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

I think that the circumstances which have necessitated the introduction of this Bill are already well known to the House. The object of the Bill is a very simple one. It is to deal with a situation which has arisen owing to a decision in the High Court in April last, which has been subsequently upheld in the Court of Appeal. By Section 1 of the Licensing Act, 1921, the licensing justices of each district are empowered, within certain statutory limits, to fix the hours on weekdays during which the sale or supply of intoxicating liquor in licensed premises is lawful. I may say in passing that this problem does not include London; it only affects the country outside.

The licensing justices in any district outside the Metropolis may, if satisfied that the special requirements of their district render it desirable, make, under proviso (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Act of 1921, a direction increasing the total hours to eight and a-half, and substituting 10.30 at night for 10 as the latest permitted hour. I believe that in rather more than 100 districts throughout the country the licensing justices have made a direction applying to part of the year, and it is one of these Orders which apply to a part of the year only—the Steyning Order, in the Steyning division of Sussex—that was brought to the High Court, and, as I have already said, was held on appeal to be invalid. I think it will be agreed that the situation which has been created has caused a great deal of confusion and is anomalous, and that, if the licensing justices have the power of increasing the hours for the whole of the year, it is a little unreasonable that they should be debarred from using their discretion with respect to a part of the year. The House will appreciate that the Bill which we are introducing to meet this situation is not an instalment dealing generally with the licensing problem; its sole purpose is to deal with a question of emergency, and to confer on the licensing benches a power which a large number of the licensing authorities throughout the country have believed that they possessed, and which quite clearly they have exercised with considerable discretion and for the general advantage of the districts over which they preside.

The provisions of the Bill are quite simple and definite. Sub-section (1) of Clause 1 specifically provides that, where the licensing justices are satisfied that the special requirements of the district, during a part of the year only, render it desirable, they may make a direction of the kind in question as respects that part of the year. The House will observe that a minimum period of eight consecutive weeks has been prescribed. I have made inquiries, and find that none of the Orders which hitherto have been made have been for any shorter period, and I think it is desirable that some minimum period should be fixed. Sub-section (2) is merely consequential; it enables the justices to proceed to fix the special permitted hours for the specified part of the year within the limits of the direction. Sub-section (3) applies the foregoing provisions retrospectively to cover the Steyning Order and other existing Orders of the same type. The House will note from Clause 2 that the Bill applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. The Bill is one purely to deal with the result of an unexpected decision of the courts. It is a limited Measure. I would only add that, in view of the circumstances and the urgency of the problem, and in order that there shall be a removal of the disturbance and criticism from many districts, I hope the House will accept the Measure, and that we may be able to pass it into law in a comparatively short time.

We on these benches agree with this Bill, and shall offer no objection to it. As I understand it, the matter in question is simply one which has arisen owing to an unexpected judgment of the courts. On general grounds I should always be in favour of saying that, where unexpectedly a legal decision has upset what was the intention of the House, and what has been held for a number of years to be the intention of the House, it should be put right by legislation. There is also a second point. I gather that the Bill enables the justices to allow extended hours for a shorter period than a year, and it might well be that, if we did not pass the Bill, some justices would have to extend the hours for the whole year in order to meet the requirements of their districts for a few weeks or a few months. Therefore, the Bill is not really a Bill for lengthening the hours during which intoxicating liquor can be sold, but will actually have the effect of enabling a shorter period to be given, and, if it were not passed, justices might be led actually to increase the hours all the year round. On these two grounds we shall support the Bill.

I have listened with much interest to what has been said by the Secretary of State in relation to this Bill, the necessity for which I regret. It is not a Bill that I should have thought would have been welcomed by those who are associated with me, but I fully recognise that the Government are justified in introducing it to deal with the confusion which has arisen as a consequence of the recent decision. This is the latest of the events arising from the attempt to deal with the Act of 1921. That Act was, I think, a most beneficent Measure, inasmuch as it sought to embody the experience which had been obtained in relation to the sale of intoxicating liquor during the War. During the War extensive experiments were made, and the result of those experiments was embodied in the Act of 1921. It may be that the social historian will come to look upon that Measure as the most beneficent Measure that was passed by the Coalition Parliament. At any rate, it is a Measure which very closely affects, and has very closely affected, the lives of the people in every town and village of this country. The Act of 1921 has been the subject of attack. The licensed trade have brought their opposition to bear upon it. The first attempt that was made was their endeavour to get an extension under Section 57 of the Act of 1910, their contention being that the special circumstances of summer time might be considered a special occasion within the meaning of that Section. That attempt was defeated as the result of proceedings that came before the Courts something over 12 months ago.

