frequently reported on the subject. The attention of manufacturers has been drawn, by the issue of a number of circular letters, to the potentialities of this market. Two reports recently published have also dealt with its possibilities for the British manufacturer.
Can the hon. Member take any further steps, seeing that we have less than 8 per cent. of the imports, that there are exactly the same export duties for every country, and that America has practically a monopoly to-day?
I fully recognise that the position is most unsatisfactory. We have done everything, it seems to me, that the Department could possibly have done in the last few months. If any hon. Member can make any suggestions, I shall be only too glad to consider them.
May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he might continue the McKenna Duties, and then there would be no difficulty?
Unemployment (Ministers' Memorandum)
45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will again consider whether he can make available to Members of the House of Commons the memorandum containing proposals with a view to mitigating unemployment recently presented to him by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the First Commissioner of Works, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.
No, Sir.
Fishing Industry
Inquiry
47.
asked the Prime Minister whether definite invitations to give evidence before the Fishing Inquiry will be issued to organisations or persons from whom evidence is desired; or whether organisations or persons interested are expected themselves to volunteer evidence?
I understand that invitations have already been issued by the Committee to a number of representative organisations. It is, of course, open to any representative body to offer evidence before the Committee.
Handling And Stowage
63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is taking steps to ensure greater hygiene in the storage of fish at sea by insisting upon the use of galvanised iron storage shelves with waste-water gutters to supersede wooden storage shelves?
The provision of galvanised iron storage shelves with wastewater gutters forms part of the recommendations of the Report on the Handling and Stowage of White Fish at Sea recently issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. I understand that steps are already being taken by some owners to equip their vessels with the apparatus necessary for carrying out the recommendations in this Report.
Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make the recommendation compulsory?
That would require legislation, but I do not think we need fear that the recommendation in the Report will not be made applicable at a very early date.
Will the right hon. Gentleman insert a provision that British galvanised iron and steel shall be used?
64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will frame regulations of a kind calculated to discourage the sale of stale fish for curing or smoking or for consumption in fried fish shops, and thereby induce the fishing industry to observe more cleanly methods of packing and storage at sea so as to avoid fish being landed in a stale condition?
Adequate safeguards against the exposure for sale of fish intended for the food of man but unfit for human consumption already exist by virtue of the Public Health Acts, under which such fish may be condemned and the owner or person in possession may be fined or imprisoned. As stated in the Report on the Handling and Stowage of White Fish at Sea, which the hon. Member presumably has in mind, the term "stale" is used in a comparative sense and does not denote that the fish is unfit for human food.
The right hon. Gentleman has given me an answer in regard to fish unfit for human consumption. That was not what I was asking for. I was asking about inferior and stale fish.
The word "stale" is used in the report in a technical and trade sense, and as representing a difference from the highest standard of freshness.
I am aware that fish unfit for human consumption cannot be sold, but there is stale fish which is sold, and which ought not to be sold.
There is a responsibility upon the local authorities in regard to that matter.
Agriculture
Wages Regulation Act (Prosecutions)
59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the number of prosecutions during 1929 under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, for failure to pay wages at not less than the minimum rates; and will he state the aggregate amount of such under-payments and the gross amount of the fines imposed?
The number of prosecutions undertaken during the year 1929 under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act for failure to pay wages at not less than the minimum rates was 114 in respect of 201 workers. The total amount of arrears of wages ordered to be paid by the Courts was £2,274, and the fines imposed amounted to a total of £258. In addition, two farmers were prosecuted for giving false information and in each case the employer was convicted and fined £5.
Are there any prosecutions pending at the present time?
Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question, when I will give him the exact facts.
Home-Grown Barley (Malting)
60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the high price of beer and the low price of home-grown barley, if he will invite all British brewers to assist arable agriculture by using all home-grown barley for malting purposes; and whether the names of such firms thus co-operating may he published to this House?
I have recently been assured on behalf of the brewers that they are always anxious to use, in the manufacture of beer, as high a percentage as possible of English ingredients. In these circumstances, I do not think that a useful purpose would be served by adopting my hon. Friends suggestion.
Under the exceptional circumstances of the barley trade in this country, does not my right hon. Friend consider that an appeal to the brewers might yield better results?
I am in communication with the Brewers Society in that sense.
May I ask whether the price of beer follows the price of barley?
Will my right hon. Friend consider the setting up of an Import Control Board so as to make sure that all British malting barley is taken into consumption before any imported barley is used?
Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question as the matter hardly arises on this question.
Potato Industry
61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the reasons which prevent the export of potatoes from this country to Canada and to the United States?
The importation of potatoes into Canada and the United States of America from this country was prohibited by the Governments of those countries on account of the existence of wart disease in the United Kingdom.
Has the right hon. Gentleman offered this country and the Dominions potatoes certified as being from areas free from disease, and, if so, what reply has been received?
Yes, we have been in communication, but we have not been successful in our negotiations.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds Canada refuses to accept potatoes from this country?
Canada holds the right to take every precaution against disease, which, we cannot deny, exists in some quarters.
Is that not largely due to the continued importation of potatoes from the Continent to this country.
No, Sir, I think not.
Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give certificates of freedom from wart disease, and, in that case, would not the Canadian Government be likely to accept them?
We should be prepared to do so in certain areas, but the Canadian Government are not satisfied with that.
67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the risk of infection from black scab and other potato diseases by the unrestricted importation of foreign potatoes; and what steps he is taking to prevent this risk?
The importation of potatoes into this country is not unrestricted. Importation from certain countries is entirely prohibited and from others allowed only under restrictions. In all cases where importation is allowed, the potatoes are required to be accompanied by an official certificate of health. I am sending copies of the relevant Orders to the hon. and gallant Member.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the prohibitions are working satisfactorily?
Yes, Sir.
Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the certificates given by the French are of more value than the certificates that he is prepared to give to the Canadians?
No, Sir. I cannot say that.
68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that the crops of home-grown potatoes are more than sufficient to supply the consumption demand till such time as new home-grown potatoes are normally ready for use, he will take steps to restrict the import of foreign potatoes, by licence or otherwise, until the necessity for their free import arises?
I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) on the 17th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are being taken to deal with this situation?
The restrictions on the import of foreign potatoes in this manner has been precluded by the Geneva Convention, which was signed by the late Government.
Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman adopt exactly the same attitude as Canada and the United States' have adopted?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Convention is in force? Has it been ratified?
Yes, it is in force.
69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received any information to the effect that the ravages of the Colorado beetle have extended to the St. Malo district, in France; and what steps have been taken to protect the potato industry in this country from the introduction of that pest?
No, Sir; on the contrary, the French Government has given its assurance that the Colorado beetle does not exist within a radius of 250 kilometres round St. Malo. The importation of potatoes from France is restricted to those officially certified as having been grown more than 40 kilometres from any place where the beetle exists or has existed.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking up the same attitude towards France as Canada takes up towards this country?
We are very strict in regard to imports.
Does the right hon. Gentleman ever take any steps in regard to these certified potatoes to Bee that the certificate is correct?
Yes, Sir. The restrictions are very rigorously exercised.
Prices (Stabilisation)
62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that wheat, barley and oats, imported from some countries, are produced under sweated conditions; and whether he will seek the authority of the Cabinet to secure powers to stabilise prices, on an economic basis, in order to enable home producers and farm workers to secure a livelihood in arable farming and to keep suitable land under the plough?
Precise data are not available as to the cost of production in the countries of origin of the commodities named. In reply to the last part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that the proposal to stabilise prices by means of an Import Board is being examined by the Departments concerned.
Will my right hon. Friend make really urgent representations, having regard to the extreme gravity of the situation in the arable districts?
Yea, Sir.
Imported Produce
65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the new credit of £800,000 to help the wheat farmers of France to dispose of their bumper crop of last season by dumping it abroad; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to protect agriculturists in this country from this dumping?
I am not aware of the existence of any credit such as the hon. and gallant Member refers to, unless he has in mind the funds arising from the import of wheat into France under the temporary admission regime which are available in respect of subsequent exports of wheat and flour from France, as explained in the answer given to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on 23rd January. In reply to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to previous statements on this subject.
Is not the only real remedy for this deplorable state of affairs to put an adequate duty upon this imported wheat?
What steps are the Government taking to deal with this problem of wheat production?
That does not arise out of the question.
Will the right hon. Gentleman adopt the suggestion of the Father of the House in dealing with this subsidised wheat question?
Beet Sugar (Eynsham Process)
66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can report on the further progress of the Eynsham processes of beet-sugar production, both as regard" the reduction of factory costs and the feasibility of small drying plants on or near farms, with a view to the extension of beet cultivation, with profit to the growers, after the lapse of the subsidy?
I am watching the progress of the Eynsham factory with interest, but it does not appear possible to express any definite opinion as to the value of the process in commercial operation until further experience has been gained with larger quantities of sugar beet.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rights for these processes have been bought by growers of sugar in France, Russia and the United States? In view of that fact, does he not think that there is primâ facie evidence for further inquiry?
There is need for further inquiry. I have visited the factory twice, and I am very hopeful of the result, but the time is not quite ripe for reaching a conclusion.
Why do these foreign countries, who are our rivals, buy these rights?
Cherry And Apple Fruit-Fly
70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will set up a scientific committee to investigate the dangers to which the production of cherries and apples in this country is exposed by reason of the entry from abroad of the cherry fruit-fly and the apply fruit-fly (or borer)?
I am fully advised on the risks attendant on the introduction of new insect pests and plant diseases, and I do not feel that any advantage would be gained by the appointment of a scientific committee as suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
British Beef (London Co-Operative Societies)
71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the Co-operative Societies butchers' shops in London stock British beef?
I am advised that the Co-operative Societies in London owning retail meat shops, namely, the London, Royal Arsenal, South Suburban and Enfield Highway Societies, supply British beef in all their shops. All these co-operative shops, numbering some 200, supply National Mark beef.
Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that private traders are doing all that they should do in this direction?
Not hitherto, but they are improving.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Secretary of State for War?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these co-operative butchers are selling other than English meat?
I should like a question put upon the Order Paper on that matter.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many cooperative societies are not selling this beef? He has only mentioned a few names.
I understand that there were none of them in the London area.
Is there anything to prevent them from selling this meat.?
Animal And Bird Sanctuaries
72.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether all land under Government control is reserved as animal and bird sanctuaries; and, if not, will he take steps to secure that this shall be made permanently effective?
I can only speak for the Royal Parks and other open spaces under the control of my Department. So far as is consistent with the conditions of public user of these places, it is the settled policy of the Department to make every effort to encourage and protect wild life in them. In this sense these open spaces may be described as sanctuaries for birds.
Royal Parks
Kensington Gardens (Government Building)
73.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether steps will be taken to remove, or at any rate to reduce in height to the level of the boundary wall, the galvanised-iron building used for Office of Works stores immediately to the west of Sir Christopher Wren's orangery in Kensington Gardens, on the north side of Kensington Palace?
The building in question is at present in use, but it is hoped that it can be vacated and pulled down by the end of the present year.
Regent's Park (Lily Pond)
76.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has given his sanction to the destruction of the water garden in Regent's Park originally laid out by Sir Joseph Paxton?
The hon. Member is, I imagine, referring to the lily pond in the flower garden, which is being cleaned out and somewhat enlarged to add to its attractiveness. The records of my Department show that this pond was constructed in 1899 and no connection can be traced with Sir Joseph Paxton who, I am informed, died in 1865.
Hyde Park (Rotten Row)
77.
asked the First Commissioner of Works the cost of constructing Rotten Row, Hyde Park; and the sum spent on its upkeep during the last financial year?
According to the records in my Department, Rotten Row was constructed in 1878 at a cost of about £7,800. The annual cost of maintaining the Row and the other riding tracks in Hyde Park may be put at £2,000.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there were great protests at the time Rotten Row was constructed that it would interfere with the amenities of the Park?
I was not then a Member of this House.
I should like to ask whether the ladies and gentlemen who ride in Rotten Row pay for the privilege of doing so?
I do not think anyone pays except by taxation, and probably a good many people enjoy watching the riders in the Row.
This is essentially the privilege of the rich, and, if there were poor people—
Order, order!
We do not object to the cost of Rotten Row; but does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is a complete answer to much of the criticism expressed on the other side of the House recently as to the activities in Hyde Park and elsewhere?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a riding track there since the time of William III?
War Relics
74.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether in view of the universal desire for peace, he will seek to have removed from public places within his jurisdiction all war relics, guns, tanks, etc.?
Places within my jurisdiction include the Tower, the Imperial War Museum, etc., whose special function it is to accommodate such relics. My hon. Friend will therefore see that his suggestion is impracticable.
Westminster Hall (Exhibition)
75.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the object of the exhibition of photographs in Westminster Hall is to influence Members of Parliament in favour of the Advertisements Regulation Amendment Bill; and, if so, why he refuses to allow the same facilities to the opponents of this Bill?
Permission was given to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) representing the Amenities Group of this House, for an exhibition to be held in Westminster Hall in connection with the Rural Amenities Bill. No sanction was given for any exhibition to illustrate any other Bill. My attention has been drawn to the statement by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England that the exhibition is intended to cover also the Advertisements Regulation (Amendment) Bill, but this extension of purpose has been made entirely without my knowledge and consent.
I am glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman did not know of this exhibition. Is he aware that it is reducing Westminster Hall to the level of a second-rate picture gallery?
May I ask whether, as a matter of fact, the exhibition in Westminster Hall was not illustrative of the opposition to the Bill which the House was considering last Friday on the advertisement side, and whether we are not grateful to him for the encouragement he is giving to the movement to prevent further uglification of the countryside?
I am willing to accept the last part of the hon. Member's question.
May we take it that he will not allow a similar exhibition?
I will promise to do whatever the First Commissioner of Works has a right to do in such a case.
Overseas Trade Department
78.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the work of the Department of Overseas Trade is an integral part of the work of the Board of Trade; and can he therefore arrange for the Department of Overseas Trade to be housed in the premises adjoining the Board of Trade now occupied by the staff of the Office of Works, and transfer the staff of the Office of Works either to 35, Old Queen Street or Cornwall House or Sanctuary Buildings, Westminster?
In regard to the first part of the question, the Department of Overseas Trade is a joint department under the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office. This Department is suitably and conveniently housed in the present offices at 35, Old Queen Street, and I see no reason for adopting the suggestion made in the second part of the question. It would in any event be quite impossible to do so as the staff of the Office of Works is about four times that of the Department of Overseas Trade.
King's Proctor
79.
asked the Attorney-General whether, as the office of King's Proctor is deemed unnecessary in Scotland, he will consider the desirability of abolishing the office in England?
In view of the complete divergence between the legal systems of England and Scotland the reason given by the hon. Member is not a ground for abolishing the office in question.
Is it not the case that a King's Proctor is not needed in Scotland because of the superior veracity of the Scottish people?
I have no information at all on that matter.
Education (School-Leaving Age, Scotland)
80.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has consulted the education authorities in Scotland as to the effect the raising of school age will have on accommodation; and has he taken into account any views held by them as to the means test with regard to the maintenance allowance and to its amount?
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, I will take into consideration all relevant representations before these matters are decided.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a figure was given for England in this respect? Can he not give us a figure for Scotland?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Glasgow Education Authority last week stated that they had never been consulted on the means test or accommodation?
Are we to understand that in Scotland they have the power to override a decision of the Cabinet, and that a decision of the Cabinet only applies to England?
Is it not the case that if we had not that power we should not be here?
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee A
Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Mental Treatment Bill [Lords]): Sir John Withers; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Oswald Lewis.
Standing Committee C
Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Mander, Mr. Purbrick, and Sir Rennell Rodd; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Meller, Sir Basil Peto, and Mr. Graham White.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Air Estimates (Supplementary Estimate, 1929)
Estimate presented,—of a further sum required to be voted for Air Service for the year ending 31st March, 1930 [by Command]; referred to Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
Army Estimates, 1930
Estimates presented,—of Effective and Non-Effective Services of the Army for the financial year 1930 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
Orders Of The Day
Supply
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
Civil Estimates And Estimates For Revenue Departments, Supplementary Estimates, 1929
Class Vii
Royal Parks And Pleasure Gardens
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £27,090, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
This Estimate, I think, will receive the unanimous support of the Committee. It is divided into two parts, and, with the permission of the Committee, I will deal with the last part first; that is the unemployment relief works. A definite sum has been set aside for the purpose mainly of providing useful work in the parks by anticipating improvements and additions which the authorities desire to see carried out. The work done by unemployed men in the parks consists of making new roads, repairing existing roads, clearing up and removing trees which may have been blown down; and also in felling trees which are to come down. It has always been a difficult matter to decide whether a tree shall be removed or allowed to remain. The superintendents of the parks are all skilled men, with a great deal of experience in regard to the upkeep of the parks and the felling of the trees. In my predecessor's time, hundreds of trees were removed during given years, because it was necessary for the safety of the public.
As has been pointed out previously, you cannot treat a public park, through which hundreds of thousands of people pass in the course of the year, in the same way as you treat the countryside, and say that people who use the parks must take the same risks as they would take if they walked along a country lane. I am sure that anyone who has seen the Broad Walk in Regent's Park on a Bank Holiday would think that the authorities in charge of the park were guilty of great neglect if they did not examine the trees regularly and err on the side of taking down one too many instead of leaving up one too many to be a source of danger to the population. I want to say emphatically that neither myself nor anyone else in the Office of Works interferes with the discretion of the men, of the superintendent of the parks, whose duty it is to see that the trees are dealt with properly. Apart from that, the unemployment relief works will generally commend themselves to the Committee. With regard to the figure of £1,360, for increased lighting of the interior of Hyde Park, that is for the purpose of putting up 16 extra lamps in various parts of the park where the police authorities and ourselves consider that they are necessary. There, again, there will be general agreement. We are also doing our best to improve the lighting between Hyde Park Corner and the Marble Arch, for the simple reason that on that road there has been a considerable number of rather bad accidents, causing death or injury to individuals and property. The £7,550 is made up of £2,460 which we are voting to-day, and a sum which will be seen at the bottom of the page, appropriations-in-aid, £5,090. The £5,090 is part of a bigger sum that has been subscribed by individuals to make provision for various amenities in the parks. It may be convenient if I just say what new provision we are making in regard to amusements, shelters and so on for children and young people. In Greenwich Park there is to be a shelter; also in Kensington Gardens, Richmond Park, Bushey Park, Primrose Hill and Regent's Park. With the object of these shelters everyone will agree. When children are out playing, as tens of thousands of them are during the summer, if rain comes on we want to give at least as many as possible some opportunity of getting out of the rain, especially in Bushey Park and at Petersham, where large numbers of children are taken on excursions for the day. I suppose that everyone will agree that there cannot be anything worse for a child than to get its clothes thoroughly wet and to have to remain in them all day. I hope that there may be some pro- vision by which the child's clothes may be dried if they are very wet, but in any case there is no provision at present in any of these parks for the purpose named. At Bushey Park it was and is the custom for the Fresh Air Fund to put up a big tent for its own children, but there are very large numbers of children who go there apart from that Fund or any fund at all except the funds of Sunday Schools or other organisations of that kind. In regard to paddle-boat ponds, about which there has been a great deal of discussion, I would like to say this: My predecessor, to aid the unemployed last year, had one of these ponds constructed in Bushey Park, and it has been a source of very great joy to the children who visit that park. I recommend any hon. Member who has any doubt about these ponds to go to a county council park, or to Bushey Park during the summer and see the amount of enjoyment that the children get out of the ponds. Bushey Park pond was open only after we took office, though it was constructed under my predecessor. The opening was either at the end of June or the beginning of July, and between that date and the end of September over 40,000 children had used the paddle-boats. That shows, I think, that my predecessor took the necessary steps for filling a long-felt want.Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether the shelters referred to are open to all children, irrespective of whether they are taking part in organised games or not, and, secondly, whether any provision is made for seeing that they are retained exclusively for children and not for adults?
We shall do our very best to see that they are at the disposal of every child who needs to go into them. I cannot say that an adult will not occasionally get in, but we shall do our best to turn him out if he does get in. The places are for children and for children only, and for all children.
What about the night?
You shut the parks up at night, and I am sorry you do so. If a man goes to sleep in a shelter at night, what is the odds? There are a lot of other buildings besides these shelters where a man can go to sleep even now. My hon. Friend seems to forget that along the Serpentine there is a boathouse or two, where people can get in and take a sleep if they want to, and no one proposes to pull down the boathouses because of that. Then there are the sandpits in Kensington Gardens, Richmond Park and Bushey Park. It is a great joy and amusement to me to go to the Victoria Gardens and watch the children playing in the sandpit there, which was provided by a late Member of this House, one of the Spicers. Anyone who has seen children from the slum areas enjoying themselves in the sandpits will agree that the provision of these playgrounds has been a very good thing indeed. Then they are going to have swings and roundabouts and tennis court" in Greenwich Park.
Now I come to Hyde Park and the Serpentine, in which all of us are interested. At present no woman is allowed to bathe in the Serpentine. Last-year two women at least were fined pretty heavily for bathing there. Under our regulations, bathing is forbidden. Women are taken before the magistrate only after they have refused to promise not to do it again. The day has gone by when we can say that women shall not bathe in the Serpentine, seeing that they are allowed to sit in this House and to take baths in this House and to enjoy all the amenities here. The difficulty with regard to bathing in the Serpentine lies in the fact that if you allow women to bathe there, you must make some provision for dressing and undressing. The present arrangement for children, which I would like the Committee to keep in mind, is that every summer time we put up a very hideous hoarding. I am very much surprised that those who believe in preserving the artistic amenities of the park have not called attention to this ugly hoarding long ago. It is visible from the bridge and is a hideous blot beside the water. We allow little girls to bathe, and all the provision that we make is to stick up this hoarding. There is nowhere for the child to sit or to put its clothes and no provision whatever but just to undress and go into the water. 4.0 p.m. It may sound very silly and simple to say that a child's clothes may get soaked through by a shower coming on suddenly. The poor little thing has then to dress in those wet clothes and to get home the best way it can. I think that, having given children facilities for bathing, some provision of this sort should have been made long ago. Therefore, we propose, through the generosity of the people who have given us the money, to erect a building— the drawing of which is in the Library—alongside the Serpentine, and we shall allow children the use of that free, and if, during the summer time, they become too big a crowd, we have got enough money to be able to buy two new tents, one for boys on the one side, and one for girls on the other, so that the pavilion may be used for the men and women. We shall charge men and women for the use of the pavilion, but for children, of course, it will be free. There is a strong argument put up that we ought not to have any building there at all. It is a choice of having a building and not having mixed bathing, and I do not think at this time of day we can say that we will keep up the prohibition. I am as keen to preserve the beauty of any part of London, to say nothing of the parks, as any Member of this House, but I do say that the children and the women have a right to this provision being made for them, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will see the reasonableness of it. The next proposition in regard to Hyde Park has to do with what is now being called the sports ground, opposite Knightsbridge Barracks.Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of bathing, I understand that a charge is going to be made for the use of the pavilion by adults. I take it that that will not interfere with the free bathing up to eight o'clock in the morning? That will still go on?
I think that if women are to bathe early in the morning, they cannot be allowed to undress on the path, and, if they have provision made for the care of their clothes, they must pay a trifling sum. The same applies to the men. I think we had better face up to it now that no one has a monopoly of the Serpentine. It is perfectly true that certain people have bathed there from time immemorial, as they say, which means, I suppose, from the time of their birth. That does not give them any right to say that they can exclude women. I am perfectly prepared, and the Department is prepared, to discuss with the people who at present bathe there whether it is possible to make any arrangement by which I can satisfy Mrs. Grundy and them at the same time. I am a person who holds the most broad views about all these things. If it were not for other people, I should not be as dogmatic as I am about it at this moment, but I am quite sure that I should not be allowed to give permission to men and women, even before eight o'clock in the morning, to undress on the tow-path and bathe just as they please.
I am sure my right hon. Friend does not wish to have any misunderstanding about this. What he has just said is that, whereas at present men and women, poor people, can bathe freely in the early morning without payment, in future they will have to pay?
Yes, because women and girls are to be allowed the same privilege as men, and it is undesirable that women and girls should undress on the tow-path without provision being made for them. I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member would agree about that, although he has just returned from the East.
What is the proposed charge to be?
That is being discussed, and will be laid on the Table of this House. I cannot do these things secretly. I think about 2d.—something very tiny—perhaps less than that. We shall not charge for boys or girls under 14. But on this question of the Serpentine Swimming Club, they must not imagine that, because they have had the user of the Serpentine for a long time, that gives them a prescriptive right to say that women shall not bathe in the Serpentine in the mornings. That must be understood.
It means that the poor man who cannot afford to pay will now have to pay?
I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman can leave the poor man to me. With regard to the Knightsbridge ground, about which there is a little controversy, it is a long stretch of land that has lain vacant for a very long time, except at one end where there are three football pitches which have been used for many years by the soldiers in Knightsbridge barracks. I would like to say that I did not go round the parks either looking for trouble or looking for anything else. The main reason why this piece of ground is being brought into use is that within about a fortnight of my taking office I was waited upon by a deputation from the Sunlight League in reference to the Serpentine, and afterwards by a deputation from the London Playing Fields Association, who brought with them a plan for laying out this piece of land.