Then this further question arose. I am not making any complaint against the licensed trade. They are perfectly entitled to make whatever application they think proper. Having been defeated in their first attempt, they tried to get their extension under the Act of 1921. The case came before the Steyning Justices. They have been given great prominence in the matter, but of course they are only one out of more than 100 licensing bodies that are concerned in the question. The Steyning Justices having decided that they were going to give this extension from eight hours to eight and a half and to make the closing hour 10.30 instead of 10 for a certain period in the year—I think six months—the case was taken to the Divisional Court and afterwards to the Court of Appeal. The licensing justices were brought before the Divisional Court on the ground that the order that they had made had exceeded their jurisdiction and they had failed to exercise their discretion judicially. Under the Act of 1931, it is open to licensing justices to order houses to be open for eight hours in the day closing at 10, but in certain cases if there are special requirements in their district—they have to be satisfied upon that—they can alter the eight hours to eight and a half and can make the closing hour half-past 10 instead of 10. Both the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal said it was not open to the justices to make an order for a part of the year which undoubtedly they could make for a whole year, inasmuch as the term weekdays used in the Act must mean all week days and not some week days. That is all that that case decided.

I have said we do not welcome the Measure, but we recognise the confusion that has arisen, and I think the Government have stood strictly by their promise to limit the Measure to what was necessary to deal with the action of the justices in this case. It is quite evident that there is a good deal of confusion on the matter in the country. This is spoken of as a summer time Bill, and the impression has got abroad that we are doing something that is going to establish different hours in the summer time as compared with the rest of the year. We are doing nothing of the kind. In terms the Bill has no more to do with summer time than with Christmas time. It does not in itself give any longer hours in summer time and summer time, strictly speaking, is not relevant to the Bill. In fact, when the case came before the Divisional Court it was made clear that the consideration of summer time as compared with the rest of the year was not relevant. I should like to quote what was said by the Lord Chief Justice.

"It seemed to him very difficult to see how summer time could be said to constitute a special requirement of the district."

The same point was taken in the Court of Appeal, where Lord Justice Scrutton in his judgment said:

"Summer time was not a special requirement of the district within Section 1 (b) of the Act of 1921. Summer time was a matter that applied to the whole country."

So that, in so far as people outside this House are discussing this Bill as being a summer time Measure, they are wholly wrong. The period for which the magistrates can give this special concession can apply to any time in the year, and need not apply to summer time more than any other. I think the position needs to be explained in that way because, as I understand it, the discretion of the justices remains absolutely unaffected by the Bill—in every other respect it remains what it was under the Act of 1921—and that discretion cannot be exercised other than judicially. Therefore, if any advocate for the licensed trade goes to any bench of justices and suggests that as the result of this Bill it is the intention of Parliament that there should be a concession for summer time, he is saying something which is not in the Bill at all and which he is not entitled to allege. I assert, further, that if any bench of licensing justices, upon the ground of summer time alone, extend the number of hours, they can be brought before the High Court because they have exceeded their jurisdiction. They are bound by the terms of the Act of 1921, and the Government have been careful to repeat the words in the Bill that they can only grant the extension if they are satisfied that there are special requirements in the district. Summer time is not a special requirement in any district, because it applies to the whole country. It is open, of course, to the justices to take summer time into consideration as one of the factors but, if any bench of justices should grant an extension simply upon the ground of summer time, they will be exceeding their jurisdiction, they will not be exercising their discretion judicially and they can be brought before the High Court.

I have received protests against the Bill from persons holding views similar to my own but based upon a misapprehension, based upon the assumption that the Bill is doing something that is going to impose longer hours in some districts. As a result of what is now being done, not a single extension is being imposed. It simply maintains the discretion of the magistrates and gives them the power to grant in part what undoubtedly to-day they can grant in whole. In a certain sense it may me regarded as a limiting Measure. It is true that some justices, being anxious to give this extension and being not able to grant an extension for the part of the year, have said: "Our only course is to grant it for the whole of the year," and in some instances they have made a sort of bargain with the licensed trade. "If we grant you this power for the whole of the year, will you voluntarily consent not to exercise that power during the winter months?" Obviously the magistrates ought to have the power, if they want to give it for a limited period, to exercise that power, but, beyond giving the magistrates the power to grant in part what undoubtedly now they can grant in whole, the Bill does not travel by the width of a hair.