I promised to give it some consideration, and while I was considering it the National Playing Fields Association sent their secretary to the House here, and he brought with him a cheque for £5,000, offering this cheque as payment for laying out the Knightsbridge ground for a racing track, football pitches, tennis courts, bowling greens and putting greens. I accepted the money, like all people when money is offered them, and went into the scheme. I found, after consultation with the Office, that a running track there would be rather impracticable, but that we could have three football pitches, and that we could put a bowling green and a putting green there. Then the question arose whether we should put a small pavilion in the left corner of the west end of the field, in order that people might change their clothes for football and other games, and that is what we are doing. There is to be no cinder track there, and the only thing in the shape of buildings is quite a small building to accommodate the football players for changing their clothes, and for the bowlers to keep their bowls and things of that kind. With regard to Regent's Park, other than the things I have mentioned, we are to put up, later on, a fairly big pavilion, the money for which is being given us to replace one which was destroyed before the War. There is nothing new about that. That pavilion would have gone up when money, apparently, was more plentiful than it is now, but for the fact that the War broke out. I believe that provision for it was in the Estimates for 1914. Knowing the stringency in the national finances just now, I was very glad, indeed, when the money, £6,500, was offered for the building of this pavilion, where refreshments will be sold and where there will be plenty of room for footballers, cricketers, tennis players and those who run on the cinder track, which is a short distance away. Before saying a word about the cinder track, I may say this about the football. I have not added one inch to the football ground in Regent's Park. I have neither taken away from it, nor added to it. I have not added anything to the playing area itself, except that in one part there may be two or three tennis courts later on. The paddle-boat pond is an addition, but there are no other sports in the ordinary sense, the sand pits being in connection with the children's gymnasium at present in the Park. As to the putting up of goal posts, I was attending a meeting to distribute prizes at Marylebone, and during the ceremony I was asked by the headmaster whether it would not be possible in Regent's Park to supply the goal posts, because it was such a labour to the children to drag them across, and also whether we could have them fixed up. We found that we had enough money in the subscription which we had received to provide these and put them up, and we have done so. I understand that people object very much to these posts remaining up in the daytime. I can only say that we felt that we had not the money to provide for their removal each day, but, after discussing the matter this morning, I hope that between now and next year we may be able to devise some means for moving them. Although it may be that I am a Philistine in this matter, I walked across three or four times, and I really do not think that they spoil the view across that wide piece of ground. I would ask the Committee, and especially those who are interested in boys, to remember that the London schools and London clubs did need these places very badly indeed. The population round there is very overcrowded, and this provision of the goal posts is of very great benefit indeed to the children there. The other matter in connection with Regent's Park is the running track. There, again, I did not go there searching out what I could propose to do for the purpose of offending other people. I have had communications from the Civil Ser- vice Sports Association and from the Playing Fields Association begging that somewhere in that part of London I should try to find them room for a cinder-track, and we have found a place quite removed from the other parts of the park, where no one can say that it injures anything or removes anything of any worth to anyone, and it is now being laid down. There will be one tree removed very soon, but it will be replanted elsewhere. Then one is coming down, because it must come down. But the tree about which there has been some controversy in the Press was taken down for no purpose whatever to do with the running track which we are making. It is not on the running track, and not within the running track, but quite outside and away from it. It was removed solely because those in authority thought that it was dangerous. Lord Crawford thinks it ought not to have been removed. We are sorry to disagree with Lord Crawford, but we must trust the people whose business it is to carry out this work. Under Lord Crawford's administration hundreds of trees were removed. I daresay he examined all of them before their removal. I am not able to do that, because I have not the time, and if I had the time I would not like to put my opinion against the opinion of the Superintendent of Parks on a matter of this kind. I think that is all I need say at this juncture except a few words in regard to the money which has been contributed. That money came to me, in a very extraordinary way, through the Press. I have said my say about the "Daily Mail," but the "Daily Express," the "Daily News," the "Daily Herald" and even the "Times" at the beginning, all conspired to help me to get this money and I am very grateful to them for so conspiring. I am very much obliged to the people who have put up the money. I believe we shall spend it in a way which will be satisfactory to them. I think this Committee ought to be grateful also to the people who have contributed £6,000 for these purposes, and I am sure that when Spring and Summer come, and we are able to see the parks in all their beauty, with these added enjoyments for the children, every Member here will continue to feel proud of them.
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £10.
The right hon. Gentleman will immediately secure the full sympathy and agreement of the Committee when he says that we ought to be grateful to those who have contributed money for the provision of facilities for games in the Royal Parks, or, indeed, in any part of the Metropolis and his expression of thanks will be readily supported on all sides. The right hon. Gentleman finished his speech on this note—that we shall see the result of all this work when Spring comes, and when the parks are green and beautiful again. What a great many of us fear is that the operations which the right hon. Gentleman is carrying out may have the effect of preventing us from seeing the natural beauties in these parks which in past years have been so manifest to the citizens of London. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I think it desirable to ask a few questions about the operations which are going on at present. I wish, in the first place, to say that there is not the slightest opposition to the provision of places for games. I think that in all parts of the Committee we are all extremely anxious that the extension of playing fields should be carried out as fast as possible and to the greatest extent possible in suitable places, but the point with which we are concerned is, that it should not be done in a manner which interferes with the general use of the parks by the citizens of London. Our fear is that the provision of games may be carried out in such a way as to deprive the parks of their beauty and their usefulness for the citizens in -general. May I give the right hon. Gentleman an illustration of the difficulty which we feel in connection with this matter. He said a moment ago that there was a. part of Hyde Park in the neighbourhood of Knightsbridge which was now vacant." It is just that expression "now vacant" which makes one a little afraid.It is vacant except for three football pitches.
That rather accentuates my objection to the term used. Apparently, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, the occupation of the ground depends on the number of football pitches there, but, in my view, and in the view of a large number of people in London, that ground has been occupied for years past by the mere fact that the ordinary citizen has been able to freely walk across it and to make use of it. In fact, that is one of the most useful parts of Hyde Park to the people who live about that neighbourhood. In reply to a question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman the other day I understood him to say that no exclusive right of user for games was being given in respect of any part of the park.
indicated dissent.
I think if the right hon. Gentleman looks it up he will find that it was a written reply and that it conveyed that impression. I am not quite sure that he was absolutely clear and definite on the point, and I would like him to say now quite definitely if there is to be any exclusive right of user in any circumstances for any part of the park for games, or if there are any exceptions to the answer he gave me.
I do not know what the hon. Member means. If you have a game of football you must use the ground.
I think the right hon. Gentleman fully realises what I mean. I do not refer to the user of the ground while a game is actually in progress. Surely, it is quite evident that I refer to the giving over of any section of ground in the park to any club or institution or group of clubs or institutions, or the giving them the exclusive right to any part of the park as a place on which to play games. We are entitled to that information and if the right hon. Gentleman refers to his previous answer he will see that it gives the impression which I have indicated, but that it is not absolutely clear. That is why I ask him now for a definite answer on this point as to the exclusive right of user.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned that at the western end of this very valuable strip of land in Hyde Park, opposite Knightsbridge Barracks, on which he is now going to erect more goalposts, he was going to put up a small pavilion in which people who came there to play football could change their clothes. That is the kind of thing which makes one wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has gone into these matters as fully as his speech would indicate. If he is going to provide dressing accom- modation sufficient for five or six teams playing games there, he will have to provide accommodation for at least 100 players; and I do not see how a small building such as the right hon. Gentleman suggested is to be of any use at all for such a purpose. I am not now going into the question of whether it is desirable to have it at all or not, but if it is to be of any use, it must be a very much larger building that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. Personally, I object to such an erection altogether. As regards bathing facilities, the right hon. Gentleman, in referring to new arrangements for providing accommodation for the clothes of persons bathing in the Serpentine, mentioned a proposal for making a small charge. I think it is a pity if this has to be done. There has been a certain amount of continuity in connection with bathing in the Serpentine over a large number of years. I do not know how far back it goes, but there has been free bathing there for a long time, and many people regard the idea of instituting a charge for it as something to be regretted. Even 2d. a day soon mounts up. There is also this point. If a place for the clothes of bathers is to be provided, and if a charge is to be made, I take it it will be necessary to have attendants who will be responsible if anything is stolen. There must be some person in charge of such a place, and there must be some means of redress if any articles are stolen. These are points which the right hon. Gentleman might well consider. In the end, I think it all comes to this. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the public are a little afraid of what he is doing I We do not wish to see the London parks turned into places purely for games. Nor do we want to see them made into imitations of Coney Island. It is very desirable that there should be places for games, but after all the number of such places, the number of playing fields, in the neighbourhood of London has increased enormously—and quite. rightly so—in recent years, and while everybody is most anxious that the children and others should have opportunities of playing games, there is some danger that the peace and quiet, the restfulness, the long vistas for the eye which we have enjoyed in the London parks may be interfered with by these schemes. Our parks are almost unique in this respect. Hardly anywhere else in the world in such close proximity to a great centre of population are there such parks, and we ought not to interfere with them in our desire to provide facilities for recreation. That view is held by very many members of the public. But apparently even the animals object to some of the right hon. Gentleman's operations. In the "Times" the other day, in a reference to the escape of two monkeys at Regent's Park, it was said:I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to create a position in which even the animals are forced to leave the parks for the greater peace of private gardens. The parks have been the private gardens of so many of us for so many years, that we most earnestly ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure himself that he carries public opinion fully with him in any further changes which he proposes to make. I feel so strongly on this matter and I think it so desirable that we should clearly express our regret at some of the measures which are being taken that I beg to move this reduction."The keepers are almost certain that the monkeys have now left Regent's Park, where games and improvement schemes are in progress, for the greater peace of the large gardens in the neighbourhood."
I desire to express my views and to give my experience in these matters because I have been in close touch with the Royal Parks, the public parks, and the public playing fields of London for nearly 40 years. For 20 years I was organising and playing games in Regent's Park and on the public playing fields and for the last 15 years I have taken a keen interest in the, young life of London. I represent a constituency which is on the borders of Regent's Park and Primrose Hill and I hope that what I have to say may carry some weight with the Committee. I have been making inquiries into the questions which have been raised regarding Regent's Park—about the football playing fields, the paddling ponds, the cinder track, and so on, I may say that a large amount of my propaganda for the Election was done in Regent's Park, and since I have been elected to this House, I attend in the Park at least one a month to lay my views on the work of the Government before the people.
I must ask the hon. Member to deal with the Estimate, and not to give a review of his own experiences, in relation to political topics, in Regent's Park.
Reference has been made to the football pitches. There has not been a football pitch added to the number in the last 10 years, and neither has there been a cricket pitch added. Questions have been placed before the people in regard to the paddling pool and the cinder track, and a large number of the people in my constituency and the over-crowded children in that district have unanimously agreed that it is in the interests of the people and of the children that these facilities should have been extended. The cinder track, to my mind, is not an eyesore, but I should like to see a much larger cinder track than there is now. I do not know exactly what its length is, but it is not going to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the people in this district.
There are one or two points that I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Primrose Hill, which is one of the Royal Parks. I am glad to see that the railings are being removed, and that there is an increase in the children's playing fields, but I think there ought to be more seats on Primrose Hill, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the fact that some of the seats there are without backs. They are not very comfortable for old folk, or even for young people, and I think he ought to remove those seats and—I do not think that comes under this Estimate. On these Supplementary Estimates we are confined to the questions covered by the Estimates, and must not deal with extraneous matters. From seats, we might go to some other things of a very extensive character. We must keep to the Supplementary Estimate.
The right hon. Gentleman has been covering a large number of things in connection with the Royal Parks.
Yes; he has been telling us what he has been doing. The hon. Member may criticise what he has been doing, and what this money has been or will be used for.
I do not want to criticise what the right hon. Gentleman has been doing; I want to praise him for what he has done. I want to congratulate him, and I should like him to go on and do more, and that is why I am trying to suggest one or two things that he might do. He was telling us that a certain amount of money had been spent in lighting, and I suggest that he should extend the lighting in these different parks, and especially in Primrose Hill. There is some lighting there, but I suggest that he should extend it, that he should go on spending the money that he has, and, if he has any reserves of money, that he should increase the lighting and the cinder tracks, and the paddling ponds, and a number of other things that are in the interests of the people living in that particular district.
There are a number of complaints from people who are living in the big houses round the Park, but I am not here to advocate their views. I am here on behalf of the large mass of people living in slums behind those houses, and I believe that the Park, in being used as playing fields and swimming ponds and boating islands, is being used in the best interests of my constituents. Therefore, I support the right hon. Gentleman in all that he has done, and wish him to continue in the good work that he has commenced.I should like to let the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works know that I fully appreciate what he is doing, and I congratulate him upon his good intentions, but I would ask him to take the best advice as to where those good intentions are likely to lead. We are very proud of our parks. Overseas visitors admire them and envy us for our parks, and we want to conserve the rightness of that admiration. There are one or two points about the attitude of the First Commissioner of Works which I think the country and Parliament should realise. My conception of the parks, and especially of Regent's Park, in which I am particularly interested, is that they are for children to play in, for old people to rest in, for the tired business man and the harassed housewife to use after the troubles of the day, to find recreation and encouragement, and for the young people to do their courting in. Courting has to be done, and for the future of the race it is better for it to be done in beautiful surroundings than in slums.
Those conditions and purposes have been admirably fulfilled by the parks in the past. Children have been brought into a happy association with bird life, with woodland life, with flowers, with unforced conditions and happy circumstances; old people have sat about behind the shrubberies, with their tired eyes resting on the beautiful vistas which only Regent's Park possesses; and we have got the young people carrying out their courting under happy conditions. It is not in everyone's home that there is room or that there are facilities for bringing young people together, but the parks admirably provide those facilities, and under conditions which can only be for the moral betterment of the young people themselves. My point is that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his good intentions, is not going the right way about keeping the existing conditions in the parks maintained. The right hon. Gentleman has allowed football to be played during weather when football should not be played, with the consequence that we have vast tracts, which should be for the enjoyment of the children of the slums, destroyed and turned into a morass and a quagmire where young children, and even dogs, cannot play. I am happy to know that the right hon. Gentleman is going to collect enough money to have the goal posts removed during the day, for there is no doubt that to the ordinary man in the street, who values beauty, the lovely vista from the pond is maltreated by these abominable goal posts, which are good as goal posts, but which are not good as beauty spots. I think the right hon. Gentleman has not got an artistic eye. The paddling pools have been referred to. There is one in course of construction, and there is one already constructed, and I should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has taken medical advice to see whether those pools are sanitary and good for the children. To my mind, the one that is already there is so dirty that it gives the impression of being full of germs and likely to produce ill-health rather than good health among the children who use it. Then there is the question of their position. The right hon. Gentleman is putting one just in front of Hanover Terrace, quite close to the road, and in the public view, whereas it might have been put on the far side of the pond, without being detrimental in any way to the amenities of the people enjoying that part of the park. Furthermore, are the poor children going to have to pay for the upkeep of these paddle ponds? Are they going to have to pay for using them? These ponds will have to be kept up by some fund. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to keep them up by public funds, or by making a charge for the children using them? If he does the latter, then he will fail in the whole object that he is setting out to accomplish, because the poorer children will not be able to pay, and it is the better class children, those who can pay for the ponds, who will use them. As to the shrubberies, the unfortunate thing about the right hon. Gentleman is that he has not chosen the right time to decide on these alterations. He comes up there in the middle of the winter, when nature is dead, when there is nothing of beauty, except the pond, and he says, "Damp, unpleasant, unhealthy-looking places, away with them," and in the middle of the night they are taken away. That surely is not a wise attitude to take. Why not come when nature is alive, and giving forth of her beauty, and then look at the shrubbery and see the gayness of the flowers and shrubs, and the pleasure and protection they afford to the old people who sit behind them? I understand that one of the answers to a query that was made by a friend of mine was that the old people were protected by the large houses in Hanover Terrace and Abbey Lodge, but the right hon. Gentleman might as well have said they were protected by the Alps for all the protection they get from those houses. These shrubberies were designed, I believe, under Nash, by Mr. Morgan, who was one of the greatest designers of his time, in 1838 I think, principally for the purpose of giving pleasure to the eye and protection for the seats that were placed there for old people to sit on. The right hon. Gentleman having got a totally wrong impression by a badly timed visit to the Park, thinks they are damp and unhealthy, and, with a Mussolini-like autocracy, he orders their removal. By whose authority and advice has he done it? By whose request has he done it? It has certainly not been done at the request of the residents there, or even of the residents of the district, because I am one of them, nor has he done it by the authority or the will of the people. Parliament represents the people, and Parliament has not been asked about these things. I submit, that, no matter how kind these generous friends of his may be to have given him this money, he should first of all have got the authority of this House before spending a penny of it. Then we have those delightful islands in the park where the swans have their nests, where the birds have collected, islands which have been a delightful and happy breeding ground for the bird life of the park. They were planted with cow parsley, which is supposed to be particularly good for the birds' breeding ground, but the cow parsley has gone, taken away by the dictator of the parks, and what is going to happen to the bird life of one of the most delightful spots in our parks, especially Regent's Park? The children and people come from all parts of London to delight in the birds of Regent's Park. Now they are to be driven away. We who reside in Regent's Park, and contribute to the rentals from which the Park is kept up, want to be assured that the money is spent, not for our benefit altogether, but for the benefit of the whole district. As far as I can gather, the rent roll enjoyed by the Crown for the Regent's Park Estate is £100,000 a year. How much of that money goes back to the upkeep of the Park?.We are now dealing with a Supplementary Estimate for a given sum. The £100,000 will come up in its proper place at another time.
My remarks under this Estimate are exhausted, therefore, but I warn my right hon. Friend that I have many more remarks which will come up under the other Estimates. i would ask him, with the friendliest feeling in the world, to consider these matters, and to consult people who are best calculated to give him advice at the right time, and not to barge into these wild schemes of destruction or construction before he has fully satisfied himself that they are for the best purpose and will help the people whom he has in mind. I leave it in his hands, confident that he will do something to stop what he is doing at the moment until the House has given him authority, and his advisers have given him advice.
I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he has made any provision for the band-stand in Kensington Gardens, which has been asked for for many years past? I welcome very heartily the extra provision that has been made for extra playing fields in Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park, especially in view of the fact that that area is the only open space which the children of North Kensington can use. A population of 160,000 has no open space, apart from the average sized back yard, except Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. We are spending £2,000 a year on the upkeep of Rotten Row—
It is quite in order for the hon. Gentleman to ask the First Commissioner to extend the playing fields, but he must not deal with matters which are not covered by the Estimate.
I was about to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take some of the land which is now used by Rotten Row to extend the playing fields, and to use some of the money spent on Rotten Row for the upkeep of the playing fields.
I would like to say a few words in appreciation of the work which the First Commissioner of Works is doing. He will go down to history as one who has humanised the office of First Commissioner of Works. He is in the Government in a dual capacity, and, even after his great work for unemployment is forgotten, his work in the parks will be remembered. I have had a great deal to do in my life with playing fields and properly organised games for boys, and I know the effect which these games have on the moral of boys. We may even disfigure a park and do something which offends those who live on the outskirts of it, but in the long run the balance-sheet will show that any space properly allotted for organised games is well used. An hon. Member wanted to know if a football field would be reserved; it must be reserved, or you could not have organised games. It is easy to be jocular on the subject of the parks, and to be heavy footed in one's jokes about the subject, but every right-thinking person in the Committee will support the First Commissioner of Works in his desire to make the parks more available for active physical exercise for boys.
I came here to bless my right hon. Friend, and not to condemn his efforts, except in one small item. In view of this Vote, I took the trouble yesterday to view the latest developments in the parks, and I could see no cause at all for the agitation which has been fomented by some hon. Gentlemen opposite and by those who write to the newspapers, especially the "Times." Under the late Government, a piece of Kensington Gardens was cut right off, and 20 beautiful trees were destroyed, in order to widen Kensington Road approach. I want my right hon. Friend to give us an assurance that he will resist any further encroachments of that kind. The taking of an area of a park for street improvements was a diabolical outrage, and there was little protest against it from hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side. The First Commissioner has, of course, been attacked for a purpose. He has been an extraordinarily successful First Commissioner of Works; for the first time, the public have heard that a First Commissioner of Works exists, and they have learned that he is doing something to improve the amenities of the parks and the health of the people, and to give badly needed employment. My right hon. Friend has become so popular, that I believe that the agitation was started because it was felt that he was putting up the prestige of the Labour Government too much.
I want him to think again about his bathing proposals, particularly in regard to the charges for the use of the pavilion. The pavilion has been attacked without foundation, for nobody can look round the Serpentine without realising that the three or four boat-houses are not very beautiful. These sheds have been used for as long as I can remember the Park, which I regret to say is a matter of 40 years. I want my right hon. Friend to understand that I am in no way objecting to the erection of the pavilion. It will be in a secluded part, and will not adversely affect the outlook. He is, however, making a mistake about the early morning bathers and the proposed charge. My right hon. Friend says that he will look after the poor people who cannot afford to pay fees; I am sure that he will, but how is he going to do it? It is possible that by making a charge, he will take away a privilege that at present exists. I agree that you cannot say that the Serpentine bathing shall be reserved for men only, and if you are going to give bathing facilities beyond the hours at present allowed, you must allow women to bathe also. That being the case, there should be some place for changing. By making a charge, the right hon. Gentleman will take away the rights of those who are now allowed to bathe free up to eight o'clock. That is a valued privilege, and it is not for a Member of the Socialist Cabinet to take away that right. I am sorry to have to put this matter emphatically, but I am bound to do so. If women and girls are to be allowed to bathe before eight o'clock, and if they must undress in a shed, let them, and impose a charge. But let them also have an opportunity of bathing before eight o'clock in the morning without paying. There is nothing at present to prevent a woman walking down that bridge, or across the path where the bathers go and seeing the men undress, but there have been no complaints of any such nuisance, and I see no reason why in future, as at present, men should not be allowed to bathe there without paying a fee. My right hon. Friend talked about Mrs. Grundy and so on, and I would remind him that round our coasts on our bathing beaches people bathe without any sort of shelter, perfectly decently. It is what is known as mackintosh bathing. They go down to the shore in mackintoshes, underneath which they have their bathing dresses; they take off their mackintoshes and go into the water, and when they come out they put it on again and go home. There is no possible cause for complaint, and why should not that be done before eight o'clock in Hyde Park? Why is it necessary to make a charge for the use of this pavilion, and make people go into the pavilion, which may be uncomfortable and stuffy, whereas before eight o'clock they could bathe under decent conditions, as they have done for years. In connection with the criticisms of the bathing proposal, I did not hear any complaints from the party opposite when the last Government put up that ridiculous mound behind the railings, to prevent riders in the Row seeing the bathing. It was a ridiculous thing to do. While the right hon. Gentleman is looking into the question of the amenities of the parks, will he consider extending a limited number of permits a day to people to fish in the Serpentine? There are big fish in the water, and fishing would be much appreciated. He could limit the numbers, and I do not see why it should not be done as it is in Richmond Park. I do not want my right hon. Friend to think that I am criticising him in any way, except on that one narrow point. I hope that he will go on with his good work, and multiply Lansbury's Lovely Lidos in all our Royal parks where the enjoyment of the people can be added to without interfering with the rights of the general public. I hope that, above all, he will resist any encroachment on our great heritage of London parks for street improvements or widenings.5.0 p.m.
It is obvious that the general sense of the Committee is that the First Commissioner of Works has done well, and we all wish him to go on in the development of the parks on the lines on which he is now proceeding. It is not a new idea of his, however, although he is carrying it out. The London County Council have for years past been impressing upon successive First Commissioners of Works that the parks of London should be made to pull their weight in providing recreational facilities for the children of London. In the Hyde Park group of parks are 677 acres of land, and only that little strip which is opposite Knightsbridge Barracks is made available for organised team games. Ono acre in 60—that is what all this pother is about—is now being made available for the children to play organised team games. I heard some hon. Members say, "Why should they not be left happily to play unorganised games, running about and throwing balls at each other?" What would those hon. Members think if they went to the schools where their sons are being educated and found that cricket and football had been abandoned and the boys were running about the playing fields chasing balls? The thing is perfectly ridiculous. The highest value in recreation is obtained from organised games, and can be obtained in. no other way. As to Regent's Park, the amount of ground available for organised games there is trivial, and I suggest to the First Commissioner of Works that he should see if he cannot imitate the London County Council in the use they have made of Parliament Hill, where, without interfering with the trees in any way, they have managed to make several fields available for organised games, which are a great delight to the onlookers who go to use Parliament Hill as a park.