I would like to assure my friends outside this House who are troubled by this Bill that I think their opposition has been based largely upon a misapprehension probably arising from the interpretation of the Measure—the anticipatory interpretations which have appeared in certain newspapers. For that reason, I do not propose, acting for some of my friends in this House, to oppose this Bill. We are a very reasonable body of Members. We recognise that the difficulty has arisen following upon a legal decision, and we do not wish to take advantage of that fact. Our cause is so impregnable that it does not need to rest upon adventitious advantage, and our case has been stated. My hon. Friend wants to know what our case is, and says it is an empty case. It is an empty case that we were well able to fill in the course of many days' discussion on another Measure in the Committee upstairs.

I think that the confusion which has arisen in the country is largely attributable to the mixture or the confusion of this Bill with the one which was introduced recently dealing with the standardisation of hours. The public have assumed that the two Measures are in some way connected. They are not in any way connected, not in the slightest. My hon. Friend opposite who represents a division in a part of the county of Essex and his neighbour, the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise), well know what our objections were against that Bill. It was a Bill which sought to extend hours and which overruled the discretion of the magistrates. That is admitted. It set aside the discretion of the magistrates. This Bill maintains absolutely the discretion of the magistrates, and it does not extend the hours in any instance. That being so, it is quite different from the Bill we opposed upstairs, which I regarded as a most reactionary Measure, and which I shall take every opportunity with my friends of opposing if it is brought again before this House.

This Bill will not get rid of anomalies. In a certain sense perhaps it may, because of the additional powers, increase anomalies. I regret that because I believe in standardisation. I have never disguised that belief. So many differences have arisen because of the different exercise of their instructions by licensing justices in many parts of the country that standardisation is becoming more and more urgent, but I am very anxious that we shall resist those who, under the cry of "standardisation," are trying to get an extension of hours. My hon. Friends with whom I had an opportunity frequently of crossing swords in the Committee Room upstairs will remember that that was the ground of our opposition. If you can secure standardisation then secure standardisation, but do not obtain extensions under the colour of standardisation. I think that I may add to that Matthew Prior's words:

"The merchant, to conceal his treasure,

Conveys it in a borrow'd name:

Euphelia serves to grace my measure;

But Chloe is my real flame."

When a great plea was being made both on the Floor of this House and in Committee upstairs, on another Bill for standardisation, the fact was hidden from the general public, under the plea for standardisation, that extension of hours was being sought. I agree with the Secretary of State who said that this Bill was not an instalment of the licensing reform which at some time will have to be brought in. If those diffculties under our licensing laws are to be dealt with they can only be competently dealt with by the Government of the day, having at their disposal all the information and the resources which are generally denied to a private Member. I do not think that the mere passing of this Bill will take away from the heavy responsibility that rests upon the Government to decide sooner or later what to do in relation to the general matter of licensing reform. The difficulties which were dealt with at the time the Royal Commission sat and made its exhaustive inquiry do not become less by the passing of time. Only to give one instance, the difficulty with relation to clubs is not a lessening difficulty but an increasing one. There are many difficulties that were dealt with by the Royal Commission which reported two or three years ago, and at some time some Government will have to deal with those matters. This Bill will not affect the position either way.

In my final words, I would again take the opportunity of urging upon the Home Secretary that, although I understand that general consent is being given to this Measure on the grounds the House has allowed me to state this morning, I assume that the question of licensing reform will receive at some time the attention of the Government and that they will decide one way or the other what is to be done in relation to the formulated proposals of the Royal Commission. I am not saying which should be adopted or which should be rejected, but sometime or another that decision will have to be taken. The reforms which were then recommended are becoming more urgent by the passing of time, and it would be little short of a scandal if the Government went through the whole period of their power, having been vested with power greater than any Government in our history, and left untouched some of those clamant reforms and recommendations made by men and women representing every side of opinion upon this matter. For the reasons which I have stated, I hope that the Bill will go through without any opposition upon the Committee stage. I regret the necessity for its introduction, but no one was responsible for the circumstances and we shall not resist the further progress of the Bill.