The fact that organised games are being played in a park, far from spoiling the park for the purposes of ordinary people who want to wander about in it, adds to the attraction of the park. It is of no use for hon. Members to come here expressing every sort of sympathy, in the abstract, with the idea of providing playing fields, but objecting to schemes in the concrete whenever they see the idea being carried out. I have no doubt the First Commissioner of Works will be able to tell us, in reply to an hon. Member from the Conservative Benches, what exactly is the size of the pavilion. I do not see why such an enormous one should be required for five or six teams to hang up their hats and coats. No doubt he will be able to say, also, who will be in charge, and whose responsibility it will be if anything is stolen; but, really, those points are almost too trivial to occupy the time of the Committee and might Very well be left to the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman. The real point which was made from the Conservative Benches was the suggestion that we do not want the parks turned altogether into playing fields because there has been a great increase in playing fields recently. The fact is, far too little use is being made of parks as playing fields, and the shortage of playing fields in London is tragic. The London County Council are able to supply only one in three of the clubs which come to them for accommodation in the London parks and commons. The estimated shortage of playing fields in the Greater London area is, they say, 25,000 acres. I hope, therefore, we shall hear no more about the present supply of playing fields being ample. The report of the Regional Planning Committee for the Greater London area says that the shortage of playing fields and open spaces in the Metropolitan Police district amounts to 40,000 acres. In the face of such figures, I hope the First Commissioner will not be cheeked by this agitation in the newspapers, but will go on providing more fields for the children of London, who are starving for them at the present time. As to the paddling pool in Regent's Park, that will be a life insurance for the children, many of whom are drowned in the Regent's Canal because they have no other place in which to paddle. No wonder the hon. Member who sits for the district in which Regent's Park is situated tells us that the children and their parents are proud of the First Commissioner of Works for what he has done, and want him to continue. The opposition to these projects has collapsed, and I feel sure that after this Debate the First Commissioner will feel that the only anxiety in this House is that he should not be deterred by what has been said in criticism of his schemes, but go on providing more playing fields and more recreation facilities for the children of London.I have one or two questions to put, but I wish to preface my remarks by saying that I entirely concur with the principle of providing as many playing fields as is possible, if they are adequately looked after and adequately controlled. I am fortified in saying this because I had the great pleasure some years ago of being captain of a football team which was not able to play anywhere except in a Royal Park. One of the difficulties we had to contend with was the fact that the playing ground was not controlled, and that other people who were using the park used to encroach upon the ground, partly by reason of interest in the game and partly I think, because they had the idea that they had as much right there as anybody else, and the effect of that was very often to spoil the game. I would ask the First Commissioner to do his utmost to ensure adequate inspection and control of the actual grounds, to prevent encroachment by members of the public while a game is in progress. As I have said, I think the principle is an admirable one, and that the First Commissioner is to be congratulated on the steps he has taken.
Division No. 173.]
| AYES.
| [5.7 p.m.
|
| Albery, Irving James | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Pownall, Sir Assheton |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Gower, Sir Robert | Purbrick, R. |
| Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.) | Grace, John | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Remer, John R. |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y) |
| Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W. | Gritten, W. G. Howard | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Gunston, Captain D. W. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Balniel, Lord | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Hammersley, S. S. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Salmon, Major I. |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Hartington, Marquess of | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart | Haslam, Henry C. | Sandeman. Sir N. Stewart |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Savery, S. S. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Buchan, John | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Hurd, Percy A. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Hurst, Sir Gerald B. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Butler, R. A. | Iveagh, Countess of | Somerset, Thomas |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F. |
| Colman, N. C. D | Long, Major Eric | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Colville, Major D. J. | McConnell, Sir Joseph | Tinne, J. A. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Macquisten, F. A. | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Mac Robert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham) | Train, J. |
| Crookshank, Capt. H. C. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Turton, Robert Hugh |
| Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Marjorlbanks, E. C. | Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey) |
| Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Meller, R. J. | Ward. Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Duckworth, G. A. V. | Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond) | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Muirhead, A. J. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Ferguson, Sir John | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld) | Withers, Sir John James |
| Fermoy, Lord | Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Fielden. E. B. | O'Neill, Sir H. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Ford, Sir P. J. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E. | Peake, Capt. Osbert | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Galbraith, J. F. W. | Penny, Sir George | |
| Ganzonl, Sir John | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
|
| Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Major Davies and Captain Cazalet. |
NOES.
| ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Bowen, J. W. | Charleton, H. C. |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Broad, Francis Alfred | Chater, Daniel |
| Ammon, Charles George | Brockway, A. Fenner | Church, Major A. G. |
| Angeli, Norman. | Bromley, J. | Cluse, W. S. |
| Arnott, John | Brothers, M. | Cocks, Frederick Seymour. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Compton, Joseph |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Buchanan, G. | Daggar, George |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Burgess, F. G. | Dallas, George |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Dalton, Hugh |
| Batey, Joseph | Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Day, Harry |
| Beckett. John (Camberwell, Peckham) | Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Denman, Hon. R. D. |
| Bellamy, Albert | Caine, Derwent Hall. | Dukes, C. |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Cameron, A. G. | Duncan, Charles |
| Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central) | Cape, Thomas | Ede, James Chuter |
Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £27,080, be granted for the said Service."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 214.
| Edmunds, J. E. | Logan, David Gilbert | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Longbottom, A. W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Egan, W. H. | Lowth, Thomas | Sanders, W. S. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Lunn, William | Sandham, E. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernett (Weish Univer.) | Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Foot, Isaac | MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw) | Scott, James |
| Froeman, Peter | McElwee, A. | Scurr, John |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | McEntee, V. L. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | MacLaren, Andrew | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | MacNeill-Weir, L. | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley) | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Shield, George William |
| Gill, T. H. | Malone, c. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Glassey, A. E. | March, S. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Marcus, M. | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Gould, F. | Markham, S. F. | Simmons, C. J. |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Marley, J. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Gray, Milner | Marshall, Fred | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne) | Mathers, George | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Groves, Thomas E. | Matters, L. W. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Maxton, James | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Messer, Fred | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Middleton, G. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.) | Mills, J. E. | Snell, Harry |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Montague, Frederick | Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Stephen, Campbell |
| Harris, Percy A. | Morley, Ralph | Strauss, G. R. |
| Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) | Sutton, J. E. |
| Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Haycock, A. W. | Mort, D. L. | Thurtle, Ernest |
| Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) | Moses, J. J. H. | Tillett, Ben |
| Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.) | Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Toole, Joseph |
| Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Nathan, Major H. L. | Townend, A. E. |
| Hoffman, P. C. | Naylor, T. E. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Hollins, A. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Turner, B. |
| Hopkin, Daniel | Noel Baker, P. J. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Horrabin, J. F. | Oldfield, J. R. | Viant, S. P. |
| Hutchison, Maj. Gen. Sir R. | Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | Walker, J. |
| Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Palmer, E. T. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Perry, S. F. | Watkins, F. C. |
| Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Potts, John S. | West. F. R. |
| Kennedy, Thomas | Price, M. P. | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Pybus, Percy John | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Kiniey, J. | Ramsay, T. S. Wilson | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Kirkwood, D. | Rathbone, Eleanor | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton) | Raynes, W. R. | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Lang, Gordon | Richards, R. | Wilson, J. (Oldham) |
| Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Wise, E. F. |
| Lathan, G. | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff) |
| Law, A. (Rosendale) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) |
| Lawrence, Susan | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Romeril, H. G. | |
| Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
|
| Leach, W. | ||
| Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Rothschild, J. de | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes. |
| Lewis, T. (Southampton) | Rowson, Guy | |
| Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) |
Original Question again proposed.
I listened very carefully to what the First Commissioner of Works said this afternoon and to the speeches made from all sides of the House in regard to this Estimate. It seems to me that far more important issues are at stake than have been disclosed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and some of those who have taken part in this Debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), with some indignation, suggested that those members of the Conservative party who were taking up this question were opposed to proper recreation facilities obtaining in the Royal Parks. May I point out that that is not the question at issue. The whole point in regard to this Estimate is whether or not those recreation facilities are being provided in the proper place, whether the best use is being made of the most valuable asset which this city has in a greater degree than any other foreign capital, and whether, before taking the action he has done in regard to these matters, the right hon. Gentleman should have consulted the House of Commons.
I simply referred to an hon. Member above the Gangway, and I did not wish to make this a party question at all. I indicated the hon. Member by pointing to him above the Gangway where he was sitting, and I did not wish in any way to threaten or menace the Noble Lord's party or to suggest that this was a party question.
I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness would be the last person to make a party question of a matter like this. The hon. and gallant Member has been too long a Member of the House not to know that there are few more odious accusations against either an individual or a party than to suggest that they wish to deprive children of proper playing facilities. I leave that point for the moment, and I will turn to the First Commissioner of Works and his action in regard to these matters. The right hon. Gentleman and I are old opponents in this House, and, when I had the honour of representing the India Office, he was one of my principal questioners, and, in spite of many controversies, we never lost our temper with each other. That being so, I was a little distressed—if I may be allowed to make a personal observation—at the extreme restiveness which the right hon. Gentleman has shown when I have intervened during the present Session to get information from him in regard to what was being done in the parks. Now that these Estimates have come before the Committee, I think this is a most appropriate occasion for me to put some rather important questions to the right hon. Gentleman on his action in regard to the parks.
In my opinion, we have to look at this question of new works, alterations and additions in the parks from the point of view of whether they involve important alterations or whether they are merely unimportant. I will give a category of what I regard as important changes, and it will not be an exhaustive one. I consider a change which gives to the public access or takes away the right of access to any large area of our Royal parks is an important change. I also consider that the taking of any considerable area from the unrestricted use of the park and the amenities of the park by the public, and allotting that area in future for organised games is a change of importance. I think both sides of the Committee are agreed upon that point. The erection of permanent buildings of brick, mortar or concrete in the Royal parks is also a change of importance. In the past, when alterations, additions and changes of that kind have been made they have never been undertaken, as far as I am aware, without first obtaining the authority of Parliament in some form or another. That course has always been taken in the past before any permanent buildings of bricks, mortar or concrete have been erected in the Royal parks. Before we pass this Estimate I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state definitely that there will be no permanent buildings of the kind I have described erected in the Royal parks other than those to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) had better wait until he is sitting on the Treasury Bench.May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is addressing the First Commissioner of Works or the Committee as a whole; and is it not a fact, Mr. Young, that all Members of the Committee are responsible for voting Supplementary Estimates?
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is addressing the Chair. In reply to the question put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy), every Member of the Committee is more or less responsible for these Estimates.
I was addressing my remarks to the Minister who is responsible for their introduction, and he will have an opportunity of replying to my observations. The First Commissioner of Works is responsible for these Estimates. On one occasion the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there is some resemblance between what he himself has done and what previous. First Commissioners of Works have done in regard to the erection of permanent buildings in the Royal parks, but I suggest that that is not so, and no such buildings have ever been erected before without first obtaining the consent of Parliament. Another question of importance in regard to the Royal parks is that no trees ought to be removed, save those which are a danger or are decayed, without the opinion of the House being obtained, and I will deal with that question more in detail later on.
Another question which comes within the category of important changes in the Royal parks is the making of new roads for vehicles or foot passengers to parts of the park which have hitherto been secluded. I contend that none of those changes ought to be made without Parliament being fully taken into the confidence of the First Commissioner of Works. What is the position of the Royal parks in regard to these works? Most of them were Royal gifts or loans to the public by His Majesty's predecessors, and it was never intended by their Royal benefactors that a Government Department should make changes in the Royal parks without the authority of Parliament. If the Office of Works considers itself to be the superior of Parliament, the sooner it learns that it is the servant of Parliament the better. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that, especially in this matter of the Royal parks, there is a very special responsibility upon Parliament. Coming now to the actual facilities that have been provided, I should like to go in rather more detail into what the right hon. Gentleman said. I find that in a question which he answered some time ago—in the first part of this Session—he stated that in Regent's Park there were 20 cricket pitches, 15 football grounds, and 10 hard tennis courts. [Interruption.] I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman's policy in the matter of the provision of recreational facilities where it can be done without affecting the general question of the use of the park. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these facilities in Regent's Park have not been added to in any way while he has been in office, and that there have only been provided certain facilities for schools in the neighbourhood in the way of permitting them to keep goal-posts which they used to have. That is a comparatively small point, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman is probably quite right in considering that it does not greatly affect the amenities of the park. There again, however, I would beg him, if any further change is to be made, to take the House into his confidence. I am not as familiar with the situation, necessarily, as the right hon. Gentleman is, and it may well be that it is possible to provide more cricket pitches and football grounds in Regent's Park, but, whether that be so or not, it is in my opinion the clear duty of the right hon. Gentleman to consult the House of Commons before he makes any such change. As regards the shelters which the right hon. Gentleman has put up, they seem to me, from what he has told us this afternoon, to be a reasonable provision for the comfort and health of these children, but here again we should like to be informed before this work is carried out, because, if a shelter is going to be put here, and another there, in what is really beautiful scenery in the Royal Parks, you may very easily, unless you are very careful, spoil the whole appearance of the Park. As regards the paddling pools, I know that, in those parts of London in which they have been provided, great advantage has been taken of them by the children in the neighbourhood, and they have afforded a great deal of innocent pleasure. That also applies to the sand pits. With regard to the Knightsbridge ground, I should like to know whether the soldiers who have hitherto used it have now been deprived of those facilities, and I think I shall be in order in asking under what system these new grounds which have been provided are allotted to the various organisations which use them. I think that that is an important question, because I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the demand for them is very great. As I have already said, I am not opposed to the provision of playgrounds, but quite the reverse. Indeed, I myself have had the pleasure of presenting a playground. I would like, however, to point out that, for every 10 persons who use the parks for games, at least 100 persons, who, I should say, are mostly wage-earners and salary-earners, use the parks for walking, and, if you like, courting—which, as an hon. Friend of mine has pointed out, they are perfectly entitled to do—taking out their children or their dogs, or, in summer, sitting and reading. [An HON. MEMBER: "And riding in the Row!"] That is a somewhat irrelevant remark. I never heard of any small wage-earner or salary-earner riding in the Row. I am speaking of the vast mass of the people who use the parks.
Do not they enjoy watching the games?
That entirely depends on circumstances. It is no use anyone thinking that this is an easy matter to deal with; it is not. It entirely depends on the circumstances whether or not the area allotted to games is excessive, and whether or not the great mass of the public, who must be more numerous than those who use the parks for games, are provided with the facilities which they should have in these beautiful parks. That is the whole point, and that is why we on this side are very anxious that there should be a clear policy. The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters may object to our raising this matter, but it must be remembered—I daresay it is not the right hon. Gentleman's fault, but the fault of the Press who have supported him in the matter—that during the last two months he has got rather the name of being a sort of universal uncle—perhaps that title has been adopted out of jealousy for the Foreign Secretary—who, out of his benevolence, provides all sorts of things for all sorts of people with which they have never been provided before. We on this side of the Committee, while we entirely approve of the principle, want to be assured that the right hon. Gentleman, in doing that, is not affecting the amenities of the parks. I see nothing to object to in what he has told us this afternoon, and I hone it may be possible to provide more facilities if it can be done without prejudice to the other users of the parks.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer in this connection. I suppose it would come under the heading of New Works. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers that he had the full authority of the House of Commons to erect the building which houses the carillon in Hyde Park? Is it to be a permanent building? It may be a good thing, or it may be a bad thing, but it seems to me to be essentially a matter on which Parliament ought to be consulted. If not, what is to prevent the putting up of any other sort of building—On a point of Order. Is there any part of the carillon that leads in any way to the expenditure of a farthing under this Vote?
I am not sure whether it is in the Vote or not.
It is not.
There is a great deal to be said for this—
I really must tell the Noble Lord that there is nothing about it in this Vote.
It did not cost the public anything?
No.
Very well: I suppose it will be possible to raise the matter on some other occasion—perhaps when the question of the right hon. Gentleman's salary comes before the Committee. Do I understand that the whole work of clearing the ground and so on was carried out through the benevolence of the Noble Lord who gave this carillon, and that there was no cost to the State at all?
There is nothing in this Vote.
I am very pleased to hear that. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say definitely that it cost nothing.
There is nothing in this Vote dealing with that matter, so that we must leave it until another occasion.
There is another matter which I think" does come under this Vote. I should like to ask whether it is true, as stated in the Press, that power has been taken to spend money for the erection of a statue to Mr. Bernhard Baron?. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will mention that matter when he replies. A matter which does undoubtedly come under this Vote is that of the trees which I understand the right hon. Gentleman has removed, under Sub-head G (Unemployment Relief). This is a matter of immense importance to the beauty and amenities of the parks. Many of these old trees are 200 or 300 years old. I know of no public park in any town in Europe which has trees comparable with those in the London parks. Certainly there are none in the New York Central Park to compare in beauty with the old elm trees of the London parks. The right hon. Gentleman gave what I think we must all regard as a satisfactory assurance, if he was accurate, as we have every reason to suppose he was, that no single tree has been removed unless it was either decaying or, in the opinion of the parks superintendent, dangerous to the safety of the public.
The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that you must have regard, in dealing with trees in public parks, to considerations rather different from those which arise in the case of trees in private parks or anywhere in the countryside, because the amount of injury that would be done by a falling tree, say on a Bank holiday, would be very much greater in the London parks than it would be anywhere else. But it is curious and significant and interesting that not only a former First Commissioner of Works, but several other people, have stated publicly that one of the trees which have been removed was a perfectly sound tree—as could be seen from the trunk—just adjacent to one of the new sports grounds which have been created. The obvious deduction to be drawn from that was that there was some connection between the removal of the tree and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make a sports ground. Although it may be said that the removal of a single tree is not a matter of great importance, it is so in the case of the London parks, because, quite apart from the fact that elm trees take 200 or 300 years to come to maturity, anyone who knows anything about forestry knows that it is very difficult to get young elm trees to grow in the London parks to-day, because the amount of soot and dirt in the air is much greater than it was when the present elm trees were planted. Therefore, it is really very important that these old trees should not be removed. There are two ways of dealing with a tree that is not actually decayed in the trunk, and is therefore not dangerous. If, for example, the boughs contain what is technically known as a lot of dead wood, the tree can be preserved for 50 or 100 years by pollarding, and that has been done in the case of one of the most famous trees in Hyde Park, near the police station. It dates, I believe, from the time of Queen Elizabeth, and is generally considered to be one of the finest elm butts in all the parks. The lateral boughs were removed, and the tree is perfectly healthy and safe to-day. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is taking the very best opinion on this subject, because it is a matter for experts. He told us that the Parks Superintendent was the authority, but the Parks Superintendent does not necessarily possess that technical knowledge in connection with trees that is required in this case. The authorities on this subject, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are the established officers of the Forestry Commission. They are experts in these matters, and, if there is any question, in connection with the money which we are now voting, of removing many, or even any, more trees in the parks that are of the character which I have described—that is to say, these magnificient elms which are 200 or 300 years old—I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the very best expert advice that he can, that is to say, the advice of the Forestry Commission, or of his own people at Kew Gardens. One of my hon. Friends on this side referred to the question of the removal of undergrowth on certain islands in Regent's Park, and I want to refer to the same point. Some years ago, with the general assent of every one who cares both for the amenities of the parks and for bird life, a number of bird sanctuaries were created in the London parks. On the whole, the results were satisfactory, that is to say, species of birds that had been comparatively rare visitors to London before the sanctuaries were created began to come in increasing numbers; and there is no doubt that the places where these birds find their greatest sanctuary, as well as their greatest seclusion, are the islands in the different parks. I am informed by some of the right hon. Gentleman's own park-keepers, many of whom take a very great interest in this matter, that the depredations of cats are so great on the mainland, so to speak, that the birds do not get much of a chance, but on the islands they are secure, and I think that most of us, and especially the London County Council school teachers who teach natural history, want to see as many rare birds as possible come to the London parks. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman has really taken expert advice before removing all this undergrowth on the islands in Regent's Park, in the Serpentine, and in the lake in St. James's Park. Birds will reside in a place where there is something in the nature of thicket, even in London. They will not remain in a place where everything has been cleared away and planting goes on once or twice a year. It is deplorable to see what has been going on recently in St. James's Park. An island has been almost entirely cleared of the undergrowth, which the birds very much favour, with the result that birds which would possibly have otherwise come there will no longer come. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why that has been necessay, and why he wants to interfere with this island at all? Birds, unlike Government Departments, dislike tidiness. Possibly he is trying to instruct them in more tidy habits and wants them to roost somewhere where he and his Department have settled that they shall roost. If that is his wish, it will not be fulfilled as the effect of what he has done, and great mischief has already been done in that way. I believe that a great many of these new works of the character I have just described, such as the removal of undergrowth, have not been carried out because they have any inherent virtue of their own, not because they will improve the property and not because they are going to help the birds, but in order to provide work for the unemployed. I have a very shrewd suspicion that that is so, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps are taken in St. James's Park, for example, to supervise the work that is done by these unemployed? There are quite a number of unemployed men working in that park, and I have never seen men work so slowly or so badly. There seems to be no proper supervision. Not one of them would be kept for a day by any private gardener or commercial man. I watched them working on the island. In all, there were eight men, and they were never all working at the same time. Seven would begin fumbling about with their spades, without digging, and the eighth man would light a cigarette or lean against a tree. They were near where the Naval Conference is sitting, and it is the worst possible advertisement for British labour. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go into it. I am sure he would be the last to support this slackness. If the men are physically unfit, they ought not to be put there to work at all, but should go somewhere where they can learn to do the gardening work that is required. No doubt others have noticed the same thing. It is fantastic to see it. I should very much like to know if any attempt has been made to find out how much it costs to remove the shrubs and to take up turf and put it down again elsewhere. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance on these matters. So far from wanting to see children deprived of recreational facilities in the parks, we want to see them used to the fullest extent, hut not under a sort of arbitrary system adopted by the Minister without any consultation with the House. The parks are amongst the most valuable gifts ever made by the Crown to the country. No Government Department, however admirable its Minister and however excellent his official advisers, should have a free hand in such a matter. It should be his charge to come to the House for authority. It is more important that he should get proper authority for carrying out these changes than for anything he does in connection with the buildings for which he is responsible, except those of great historic value. I beg of him to take the Committee into his confidence and not to be quite so restive when we ask him what we consider to be quite fair and proper questions.I wish to say a few words which, I trust, may reassure my right hon. Friend. I will deal with the question of the proposed laying out of some space in Hyde Park for the purpose of providing an opportunity for organised games to be taken part in by young people. It was my privilege to take some share in the negotiations that led up to the very munificent gift, for the purpose referred to, of Sir Howard Frank in my capacity as chairman of the London Playing Fields Association. After consulting my colleagues, I was delegated to place before the First Commissioner two alternative plans for laying out the old 1851 Exhibition ground opposite Knightsbridge barracks. One provided for the preservation of the paths at present existing, and also anything in the way of trees or natural features that at present exist. The second alternative, which was a better one from our point of view, was conditional on it being possible to dis- pose of the paths either through their being judged unnecessary or by the need for them being met in some other way. The purpose of this lay-out was not to interfere with any privilege already enjoyed by the public, but to put on an organised basis the rather unorganised methods at present prevailing of providing for recreation for young people. It also provided for the preservation of the rights and privileges of the troops quartered at Knightsbridge barracks, and it was expressly provided that they should be in no way interfered with. Some critics of these proposals may not be aware of the extent to which organised games already take place on that space. I think three football grounds are habitually used during the season by the soldiers. I should be the last to propose to interfere with that, and our plans were arranged to make no interference whatever. Equally, there is really no necessity to interfere with the beauties or amenities of the site. I have often watched small boys playing there, and it always appeared to me that there was a great opportunity of making much better arrangements for their convenience. I should be the last to defend anything which would destroy the beauty of the parks. I have always regarded that space as not particularly beautiful, and evidently it has not been quite so sacrosanct for all time as public opinion may imagine, because it was there that the 1851 Exhibition was located.
Surely my hon. Friend does not suggest that that was not beautiful?
That would be a very interesting question to debate, and I should like to take part in a discussion on the subject, but I think it would be ruled out of order. In any event, I should possibly find myself in agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend when we came to pass judgment on the æsthetic opinions which we would now form in regard to it. But it is quite possible, with every regard both to the rights of other citizens and to the amenities of Hyde Park and to the opportunities offered by the site, to provide exactly what is required for the benefit of everyone concerned. We have all seen from time to time young men running along the roads in Hyde Park and elsewhere, anxious to train themselves for athletic events. It always seemed to mo a matter of regret that neither in Hyde Park nor in Regent's Park has any provision been made for a running track. Although the space at Knightsbridge is not regarded as suitable for that purpose, it should be quite possible to provide something, possibly in Regent's Park, without interfering with the beauties or amenities of the park or the enjoyment of other people. One wants to have the utmost possible regard to the susceptibilities and the real wishes of other people. Some hon. Members may not be aware that even the proposal to grant regular playing facilities for children on the old exhibition ground site does not present quite the novelty that might be supposed. Part of Kensington Gardens, near the Magazine, is regularly used by the scholars of certain County Council schools. What I am submitting is only a slight extension of that privilege. It is quite possible to provide games without interfering with the beauties of the park or the rights of anyone whatever. Out of all the great space available in the parks, only one acre in 60 is devoted to games. That allowance being so small, I think we could manage to provide what those who support this proposal desire, and also prevent any damage to the beauties and amenities of the park.
6.0 p.m.
My hon. Friend has put before the Committee the views of the National Playing Fields' Association of which he is a very distinguished member. Of course, he has to a certain extent discussed the matter from that point of view and with a predilection in that direction. I should like, however, to ask one or two definite questions with regard to the explanation of the Vote that we have had from the First Commissioner of Works. I wonder if he could tell us how many unemployed persons are engaged in the parks. He said he was erecting a shelter for children in Kensington Gardens. Is that the cone-shaped summer house at the West end of the Serpentine? I saw it in process of erection the other day, and wondered what it was. I take it that that is the shelter for children, and that it is the one to which he referred. Where are the children's sand pits in Kensington Gardens to be put? The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that in detail. I do not know whether they have yet been commenced, and one wonders where they are to be put.
The new bathing facilities in the Serpentine have given rise to a good deal of discussion in the papers and to a certain amount of difference of opinion and controversy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) raised one point which, I think, requires consideration, and for which there is a great deal to be said. It appears that until now men have been allowed to bathe in the Serpentine until eight o'clock in the morning without any payment. I gather that after the erection of this new bathing pavilion, anybody who desires to bathe in the Serpentine, whether before eight o'clock in the morning or after that time, will have to use this new pavilion and will have to pay. I think that there is something to be said for the argument of the hon. and gallant Member opposite that the rights of those people who hitherto have been able to bathe in the Serpentine before eight o'clock without payment should not be done away with, and that in the future they should be enabled, if they so desired, to bathe in the Serpentine without payment. Apart from that I cannot see any insuperable objection to organising the bathing in the Serpentine. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the hoarding which used to be put up near the bridge was most unsightly, and, provided that the plans of the new erection harmonise with the surroundings in that part of Hyde Park, I do not see any objection to having it put there. There is another new erection in Hyde Park in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman did not say anything. I should like to ask him a question about it. I refer to the carillon of bells in Hyde Park.I believe that this matter is out of order, but if you, Mr. Young, will allow me, it may appease the hon. Member's fears if I say that there is no intention of erecting a permanent carillon on that site.
I appreciate the point that it is technically out of order, but I thought that there was money in this Vote in respect of the putting up of the present building. However, I am glad to hear the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. We have beard a great deal about the sports ground opposite Knightsbridge Barracks. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) devoted a great part of his speech to dealing with that matter. It seems to me that there can be no objection to using part of the park for organised games, but I rather gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that all that was to be done there was the erection of a pavilion at the end near the Albert Memorial, and, I think, the construction of a bowling green. Does it mean that nothing more is to be done? There are a number of football grounds with goal-posts there at present. I was there on Saturday and saw a large number of games of football in progress. A running track is apparently no longer contemplated. Therefore, is that bit of land opposite Knightsbridge Barracks, apart from the erection of a pavilion and the provision of a bowling green, to remain as it is to-day? I cannot see any objection to the playing of football. There is one point which requires to be remembered with regard to the playing of football and other games in the parks. Games of football and other recreations go on constantly in the winter, and they lead to the gathering of large numbers of persons, the effect of which is to do great harm to the grass; in fact, the grass very largely disappears. At the present-moment, round where the carillon is situated, the whole of the grass has completely gone. I think I am right in saying—the right hon. Gentleman may be more of an agriculturist than I, and, therefore, he may correct me if I am wrong—that, provided grass is protected at the time of the year when it starts to grow again, no permanent damage can be done by the numbers of people who collect upon it, whether they are playing at or watching football, or hearing the bells. I would, therefore, urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the necessity for seeing that when spring-time comes and the young grass is growing, railings are put up or some other steps taken to prevent the permanent obliteration of the grass in those portions of our parks.
Another point to which I wish to make reference relates to Regent's Park. I believe that there has been a cinder track or racing track of some kind constructed there. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was put in a part of the park where it did not matter. I have been in Regent's Park recently and I did not see it, so I think that it must be hidden away in a part of the park where one does not ordinarily go. I have walked on the paths in Regent's Park near the lake and where the football is played, and, wherever the running track is, I do not think that it can be a very violent interference with the other amenities of the park. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that a further children's sand-pit or playground of some kind was to be made in Kensington Gardens. In my view, provided the matter ends there, there will be no objection. The playground which at present exists in Kensington Gardens for the children is greatly appreciated, and I have noticed recently that it is very constantly used. But Kensington Gardens are of all the parks in London, in spring and summer, undoubtedly the most beautiful. It has undoubtedly the finest trees. It is there to which you can go in the summer-time and enjoy real rest and quiet under the very lovely trees which are to be found there. For instance, if you take the area from the fountains at the end of the Serpentine and walk towards the Albert Memorial, or in the direction of St. Mary Abbot's Church, you are really passing through a bit of park with very lovely timbering, and I hope that whatever the right hon. Gentleman is going to do with regard to this new sand-pit or playing ground in Kensington Gardens, he will most earnestly remember not to spoil those very lovely trees. I am sorry to say that when we had a bad storm in London a few months ago numbers of the trees in Kensington Gardens were blown down. The trees will come down quickly enough through age and in the course of nature. I hope that none of these new arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman is making in the parks will ever be allowed to interfere with the restful and delightful nature of Kensington Gardens, which is required, now more than ever before owing to the immense noise of traffic in London and the constant smell of petrol. In these parks are green oases where those who wish for rest and quiet and repose can enjoy themselves.
I think that the large number of hon. Members who went into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment to reduce the Vote of the right hon. Gentleman show how strong is the feeling in this Committee against the tendency of the right hon. Gentleman towards doing anything in any way to interfere with the freedom of our parks. It is the suddenness of the innovations which have been sprung upon us that has caused us to be rather chary of accepting them at the start. The present tendency of the management might well justify a considerable feeling of uneasiness in the minds of all of us. After all, the cardinal idea of a public park in a great city is to bring as much of the country as we can into the midst of the city. What we enjoy so much in the country is the greenness, the solitude, the quiet and the birds. The tendency of the right hon. Gentleman is to convert the parks with their delightful sense of freedom and solitude into places where we are to have crowds and organised games. In many cases, where you attract crowds, you at once do away with that beautiful greenness of sward which foreigners and all of us admire. If the right hon. Gentleman will go round the carillon to-day and look at what was before a beautiful green expanse, he will see that it is now all blackened earth with scarcely a blade of grass growing there. After a shower of rain it is converted into a sea of mud.
The former policy with regard to parks has always been to keep the crowd right on the edge. You have the Sunday orators near the Marble Arch, near the edge. The band plays near the edge. The roads go round the park as far as possible in order to keep the noise of traffic and the smell of petrol away from the centre of the park. Therefore, I regret the tendency of the right hon. Gentleman to make it into a sort of great playing-ground instead of allowing it to remain a place of leisure for the people. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the other day about dogs. He has put up new notices with regard to dogs being on the lead in various parks, and the answer which he gave to me was to the effect that he wanted to preserve the flowers. The right hon. Gentleman is right. Should we not put the right hon. Gentleman on the lead in order to prevent our shrubberies from being destroyed, our islands de-forested and the trees from being cut down. A hundred thousand dogs would not have done as much damage to the parks as the right hon. Gentleman has done in Regent's Park in nine months. On the islands, which were formerly the refuge for birds, there used to be growing wild parsley which formed a considerable cover for the nesting of birds. He has moved all this with that sense of orderliness and tidiness which every Government Department must possess. Wild birds were being protected there, and it was of great interest to all of us to watch the wild birds making their nests and come to these sanctuaries in the park. Someone says that the right hon. Gentleman has been acting on the plan of a genial autocracy, combined with capitalism. That may well be said in regard to his actions in the parks. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) raised the question of bathing in the Serpentine. Hitherto, bathing in the Serpentine has been an informal and al fresco arrangement, by which people have gone down in the early morning for a swim, and then gone away. That is to be altered. No longer is there to be that freedom. I fully agree with the contention that those who go before eight o'clock in the morning ought to be exactly under the same conditions as in the past, but I cannot see why those who go down should be subject to some of the suggested restrictions. I suppose that they will have to wear suitable costumes, and that there will be inspectors to see whether the costume is an inch too short or not. In addition, there will be charges. There is to be a pavilion, which will be 115 to 120 feet long and 90 feet wide, and, in addition, there are to be two great marquees, so that on the whole of that side of the Serpentine the amenities are going to be spoilt. For the past two centuries Hyde Park has never altered its character as a resort where citizens go for quiet. The right hon. Gentleman is starting to alter its character. He is seeking to benefit the few at the expense of the great number. What about the many middle-aged people who go to the parks'? They do not want to play games. If the park is to be devoted to a great extent to the playing of games, surely the places for the playing of the games should be provided away from the centre of the park and, as far as possible, on the edges of the park. An infinitesimal number of people play games in the parks, while there are vast numbers of people who want to enjoy the parks without playing games. How many invalids and aged people go to the parks every day to enjoy the fresh air? With regard to the trees, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be very chary before he cuts down a tree that takes a century or more to get to the fullness of its beauty. If a tree happens to be dangerous, a limb might be amputated and the tree itself spared. I always regret when I have to cut down a tree, and it is only done where it is damaging another tree or it has become so dangerous as to overhang the road and to endanger people. In cases where trees have been cut down in the parks, these considerations have not been shown. Trees might have been saved by taking a bough off. Reverting to the question of bathing in Hyde Park, evidently it is to be made a popular resort. If we are to have hundreds of bathers there every day, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to make any provision for changing the water. At the present time the water does not look too clean, and if hundreds of bathers are to go there every day the water will be very much fouled. I would not; care to have a swim in Hyde Park under those conditions. The park is of far more use to the rising generation as a park than as a playground. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a strong body of opinion that we should keep our parks as parks and not turn them into playgrounds to attract great masses to watch games, and to spoil the quiet amenities of the park;. We enjoy in the parks to-day the wide views. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he is going to take down the goal posts. I am very grateful for that assurance, because goal posts in a summer landscape seem very much out of place. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that there is a strong body of opinion that does not want these parks to be changed from what they are to-day. Whatever he does, we would urge that this House should have a say before he makes any alteration in regard to the general conduct of the parks.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wants to reply almost immediately to the various questions that have been raised. I should like to put one suggestion to him. For over a year I had the honour of representing the Office of Works in the House, as the First Commissioner was a Peer in the other House. I had to answer questions daily, and I made it my constant practice to visit the various parks. No one doubts the genuine desire of the right hon. Gentleman to do his best for all sections of the population as far as the parks are concerned, but one may fall possibly into a trap when one tries to cater for different sections of the population. The parks are for the community as a whole and directly you begin to cater for one particular class, one particular age, or one particular interest, to that extent you do damage to the interests of the general public. When I had the honour of answering for the Office of Works, questions arose about the stonework of the Houses of Parliament. It was a question in which everyone was interested, and many questions were put. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be a good plan to take the House into his confidence by selecting a small committee whom he could inform of his intentions in regard to the parks, that small committee might also act in a sort of advisory capacity, whom he might consult. In order to help the First Commissioner, and with his consent, I had a small committee of members—
Is this in order?
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order.
I had a small committee, drawn from all parties. On that committee, the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) sat. We occasionally met and went all over the Houses of Parliament to inspect the stonework, and I think the committee served a very good purpose and was able to inform the Minister of the general wishes of the House on the matter. I am not wasting the time of the Committee, I hope, when I suggest that a similar committee, composed of Members from different parties, should be invited by the right hon. Gentleman to get in touch with him in regard to the parks, which are very near all our hearts, that he should consult them and inform them what he is going to do, and that he should meet them periodically and find out what they think are the wishes of the House. That would probably help the right hon. Gentleman in his work, and I think that it would be for the general satisfaction of the House.
I do not propose to make any hostile or captious criticism, but I want to make one or two suggestions. I have lived in the region of Hyde Park and Regent's Park, and I use Hyde Park in the mornings for fresh air. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has already said that we are all in favour of fresh air and health for the children, but we do not think that it is quite the proper thing that either a society or an individual, however well-meaning, should be able to say to the right hon. Gentleman: "Here is a cheque for £5,000," and later that he should find a plan fired at his head. That opens up a dangerous position. Rich, honest, sentimental fanatics, whether they be men or societies, if they are willing to pay to have their ideas carried out may be able in this way to get things done which the community may regret. I therefore warn the right hon. Gentleman that, much as we wish to support him in providing amenities for the poor, he must be careful lest he falls into the trap of accepting money from private people and then having a plan fired at his head which may lead us, imperceptibly, into the doing of undesirable things.
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the lighting of Hyde Park. I understand that he is going to devote a certain amount of money for that purpose. I go home by taxi at night, and on many occasions the taxi-driver has refused to take me through the East Road of Hyde Park after six or seven o'clock because the lighting is insufficient and dangerous. I have raised the point on several occasions. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in his lighting re-arrangements he should not take the standards that are there now and convert them. It is a mistake, for instance, to take street standards which were provided originally for gas and use them for electric lighting. If the right hon. Gentleman uses the present standards the diffusion of light that will come from these tall standards will probably make shadows which will do more harm than the light will do good, because of the dangers they will create. I suggest that he should pull down these standards and take very careful counsel from those who understand lighting—I do not profess to know anything about the technical side of lighting—as to the height of the standards, before he commits himself to any expenditure. If he is going to light parts of the park where there are tea gardens, he might see that the tea gardens are run on much more satisfactory lines, because they are now squalid and shabby. Along the Serpentine it is the habit of people to park their cars at certain hours before mid-day, and the result is that the park is blocked by cars of well-to-do people and children and other people cannot use the road by the side of the Serpentine and the road from the Serpentine Bridge to Exhibition Road. Under the item, "New Works, Alterations and Additions," for which we are voting £8,900, I suggest that we should provide some place for the parking of cars, so that they do not block the road and interfere with the pleasure of people.That is an item to provide money for recreation facilities, not to provide parking grounds for cars.
It might come under Item GG—Unemployment Relief Work. With regard to Regent's Park, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is doing something to the pond and something with regard to a football ground. When I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question came before me about the leases of the Botanical Gardens and St. John's Lodge. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman use some of the grant from the Unemployment Grants Committee to bring forward work which must be done to improve the Botanical Gardens? Cannot something be done to forestall the work which must be done later on at St. John's Lodge? Then the danger to pedestrians who use Clarence Gate in Regent's Park is very great, and I think steps should be taken either to get a park-keeper or a policeman stationed there, or in some way to rearrange the position. As the gate now stands, you will sooner or later have loss of life.
I hope it will not be considered unfair if I reply now to the small criticisms which have been made on this Vote. While it is in my mind, let me say that I have never resented questions being put to me, but I do rather resent the assumption which sometimes underlies the question. In regard to the lighting of Hyde Park, we are consulting with the Traffic Advisory Committee as to the best method of dealing with that rather dangerous road, and I hope we shall arrive at a satisfactory solution. The money now being voted is for the new lighting in she park where the police consider it is very necessary. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) for the appointment of a committee, I am always ready to meet hon. Members and discuss matters connected with my Department, whether parks or anything else, but I cannot agree to set up a special committee to advise me on something which I think I am quite as capable of doing as any of my predecessors. When I am asked to take the advice of an Advisory Committee in regard to any matter I want to bring forward, the assumption is that I require more guidance than Lord Peel or any other First Commissioner of Works.
All my point was that I thought it would probably help the right hon. Gentleman if he had an informal committee, not an advisory committee, composed of hon. Members from different parts of the House who would keep in touch with him. He would be able to communicate with them and take them into consultation. There is a precedent for this already is the Office of Works.
The right hon. Gentleman is one who delights me with his charm of manner, and I should like to fall in with his suggestion. But neither Lord Peel, whom I know very-well indeed in connection with other public bodies, nor Lord Londonderry would ever consent to setting up a committee to advise him about the work of the department. The advisory committee which the right hon. Member for Wood Green mentioned was set up for the specific object of dealing with the sort of stone which it was proposed to put into this building, a very technical and controversial matter, upon which it was quite necessary to appoint such an informal committee. While I am very willing to meet hon. Members and discuss with them any proposals, I cannot accept the suggestion. Indeed, I rather resent the assumption that I have been doing things in the dark without Parliament knowing anything about them. I gave a long list of all that we proposed to do months ago. I sent the information out in answer to a question, and for months I heard nothing from anybody except praise in the newspapers and praise from individual Members. Then, all of a sudden, the "Times" newspaper came out with a leading article, and since then there has been what the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) described as great agitation in the country. It is a little exaggeration on the part of the hon. and gallant Member. I know as much about public opinion outside in regard to these matters as the hon. and gallant Member.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman—
I want to assure the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) that I certainly know more about it than he does. He has made some statements which were utterly beside the mark.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what he bases that statement?
The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has said that I have put in hand works of a permanent character without first coming to this House and getting its authority, and that I was enabled to do it because certain people had provided me with the money necessary to carry out the works. I have already answered that point, and I must tell the Noble Lord and the Committee again that I gave a list of all these works months ago, with the solitary exception of the cinder track in Regent's Park, which was only decided upon a short time ago. This afternoon the Noble Lord has said that there was nothing very much that he could object to in anything that we were going to do. That is a proof that what we were going to do met with the approval of the bulk of hon. Members. If there had been any objection, it would have shown itself last year.
I would like to answer that point, because the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. All I sought was an assurance that he would not carry out works which involved an important permanent change in the parks without first coming to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman would not give that assurance.
I was coming to that point if the Noble Lord had waited. He charges me with making a precedent, May I point out that Sir John Baird, when he was First Commissioner of Works, sanctioned the erection of a bird sanctuary, which is a permanent building, on the site in Hyde Park. It was paid for by public subscription. It never came before this House, and I claim the same right to do what other First Commissioners of Works have done. I also said, and no man would dream of doing otherwise, that if it was the question of a big proposition, such as the setting up of a carillon in the park, I should certainly take care that the House of Commons was made acquainted with the proposal and give hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the project. That is all that the Noble Lord, or anybody else, has a right to ask me to do. My predecessors gave the London County Council the right to put up permanent buildings in the parks. There they are. They never came before this House. No one questioned it, because we were all agreeable that the London County Council should erect these buildings for the benefit of delicate children. I hope the noble Lord understands my point of view, a" I think I understand his.
The question of the felling of trees has been the subject of much controversy this evening. I am risked whose opinion I take. I take the opinion of the people who advised my predecessors. I have not appointed any new people. I have taken the advice of the men upon whom Lord Peel, Lord Londonderry and Lord Crawford relied. Lord Crawford took perhaps a more individual stand on the question of trees because he was keenly interested in the subject, but even under his administration nearly 400 trees were felled in the parks. That was because it was necessary. Why should it be assumed that I have ordered trees to be taken down when it is unnecessary? I have not interfered. I have taken the advice of the experts who are paid by this House, who, in my judgment, are doing their duties in a very efficient manner. The Noble Lord also wanted to know how grounds are allotted. They are allotted by ballot; the only fair way. Then the question was asked: Do we allow the Army the same facilities as before "Certainly, and I hope the men in Knightsbridge Barracks will make good use of the bowling green and the putting greens, too. Then with regard to the memorial which has been erected. Sir Louis Baron has given the money for the erection of the pavilion in Regent's Park to the memory of his father; and it is a good memorial, too. There is no charge for the paddling pond, and the children can go in and out when they please. A charge will be made for the use of paddle-boats on the paddle-boat ponds which we are making in Regent's Park and Greenwich Park. An hon. Member opposite asked a question about the islands. Really, hon. Members opposite should have a memory about these matters. Last year under my predecessor one of the islands was cleared, and the people who are making such a hullabaloo now never said the same thing last year. They never said that the place was being spoiled and ruined. Lord Londonderry, who was responsible, acted on the advice of experts in the employ of the Office of Works, and it is clear that everybody now thinks it was a great improvement. We are doing another one this year. We could not do the two at one time because we have not enough money—In what way is ii an improvement?
; We are clearing away all the worn-out shrub and growth and enabling things to grow again.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken the opinion of any person who knows anything about these matters as to whether the work which is being carried out will not deprive birds of nesting places? I am assured that this is so, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are some birds which will not nest except in tangled undergrowth. His Department, by clearing this away, will stop the increase of rare birds in the park.
Really the Noble Lord should not interrupt, for he only puts his foot in too far. Last year my predecessor, Lord Londonderry, did exactly what I am doing this year. He took the advice of a committee for the preservation of bird life, who thought that this work should be done. Why should the Noble Lord assume that I have not taken the best advice? Why should right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite get up and—
Because of your previous career.
Withdraw!
I do not want the Noble Lord to withdraw. If in his judgment I am not fit to occupy this position, that is to me a matter of total indifference. I am here, not by his good will but because people put me here, and while I am here I am going to carry out the duties of the office to the best of my ability. He has no right to assume, as he has assumed this afternoon, that we are incapable of doing what Lord Londonderry and other people have done. It so happens—this is where the Noble Lord has lost his head in the matter—that this is continuity of policy, and that even if I were as incompetent as he imagines that I am, I am only following in the footsteps of his Noble Friend. The Noble Lord mentioned—perhaps he knows what it is—cow parsnip. Here is what the expert writes to me:
I understood from the Noble Lord that it provided material for nesting,"The cow parsnip produces some food for birds"—
I ask the Noble Lord to listen to this; I want to educate him a little:"by seeding, but it does so at a time too late for the nesting season. The foliage is not attractive to birds. This plant spreads very rapidly and has become far too plentiful in some of the sanctuaries of the parks, especially Regent's Park."
I think that after all we shall not hear any more about the birds. As to the rare birds in the parks, we are as proud of them as the Noble Lord, and I am glad to tell him that I think we are to have some more given to us. I trust that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not then rise in their wrath and say: "Why should the First Commissioner accept these without first asking us?" I am one of those people who take anything that comes along. Let me now pass to something more serious. I was asked as to the amount of work provided for the workmen I have mentioned. Really the Noble Lord was going a little too far when he talked of those workmen as he did. There are between 400 and 500 of them employed. It is perfectly true that many of the men arrive nearly penniless. They have been out of work for months, and it is as difficult for them to do a big day's work as it is difficult for me to expect them to do as well as strong, healthy men. I saw a report the other day that they are doing better this year than they did last year or in previous years. The Noble Lord need have no fear on the question of supervision. They are thoroughly well supervised."It is being replaced by shrubs, recommended by the committee of experts, providing food for the bird" and cover for their nests."
Permanent men supervise them?
All the men who supervise are permanent men. One hon. Member referred to the water of the Serpentine. It is moving water; it does not stand still. Really hon. Gentlemen should inform themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is very dirty!"] It runs away; it is on the move. I think I have answered most of the serious questions put to me. I want to thank the Committee for the way in which they have received the Estimates. No one has really objected to them. The only thing hon. Members object to is myself. I am sorry that it is myself and that hon. Members have to see me here, but they cannot damn good work merely because I am the vehicle through which it is being done
I rise for two purposes. First I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the full statement that he has made. But I wish also to say that I think he is extraordinarily sensitive, as a Minister, to criticisms which are made against him from the Opposition side. The right hon. Gentleman has been in Opposition himself for many years, and I am speaking within the recollection of many when I say that he did not mince his words in the least when he was in Opposition. When he had criticisms to make he made them forcibly, without any hesitation and with very little modesty. Now that he is a Minister he seems to resent the opposition when we ask for the reasons why he has done this, that or the other. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to ask him such questions. Whatever he may be, we are too democratic to forego the duty of an Opposition. The right hon. Gentlemen who are now in office may have so little opinion of the House of Commons that they desire untrammelled freedom of motion and authority in their own Departments, but I can assure them that we shall insist on scrutinising every single thing that they do. One question the right hon. Gentleman did not answer, and I should be very grateful if he would give us information upon that one point. It is in regard to the 400 or 600 men for whom he has been able to find employment. Can he say how long he hopes to be able to keep these men in employment?
Till about the end of March.
That is to the end of the financial year. Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans in mind to give them more permanent employment?
Can we discuss that?