In view of the support which the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has given to the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of this Measure, I am rather suspicious as to whether or not I am doing the proper thing by supporting the Government's policy. When the hon. Member for Bodmin gives his good grace to a Measure, whichever it may be, which is presented by this Government, it seems to be a subject of very serious consideration, especially when it pertains to matters of licensing, for those of us who have been associated with him upstairs on other matters relating to the general licensing laws of the country. But if I may take the attitude that this Bill should be welcomed because, in spite of what the hon. Member for Bodmin said, it eliminates a very unjust anomaly over which the licensing justices have had very little power for too long in this country—the anomaly which has restricted the rights and the freedom of the individual of this country to acquire refreshment at a time when he considers such refreshment most beneficial to his general constitution. I believe that the action which the Government have taken will be very welcome throughout the country. The country appears to me to be crying out for action of a definite nature not only in this direction but in many other directions, and the Government in introducing this Measure and attempting to clear away an anomaly in the shortest time are to be complimented. I join with the hon. Member for Bodmin in hoping that no opposition will come during any stage of the Bill, so that it may go to the Statute Book in the shortest possible time.

The hon. Member said that the Bill only gave power to the justices to grant extensions if they are satisfied that there are special reasons to justify the application. I took it from his remarks that there was a possibility that even graver anomalies than already exist would arise through the exercise of that discretion. It is true that this Bill does not prevent the licensing justices from refusing an application. It may be that the refusal on the part of the justices will not in any way be representative of the requirements of the specific area in which the application is made. Therefore, although the hon. Member thinks that in exercising their discretion the magistrates may create greater anomalies, he must admit that they may at the same time, even with this Bill in operation, be responsible for the continuance of anomalies because of hard and fast views on the matter of licensing.

In Sheffield we are to have the honour of a visit from the Australian cricket team. That is a very great event in our lifetime, and application was made for an extension, not for a general extension of licensing hours throughout Sheffield during that visit but for an extension for the immediate purposes of those bars retailing drink on the ground. After 55 minutes consideration the bench decided that there were no grounds upon which they could justifiably extend the licence.

The last people who would desire the extension would be the Australians.

I admit that the hon. Member is in a position to speak for some of the temperance societies in this country, but I doubt whether he is in a position to gauge the thirst or the temperance of the Australian cricket team or of some of their supporters.

Is the hon. Member aware of the definite declaration of Mr. Brad-man that the sportsman who wants to do well at cricket should have nothing to do with intoxicating liquor?

I do not suggest that the extension should be granted for the team presenting themselves to the public, but even watching cricket sometimes is a very dry procedure. It is not necessary to make a habit of drinking although one has facilities for obtaining drink. The real substance of the Bill remedies a minor anomaly and because it does that I shall give it my whole-hearted support, and I hope that the Government when they respond to the final appeal of the hon. Member for Bodmin and introduce legislation to deal with the many licensing anomalies that exist under the present law will act with that readiness and Courage that they have shown on this occasion.

The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) cast doubt on the Bill because the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) supported it. When I saw the hon. Member fox Attercliffe supporting it, I wondered where I stood. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member into a discussion as to whether the use of alcohol is or is not good for an athlete. I know cricketers who play a good game who are teetotallers and I know others who play a good game who like one or two. Anyone who has experience of village cricket knows that there are good cricketers among the teetotallers and among the moderate drinkers. I agree with the Bill, and I think the Home Secretary is to be complimented on bringing it in. As I understand it, a court decision has set up certain doubt and confusion which ought to be removed, and this Bill seeks to remove it. Unlike the hon. Member for Bodmin, I have received no protests against the Bill, and I have found no feeling for it in the country, although I have received letters of support from people who are interested in the licensed trade.

The hon. Member for Attercliffe said that the Government ought to be complimented on their ready action. I agree. Here we have a decision of the court and the Home Secretary comes along at once and brings in a Bill to remedy the situation. We hear a great deal about the uselessness or inefficiency of Parliament, but this Bill shows that Parliament when it cares to get a Bill through can do so fairly quickly. That brings me to my point. There are other decisions given in court which create confusion and injustice. We have had one or two decisions given in the courts in regard to workmen's compensation which have caused confusion and injustice and have made a number of people who have some knowledge of the administration of workmen's compensation wonder what is going to happen. That is the point that I wish to emphasise. I want the Home Secretary to be just as ready to come to this House with a new Bill to remove anomalies and confusion owing to a decision of the High Court on matters affecting large numbers of workpeople as he has been in coming forward with this Bill. We have a right to expect that. I support the Bill wholeheartedly because it removes an anomaly, but there are other occasions when the Home Secretary ought to act just as speedily when court decisions cause injustice and confusion.

I do not desire to detain the House in opposing a Measure which all Members must be satisfied is most desirable, but I should like to call attention to a technical difficulty of drafting which appears in Subsection (3). There are a certain number of licensing areas where applications have been made and granted for extensions which were subsequently found by the decision of the High Court to have been ultra vires. Shortly after that decision was given the justices in many districts, acting through their learned clerk, passed an intimation to the licensees that they should not open. What is to be the position if Sub-section (3) passes in its present form in cases where every consideration contemplated by the Sub-section has been fulfilled? The words of the Sub-section:

"Where before the date of the passing of this Act such a direction or decision as aforesaid has been made … the direction or decision shall have, and shall be deemed always to have had, the like validity,"

applies in such cases. What will be the position? According to the Sub-section any direction so issued shall be deemed always to have been valid, but the magistrates will want to know, through their learned clerks, whether application must be made de novo for these extensions where the original grant legally made under this Sub-section has been rescinded merely by intimation from the magistrates clerk. It is a fact that in certain districts this is a matter which will arise and some of the clerks to the justices are definitely having very considerable difficulty over the Sub-section. I suggest that the matter should be made a little clearer, and I hope the Home Secretary will consider the point.

Although I agree with the Bill, so far as it goes, in removing one anomaly from our licensing laws, I regret that it does not go much farther and that the Home Secretary has not taken this opportunity of removing other anomalies which have arisen and anomalies which are bound to arise in the future. I regret that the Bill only applies to some 120 orders issued by licensing justices and does not extend to all health resorts throughout the country. The decision which has brought about this reform has brought home to us the hopeless position in which our licensing laws are at the moment and the necessity for early reform. I join with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) in his appeal to the Home Secretary to lose no time in bringing forward a Measure for the reform of our licensing laws. I should like to know whether the Bill is to apply only to the 120 orders which have been issued or whether it will allow licensing justices throughout the country to grant an extension of hours this year. If not, you are imposing a penalty upon those licensing justices who have interpreted the law correctly and who have refused to grant an order. That is bad for Parliament and the country generally, because it encourages licensing justices to take steps which may be on the border line of a breach of the licensing laws in the hope that if enough of them break the law the Home Secretary will be obliged to step in and bring about a speedy reform. It also tends to bring a Parliament into disrepute, because it does not place upon us the necessity of being careful in the drafting of our legislation. This is only one anomaly that has been brought to our notice. We do not know how many more may crop up in the course of the next few weeks. It is unjust that those benches of magistrates who have not taken the chance of granting an order this year, it was a chance in many cases, and who have interpreted the law correctly should be penalised. It is impossible for them to grant an order this year because what are called Brewster Sessions are only held once in a year. That is a case for reform, because I think licensing justices should sit more than once a year. They should sit whenever there is a sufficient number of licences to be dealt with so that persons need not have to wait for a whole year before their applications are heard, and then find in many cases that they are turned down as the result of bias on the part of licensing justices.

That cuts both ways.

No, I do not think so. If a licensing justice has any connection whatever with the liquor trade he is precluded from sitting as a licensing justice. On the other hand, it is an uncontrovertible fact that hundreds of licensing justices are only licensing justices, and only sit because of their bias against the licensing trade. If it cuts both ways why should men who openly express their antipathy to any connection with drink or the licensing trade be allowed to sit as justices and reject every scheme which comes before them? There was a case in London the other day when some 79 magistrates sat to hear one application for an extension of a licence. The application was supported by 1,200 people throughout the area——

I am at a loss to know how this affects the Bill under discussion and what it has to do with it.