I shall not go further into the matter than to say that I am sure all parties would think it a great pity if the right hon. Gentleman is merely spending the money to give temporary employment to these unfortunate men. As he has been able to give them employment during the winter, I hope that he will do what in him lies to give them employment throughout the summer as well. In conclusion let me say that I live near Regent's Park, and that I have seen a good deal, though not all, of the work of the right hon. Gentleman there, and that I think that a lot of it is going to be a very great improvement. I personally do not desire to criticise the work that is going on in that particular part. What the pavilion will be like, we do not know yet, but as regards the rose garden and the pond and even the paddle-boat pond, though some people do not like it, I, as a father of a large family, see a point behind it.
rose—
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Division No. 174.]
| AYES.
| [6.58 p.m.
|
| Adamson, Ht. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon | Oldfield, J. R. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro') | Haycock, A. W. | Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) |
| Alpass, J. H. | Hayes, John Henry | Owen, H. F. (Herelord) |
| Ammon, Charles George | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | Palmer, E. T. |
| Angeil, Norman. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Perry, S. F. |
| Arnott, John | Hoffman, P. C. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Hollins, A. | Potts, John S. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hopkin, Daniel | Price, M. P. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Hore-Bellsha, Leslie | Pybus, Percy John |
| Barnes, Alfred John | Horrabin, J. F. | Ramsay, T. B. Wilson |
| Bellamy, Albert | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Rathbone, Eleanor |
| Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood | Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Raynes, W. R. |
| Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central) | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Richards, R. |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne) | Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) |
| Birkett, W. Norman | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Ritson, J. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Kedward, R. M (Kent, Ashford) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Kelly, W. T. | Romeril, H. G. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Kennedy, Thomas | Rosbotham, D. S. T. |
| Bromley, J. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Rothschild, J. de |
| Brooke, W. | Kinley, J. | Rowson, Guy |
| Brothers, M. | Kirkwood, D. | Russell Richard John (Eddisbury) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Buchanan, G. | Lang, Gordon | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) |
| Burgess, F. G. | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Lathan, G. | Sanders, W. S. |
| Calne, Derwent Hall. | Law, A. (Rossendale) | Sandham, E. |
| Cameron, A. G. | Lawrence, Susan | Sawyer, G. F. |
| Cape, Thomas | Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) | Scott, James |
| Carter. W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Lawson, John James | Scurr, John |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) | Sherwood, G. H. |
| Chater, Daniel | Leach, W. | Shield, George William |
| Church, Major A. G. | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond |
| Clarke, J. S. | Lees, J. | Shillaker, J. F. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lewis. T. (Southampton) | Short, Alfred (Wednesbury) |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour. | Logan, David Gilbert | Simmons, C. J. |
| Compton, Joseph | Longbottom, A. W. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Daggar, George | Longden, F. | Sinkinson, George |
| Dallas, George | Lowth, Thomas | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) |
| Dalton, Hugh | Lunn, William | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham) | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Day, Harry | McElwee, A. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | McEntee, V. L. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) |
| Dukes, C. | McKinlay. A. | Snell, Harry |
| Duncan, Charles | MacLaren, Andrew | Stephen, Campbell |
| Ede, James Chuter | Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Edmunds, J. E. | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
| Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Mansfield, W. | Strauss, G. R. |
| Egan, W. H. | March, S. | Sullivan, J. |
| Elmley, Viscount | Marcus, M. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Markham, S. F. | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.) |
| Foot, Isaac | Marley. J. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Forgan, Dr. Robert | Marshall, Fred | Toole. Joseph |
| Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton) | Mathers, George | Townend, A. E. |
| George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Matters. L. W. | Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea) | Maxton, James | Turner, B. |
| Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley) | Messer, Fred | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Gill, T. H. | Middleton, G. | Viant, S. P. |
| Glassey, A. E. | Mills. J. E. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Gossling, A. G. | Montague, Frederick | Walker, J. |
| Gould, F. | Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Wallace, H. W. |
| Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Morley, Ralph | Wallhead, Richard C. |
| Gray, Milner | Morris, Rhys Hopkins | Watkins, F. C. |
| Greenwood. Rt. Hon. A. (Colne). | Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Morrison. Herbert (Hackney, South) | Welsh, James (Paisley) |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Grundy, Thomas W. | Mort, D. L. | West, F. R. |
| Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | Moses, J. J. H. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Muff, G. | Whiteley, Wllfrid (Blrm., Ladywood) |
| Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Muggeridge, H. T. | Whiteley, William (Blaydon) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | Naylor, T. E. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Hardle, George D. | Noel Baker, P. J. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 141.
| Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) | Wood. Major McKenzie (Banff) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
|
| Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) | Wright, W. (Rutherglen) | Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Allen Parkinson. |
| Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) | |
| Wise, E. F. |
NOES.
| ||
| Albery, Irving James | Fermoy, Lord | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.) | Fielden, E. B. | Reid, David D. (County Down) |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Fison, F. G. Clavering | Remer, John R. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover) | Ford, Sir P. J. | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Astor, Viscountess | Galbraith, J. F. W. | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley) | Ganzoni, Sir John | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Balniel, Lord | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Gower, Sir Robert | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bevan, S. J. (Holborn) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Grattan-Doyle, Sir N. | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Bird, Ernest Roy | Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London) | Savery, S. S. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Bowater, Col, Sir T. Vansittart | Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst) |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Hannon. Patrick Joseph Henry | Skeiton, A. N. |
| Bracken, B. | Hartington, Marquess of | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Somerset, Thomas |
| Brown, brig.-Gen. K. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Buchan, John | Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Buckingham, Sir H. | Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Butler. R. A. | Hurd, Percy A. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward | Iveagh, Countess of | Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Thomson, Sir F. |
| Cayzer. Sir C. (Chester, City) | Kindersley, Major G. M. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.) | King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | Lamb, Sir J. Q. | Train, J. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak) | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lleweilln, Major J. J. | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey | Ward. Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L. | Lymington, Viscount | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Mac Robert. Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Warnender, Sir Victor |
| Croft Brigadier-General Sir H. | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West) | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Mond, Hon. Henry | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Withers, Sir John James |
| Davies. Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil) | Muirhead, A. J. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.) | Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrst'ld) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L | O'Neill, Sir H. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Penny, Sir George | |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
|
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Captain Margesson and Major the Marquess of Titchfield. |
Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
Class Ii
Colonial Office
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,250, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
I have to present the Supplementary Estimate for the expenses of the Colonial Office. The total amount is £4,250. There are two items involved and the first item consists of two parts. On the first part, I need make no comment as it is consequent on the retention of the Civil Service bonus. The second part of the first item refers to the expenses of staff in connection with the Colonial Development Fund. Seeing that this is the first occasion on which the matter has been before the Committee since the Act was passed, it would not be out of place if I said a little as to how the Development Fund Committee are getting on with their work and as to the results of their proceedings so far. It will be remembered that this fund was set up to provide grants or advances to the Governments of Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories, to which the Act applies, and for the development of agriculture and industry in these colonies, thereby promoting commerce with and industry in the United Kingdom.
There were various schemes indicated by which this was to be achieved. The Committee will remember that applications are accepted only from or on behalf of the Governments of the Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories and that assistance may be granted only to such Governments. The applications are examined in the Colonial Office, and are referred in that department to the Colonial Development Advisory Committee, and this Committee's recommendations are communicated simultaneously to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and to the Treasury, the approval of both these being necessary under the Act. The personnel of the Committee is Sir Basil Blackett, K.C.B., K.C.S.I., Chairman, Mr. Ernest Bevin, Sir John Eaglesome, K.C.M.G., Mr. R. H. Jackson, Sir Felix Pole, Mr. Allan Rae Smith, O.B.E. I would like to take the opportunity of expressing the thanks of His Majesty's Government for the very valuable assistance which these gentlemen are rendering not only to the Colonial Office, and to colonial development, but also, I believe, to the unemployed in this country. It is well that we should record our appreciation of the voluntary and valuable work which they do. In the discussions when the Bill was before the House, the Lord Privy Seal was questioned with regard to the effect of the existence of this Committee on the work of the Empire Marketing Board. Fears were expressed that there might be overlapping. The right hon. Gentleman agreed that he would go into that matter and would see that nothing of the kind happened. I am very glad to say that arrangements have been made which, so far as they have gone, have been perfectly satisfactory and show that there is little danger of overlapping being likely to take place. The main functions of the two bodies are essentially complementary and no difficulty has been experienced in ensuring co-ordination in the special case of agricultural research and the marketing of colonial products in which each is interested. The Chairman of the Development Advisory Committee has accepted a seat on the Research Grants Committee of the Empire Marketing Board, and in that way a liaison is established and anything which has to do with research comes first to the Research Grants Committee of the Empire Marketing Board, and, if it is not then considered suitable for the Empire Marketing Board, it is passed on to the Colonial Development Committee. Broadly, the understanding is that the administration of the Colonial Development Fund will be directed in the main to purposes not falling within the province of the Empire Marketing Board. The total cost of the estimated projects recommended by the committee, since its inception in August last and approved by the Colonial Office and the Treasury is, approximately, £5,600,000, arid the total man-years employment which this expenditure will represent is approximately 7,695. The total assistance to be provided over a period of five years, for which approval has so far been obtained, is about £1,362,000, comprising loans amounting to £588,000 and free grants amounting to £774,000. In some cases, the capital cost of schemes in East Africa to be assisted from the fund will be met by the Government of the Colonies concerned from the loans raised under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, as amended by the Colonial Development Act, 1929. The value of these schemes is £3,950,000. The Colonial Development Advisory Committee was appointed by the Secretary of State to take over, in addition to its own duties, the functions of the advisory committee appointed under the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, and works under that Act, representing £837,320, have been approved on their recommendation, in addition to the £3,950,000 mentioned above. The final report of the committee appointed under the 1926 Act has just been presented to Parliament in Command Paper 3494. In regard to what the Development Committee have done, I think it will be agreed that the first essential of any development in a Colony, of any substantial improvement in a Colony in its capacity to afford employment to its own people, as well as to the people in this country, is that the inhabitants should be in proper physical condition. The committee has, therefore, very rightly given considerable attention to proposals which have been put before it with a view to improving the health and con- ditions of the people in the Colonies. The committee have already reported favourably upon more than 20 schemes received from many parts of the Empire all of which aim at improving the well-being and thereby increasing the efficiency of the populations. In Tanganyika Territory money is being provided in connection with tuberculosis which is fairly prevalent there, and it is hoped that, as a result of that work, some increased knowledge will be gained as to how to tackle this serious scourge in Africa and especially in East Africa. Three venereal disease clinics are being established in Swaziland, and approval has also been given for the erection, in a number of West Indian islands, of well-planned concrete houses to replace the insanitary wooden structures which have been occupied by the peasants there in the past. In Somaliland and St. Lucia steps are being taken, with the aid of the fund, to assist in providing a supply of pure water. There is also a drainage scheme in connection with Freetown, Sierra Leone, which has been a very malarious part and drainage works have also been put in hand at St. Lucia and Dominica. A medical training school is being established in Tanganyika for a big development of native medical assistance—a very much needed improvement in that country. We hope, as a result of this step, that a great many African dispensers and sanitary inspectors will be trained. A sum of £10,000 has been provided for inaugurating a sanitary campaign in Antigua and the neighbouring island St. Kitts has received visits from a highly qualified medical expert and a member of a well-known firm of sanitation engineers. The total cost of these various projects is in the neighbourhood of £170,000 of which about £112,000 is being met either by direct grant or by loan from the Development Fund. I am sure that this Committee will agree that money spent on the improvement of the public health in these various Colonies is well spent.I think some of us would be glad to know how much of this money is by way of loan and how much by way of grant. How much of this expenditure falls upon the British taxpayer? In that connection do we understand the hon. Gentleman to say that a sum of £5,000,000 is being provided from this fund and that it is expected to give employment in this country to 7,000 men for one year.
I do not think that is quite what I said. I mentioned a figure of over 7,000 man years—
That is 7,000 men for one year.
Or one man for 7,000 years.
I have the information and the figures here, but, with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, I would prefer now to proceed with the general story and I will deal later on with the point which he has raised.
The next subject dealt with is that of transport and communications and again it will be agreed that these are very important factors in the development of any territory. The Act has enabled the scheme for the Zambesi Bridge to be proceeded with. This scheme includes proposals for the betterment of the resources of the territory by the construction of a bridge over the River Zambesi, the improvement of the existing railway leading to and situated in Nyasaland; its extension northwards to Lake Nyasa; the building of roads, and the extension of steamer services on Lake Nyasa. The total expenditure is about £3,000,000 of which contracts placed in this country will represent over £1,000,000 and a supply of employment equivalent to some 4,000 man years.What is meant by man years?
One man, one year!
In connection with, the Zambesi scheme negotiations with the interests concerned are proceeding satisfactorily and it is hoped to place the contracts during May. Assistance from the fund has also made possible the immediate carrying out of a number of transport schemes in Tanganyika Territory. One is for the construction of a railway 110 miles in length from Manyoni on the Tanganyika Central Railway to the Iramba Plateau at an estimated cost of £565,000, of which half is the estimated value of the orders to be placed in this country. A sum of £30,000 from the Colonial Development Fund will be granted to cover interest charges during the two years of construction, and this work will open up a purely native district.
Two years?
Yes. Another scheme is for the installation of the tablet working system throughout the Tanganyika Railway in substitution for the present "line clear" telephone working system, which is not satisfactory in view of the increase in traffic. The total cost of this new service is £45,000, to be met from an allocation from the East African Guaranteed Loam and £10,000 to cover the interest charges for the first five years, will be provided as a free grant from the Fund. A free grant from the Fund of £9,000 has also been made to cover the interest charges for two years on a loan required for the acquisition at a cost of £100,000 of a new steamer to cope with the increasing traffic on Lake Tanganyika. Approval has also been given for assistance from the Fund towards the construction of a branch line about 25 miles in length from Sanya on the Moshi-Arusha Railway to the plateau between Engaré-Nairobi and Engaré-Nanyuki at a total cost of £130,000, which represents an expenditure in this country of £65,000. This opens up a district in which white settlement is taking place.
Assistance has also been given to schemes of road development in such diverse parts of the Empire as St. Lucia and Swaziland. Help has been given also in connection with harbour works. On the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, the Government have approved of a project for the improvement and enlargement of the harbour at Famagusta in Cyprus, the present dimensions of which are too small to accommodate steamers of the size which now call at the port. This scheme, which is estimated to cost £200,000, is regarded as a useful and desirable project which it is hoped will develop the resources of the island and, in course of time, lead to increased trade with this country. The measure of assistance provided from the Fund in this case is a free grant of £50,000, or one-quarter of the total cost of the scheme, whichever is the less. Another harbour scheme which is being assisted under the Act of last year is the construction of a passenger jetty at Freetown Harbour, Sierra Leone. This will make it possible to separate passenger from goods traffic resulting in additional facilities at that harbour, and the total cost to the scheme will be £14,800, of which £10,500 will be spent in this country, and a free grant of £7,400 from the Fund has been sanctioned.Before the hon. Gentleman leaves this matter of Colonial developments, will he tell the Committee if his Department has made any estimate whatever as to what is likely to be the amount of the increase in values resulting from these developments and who is going to get it?
I do not think that that subject has engaged their attention yet, but I have no doubt that if my hon. Friend makes representations the Colonial Office will consider them as it always considers suggestions which are made to it. Many of the Colonial Governments, in anticipation of big development schemes, are anxious to have proper surveys made of their territories before embarking upon expensive schemes. They are alive to the importance of ensuring that adequate surveys or reconnaisances should be carried out before these big schemes of assistance are started, and a number of applications for assistance from the Fund have already been approved. In Northern Rhodesia applications in respect of a series of aerial, ecological and road surveys in view of big developments which are expected in that country, have been considered and approved. Of these, perhaps the most important is a scheme for an oblique aerial survey of 63,000 square miles of country, and a direct aerial survey of six townships, at a total estimated cost of over £68,000. This will take the form of a free grant of interest of £3,429 for five years to meet interest charges on the capital expenditure involved.
In regard to agriculture, the Empire Marketing Board is the more appropriate agency for assistance being given in this connection, and there has not been a great number of schemes sanctioned in regard to agriculture, but in Northern Rhodesia- there has been assistance given to two agricultural development schemes, one concerning the European community and the other concerning agricultural development in the native reserves. In the first place, a loan for the total cost of the scheme, £16,000, has been approved in the case of the European settlement, and in the case of the native agricultural works, which are mainly for dipping tanks and water supplies, a free grant of approximately £17,000 has been given in respect of interest charges on £79,000, which is the estimated cost. The European scheme is mainly a survey scheme and the preparation of reports preliminary to the opening up of further areas for European settlement to enable agricultural development to keep pace with other developments in the territory. The response of the Colonies to the Secretary of State's request for the submission of suitable schemes for assistance under this Colonial Development Act may be judged from the fact that, during the period of six months in which the Advisory Committee has been functioning, over 50 applications from about 25 separate Governments have been received by that body, and in the majority of cases the Committee has seen its way to make favourable recommendations on the applications. The Secretary of State, however, realises that some time must necessarily elapse before Colonial Governments can take full advantage of the facilities afforded by the Act, and that its full effect will not be felt in the first year of its operation. Steps are being taken, therefore, to bring again before the Governments of the different Colonies the great opportunities which this Act affords and to request them to give it consideration with a view to securing the benefits which it gives. It must be remembered that many Colonial Governments have already carried out extensive programmes in recent years and are not in a position to embark on further costly undertakings immediately. In certain Dependencies also the local Governments are handicapped to some extent by the need of expert technical advisers who would enable them to plan and develop schemes on big lines. I think it will be quite realised that in many Colonies they are rather reluctant to go in for big schemes such as those that I have mentioned if they have not within their own borders the technical equipment to advise them as to the desirability and the methods of carrying out schemes, and the question is at present being considered of arranging with certain Colonial Governments for the visit of technical experts to their territories to confer with the local authorities and report on the possibility of drawing up programmes for public works which could suitably be assisted from the Development Fund. I hope these items of information in regard to the fund and how it has been working so far will be of interest to Members of the Committee.Can the hon. Gentleman say if the very interesting facts which he has given are to be published, or are already published, in a White Paper?
No, they are not published, but if hon. Members indicate that they would care for this to be done. I think it could be arranged. I believe, myself, it would be of considerable interest, and a good many more details could be given than I have given. I did not want to weary the Committee by giving the full details in each case, but they are all available, and if a wish were expressed for their publication, I should be glad to convey it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The second item of this Vote refers to the expenses of the Palestine Commission. Members will remember that this Commission consists of Sir Walter Shaw, chairman, the late Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements, the hon. Baronet the Member for Rushcliffe (Sir H. Betterton), the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Hopkin Morris), and the hon. Member for Woolwich East (Mr. Snell). The Commission, as hon. Members know, was appointed to investigate the causes of the disturbances in Palestine, and they proceeded to Palestine and were there for 66 days. Their headquarters were in Jerusalem, and some of the time—in all, I believe, about the equivalent of seven days—they spent touring the country and visiting parts of Jerusalem which were of importance in the inquiry. During their tour the Commissioners visited every important centre of population in Palestine, including the towns where the disturbances assumed the most violent form, and they also visited parts of Transjordan. They have also had a number of sittings here and have been very hard at work. They have been very conscientious in the discharge of their duties, and I am sure we feel indebted to them for the work which they have put into this very difficult subject. But I think it will be generally agreed, and I understand it is generally agreed, that this Supplementary Estimate in connection with these expenses is not, under present circumstances, a suitable occasion for discussing past and future policy in regard to Palestine. I therefore do not propose to do any more than mention the facts concerning the Commission, which I have done. The Commission is still very hard at work, but we hope to get its Report soon, and I think comment on the bigger questions involved can very well wait until after that.Can the hon. Gentleman say when that Report will be published?
Can my hon. Friend say whether he has yet decided that the minutes of evidence shall be printed?
In regard to the first question, the Commission is unable to give a date for the Report. In regard to the other question, I can only repeat, what I have said before, that that matter will certainly be considered. While, as I say, I realise that certain hon. Members are very anxious to discuss this question, I think it will be agreed that it would be in the public interest that we should restrain ourselves in the meantime and devote our attention to-night, as far as this subject is concerned, to the Vote which is now before the Committee.
I certainly agree entirely that it would hardly be in the public interest if we now attempted, even if it were in order, to discuss the important issues of past or future policy in Palestine, because, obviously, we shall have to have a full discussion of those matters when the Commission has reported. Till then, any discussion would really be a waste of the time of this Committee, and, I think, unfair to the Commissioners themselves, who, I have no doubt whatever, have done most faithful and conscientious work. Therefore, I will at once turn to the other part of the statement made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. He made a very interesting statement, but I think it would be of advantage to the Committee if he could supplement it by a somewhat fuller account of the work of that Committee in the shape of a White Paper.
As I understood his statement, the broad effect upon employment in this country of what has been done up to date may be summed up as follows: At an expenditure of £1,300,000 by this country, we have provided or arranged for a total expenditure of some £5,000,000, which, even though it is carried out in other parts of the world, and therefore to a large extent provides employment for local workers, still has given 7,600 man-years of employment in this country. The Lord Privy Seal told us not so very long ago that £1,000,000 expended on public works in this country gave about 2,000 man-years of employment and another 2,000 man-years of indirect employment. I imagine that the 7,600 man-years referred to were direct employment, and, therefore, there would be a corresponding 7,600 man-years further of indirect employment. At any rate, whereas in ordinary expenditure on domestic purposes the expenditure by the British taxpayer of £1,000,000 results in 2,000 man-years direct employment, in this case the expenditure of £1,300,000 results in an employment of 7,600 persons, or, in other words, about three times as much employment for the money spent by the taxpayer. I think it is a justification of the policy of this Colonial Development Fund that, if the appropriate works of development are secured, the actual expenditure by the British taxpayer results in a very high percentage of employment as compared with the amount expended.What is the reason for that?
Because I imagine we spend a certain amount of money, which enables the Colonies, who would not be able to afford it otherwise, to spend a larger amount, of which a considerable proportion is spent in this country. The object of this Development Fund is to induce profitable spending within the Empire—profitable, I understand, primarily to the Colonies concerned and to their inhabitants, but also indirectly to the people of this country—and that is a justification of the whole policy, namely, that while it develops the territories for which we have a responsibility as trustees, it also incidentally affords very direct assistance to the situation with which we are confronted here in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation is very ingenious and interesting, but I did not gather that from the Under-Secretary's remarks.
That may be because I have been a little more familiar with handling these same problems, and indeed would have been concerned in arrangements for a similar Development Fund if it had been my fortune to deal with these matters on the other side of the House It is the key of the whole situation in Empire development that you may, by putting a little water into the pump, secure a great flow of benefit both to this country and to the populations concerned-As regards items of expenditure that fall under the several heads, I will say only one thing of a general character. A great many of them are items which do not lead to immediate employment, but the ultimate employment, which some of the present expenditure will engender, will be very much greater. This applies to the expenditure on health. I agree with the hon. Member that that is a very sound form of expenditure, and I am glad that those responsible for the conduct of the Colonial Development Fund have regarded it as a matter rightly to be included within its scope. The immediate benefit undoubtedly in that case goes entirely to the population concerned. No immediate employment is created here, but undoubtedly nothing in the long run can lead to greater development of trade between this country and the various colonies concerned than anything which strengthens the health, well-being, and efficiency of their populations. Therefore, from this side of the Committee we welcome the expenditure on medical research and sanitary work, and express the hope that those responsible for the Fund will go on in their good work in that direction.
The hon. Member referred to the sanitary conditions in the West Indies. May I draw his attention to the defective state of many of the hospitals there? My attention was repeatedly drawn to them while I was in office, but so long as we were necessarily dependent upon the revenue of small impoverished Colonies, it was a difficult matter to remedy. A fund like this can just step in in a case of that sort, and give assistance in a way which it is very difficult to get from the Treasury, and when we would not be justified in getting it from local resources at a time of such depression as exists in the West Indies to-day. Another part of the expenditure, I gather, is also in the nature of preliminary work, whose fruit in employment in this country can only come in time. I mean the surveys. No work is more important or more essential to the beginnings of practical development in a new territory than a good effective survey, whether for railway purposes, for ecological purposes, or for the purposes of judging what areas are most worth development. I gather that a number of survey schemes of this sort are being started, and there, again, we hope that the hon. Gentleman may succeed in speeding up the work. There is, as the hon. Member knows, a great ultimate economic possibility in front of some railway connection between Palestine and the East through Iraq. Such a railway, even if not immediately economic, and justifying its undertaking at once by an ordinary commercial company, may be of immense importance, especially for the oil development in Iraq, and as such development shows some signs of progressing, such a line may well become worth undertaking. Obviously, no such undertaking could become an actuality until it had been preceded by a real, adequate engineering and scientific survey. Such a survey is a matter, not of weeks, but of a year, perhaps two years and more, and I hope that those responsible for this fund will consider undertaking a further survey of that kind, for, whether an actual line may mature in the immediate future or not, we must have a survey; without it, the railway would have to be postponed for a year or two. The Colonial Development Fund appears to have proceeded on another field of work which I had always contemplated, namely, supplementing the initial deficiency in the £10,000,000 guaranteed loan of Palestine and East Africa. The Act dealing with that loan provided for nothing more than the British guarantee, and there were good reasons for doing that, and that alone, in the first instance, because it was desirable that the Govern- ments concerned should begin at once with those schemes that could be carried out on a paying basis, for anything that pays for itself strengthens the revenue of the colony concerned, and provides a better basis for the future. At the same time, those of us who were concerned with this loan were well aware that behind the first line of paying propositions, which these territories could afford at once, was a second line of propositions which were very desirable in themselves; some of them were desirable on general Imperial grounds, others on grounds of economic development of the territories concerned, others on the ground of the work they would give at home, but these colonies and territories could not justifiably undertake them if they had to find the interest on construction straight away. I had always hoped that, either through the Development Fund, or through a special Measure, provision would be made for interest on construction during the first three, four or five years to enable these schemes to mature. When hon. Members opposite were in power in 1924, they introduced a £3,500,000 East African Loan Bill on that basis. I am glad to know that not only the great Zambesi Bridge and Nyasaland development are going through, but that various important branch lines and improvements of the railway system of Tanganyika have also been sanctioned. In that respect, I would only say that I hope the hon. Gentleman will induce the various Governments concerned to push ahead as rapidly as possible. In connection with Nyasaland and the Zambesi Bridge, I would make one observation. Nyasaland has been a Treasury controlled territory, conducted, as such territories are apt to be, on the absolute minimum of expenditure, regardless of whether a somewhat greater expenditure might not, within a few years, yield much greater results. If we are to open up Nyasaland and its resources by this new connection with the sea, it would be well worth while at the same time relaxing a little that extreme rigour which limits its medical services, its sanitary services and its general educational and administrative services, and to enable Nyasaland, by the time these works are constructed in three or four years, to take full advantage of them, and to bring back instantly to this country a fuller yield from the works which we shall have guaranteed and to which we shall have contributed. I am glad that the little territory of Swaziland has not been forgotten in this measure of assistance. Swaziland is a little territory not more than hall the size of Wales, but a very beautiful and rich little territory. It is a territory for which we have a big responsibility, because this House has undertaken that it shall not enter the Union unless after full consultation with and consent of the native population and of this House, I visited Swaziland two or three years ago, and I found that it was a most interesting experiment in the development of a native and white population side by side under a true dual system—a real effort to give the best to each section of the population who were living in great harmony and in the best relations. One felt that the white settler was prospering and proud of the little country, and that the Swazi was a man who felt that he could stand upright in his own country, and that his tribal position and that of his chiefs and of the Queen were guaranteed and protected—I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is entering upon a discussion that is not in order and may tempt others to follow.
I was going at that very moment to turn to another thing that impressed itself on me, and that is, that while we safeguarded their position, we have done nothing for their development. It is a little Colony uncertain of its future position, and its great natural riches cannot be developed without having the benefit of good communications. I was fortunate in being able to secure some Treasury assistance for one main road, and I am delighted to hear from the hon. Member that something is being done for the development of Swaziland. I am sure that the result will be more than commensurate with the expenditure. Anything that can be done to conserve the health of a very fine race of natives, who have never been conquered by any other, well merits attention.
8.0 p.m.
I should like to invite the attention of the Committee to a side of the question which has not hitherto been touched upon, but which is most relevant. I refer to the effect of the various works of many kinds that may be undertaken under the provisions of the Fund upon the life of the natives on the spot. It will give, we are told, a certain number of man years employment in this country, but it will give a much larger number of man years employment to the native populations of the various parts of the Empire. The amount of work which will be done by them is far greater than the amount of work to be provided in this country, and the importance of the conditions under which they do that work is not to be underestimated. It is highly relevant because the Colonial Development Act, 1929, embodies provisions of a more elaborate character than we have known before for the protection of the native labour involved. I have not the Act before me, but I think the principal points were that no forced labour should be employed, that no children should be employed under a certain specified age—the minimum being defined as 12 years, but the way being left open for the fixing of another age if that were more suitable in the circumstances—and further it was provided that the conditions of work and the wages should be fair according to the standards—
I understand that we are dealing with the first part of this Estimate, the retention of the Civil Service bonus and additional staff for certain purposes.
I think you will find that the whole subject of the works to be carried out under the Colonial Development Act has been the principal subject of this discussion so far, and am I not right in going on?
The Estimate also provides for the cost of additional staff in connection with the Committee appointed under that Act.
That committee was appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Colonial Development Act, one of which is that certain conditions shall be laid down in regard to native labour. One might go at very great length into this subject, but I will content myself with asking the Under-Secretary to reply to one or two questions. The conditions laid down under the Act are of the utmost importance, and the question naturally presents itself to our mind as to how they will be applied. I would like him to give us some information as to the steps taken to see that the conditions are observed. Does the Colonial Development Advisory Committee take into account the question of the native labour which will he involved in each particular scheme, and does it lay down that these conditions must be observed before it accords its sanction to any particular scheme? If it lays down methods by which the conditions are to be applied, what are those methods? For example, I imagine that one of the methods might be to say that in a territory like Nyasaland, or Tanganyika, or Kenya, the conditions shall be subject to the approval of the Native Affairs Department concerned.
I want to point out the very great importance of the subject in its bearing not only upon the welfare of the particular individuals who will be engaged by thousands, and even by tens of thousands, on these works, but also its effect upon the whole life of the families and the tribes from which they come. The phrase "from which they come" immediately brings up the question of how they come, by what methods they are induced to come. Forced labour is excluded by the terms of the Act, but there are many kinds of contract labour, and it is exceedingly difficult to draw the line between such contract labour and forced labour, in the strictest sense of the word. In particular instances the so-called contract labour, when judged by the way it is regarded by the native labourer, comes to very much the same thing as forced labour. It all depends upon the methods employed to get that labour. But let us suppose that the men are there, that they have been got there. Then arises the question of how we are to secure for them the conditions which have been laid down in the Act. The seriousness of the effect of such great public works upon family and tribal life has been pointed out and insisted on by the highest and the most recent authorities on these matters. The Commission for the Closer Union of East Africa, which was presided over by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), made a very great point of these dangers, and the need for guarding against them. If I wanted to detain the Committee I could quote paragraphs of a most forceful character from the Report of that Commission showing the disastrous effects which have been produced by the calling out of great numbers of native labourers to carry out these public works, some of them on an immense scale, and many of them requiring that men should be brought scores and even hundred of miles away from their homes to work on them. One point which has to be considered is how many men are left behind to carry on the normal agricultural and other work of the community, because disastrous effects have been produced by calling out too many men.I cannot get away from the fact that all this is out of order. I did not hear the Minister's speech, but this sum of £3,100 is in part for additional staff, and I cannot see how that item can cover all this discussion.
I think if you had heard the statement of the Under-Secretary you would have noticed that nine-tenths of it was devoted to very minute details of the various works, ranging from Antigua to Swaziland, which involve an immense amount of labour, which in its turn is provided for in the Colonial Development Act.
Surely in this Supplementary Estimate we are dealing only with the questions which are affected by this £3,100?
Perhaps I might intervene to say that this money is being voted for the staff of the Colonial Development Fund, and as this was the first occasion on which it has been before the House I took advantage of the opportunity to give hon. Members some indication of what its work had been. If I was wrong in that I apologise, but my hon. Friend is perfectly right in his description of what has gone before.
I am protecting myself by saying that we cannot allow that sort of general discussion to develop on these very small Estimates. We are not entitled to discuss matters not covered by the Supplementary Estimate.
I bow to your Ruling as to allowing the discussion to develop. I was on the point of bringing my remarks to a close by alluding, merely, to the very high authority there is for our emphasising the seriousness of the labour aspect of Colonial public works. I could refer to other authorities, but in deference to your Ruling I would only say that it would be thoroughly within the rights of hon. Members here to know not merely the effect of the works which the Under-Secretary has described upon employment in this country but their effect upon employment, under very different conditions, in those countries where vast numbers of fellow members of the Empire are vitally and immediately concerned.
In regard to the actual work of the Advisory Committee, I feel that a voice from this side of the House ought to join in the congratulations to the Minister on the personnel appointed to that Committee, because it is a guarantee that the work of the Committee will be discharged with efficiency and public spirit. As to the way in which the Committee has actually-discharged its functions, I listened to the Minister with a mingled sense of satisfaction at the impulse which the Committee had given to the work and with, also, perhaps some return of the old sense of discontent that no Committee seems to be able to get along with this work as fast as those who have placed high hopes upon its potentialities would desire; because I do not disguise that it is upon the work of this Committee that some of us have placed high hopes of fresh activities in industrial channels in this country as a contribution towards the solution of the unemployment difficulty.
When the Minister prepares the White Paper which he has been good enough to promise, and in which he will record the actual work done, so far, by the Committee, I hope that information will be given as to the time at which the work is expected to come to fruition. I am afraid it has to be recognised that in those regions, after a scheme has been put forward by a Colonial Government, if there is no time limit fixed for the accomplishment of the work, it too often happens that, owing to some small lack of initiative or energy on the part of far-distant administrators, it is apt to become nothing more than a mere paper scheme. Some of the activities of this Committee have been an extension, I might almost say a surprising extension, of what was provisionally contemplated, but I should like to join in a warm congratulation to the Committee on taking so wide a view of their functions, particularly as regards the assistance they have given to improving health conditions in our tropical Colonies and the far-sighted and enlightened manner in which, I understand, they are prepared to give the assistance of the best expert advice. These are new activities of the Committee, and it cannot be doubted that they are most useful, and at the moment of the interruption of the hon. Member who spoke from the back bench below the Gangway, and cast doubt on the utility of this work in comparison with similar work which might be done at home, I could not but think that one could see the answer to him in this work for the improvement of health. There is a clear example of what one might call the unearned increment to be gained from a very small investment of public money. There are some regions on the East Coast of Africa where whole populations are depressed well below the level of vigorous production by an endemic disease called ankylostomiasis. A small investment of money will result in, as it were, pressing a trigger and shooting the population up to a higher level. How could one have a more conspicuous instance of how State expenditure can occasionally do good? The Committee have done well to look in that direction. Let me pass on to another specific question and come to the Zambesi Bridge. I shall have to repeat my question as to what steps have been taken to reap a full harvest of benefit in Nyasaland from the construction of this bridge by co-operating with the railway service. I think it is a matter of common knowledge that the railways have grown up into an extremely miscellaneous organisation. There are at least three railways on Portuguese territory, and we shall never enjoy that advantage until we sweep out of the way the artificial obstructions which have disorganised the railways. Let me add a word of warm support to the argument used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) to the effect that the occasion of this enormous investment that the Com- mittee has recommended in the Zambesi Bridge should be taken advantage of to rationalise the finances which are in a disastrous state. Let me emphasise this point by calling attention to this service. Elsewhere the State encourages good effort by finding pound for pound for what is found locally, but in Nyasaland alone there is a preposterous provision that for every pound which Nyasaland raises the Treasury takes half. This is reversing the ordinary rule as regards these matters. Now I come to the second great inquiry relating to Tanganyika and Nyasaland. We warmly welcome the extension of the previous objects of expenditure by similar committees for the purposes of the survey. I would only say, in passing, that we trust the surveys may be extended to include, not only engineering surveys, but all such other surveys as soil surveys and geological surveys, which are necessary for the proper lay-out of the land. Here is another case very similar to that referred to by my right hon. Friend—that is the case of the railway in Palestine—and I think something (might be done to stimulate the administration of the colony in the direction of taking a broader and wider view of Tanganyika, and not simply be content with a railway to Nairobi. Other enormous road schemes and railway schemes have been recommended to connect the link, so that there shall be no longer a lack of communication between the economic system of Kenya in the north and Nyasaland and Tanganyika in the south. Finally, might it not be advisable to generalise what has been said as to the necessity of tidying the finances of Nyasaland, and take this occasion of the labours of the committee when large fresh commitments are being made in respect of Colonial finances to have a general tidying up of all that is irrational and out of date in the relations between the Treasury and Colonial finances. It would not be far to seek beyond Nyasaland to find other cases in which there are fossilised remains in those financial arrangements between the British and the Colonial Treasury, and the full benefit of the labours of the committee and the credit used by the committee for the purpose of the extension and expansion of these Colonies can never be gained until there has been a general sweeping away of all the obstacles of obsolete and dead commitments which still exist.I should like to put one or two questions to the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Supplementary Estimate. They are questions arising out of the hon. Gentleman's speech which covered a very wide field, and I will endeavour to keep as strictly as he did within the rules of Order. As regards the Committee, this is a. new service. That Committee is operating a new Act, and this is the first expenditure under the new Act. It is confined to Palestine and East Africa. We are already familiar with the developments which have been envisaged by various committees which have visited East Africa. We did hear that the principal expenditure recommended by the Committee to date is in regard to East Africa, and there are one or two small things in regard to the East Indies and Cyprus which have been recommended. I was rather surprised, in regard to the expenditure in regard to Sierra Leone, that the Committee have not yet got to work on the problem of the further development of West Africa. We have to bear in mind that in West Africa we have a far larger population than in East Africa, and a great deal of that is still very far beyond the reach of transport and economic connections with the outside world.
There are parts of Nigeria beyond the reach of roads or railways, and I think this new Committee should endeavour to expedite the consideration of schemes for bringing other parts of our great West African possessions within the same range and means of development as the parts of West Africa nearer to the coast. One thing that has struck me in connection with this Committee is that, while it has upon it some public-spirited gentlemen familiar with finance and transport, distinguished railway managers, engineers, and the like, and persons connected with public life in this country, as far as I am aware, there is no member of it who has had recent experience of Africa which is, after all, the great centre of activity of the Committee. There is another point which I have raised by questions in the House, and I have asked why the authorities did not employ on this Committee any representatives of modern science? We have heard from the hon. Gentleman that grants are being made for medical research and tuberculosis work in East Africa, and these are very admirable and excellent proposals, but I do just question how far the Committee, in its personnel as we have heard it, is fully qualified to decide between those projects which are of major importance and those which are of minor importance, and I should have felt happier if it were clearly understood that when any project dealing, say, with medical development was under consideration, either the Medical Adviser to the Colonial Office, or the Secretary of the Medical Research Council, or the head of the London School of Tropical Medicine, would be asked to join the Committee for the purpose of giving his fellow-members of the Committee full advice as to what is being done elsewhere, and what is the best line to take. Similarly, with regard to agricultural projects, we have heard from the Under-Secretary to-day of two important agricultural surveys in Northern Rhodesia. These are the only two, I gather, that have been envisaged up to the present, and I quite agree that they are of immense importance in view of the certain rapid development of Northern Rhodesia in the next few years, and the vital necessity of getting more European and native agriculture going there, in order to feed the big mining population that will be collected in the North-Western corner of Northern Rhodesia. I should like to feel satisfied that the Committee have considered the scheme, and the amount of money that should properly be spent on it, after having the fullest technical advice, and I hope that on all occasions of that kind there will not merely be the liaison through Sir Basil Blackett's presence on the Research Grants Committee of the Empire Marketing Board, but also that the agricultural adviser to the Colonial Office will attend the meetings of this Committee whenever a subject of this kind comes up. I am not quite sure from this Vote how the money is made up. I understand that all the members of the Committee are unpaid, and that the staff of the Com- mittee consists of Colonial Office officials. Do I understand that no paid staff from outside has been added to this committee, and that there is no provision for money for the attendance of people who might assist the Committee from time to time in determining particular points? I can imagine, for instance, that when some West Indian project is under consideration it might be desirable to ask some person familiar with the West Indies—and there are comparatively few people in the Colonial Office who have themselves visited the West Indies—to attend to give evidence or to assist in any way, and in that ease I think that payment should be provided, at any rate for their travelling and incidental expenses. The hon. Gentleman said that this Committee has been dealing with large sums of money, and he mentioned the various sums with which it has dealt. He told us that part of the money is being spent by the Committee by way of free grants, and part by way of loans, but I should like to ask him whether the Committee has established any principle or rule? Do they, as nearly as possible, establish the position that, in the case, say, of an advance of interest on a loan, it shall be for a maximum of so many years? Do they, when it comes to giving money to establish a particular institution, such as the new medical school at Dar-es-Salaam—if it be at Dar-es-Salaam—give, as a principle, what is called "fifty-fifty"? Do they give half the money to establish the new institution on condition that the territory locally finds the other half; or is it clear to Colonial Governments that, if they put forward schemes for the consideration of the Committee, the Committee is prepared to give more than half the money required? The whole success of an Act of this kind, and of the working of a Committee of this kind, depends on having at the same time a certain elasticity in regard to details and a quite clear line of financial policy which Colonial Governments can understand. One knows the reluctance of Colonial Governments to embark on new schemes involving new financial commitments unless they know in advance the sort of assistance that they are likely to receive. After all, most Colonial officials, and especially those concerned with development, are extremely busy men. The number of survey officers, agricultural officers, and medical officers in any one of these territories is comparatively small, and it has often been said to me by Colonial Governments that it is not worth while their taking such officers off their day-to-day work, which is of enormous importance and which puts tremendous pressure upon them, unless they know beforehand that something is likely to come of it—that, if they do a piece of forward reconnaissance work, for it comes to that, it will be favourably considered and really will lead to some practical development. The hon. Gentleman told us, with regard to this question of advances of interest, that in the case of the new railways in Tanganyika which have been sanctioned by the Committee they have only agreed to advance interest for two years, and he talked about a construction period of two years. Do I understand that in this particular case of the new railway in Tanganyika the definite opinion of the Tanganyika Government and of the railway experts serving on the Committee is that it will be possible to open that line for traffic within two years of the commencement of any expenditure? If not, I think that that two-years limitation established by the Committee in this case may be unfortunate, and may discourage the production of other projects, which may be far more valuable and far-reaching, from the same territory and from other territories. I entirely agree that, when you are building a line, say, 25 or 50 miles long, you can soon bring it into production, but, when you are dealing with the new main traffic lines in Africa, with which this Committee should be dealing, I think it ought to be made quite clear that the advances of interest during the construction period must be on a very much larger scale than a two-years advance. Again, the Expert Committee, as far as I can see, is what might be described as rather strongly balanced on the railway side. I quite agree that the time is still very far off when we shall have enough railways in Africa, and there are several important railway projects that ought to be considered without delay, but, even in the last two or three years, a great change has come over the situation by the development of motor transport and by the establishment of the new Committee financed by the Empire Marketing Board for the development of new types of overland transport other than rail, such as the new six-wheeled vehicles, half-track vehicles, and road trains, as they are sometimes called, for dealing with the produce of half-developed countries, or countries which are at the beginning of their development. All these are projects which will bring employment to this country and will serve to open up territories which you can never open up economically by the construction of railways. I think on this Committee the modern road point of view ought to be stressed and represented. The hon. Gentleman alluded to a email branch line between Arusha and Mosti, I think from Tania in Tanganyika Territory. Was it considered by the Committee whether a railway was really necessary there or whether one of these new types of vehicle would not have been more economical and more advantageous to production? The hon. Gentleman alluded to the fact that the first task of the Committee was to take up the burden of the further consideration of the Zambesi bridge, which engaged my unfortunate interest for about five years. He said the Committee is now near to the point of action. I am very glad to hear of it, because I quite agree that the standard of trusteeship which this country has set in regard to Nyasaland is definitely below that which it has set in any other territory in Africa. It has been kept down, and the elaborate system of Treasury control of wages and the whole standard of conditions of the natives in Nyasaland, owing to the lack of communications, owing to the lack of economic opportunity, with very small salaries of the staff for your European personnel, lower than elsewhere, is one of the things I have long wished to see remedied and about which I did not mince words when I made my Report in 1924. So I am rejoiced that this new Committee has at last made some step in the right direction. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that, if and when the Zambesi bridge is built, and Nyasaland is opened to world commerce, it will not do unless there is a review of the financial relations between Nyasaland and this country and some chance given to the people there to take advantage of the new transport route. This Committee, having dealt so expeditiously in the last few months with the problem of the Zambesi bridge, I hope they will not think it is the last word in the necessities of that part of Africa. I still believe, even when you have the Zambesi bridge, it will be necessary to consider a connection between the North end of Lake Nyasa and Dar-es-Salaam. Some such road, with the proposal by Mr. Gilman's recent Survey Report, will have to be built in the interests of Tanganyika Territory of all Nyasaland and of the adequate development of Africa. There is another question I should like to ask. The hon. Gentleman told us expenditure had been recommended by the Committee with regard to the harbour of Famagusta. He did not give us figures, but I should like to ask whether, that expenditure will really equip the harbour so that it can become a reasonably convenient and not too uncomfortable port of call for the tourist traffic, which is increasingly developing in the Eastern Mediterranean in the winter and spring months, and is rapidly becoming of great advantage to Cyprus. There is another point I should like to raise in response to an interruption from the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead). He talked about the land and said, "You are doing all this development work. Who is going to get the benefit?" The principal expenditure authorised by this Committee hitherto has been in Tanganyika territory. I can assure him that the land there is effectively nationalised. It is all public land belonging to the Government. It is vested in them and it is not the fact, as he seemed to suggest, that their policy is to grant anyone a freehold. They retain the freehold and only grant leaseholds, with power to revise them in the event of public expenditure of this kind. I think that is a sufficient answer to the hon. Member's anxiety under that head. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the statement he has made about the activities of this Committee. They are many and various. I hope they will continue actively because, certainly, anyone who has been through these vast sparsely populated and undeveloped areas realises that there is an enormous field for the benevolent activities of capital expenditure of this kind in equipping them so that the populations there may come forward in the standard of civilisation and physical efficiency. I particularly rejoice that the Committee is going into the question of health services, and I hope the 20 schemes before them in that connection will only be the forerunners of many more, because I know hundreds of cases where some of the major requirements before economical development leading to employment here and ultimate trade and expansion are being held up by the scourge of tropical diseases, which are being fought gallantly by a small band of men and women. It needs the efforts of research workers here and out there and needs further support, financial and otherwise, for the purpose of helping people, who know nothing of modern science out of the terrible high death rate and sickness rate which obtains in those countries, into a knowledge of how to protect themselves against infection, and how to deal with infection when they have got it, and so help forward the prosperity and happiness of these countries for which we are trustees.I hope hon. Members will not think me discourteous if I am not able to answer in detail the various points that have been brought forward. I expect a great many of them will be answered if I am able to have the White Paper published giving somewhat more detail than I was able to do to-night. But I promised to give some figures. The total estimated expenditure so far authorised by the Committee is £5,600,000. The total asistance from the Colonial Development Fund is £1,362,000, of which £588,000 is loans and £774,000 grants. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) spoke about the tremendous advance that very little assistance in these cases means. That is very true. A certain amount of assistance given to these projects very often makes them do very much bigger things than otherwise would be possible. I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that, although I am not able to comment upon all that he said, I have noted it, and I agree with nearly all the points he put. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton) that the points which he brought before the Committee have been fully considered by the Department. I would remind him that really the Governments in these countries are responsible for seeing that the conditions are properly carried out in regard to native labour.
When the Colonial Development Bill was before this House, we succeeded in getting Amendments accepted which definitely ruled out forced labour and child labour under these schemes. We want to know what steps are being taken by the Government to see that those Amendments are being carried out in practice. Have any regulations been issued, and, if so, can we have some information about them?
I have said that I have no time to go into details in the matter, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the points are certainly being attended to. For instance, in regard to the Zambesi Bridge, which is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, of the schemes which has been signed, the wording of the contract to ensure the proper housing and medical and sanitary services and the feeding and proper accommodation of all the workers engaged on that scheme is at present the subject of negotiation and consideration.
I am sorry, but that does not answer the point which I brought forward. We obtained in that Measure quite definite Amendments prohibiting forced labour and child labour on any of these schemes. Surely, if an Amendment of that kind has been carried by this House, we are justified in asking what has been done to carry it out? It is information as to whether the Office has issued any regulations or as to what it has done to see that the Amendments are being carried out in practice for which we ask.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the regulations are being carried out. It, obviously, follows when these conditions are laid down in the Act. I can assure him that the Act is being carried out in a proper manner. I should be very glad if my hon. Friend comes to see me when I can assure him, I think, that his fears are entirely groundless.
This is not a question of asking the hon. Member to come and see the hon. Gentleman. There are numbers of us who are interested in this matter, and I thought that this was a question and a Debate in which we could ask for particulars of what has been done under the new arrangement as compared with the old.
I think you have already assured me, Mr. Young, that I have travelled a little beyond the limits of order, and I am sure that if I were to pursue the subject I should be called to order. I can assure the hon. Member that I have very great sympathy with his point of view, and he knows that perfectly well. This aspect of the fund is one to which we have paid great attention, as we realise that the work of the Colonial Development Fund, instead of being a blessing, might in many cases prove otherwise. Certainly we shall, as long as we are responsible—and we have a good deal of responsibility—see that that matter is attended to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) referred to the work of the committee in regard to the consultation with experts and suggested that the committee was not expert in all subjects, and he referred especially to health services. I would like to assure him that the Committee have had this feeling themselves, and that on the initiative of the Committee a Medical Advisory Committee is now being formed apart altogether from the Research Committee, and I think that possibly in time it will become one with the Research Committee. That committee is being formed in response to the wish of the Committee to have a broad set of principles upon which they can base their medical recommendations. The preparations have gone forward and the committee is on the eve of being set up. I think that that will meet the right hon. Gentleman's point. I can assure him that with regard to other expert advice the Committee fully realise the importance of the matter.
As to the railway in reference to which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the giving of only two years, the reason that that was done was because that was the period for which the Governor asked. He expects it to be a paying proposition in two years. In other cases up to five years has been given. I do not think that there is any ground for criticism of the committee in that connection. I agree with the point the right hon. Gentleman made in reply to an interjection by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead). In most of these projects—and I do not think that it has ever been realised in this House—we have practical Socialism and nationalised services, and, in some cases, the possibility of little paradises on earth. I would like very much, if I had the time, to go into many of the matters which have been raised. I apologise to any Member of the Committee who has not been answered, and I hope that, in view of the fact that we have other Votes, the Committee will now see its way to give me this Vote.I desire to ask only one or two questions on points which have not been raised. I will not follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) into the very difficult questions under the Colonial Development Act, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look for a moment at the Sub-section with regard to the travelling expenses and otherwise of this Commission. I would also like to pay my tribute to the Shaw Commission which went out to Palestine and to the members of that Commission for the extremely thorough and excellent way in which they performed their duties. They spent 66 days, as the hon. Member told us, in Palestine. They went to most of the big cities, and for the first time the Arabs have really been able to put their case genuinely before the Commission. I ask the hon. Member—for I have heard rumours to the contrary—to publish this Report in full, and to give me an assurance that this Report will be published in full. I wish he could tell us a little more as to the date when that Report will be published. We also ask that the minutes of evidence relating to that Report should be published in full. We have had reports which have appeared in the papers, often misleading and very partial, and at times it is not to be wondered at seeing, for instance, that the correspondent of the "Times" was a director of Zionist propaganda, that the views are much biased. I therefore ask the hon. Member to have a full Report, without any omissions whatever, published at the earliest possible opportunity both in this country and in Palestine.
During the time that the Commission was sitting in Palestine it acted very much as a safety valve to both parties. Both parties felt aggrieved, and they were able to present before an impartial Commission their two different cases. It would be wrong for me to go into the causes that led to the trouble, and I have no intention to do so, but I would say that at this time in Palestine we have a situation that has never occurred before. There has never been such a bad position, in which both sides were so antagonistic one to the other. Therefore, we welcomed this Commission, because it set out to right what was wrong. I hope that we can get the Report as soon as possible, because the longer it is delayed the worse the position will be. I hope that the full Report will be published here and in Palestine, and that we shall also have publication of the minutes of evidence. I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to give me an assurance on that point.I cannot say the date of the Report. The Commission do not know the date themselves.
Will it be before Easter?
When the Commission themselves do not know the date, it would not be right for me to suggest one. In regard to the full publication of the Report, I expect that it will be published fully, but the hon. and gallant Member must bear in mind that no Government can undertake to commit itself definitely in regard to the publication of any Report, until they have seen it.
The recommendations will be published?
I should imagine so. In regard to the Minutes of Evidence, that is a matter which will be considered later. It is obvious that some of the evidence, for instance, the evidence taken in camera cannot possibly be published. The question of the publication of other evidence has not been decided, but I have no doubt that it will be sympathetically considered at the proper time.
Question put, and agreed to.
Colonial And Middle Eastern Services
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £140,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid."
9.0 p.m.
The amount which the Committee is asked to vote £140,000, of which £16,000 is in respect of Iraq and £124,000 in respect of Palestine and Transjordan. The additional sum of £16,000 required for Iraq is in respect of the maintenance of Iraq levies, a force which is under the orders of the High Commissioner and must not be confused with the Iraq Army, which is controlled by the Government of Iraq. This additional sum is required owing to the original Estimate having been under-estimated in two ways. In the first place, the movements of the levies which have been more than was anticipated, and this involved an additional expenditure on transport. Then there was an underestimate on the provision for the reengagement of levies, and for these an Estimate is required in respect of clothing, equipment, etc. I do not think there is anything contentious about these matters.