I was trying to emphasise the point I made earlier as to the necessity for the Home Secretary to go farther than he has in this Measure I hope the right hon. Gentleman, in order to avoid any further anomalies, will make it clear to licensing justices what their powers are. Many of them do not know exactly where they stand as far as our licensing laws are concerned. They are at the mercy of their clerk, who very often does not possess very great knowledge of the law. In this particular case many applications were turned down because the clerk did not know whether the magistrates were justified in granting the extension of the half-hour or not. Some magistrates hesitated and the result was that some seaside resorts have been given the benefit of the doubt while others have not. I do not see why these matters should be left in the hands of licensing justices. The Home Secretary had a wonderful opportunity to bring in a one Clause Bill——

This has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.

I think that the Home Secretary has lost a wonderful opportunity in this Bill of doing justice to licence holders and the general public. It would have been quite easy for him to have introduced an additional Clause stating that licensing justices have the power to extend the half-hour in the case of all applications this year. I appeal to the Minister to add another Clause to the Bill, to get over the anomaly which now exists and which will exist after this Bill has passed. I welcome the Bill so far as it goes and I thank the Home Secretary for his prompt action. I hope he will not lose any time in bringing forward a Measure which will remove other anomalies.

I rise to support the Bill. As the House knows, I was rather closely connected with a Bill known as the Licensing (Standardisation of Hours) Bill, which received I suppose about as much enthusiasm from the Government Front Bench as any proposed legislation of the kind is likely to receive from the Government. But, even so, supporters of that Bill are very reasonable. They are always prepared to support any Measure of the Government which is likely to lead to greater liberty. Therefore, today we turn our cheeks to the smiter and we welcome this very small advance. Undoubtedly if the Bill passes it will be an indication that special circumstances ought to be very carefully considered by magistrates. It will inevitably lead to a certain amount of increase of hours at certain times of the year to certain persons who desire that extension, and they no doubt will make the most of it. So far as it goes that is good.

I confess, however, that when my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) said that, although he did not welcome the Bill he was prepared to support it, I thought there must be a snag in it somewhere. But for once there is no fault that I can find with my hon. Friend's legal arguments on the Measure. I have one great fault to find with the hon. Member. When interrupting my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) he ventured to introduce the name of Mr. Bradman, as apparently a sort of picture of what sportsmanship and lack of alcohol would lead to. If the hon. Member for Bodmin had been honest about it he ought also to have mentioned the greatest cricketer of all time, Dr. W. G. Grace, who was never known to refuse a little alcohol. I know that the hon. Member is a master of statistics. If he will carefully examine the records of the time when Dr. Grace played for Oxford or Cambridge, I think he will find that copious draughts of old ale in the evening had no effect on the doctor's average in the matches next day.

If my hon. Friend will pursue his investigations he will find that the remark I applied just now to Bradman applies to the greatest of English cricketers to-day, J. B. Hobbs, who made a declaration in the same terms.

I can say at any rate that the greatest of English cricketers, Dr. Grace, drank ale and scored centuries. There is one serious point that I would make regarding the Bill. The Standardisation of Hours Bill was not only attacked by the Opposition but was criticised by the Government, because we were told that we were not doing away with sufficient anomalies. We were told that in certain instances it might be that the anomalies between district and district would be increased. It is interesting to find that in this Bill we have a Measure which, although advantageous, is absolutely bound to increase anomalies between district and district. Unfortunately some magistrates are eccentric creatures who are bound by nothing except their own feelings. We shall find broad-minded magistrates giving the extra half-hour in many districts, particularly where there is a good deal of popular pressure. On the other hand you may be unlucky enough to live in a district which could just as well make use of the extra half-hour, but you have a bench with a considerable number of magistrates who never turn up at any time other than the sitting of the Brewster Sessions, and the extra half-hour will not be granted. The spirit of envy will grow up in parts of my own constituency, I know, and in other places. I think that the Government will have to face the fact that we shall never get full satisfaction in the country so long as nominated justices, often out of touch for years with the requirements of the country as a whole, are given complete and outstanding power over and above the elected representatives of the people in Parliament, who are very much more in touch with the ordinary man in the street. That is by the way. I would like finally to commend the Bill. I feel sure that for once we shall have the remarkable experience of finding a decent Measure supported by all sections of the House, and that it will remain decent nevertheless.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out from "Act" to the end of the Sub-section.