In regard to Palestine and Transjordan, the additional sum of £124,000 is made up of two items, £114,000 for defence and £10,000 for the Transjordan frontier force. In regard to defence, provision is made in the Colonial and Middle Eastern Services Vote for repayment to the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry of the excess cost of the British Force in Palestine over what they would cost if stationed in this country. In the original Estimate a sum of £30,500 was included for that service for repayment to the Air Ministry. Owing, however, to the recent disturbances in Palestine, the following amounts, as representing the excess cost of additional forces, are repayable—to the Admiralty £1,000; to the War Office £35,000; and to the Air Ministry £63,000; a total of £99,000. The question whether this excess cost will be recovered from the Palestine Government, which itself has borne charges for provisional transport, billets, water, electric light, engineering, postal and telephone services amounting to approximately £60,000 in this financial year, and which that Government seeks to recover, will be considered later. A further sum of £15,000 is repayable to the Air Ministry in respect of the actual cost of works at Transjordan forming part of the excess cost of the British forces stationed there which it is not possible for the Transjordan Government at present to pay. The last item is a further sum of £10,000 as a Grant-in-Aid to the Transjordan frontier force. This is necessitated partly by the recent disturbances in Palestine and partly by the reorganisation of the force. This sum represents one-sixth of the additional cost which fall" on His Majesty's Government, as it cannot be met by the Transjordan Government, the remaining five-sixths being borne by Palestine. Let me repeat what I said on the last Vote. I hope hon. Members will agree that the position in Palestine at present is such that this is not a suitable occasion to discuss questions of policy. That opportunity will come later on when we are reinforced by the results of the work of the Commission.I must protest against the assumption that we are not to be entitled to discuss the merits of this £124,000 which is being spent in Palestine for the provision of additional troops. I object to spending this large amount of money to put an alien race into an alien land.
We cannot go into questions of policy on this Supplementary Estimate.
Is not the hon. and gallant Member entitled to discuss the reasons why this £124,000 is being spent?
The hon. and gallant Member is quite entitled to ask questions as regards this expenditure, but he cannot go into questions of policy.
When you are spending £124,000, is not the policy which makes that expenditure necessary a legitimate subject for review?
This is a new development on which £124,000 is being expended. Is not that a proper subject for review There may be more suitable opportunities for discussing questions of policy, but if the hon. and gallant Member wants to exercise his right is he not able to do so now?
The hon. and gallant Member is quite entitled to discuss whether it is right to spend this money, but to deal with matters of general policy is out of order.
In that case would you also permit a discussion of the incitements to those who rose in rebellion in Palestine?
I cannot admit questions like that.
Surely I am entitled, when we are called upon to spend £124,000 on additional troops in Palestine, to protest against the expenditure. We ought not to be called upon to spend this money fox purposes with which we disagree. This is but the beginning of the expenditure. If we are called upon to spend tins amount of money in Palestine to-day, where the conditions are bad, we may be called upon in the next year for a still further expenditure. In Lord Plumer's time we were able to reduce our expenditure, perhaps we reduced it too much, but it is wrong to call upon the British Exchequer to spend this sum of money for purposes with which we do not agree. Has the Under-Secretary of State considered the repercussions of our policy in Iraq and Transjordan? If we are not careful instead of finding them as our allies we shall have to look upon them as potential enemies. Is it more important to protect a foreign minority in Palestine than it is in Iraq, in Egypt or in India? The positions are similar. We have given these countries independence, but here we are called upon to spend this extra sum of money in order to protect a minority. Arid it is not always the minority that has to be protected. When His Majesty's Ship "Barham" went to Haifa it was to protect the Arabs; but in the other case aeroplanes and troops had to be used in order to protect the Jews against the Arabs.
After 12 years of British Government it is necessary to spend this extra money. There must be something wrong somewhere. If the Colonial Office had known the state of affairs, if they had known the true position, this country would not have been taken by surprise as it was last August. But no one knew what was happening. We were told that everything was going on perfectly well. I am not blaming one party or the other, but the state of affairs in Palestine in the summer was so bad that riots occurred and troops had to be rushed from Egypt to protect the lives of the general public. As long as these conditions exist we shall have to keep a powerful garrison in that country. I urge the Under-Secretary to take steps so that we shall not be called upon to pay large sums of money, which may or may not be recovered from the Palestine Government. It is a poor country and heavily taxed, and you will have to take this £124,000 from the heavily taxed peasantry in Palestine or from this country, against the wishes of many people, for a policy with which many of us disagree. They want to follow on the same lines as Iraq, which was a mandated territory. In Iraq our garrison has been gradually reduced, and surely we should be able to arrange matters in such a way that in course of time Palestine will be in the same position as Iraq and will not entail a large military expenditure. I do not think we ought to vote this money for a purpose with which many of us do not agree. It ought not to have happened, and we desire to see it prevented in the future at all costs.I desire, briefly, to reply to what I regard as the amazing speech which has just been delivered. The hon. and gallant Member has told us that the money proposed to be voted is being utilised for purposes with which the House disagrees. That, obviously, is totally inaccurate.
I think I said many in this country.
If we take the figures of the last election we are entitled to say that some 13,000,000 people voted for the policy embodied in the Palestine Mandate and the Balfour Declaration. I am reminded, too, that many hon. Members opposite have supported that policy. We know what the policy means. The Balfour Declaration was issued for the purpose of—
We cannot discuss policy.
The money that is asked for by His Majesty's Government is to enable the Palestine Government to carry out the policy to which we are legally committed in the Palestine Mandate and the Balfour Declaration. If we look at the details of the Vote we find that the expenditure arises out of the recent dis- turbances in Palestine. In August last the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine were subjected to one of the most brutal attacks in the history of all atrocities. Defenceless Jewish men, women and children were attacked in brutal fashion by non-Jewish inhabitants of that country. [Interruption.] I cannot understand how any hon. Member here can possibly look upon a problem of this kind as jocular in character. This Vote is related to one of the most vital aspects of our public work in this country.
It may be that some hon. Members here, and some people in the country, do not fully appreciate exactly what underlies this Vote, but we who do understand want to emphasise that it would have been the proper thing this evening, if, instead of the Committee being called upon to listen to a speech of the type just delivered by the hon. and gallant Member, we had had instead the first apology yet uttered to the Jewish people for the brutal onslaught made on those who were defenceless in Palestine. As far as I am aware not a single word has been said on the Arab side which would amount to an apology for the atrocities of August last. Because of that fact, and because of the fear that there may be a repetition of those atrocities, steps must be taken to make sure that defenceless people are thoroughly protected against hooligans, whether they are Arabs or belong to any other category.On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman not now pre-judging the report of the Commission which was sent out to inquire into the disturbances in Palestine?
I understood that the hon. Member was defending the expenditure under this Vote.
A Commission was sent out to Palestine to inquire into these disturbances and to report. I submit that the hon. Member is pre-judging the report.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke before me referred to the Jewish people in Palestine as aliens who, according to his view, were entitled to no protection at all. This House has on many occasions, under the auspices of Conservative, Liberal, Coalition and Labour Governments, overwhelmingly approved of the policy embodied in the Palestine Mandate. Because of that fact we are entitled to say without the slightest hesitation that this Vote is worthy of the greatest support, and that it should never have been opposed. I should be the last person to deny to any hon. Member the right to discuss any Vote, but in common fairness, when a crime has been committed against the Jewish people in Palestine, I, as a Jew and as one who is proud of being a Jew, am certainly not going to remain silent after listening to a speech of the kind delivered by the hon. and gallant Member. This money will, I hope, go a long way towards restoring confidence in Palestine. Any weakness at this moment would be a calamity not merely for the Jewish people but for the British Empire. We are pledged heart and soul to support the policy of the Mandate, and the step suggested by this Vote is a genuine step in. the right direction, for which reason I heartily support it.
I rise to support the Vote. I respect the earnestness of the last speaker. I am not a Jew, but am a supporter of the Zionist organisation and of the Balfour Declaration. Although I realise that the last speaker spoke with considerable feeling, I must say that I was a little disappointed at his making a declaration which amounted to taking sides in a matter which is at present being examined by a Commission. The Commission was set up by this House, and all of us who are interested in the question are awaiting with great interest the Commission's Report. When that report is issued—the Under-Secretary says that it will be issued soon—we shall be able to draw our own conclusions, and I am certain that the Government will give us facilities to discuss it. This Vote is not a Vote which need bring up any antagonism between those who support the Balfour Declaration and those who do not. As an interrupter said just now, this is not a party matter by any means. There are common feelings on both sides of the House on all aspects of the question.
This Vote is a Vote for a certain sum of money which is to be spent because of the recent disturbances in Palestine. I think it will be agreed on all sides that those disturbances are to be deprecated. Moreover, we are all agreed that law and order must be maintained. Whatever happens, force will decide nothing. Whether the Arabs were in the wrong, or whether, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) tried to infer, the Jewish people were in the wrong, force will decide nothing. All that the Vote means is that law and order shall be maintained and that the government of the country must be carried on properly. It would be disastrous if anything like the disturbances of last year caused us to go back one jot on the Balfour Declaration. I am certain that no Government would do it. I have studied this question as much, as I could, and in my opinion it is perfectly easy for Arabs and Jews to live together in peace in Palestine. All that is wanted is a little give and take on both sides. In the meantime I hope that the Committee will pass this Vote, will show that it deprecates any force being used, and will back up His Majesty's Government in keeping its word and in governing the country over which it has jurisdiction with the best means at its disposal.Let me assure the Committee that I shall never attempt to take any side in the controversy as to who was in the wrong in Palestine. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Marcus) spoke with feeling which one must appreciate, but I am sure that in this Debate he would find it hard to take up an attitude which was judicial with regard to a question upon which his feelings must naturally be so deep. But I would ask him and other Members who have felt moved, as is quite natural on this question, that they should at all events reserve judgment until we have the authoritative report of the Commission which is at present considering what form that report should take. Until then I, at all events—and I think I speak for many on both sides of the House—shall do my best not to pre-judge the issue or to come to any conclusion as to who are the villains of the piece until we have something on which we can base our views with more certainty than one can, at present, on the sometimes prejudiced and propagandist reports, which have emanated from many quarters in regard to this question.
When one comes to a sum as large as this—£140,000—however much one may support law and order and the forces necessary to maintain them, it is naturally one's duty here to look into the various items with some little care to see how they are made up. The first item is a sum of £16,000 for the maintenance of Iraq levies. I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote a few questions about that. As I understand it, there are two armed forces, apart from the Air Force in Iraq. There are the Iraq levies for which we are responsible and for which we pay. They are no doubt, as I have every reason to believe, a most efficient force, but there is also another force which is maintained by the Iraq Government, and with which we have less to do. The question which I feel inclined to put regarding this is, why this additional charge should fall on the British Exchequer in maintaining these Iraq levies, and are they not having rather more than their share of the rough frontier police work, which must naturally exist in such a country as Iraq is at present, instead of that work being delegated to a greater extent to the forces raised by the Government of that country out of those who live in the country? We all feel that it is not only an opportunity, but a privilege for people to take part in the defence of their country, and the more the defence of places like Iraq can be maintained by the people of Iraq under their own organisation, the better it is for everyone, We owe a duty under our mandate to Iraq, but it is a duty in which surely we should try to avoid any unnecessary expense as the money has to come from other resources which are hard put to it to find enough money for this country itself at present. I do not want to take any hostile line on this, but I would like to ask why it was that the levies require this additional Supplementary Estimate, and how it is that such a large sum of money is to be spent on Iraq levies when there is this considerable body of troops which are maintained by the Government of Iraq almost entirely, I believe, in the hearts of the country and not in the districts where troops are supposed to be required. A little farther on there is another item in this Vote as regards Palestine and Transjordan. I would heartily support any sum required to maintain the elementary decencies of life and law and order, and, as far as I am concerned, I would certainly vote any supplies necessary for that in the opinion of those who are responsible, but I would like to raise a question as regards the details. Out of a total of £99,000, there is payable £1,000 to the Admiralty, £35,000 to the War Office and £63,000 to the Air Ministry. As regards this last item, it is perfectly clear that in this new arm there are great possibilities, and there are many spheres in which it can carry out work at a cheaper cost and probably more effectively than any other arm. For instance, Transjordan is no doubt an area peculiar to the Air Force, in which they have opportunities of doing work more economically and, no doubt, better than almost any other type of arm, but, when you come to a substantial sum spent on the Air Force inside Palestine, the situation is surely different. How can an aerodrome have any material effect upon a disturbed and confused crowd which is rioting in the streets of a city? As I have understood it, the disturbances which took place in Palestine recently were very largely urban or semi-urban and consisted of confused rioting in towns and villages in Palestine; that is, of all kinds of controversy and disturbance, one of those least suitable for air action. An aeroplane cannot approach and drop a bomb upon a mass of combatants in the streets, because that would cause an unnecessary loss of life and would injure the unoffending and the sheep as well as the wolves. It seems, in my submission to be about the most inappropriate force for policing a place like Palestine that you could well have. It is notorious to all of us that the force of ground troops—which is presumably the force covered by the £35,000 as opposed to the £63,000—did unfortunately turn out to be quite insufficient when trouble broke out in Palestine. Had we at that time had more troops on the ground, even at the expense of the Air Force, I suggest that would have saved many lives and have protected much property which were lost in the disturbance. Therefore. I would ask the hon. Member when he comes to reply, if he can possibly enlighten roe as to why it is that the largest of these three items in the Supplementary Vote for the de- fence of Palestine as apart from the desert areas, should fall on the Air Force and not upon the War Office?I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but I would like to say a few words in support of this Estimate. I feel it has been very unjustly and unduly attacked by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury). I think, if this Estimate is before the House to-day, there is certainly one person who is in some measure guilty for this, and that is the hon. and gallant Member himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because all through his career in this House he has always defended the imaginary claims of one of the sections of the population in Palestine. He has listened to every wind that has been wafted to him from the desert, and he has not tried to sift the true from the untrue, but has helped to incite the feelings of vengeance and discontent which have given rise to these disturbances which we all deplore so deeply.
I remember reading a Debate in this House only a year ago in which the same hon. and gallant Gentleman deplored that in the South of Ireland the police force had been disbanded, and it is because the gendarmerie was disbanded and an inadequate and inefficient police force set up in Palestine that these disturbances occurred, and because of that to-day we are called upon to find this extra suim. I want to support this Estimate, and I will say more. I speak on behalf of a large Jewish population in Palestine, as I myself happen to be the chairman of an organisation which has put upwards of 15,000 Jewish people on the land as cultivators. On behalf of this society, and on behalf of these people, I wish to thank the British Government for the rapidity and the decision with which they have dealt with this emergency. I think that in sending these troops to Palestine they saved a great many lives, and I am sure that, not only the people of Palestine, but also the people of Great Britain, are thankful for the action which was taken.I do not wish to take any part in the dispute which has arisen between my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelms- (Colonel Howard-Bury) and my hon. Friend the Member for the ford Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). I have a great admiration for the qualities possessed by both races. Both have great qualities, and in their turn and in their different ways they have contributed very greatly to the grandeur of the British Empire. But I do not think that on an occasion such as this we ought to take one side or the other. As an ordinary Englishman, I am perfectly content to await the Report of the Commission, and I feel sure that, as time goes on, these difficulties will be eliminated and these two great races will yet live peacefully alongside each other. I believe that to be the general wish of the country and of the House of Commons. We in this Committee, however, have a right to inquire into some of the details of this Supplementary Estimate. A sum of £140,000 is not one which the Committee ought to pass lightly. I wish to ask a few questions, in the first place, as regards these Iraq levies, so that I may have some knowledge of this subject in the future. This is a most interesting point. Many of us wish to know exactly what are these levies. I remember in other days when hon. Members who are now on the Government side of the Committee were on this side and when questions arose regarding levies in other parts of the Empire, there was a storm of inquiries and a desire on the part of hon. Members to know all about those levies. I do not see why I should not show the same interest in the levies which are being raised in Iraq.
I should like to know exactly the number of these levies and their nationality; whether they are drawn from only one section of the community or from all sections of the community; whether the officers training them are British officers or native officers, and whether they are paid directly or by means of a lump sum. In the Estimate we find a lump sum of £16,000 under this heading but I think we ought to be told in what way these levies are paid. They are I understand doing a great service in helping to police a part of the Empire, and in these circumstances we have a duty to look after the interests and the welfare of these men. If any of these men are injured for life, do they receive pensions? Do we care for them in the event of total incapacity as a result of wounds or other injuries? The Minister of Pensions is in his place. I suppose the question does not concern his Department but this is a point to which the Committee ought to give some consideration. There is a further question of vital importance. This is a Supplementary Estimate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to notice that the Parliamentary experience of hon. Members opposite has gone so far, that they know that it is a Supplementary Estimate, but the Committee has a right to know whether this payment is to go on for some years. Are we to have another Vote of the same kind next year?The Supplementary Estimate before the Committee deals with the period up to 31st March this year. Next year is not under consideration. It will come up in a new Estimate.
I fully accept your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, that next year must look after itself, and I leave the matter there since you do not wish us to pursue our inquiries into the future. The next point I wish to raise is regarding the sums specified in reference to various Departments. For instance a sum of £1,000 is put down in relation to the Admiralty and I should like to know precisely what was the work done by the Admiralty. Was it in connection with the transport of troops or were ships sent to a certain port to make a demonstration? If so, we have a right to know whether any forces were actually landed in Palestine. I do not say anything as regards the Air Ministry because that subject has been dealt with already, but it would appear that the sum which is put down in respect of the War Office is a little more than it ought to be. May I inquire what forces were used in this respect, and if, by any chance, they came from Egypt? It is most important to find out about that, in view of certain things which are going on in Egypt at present. At the end of the Estimates under the sub-head E 1, there is the sentence:
followed by a sum of £15,000. I am not quite sure from these Estimates whether that is the whole of the capital cost or only part. If it is not the whole, we ought to know whether there are more commitments, but if it is the entire thing, we know that that is not a continuous sum. It is extraordinarily diffi- cult to get information on this point, bin I think the Minister is possibly entitled to say whether this is only a proportion of the capital sum which is accounted to the Air Ministry, or whether it is the whole. Added to that, as far as this sum of £15,000 is concerned, I should like to know in what way we are establishing the Air Force in a capital way. Are we establishing a base, or new aeroplanes, or what are we doing? It is not right that these sums should be put down in this vague way, and we should know precisely what the Government are doing. Now I come to Item E.2, "Transjordan Frontier Force (Grant-in-Aid)." At the end of the second paragraph I find the words:"The capital cost of these works is payable to the Air Ministry,"
I have read that through more than once, and I only hope hon. Members opposite have read it with the same diligence, but I think we ought to be told why we have to pay one-sixth and who pays the other five-sixths. It is clear to me that at some time or other it has been laid down that we should have to pay a certain proportion of this sum, and for that reason I think it is essential that we should know why that is the sum and who are the people who pay the other proportion. In dealing with an Estimate of this sort, when we are called upon at a most unfortunate time of the year to find a large sum of money, it is usual to say that even although you have emergencies such as you have in this respect, the House of Commons will always honour them, yet we know that during the last few months the maladministration of the Government has been so bad in every quarter that there have not been the adequate savings out of which we might have been able to meet a sum of this kind. I should not be allowed to go into the matter of savings, but, in the event of there having been savings, this £140,000 would have been very much less, and I am raising it from that point of view, because I believe it is due to the gross extravagance and maladministration of every section and part of the Government that we are called upon to provide such a large sum of money tonight. I know the hon. Member opposite has not been long in his office, and that he has not yet got all the strings in his hands, but I do hope that, as time goes on, he will not have to come to this Committee for similar sums."with the assistance of this contribution which is calculated on the basis of one-sixth of the cost of the Force."
I should like to ask a few questions on the Vote for the Iraq levies. Knowing that they are worked on a definite establishment, that their commanding officer is British, and that their senior officers are British, I would like to know how this gross miscalculation of Government money has arisen.
These would be very proper questions on the original Estimate, but the £16,000 on this Supplementary Estimate, we are told, is because of an under-estimate.
On a point of Order. We can surely ask the Government why they were wrong before.
I am pointing out that this is a Supplementary Estimate, and that questions with regard to officers and who they are would be perfectly legitimate questions on the main Estimate, but this is merely a sum of £16,000, because, we are told, there was an underestimate.
I apologise if I was transgressing the Rules of Order, but I would ask who ha" gone short, or who would go short if this Estimate were not voted to-night. Everybody must agree that these Iraq levies are nationals, and while we hold the mandate for Iraq we have a certain responsibility for their administration. They are a body which I am sure hon. Members opposite would encourage if they desire this country to be a self-dependent country in the future. On the question of the advance for the British force in Palestine, I see there is a sum of £1,000 for the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Boss) glossed over that £1,000 for the Admiralty and asked something about the £63,000 for the Air Ministry. One would like to know what has been done for the £1,000, and what the British taxpayers who have to find this money have got for that expenditure. I see that there is a War Office Vote of £35,000 and that the Air Ministry have got £63,000. I cannot but feel that, with the lesson of Palestine administration before us, with the lesson of the defence of Palestine in the recent disturbances before us, it would have been better if the Air Ministry Vote had been put up from £63,000 to £70,000, and the War Office Vote reduced from £35,000 to £5,000, because the air is the most humane—
On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing alternative ways of spending this money?
I was just about to rise in order to point out that the hon. and gallant Member may ask questions about the £63,000, but not discuse alternative methods of spending the money.
I would ask two questions—why only £63,000 has been spent on the Air Ministry Vote, and—
The hon. and gallant Member is entitled to ask why that amount has been spent, but he is not entitled to say that we should have spent more or less in relation to another Service.
On a point of Order. Is not the hon. and gallant Member entitled to ask why so much has been spent on the Air Ministry?
That is what I said.
I was going to ask why £35,000 had been spent on the Army and £1,000 on the Navy, what the British taxpayers had got for that money, and what they had got for the £63,000 for the Air Force, and then leave hon. Members to judge for which money they had got the best value, knowing the value of aeroplanes as compared with the Army and Navy for defence. As regards buildings, I should like to know whether the capital cost is in respect; of permanent buildings, and what we shall get in the future as British taxpayers for that expenditure at the present time. I would ask also whether we could have some information as to the item, "Trans-jordan Frontier Force (Grant in Aid)." I should like particularly to know how that £10,000 was arrived at, so that the Committee can examine whether the taxpayer had not better value for the money than the way in which it is being spent at the present time.
I do not propose on any item of this Supplementary Estimate to discuss the issues which will be presented to us by the Commission in their Report, and on the actual policy of defence necessitated by reason of recent troubles in Palestine. I would make only this observation. Every Government in this country since the War, of whatever political complexion, has endorsed and supported the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. At the same time, there has also been in every party a minority disposed to question the wisdom or practicability of that policy. But I think that both those who support them, and those who differ from them, would be in agreement in holding the view that no British Government could allow its declared policy to be overthrown by mob violence, or allow a population settled in the country in reliance on the policy of successive British Governments, confirmed internationally by a Mandate, to be subjected to violence and persecution by other sections of the population. With that observation, I will leave that part of the Supplementary Estimate which is concerned with the urgency measures required during the recent troubles.
10.0 p.m. I should like to say a word or two about the other items in this Supplementary Estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), in his searching investigations into various matters connected with this Supplementary Estimate, spoke of the sum as a very large one. All these matters are in a sense relative, and when he spoke of a sum as being large, I could not help casting my mind back to a time when we were spending in the Middle East £24,000,000—and it was not many years ago—in pursuance of a policy which was modified by the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the time, into a policy which he believed, and which experience has since proved, would progressively rapidly reduce expenditure by the British taxpayer in that part of the world. Even as recently as five years ago, when I was responsible on that side of the House for the ratification of the Treaty of Iraq, I had to listen to the most woeful prophesy from those benches as to the appalling expenditure to which we were likely to be committed in Iraq. To-day, the whole of the expenditure of the ground forces in Iraq, added to, as it has been, by the Supplementary Estimate of £16,000, amounts to £190,000. The expenditure upon that small and splendid force of Assyrian levies represents all in the way of ground force in Iraq for which the British taxpayer is now responsible in connection with very great responsibilities and great opportunities in that country.The right hon. Gentleman is discussing something which is outside the Estimate altogether.
The right hon. Gentleman is not discussing policy, but the result of the policy being that the amount for which we are now asked is less than it was.
The right hon. Gentleman has harked back to the policy of his predecessor, and said that it had had the direct result of reducing this sum; and if that is allowed, certain hon. Members must criticise that policy.
If the right hon. Gentleman entered into details of the policy, I should rule it out of order, but it cannot be out of order to point out that the expenditure was so many million pounds, and that, as a result of a change of policy, it is now reduced.
The right hon. Gentleman made the point that the policy was a direct result of a decision of a previous occupant of the Colonial Office. That may or may not be true, but as the right hon. Gentleman has stated it, it is open to some who hold the contrary view to discuss it.
The hon. Member cannot discuss it; he can only deny it, and leave it there.
May I ask if there is no protection for the Government against these interruptions from the other side?
As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that is not a point of Order.
There is a slight increase in the amount of the Transjordan Frontier Force. That amount represents only one-sixth of the expenditure of the standing defence force for both Palestine and Transjordan. It is worth while drawing attention to the fact that five-sixths of the expenditure—one-sixth by Transjordan and two- thirds by Palestine—is found by those countries. Therefore, while we regret and deplore that circumstances have compelled us to spend an extra £100,000 in dealing with an emergency, it is worth pointing out that the actual sum that we had to spend, even when slightly increased as it has been, represents the remarkably low level to which our expenditure in connection with our responsibilities in the Middle East has fallen.
A great many of the questions which have been raised have either been answered by other Members, or have answered themselves, so that I have not quite the big task that I might have had. I quite understand that many big issues are involved in the figures which I put before the Committee, but we understand that we cannot go into them. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Major Rose) asked about the Iraq levies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) said something about these, and I would point out that the levies have both British and native officers, as well as some British non-commissioned officers. There is not so very much miscalculation in regard to the additional expenditure, because they had rather extra duties to do, and a great deal of travelling, and a larger number than was anticipated has signed on again. The rank and file of the Iraq levies are enlisted, in the first instance, for a period of two years, and a bounty of one month's pay for each year is paid on re-engagement; and it is therefore gratifying to find that expenditure under this head has been exceeded, because it shows that so many of the levies are anxious to reengage, which is a tribute to the spirit of the force.
Do they get pensions?
That is a question I could not answer now, because I am not sure about it; but I will be glad to inquire and let the hon. Member know.
May we know how many squadrons there are at the present moment?
I am sorry I could not say.
Is any contribution made by the local Government towards the maintenance of these levies, or has this country to stand the whole cost?
This force is under the control of the High Commissioner, and we are solely responsible for it, [Interruption.] I have taken note of the many items brought forward by hon. Members during the Debate, and am trying to answer as many of their points as I can. The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Ross) raised a question about the operations of the ground troops and the Air Force squadrons in Palestine. That is an interesting subject, and one which has engaged the attention of many experts in military matters. A great deal of the work of the Air Force during the recent disturbances consisted of the transport of ground troops to various parts of Palestine, and hon. and gallant Members who understand the subject will appreciate that in that way the Air Force were very valuable adjuncts of the ground force. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who, as usual, was interesting, asked me a great many questions, some of which i have answered already. I was very glad indeed to note his anxiety in regard to compensation, pensions, and so on for the levies, and I hope that his remarks will reach the proper quarter, because they were in the right spirit. In regard to the Admiralty expenditure, that was incurred because certain naval forces were landed, as the hon. Member will remember. It is not a very large expenditure. Then the hon. Member said a very kindly word for the War Office, which is rather unusual, and I hope it will be appreciated by those for whom it was intended. I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), who opened the discussion, feels very strongly on certain matters connected with this Estimate, but I did not quite understand what he meant when he said, if he did say it, that the use of troops should not have been allowed during the recent disturbances.
As far as I remember, I never said that I deprecated the use of troops during the disturbances, for, of course, they were necessary, but I did deprecate the policy which caused us to have to use the troops.
I am very glad of that explanation, because the way in which the hon. Member expressed himself led rather to a misunderstanding. I think we must all agree, whatever our opinion on these matters, that we must continue to ensure the protection of all the inhabitants of a country where we are responsible for the preservation of order. What we want in Palestine is the operation of influences which will make a Vote of this kind for ever unnecessary in the future. I would like to say how much I appreciate the spirit of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Hackney North. I think it was the proper spirit, and while in some respects it may be difficult, I hope it will prove possible for the people of Palestine to come together in increasing friendliness, so that there may be no repetition of this Vote. I am very glad that, on the whole, the Members of the Committee have tonight contributed to this spirit by the moderation of their speeches, and I hope that, in addition to the moderate and temperate forces now in Palestine, the Members of this Committee will also be factors making for peace in Palestine and for blotting out for ever these memories which we would all wish to forget. After the full and interesting discussion we have had I hope the Committee will now see their way to giving me this Vote.
We have listened to a most reasonable speech from the Under-Secretary, but I must remind hon. Members that however important the occasion may be it is their duty to be absolutely satisfied that no money has been thrown away. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite feel it is a very disagreeable task, but it is a necessitous task, particularly in view of the evergrowing deficit of this country and the unemployment problem. There are one or two points upon which I am not quite satisfied with the explanation which has been given to the Committee. The Under-Secretary of State for Air is not in the House at the moment, and, had he been present, I should have liked to have had some further explanation from him in regard to the £63,000 for which' the Air Ministry is responsible. I was not at all satisfied with the explanation of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to this item, which seems to me to be altogether out of proportion to the requirements, although he has said that it was part of the cost of the troops. I notice that the Air Estimates in this respect are twice as much as the Estimates of the War Office, and I think we should have fuller details about that matter.
The Committee is entitled to a fuller explanation than that which has been given in regard to this large sum. I am very dissatisfied with regard to the statement which has been made concerning the expenditure of £15,000 in Iraq about which the Under-Secretary said he had no information as to whether there was to be any contribution paid by the Iraq Government. I want to make it perfectly clear that we ought to be informed as to whether we are likely to have any further contributions from the Iraq Government towards this sum. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are rather impatient when we are discussing Supplementary Estimates, but I would like to point out that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) raised this point. Therefore, I expect to receive some sympathy in regard to it from the benches opposite. With regard to the works which appear under this Vote, I would like to know are they permanent or have they been simply erected for temporary purposes?rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.
I was not privileged to hear the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), but, from one or two remarks that he has made since, and from one or two remarks that other hon. Members have made, I feel certain that I should have disagreed with almost everything that he said.
On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to come into the Chamber who has not heard a particular speech, and to say that he disagrees altogether with it?
I cannot take responsibility for the accuracy or otherwise of hon. Members.
I thank you very much, Mr. Dunnico, for that Ruling. I think, if I may say so without any offence, that my hon. and gallant Friend's general attitude upon, this question is so well known that no one could have doubted the tenor of his speech even though they had not heard it, I should like to dissociate myself entirely from the attitude that my hon. and gallant Friend has adopted towards this Vote, and to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). I feel certain that there are many people, both in Palestine and elsewhere, who are sincerely grateful to the Government for the prompt and decisive action that they took in regard to the disturbances last autumn. At whose door the blame is to be laid we shall know when the Commission produce their Report, but it is obvious that, whenever such an occasion arises, it must be the duty of the Government, whatever their political opinions, to rise to the occasion, and to use every available means in their power to restore law and order.
The Under-Secretary said that we were contributing this sum of £15,000 to capital expenditure in Transjordania for the reason that the Transjordanian Government could not afford to pay anything. I should like to ask him, what does the Transjordanian Government pay for? Does it contribute anything towards the maintenance of the police force in its own area? I quite appreciate that the police force of Transjordania is used to a large extent to protect Palestine from raids from Arabia and from the levies of Ibn Saoud, and, naturally, they cannot afford to support the whole of that force, but I should like to know—I think the matter has arisen at Question Time, but we have never yet had a satisfactory reply—exactly what contribution comes from Transjordania itself, how much comes from the Palestine Government, and how much from our own Exchequer.I am sure that the Committee are grateful to the Under-Secretary for his very careful and courteous explanation, but there are some points in the Estimate which are a little puzzling to us on this side, and perhaps he might feel inclined to relieve our anxiety. Under the heading, "Transbordan Frontier Force," we find an
and we understand that of that sum we pay one-sixth, because Transjordania has no money at all. The point that I want to emphasise is that part of this money is due to the recent disturbances in Palestine, and we are paying it. Under Subhead El there is a sum of £99,000 spent on the three Forces, and then this paragraph:"Additional provision as a contribution towards the cost of the Trans-Jordan Frontier Force consequent on its reorganisation and the recent disturbances in Palestine,"
What does that mean? One would imagine that there must be some definite arrangement between this country and Palestine as to who is responsible for certain services and costs, but this paragraph gives me a suspicion that the British Government are not quite sure where they stand—whether they ought to pay the money, or whether Palestine ought to pay, or whether this country will have to pay the money. What is it that will be considered later, and upon what terms will it be considered later? Should I be wrong in making the suggestion that this demand for money will be considered after the issue of the Commission's Report, and that upon that Report will depend whether the Government are held guilty of gross neglect in regard to looking after law and order in Palestine, and turn round and say, "We have been judged guilty by the Report and therefore have to pay the Bill," or whether, on the other hand, if the Commission report in favour of the Government and say that the troubles in Palestine were due to—"The question whether this excess cost will be recovered from the Palestine Government will be considered later."
We cannot anticipate the results of the Commission.
We are asked to pass a large Estimate of £140,000, and I am discussing the very largest item in it.
The issue is whether the Commission was justified or not and whether the sum asked for shall be granted.
The paragraph says:
The point I am trying to get from the hon. Gentleman is, why should it be considered later? Why is it not possible to put down in the report that this Government is responsible, in which case the paragraph is unnecessary, or to say that the Government is not responsible, but if the other side will not pay it we shall have to? With a large sum of money like this, the Committee is entitled to know what considerations the Government has in mind. I have a suspicion that they are uneasy, that they really do not know where they are and are trusting to the generosity of this side of the Committee, knowing the kindly way in which we treat them, and are hoping that the Vote will slip through without adequate explanation. We are constantly having to complain of the paucity of facts given us in these Supplementary Estimates. I should feel that I was not doing my duty to the taxpayers of the country when we are asked to vote £99,000 for a debt which the Government may or may not owe and which they may"The question whether this excess cost will be recovered from the Palestine Government will be considered later."
Division No. 175.]
| AYES.
| [10.30 p.m.
|
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Dukes, C. | Kelly, W. T. |
| Alpass, J. H. | Duncan, Charles | Kennedy, Thomas |
| Angell, Norman | Ede, James Chuter | Kinley, J. |
| Arnott, John | Edmunds, J. E. | Lang, Gordon |
| Aske, Sir Robert | Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Edwards, E. (Morpeth) | Lathan, G. |
| Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley) | Egan, W. H. | Law, A. (Rosendale) |
| Batey, Joseph | Elmley, Viscount | Lawrence, Susan |
| Bellamy, Albert | Evans. Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge) |
| Bennett, William (Battersea, South) | Forgan, Dr. Robert | Lawson, John James |
| Benson, G. | Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) | Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle) |
| Bentham, Dr. Ethel | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Leach, W. |
| Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale) | Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley) | Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern) |
| Birkett W. Norman | Gill, T. H. | Lees, J. |
| Blindell, James | Glassey, A. E. | Lewis, T. (Southampton) |
| Bowen, J. W. | Gossling, A. G. | Logan, David Gilbert |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Gould, F. | Longbottom, A. W. |
| Broad, Francis Alfred | Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) | Longden, F. |
| Brockway, A. Fenner | Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Lowth, Thomas |
| Bromley, J. | Gray, Milner | Lunn, William |
| Brothers, M. | Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) |
| Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield) | Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.) | Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness) |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Groves, Thomas E. | McElwee, A. |
| Buchanan, G. | Grundy, Thomas W. | McEntee, V. L. |
| Burgess, F. G. | Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton) | McKinlay, A. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | MacLaren, Andrew |
| Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland) | Hall. Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C) | Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.) |
| Caine, Derwent Hall- | Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn) | Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan) |
| Cameron, A. G. | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland) | McShane, John James |
| Cape, Thomas | Hastings, Dr. Somerville | Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton) |
| Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.) | Haycock, A. W. | Mander, Geoffrey le M. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hayes, John Henry | Mansfield, W. |
| Chater, Daniel | Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow) | March, S. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth) | Marcus, M. |
| Cocks, Frederick Seymour | Hollins, A. | Markham, S. F. |
| Compton, Joseph | Hopkin, Daniel | Marley, J. |
| Daggar, George | Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield) | Marshall, Fred |
| Dallas, George | Hunter, Dr. Joseph | Mathers, George |
| Davies, E. C. (Montgomery) | Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. | Matters, L. W. |
| Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) | Isaacs, George | Melville, Sir James |
| Day, Harry | Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne) | Messer, Fred |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. | Middleton, G. |
| Dudgeon, Major C. R. | Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford) | Milner, J. |
or may not recover. I think the Committee is entitled to a fuller explanation as to this item of £99,000.
I think I gave a pretty full answer when I spoke before, and some of the points that have now been brought forward I have already answered. There is no mystery about the responsibility of the Palestine Government. It all depends on its financial position. I think it will be generally agreed that a number of the points that have been brought forward will be more properly discussed when we have the report of the Commission before us. I would ask the Committee now to let us have the Vote.
rose—
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question he now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 220, Noes, 116.
| Morgan, Dr. H. B. | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | Strauss, G. R. |
| Morley, Ralph | Romeril, H. G. | Sullivan, J. |
| Morris, Rhys Hopkins. | Rosbotham, D. S. T. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh) | Rothschild, J. de | Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W) |
| Morrison, Herbert (Hackney. South) | Rowson, Guy | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.) | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Tout, W. J. |
| Mort, D. L. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) | Townend, A. E. |
| Moses, J. J. H. | Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West) | Turner, B. |
| Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent) | Sanders, W. S. | Vaughan, D. J. |
| Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick) | Sandham, E. | Viant, S. P. |
| Muff, G. | Sawyer, G. F. | Walkden, A. G. |
| Muggeridge, H. T. | Scott, James | Walker, J. |
| Nathan, Major H. L. | Scurr, John | Wallace, H. W. |
| Naylor, T. E. | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis | Watkins, F. C. |
| Oldfield, J. R. | Sherwood, G. H. | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston) | Shield, George William | Welsh, James (Palsley) |
| Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon) | Shiels, Dr. Drummond | Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge) |
| Owen, H. F. (Hereford) | Shillaker, J. F. | West, F. R. |
| Palin, John Henry | Simmons, C. J. | Westwood, Joseph |
| Palmer, E. T. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John | Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood) |
| Perry, S. F. | Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness) | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Sinkinson, George | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Potts, John S. | Smith, Alfred (Sunderland) | Williams, T. (York. Don Valley) |
| Price, M. P. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) | Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe) |
| Quibell, D. J. K. | Smith, Frank (Nuneaton) | Wilson. R. J. (Jarrow) |
| Ramsay, T. B. Wilson | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) | Wise, E. F. |
| Raynes, W. R. | Smith, Tom (Pontefract) | Young, R. S. (Islington, North) |
| Richards, R. | Smith, W. R. (Norwich) | |
| Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) | Sneil, Harry | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
|
| Riley, Ben (Dewsbury) | Stephen, Campbell | Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley. |
| Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) | |
| Ritson, J. | Strachey, E. J. St. Loe |
NOES.
| ||
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel. | Ford, Sir P. J. | Ramsbotham, H. |
| Albery, Irving James | Ganzonl, Sir John | Remer, John R. |
| Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S. | Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton | Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet) | Glyn, Major R. G. C. | Ross, Major Ronald D. |
| Beaumont, M. W. | Gower, Sir Robert | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. |
| Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W. | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Salmon, Major I. |
| Boyce, H. L. | Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Bracken, B. | Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Brass, Captain Sir William | Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) | Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart |
| Briscoe, Richard George | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Savery, S. S. |
| Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) | Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J. | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast) |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y) | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller | Skelton, A. N. |
| Butler, R. A. | Howard-Bury. Colonel C. K. | Somerset, Thomas |
| Butt, Sir Alfred | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) |
| Cadogan. Major Hon. Edward | Hurd, Percy A. | Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East) |
| Castle Stewart, Earl of | Iveagh, Countess of | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | James. Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S) | Jones. Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur |
| Cazalet, Captain Victor A. | King. Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D. | Tinne, J. A. |
| Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton | Lamb. Sir J. Q | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Colville, Major D. J. | Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R. | Todd, Capt. A. J. |
| Courtauld, Major J. S. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Train, J. |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord C. | Lewis, Oswald (Colchester) | Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainibro) | Little, Dr. E. Graham | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert |
| Culverwell. C. T. (Bristol. West) | Llewellin, Major J. J. | Wardlaw-Milne, J. S. |
| Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey | Lymington, Viscount | Warrender. Sir Victor |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford) | MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Margesson, Captain H. D. | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Davies, Dr. Vernon | Marjoribanks, E. C. | Wells, Sydney R. |
| Dixey, A. C. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay) |
| Dugdale, Capt. T. L. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Edmondson, Major A. J. | Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr) | Womersley, W. J. |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester) | Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir kingsley |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Muirhead. A. J. | Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | O'Neill. Sir H. | |
| Falle, Sir Bertram G. | Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
|
| Ferguson, Sir John | Penny, Sir George | Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain Wallace. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | |
Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
Revenue Department's Supplementary Estimate, 1929
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."
There is only one point involved in this Supplementary Estimate. It is on account of a concession to civil servants in the matter of the bonus.
Can the hon. Member give us the exact date of that con cession?
The facts are these: For some time past the payment of the Civil Service has been subject to a sliding scale dependent on the cost of living. It has worked out in this way: That the six months from March to the end of August were taken, and on the average cost of living for those six months the bonus for the following six months was based. From this a curious result happened that was not anticipated when the plan was originally proposed. In the summer months on the whole the cost of living is less and the bonus as taken for the following six months, the winter months, was therefore less at a time when the cost of living was higher. In other words, in the six months with the high cost of living there was a little bonus, and in the six months with a low cost of living there was a big bonus. That was a most undesirable state of affairs. The matter was presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and after giving it full consideration he decided, and announecd on 25th July of last year, that for the six months from 1st September, 1929, to 28th February, 1930, the bonus would remain at 70 per cent., instead of being cut down to 65 per cent., as would have happened if that concession had not been made. So far as the Inland Revenue is concerned, that involved an additional item of about £65,000, but of that £65,000 £35,000 is met out of the Vote originally agreed to, leaving a sum of £30,000 which it is necessary to ask for in this Supplementary Estimate.
I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
The whole explanation of this change of policy—I ought to remind the Committee that the principle of the retention of this bonus was affirmed by the Committee on the Colonial Office Vote, and that the Debate now must be confined strictly to the Inland Revenue Money Resolution, now before the Committee.
The principle of the bonus I am not contesting. I am arguing that there was an arrangement which was broken. I wish to point out to the Committee that an arrangement was arrived at originally and that it was broken. Although we do not contest the principle of the bonus we do not agree with the breaking of it by bringing the allowance to 70 per cent. instead of 65 or CO per cent.
With all respect, was the principle definitely affirmed on the Colonial Office Vote? Would it not be more true to say that it applies to each Vote as it comes up, unless the prinicple is first affirmed on the Treasury Vote itself? Surely this is a decision of the Treasury as a whole, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not put down the Treasury Vote as a Token Vote on which we can discuss the principle, surely the principle has to come up on each Vote in turn?
I have already stated that the Committee having affirmed the principle on the Colonial Office Vote, the question before the Committee now is merely the Vote for this particular Department.
This Vote is headed "Registrar-General's Office, England." [HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong Vote!"] Surely, we are not bound by a Colonial Office decision in a former Estimate.
What I have ruled is that the Committee has affirmed the principle in the case of the Colonial Office Vote, and therefore the discussion now is confined to this particular Vote, and note the general principle.
We never had this matter before us until the Financial Secretary explained it to us, and I do not think any of us realised that the policy of the bonus pivoted upon the question of 65 or 70 per cent. On reading the original Estimates of last year, I find that we had a margin of £176,000 on a Vote of £5,000,000. I myself drew up that Estimate, and we made a reservation in the figures to allow for the bonus on the scale laid down on a certain percentage basis according to the rise or fall in the cost of the index figure. I am not in any way guilty of varying that arrangement. It is said that hard cases make bad laws, and, whatever t/he merits, the change in the agreement might be to the disadvantage of the very poorest of the civil servants. It is a bad principle to break agreements, for if you do it in one case then others will claim to do it in another. Agreement is the basis of human intercourse, and, if you break an agreement, whether between man or woman, or nation and nation, it always leads to trouble. You should keep your bargain whether you win or lose.
I sympathise with the fact that the fall in the bonus would have injured the wages of the very poorest of the civil servants, but I remember when the late Government was in office, we made an offer to get over what the hon. Gentleman has described as the jolt. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would not have cost anything!"] I remember very well that the offer we made was in excess of the bargain we had come to. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I happen to have been party to the offer, so I must ask the Committee to believe me. The offer we made was to give a slightly larger bonus over the period and for a longer time, so that a greater advantage accrued to the recipients than would have been received by them if we had stuck to the strict letter of the bargain. Now we find that directly an application was made to hon. Gentlemen opposite they at once gave way. I do not object to an amelioration to the poorer ranks of civil servants but to breaking a contract. This reduction would have operated very hardly upon them, but I do think it is a very bad system if you are going to alter an arrangement. Is the hon. Gentleman wiping out the system upon which we adjusted the bonus based on the cost of living? He must realise that when we made the offer to stabilise the bonus at 65 per cent. for 12 months the cost of living was not as high as it is now and the recipients would have benefited very considerably. If he looks at my minutes, he will find that I said that, although it was said 65 per cent. might seem hard upon the recipients, the cost-of-living figure would fall very considerably, so that if they accepted the offer their position would be a very great deal better in a few months than it was then. Events have turned out as I foresaw, and if the hon. Gentleman looks up the cost-of-living index figure he will find that there has been a considerable fall, and that by stabilising the figure at 70. a very much greater benefit has been conferred than was ever anticipated. I would like to know, does this adjustment apply to every rank? I know that as regards certain incomes, such as £1,500 or £1,800, there is no bonus, but I should Like to know to what extent the altered bonus affects the whole scale of emoluments in the Civil Service? As this is an accomplished fact and as we cannot recall what has been done, will the Financial Secretary also tell us whether this arrangement is to apply permanently, or only for a period? Is he going to make a new start, on a new basis, or is he going to maintain the agreement which was entered into some years ago? The Committee ought to be informed whether or not this is a temporary arrangement, and i move this reduction in order that we may have a further analysis of the position and some idea from the Financial Secretary as to what will be the future of this arrangement about bonus adjustments.I wish to emphasise the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) to which, I think, the Committee are entitled to an answer. I hope it will be possible for the Financial Secretary to give one, even within the strict observance of the principle which you, Mr. Chairman, have laid down for the conduct of this Debate, because, I confess, that the explanation given by the Financial Secretary has left me in complete doubt as to the actual arrangement made with the valuable servants of the Revenue Department. The original agreement which is familiar to us all may be defined as a bonus based upon a "lag" of six months and now we are told that, by this concession, the "lag" of six months has been converted into a "lag" of 12 months. Is this to be a permanent arrangement? Does it mean that the bonus received by the servants of the various Departments has been stabilised at 70 per cent. increase. That appears to be so from the Financial Secretary's statement. If it be not so, if there has been no stabilisation at a 70 per cent. increase, ten what is the arrangement as to the future? How is the review to be made and for what period is the "lag" to operate? The Committee will appreciate that the matter is one of great importance as regards the future basis of remuneration of the Civil Service. This is not the occasion on which to argue whether or not the bonus should be abolished and the salaries of civil servants stabilised, but it is an occasion upon which the observation can be made that we ought to do one thing or the other—either stick to the bonus, or make a reasonable fixation on a permanent basis. But this system of unreasoning concession—if I may so describe it without offence—by which a bonus system with its attempt at scientific accuracy, is allowed gradually to relapse into fixation, is surely the most undesirable of all courses for us to adopt. We still remain in complete doubt—
It being Eleven of the Clock the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 And 1929
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Halstead Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 30th day of January and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. B. Smith.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the urban district council of Rawmarsh, which was presented on the 27th day of January and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
I should like to know, in regard to this Urban District Council of Rawmarsh, how much they are developing in this case and what is the capital sum which they are expending, because it is one of the questions which it is advisable for the House to keep an eye on?
Living close to the urban district referred to in this Order, I can at least tell the hon. Member opposite that the development in question is strictly in accordance with the known requirements of the district. The very fact that the Order is on the Paper at all is proof that it has given entire satisfaction to every authority concerned, and? suggest that if the hon. Member puts anything in the way of the application of this Order, in a very strong mining area—
On a point of Order. We do not wish any discourtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, but after all we are entitled to the courtesy of his being here, and I should move the adjournment of the House if he were not going to attend.
I think the hon. Member is in the House.
I recollect a period when the hon. Gentleman opposite would have been very happy to be permitted to leave his place on this Front Bench when he found it difficult to reply to submissions made from the benches opposite. More frequently than not the ex-Financial Secretary to the Treasury found himself in a very awkward position when any questions of substance were put to him. It is a piece of political sharp practice. [Interruption.]
I do not think that that has anything to do with this particular Order.
If the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues attempted to prevent this Order going through, they would deprive men of work which is very necessary. I hope that, from that point of view, they will not hesitate to allow the Order to pass through.
In reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), this Order is being made in order to permit of a maximum price being chargeable in this area owing to an alteration made to one of the Clauses in the Act. In the Act of 1929, power is given to permit of a change over of a system. Some of the companies did not do this until rather late in the day, and therefore these Orders are necessary to enable them to fix a higher maximum charge for the gas which they have to dispose of in order to enable them to carry on. This Order is not opposed by anybody in the district, and there is complete unanimity behind it.
Has it anything to do with the employment of labour?
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) stressed the point that, if we oppose this Order, or even ask questions about it, it would have some effect on increasing unemployment in his area. As we understand it, the whole effect of the Order is to enable the gas undertakings to increase the price of gas to the consumer. We fail to understand how that is going to affect unemployment except to increase it. Perhaps there is some plot behind it to connect this with the Coal Bill. If the Coal Bill will put up the price to the consumer this is perhaps a Measure which the Government is trying to rush through when no one is looking in order to get the same end.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the urban district council of Rawmarsh, which was presented on the 27th day of January and published, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the urban district council of Padiham, which was presented on the 30th day of January and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
Adjournment
Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn.—[ Mr. Parkinson.]
Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.