I need hardly say that I do not move this Amendment with a view to getting it embodied in the Bill, but with a view to getting information from the Secretary of State as to one or two matters. In the first place could we have information from him as to how much of this £2,000,000 loan has been already spent? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say the other day that there was no money being spent out of this £2,000,000 for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. I merely wanted to be assured of that, and also to know that that assurance applies to money already spent and to be refunded out of this loan. Many of the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman used in the previous discussions were in favour of the expenditure of fresh money beyond that which has already been spent. He told us, too, that the accumulated reserve of Palestine amounted to £1,500,000. I wish to know, was that £1,500,000, after this refund had taken place, or was it £1,500,000 left after certain sums had been spent from the reserve on the purposes specified in the Schedule? As a matter of fact, is the actual accumulated reserve not really more than £1,500,000?

I appreciate the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not desire to have this Amendment made in the Bill. It would indeed be contrary to all precedent and, if I may say so, it would not be a sensible thing to do. The Government of Palestine has gone ahead with its programme of works. I cannot say actually how much money has been spent out of the surplus balances already which would be repaid out of this loan. There has been considerable expenditure on water-works, resulting in the placing of orders in this country, and I think it will be agreed that where the work is of tremendous urgency and is patently in the interests of Palestine and also in the interests of employment in this country, that work ought to go ahead. There is always a certain amount of balance which might be called working capital where there are large public works being carried out in a Colony. I gave two figures. I gave the budgetary surplus on the annual income and expenditure over a succession of years, and I also gave the position of the reserve fund. The budgetary surplus is, of course, the actual balance of income over expenditure in a year, and I gave the amount credited to the reserve fund, as I estimated it would stand at the end of this financial year.

Does the figure of £1,500,000 exclude what has already been spent; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an estimate of how much has been spent?

I should hesitate to give an estimate. I should not like to say with certainty what is the actual amount expended. If I might take it, however, on the ground of commitments and of orders which have been placed and work carried out, I should say that probably £.300,000 or £400,000 has already either been spent or is involved in contracts which have been placed. Finally, as regards the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, no part of this money is going towards the work on that church.

I think the figure of £1,500,000 was given as the accumulated reserve and not as the surplus on the year. I wish to be clear as to whether that £1,500,000 includes this £300,000, or whatever the amount is that has already been report.

No, I said at the beginning that it was my estimate of how the reserve would stand and that was the reserve entirely untouched.

So that when the loan has been passed through the actual reserve will probably stand at nearly £2,000,000?

I gave the figures to the House on the last occasion.

Before we part with this Clause which is the most important Clause in this very short Bill, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman some questions. May I first draw attention to the report for 1933 which has been issued by the Jewish Agency in Palestine to the League of Nations for their consideration, note of which appears in the Press this morning. It is worth while to say in passing that that report indicates considerable progress in Palestine in every sphere of life during 1933. It also shows that the improvement and progress of previous years have been maintained and that is all to the good. The first question which I put to the right hon. Gentleman is, who will be the contractors who are to carry out this work? I understand that the work in Haifa Harbour was carried out in the main by our own engineers. I wonder whether the contracts in connection with this expenditure will be carried out——

I think that question will arise on Clause 2 which deals specifically with the allocation of orders.

In that case, I leave that point for the present. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is possible, before the close of the proceedings today, to clear up the point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) as to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There is a great deal of apprehension about it. I do not know whether the question can properly be raised at this stage, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would find it convenient and possible at some point in the Debate to let us know the exact situation with regard to this great monument. There is another question. Everybody knows that the River Jordan in Palestine is below the sea level and in connection with this expenditure it would be interesting to know how it is proposed to deal with the water supply particularly in Jerusalem which is I believe some 2,000 feet above the sea level. Is it proposed to bore wells or to pump water from the river? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to deal with those simple questions.

As regards the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, if I may refer to it, without transgressing the Rules of Order, I think I gave all the information the other day in reply to a series of questions. The Government of Palestine felt that it was urgently important that this great world monument should be preserved and they took the responsibility of advancing or rather paying the money which was urgently required for this purpose and that money has been paid. Discussions are going on with various religious bodies to see how far what the Government has already paid and what will be necessary in the future can be defrayed by contributions from the various religious bodies. I think the whole sense of the House is with us in regarding this matter as being in a class by itself, and in approving of the steps taken by the Government of Palestine.

Are we to understand that these religious communities are hesitating about finding the money necessary to keep the Holy Sepulchre in proper order?

I understand that no part of this Bill relates to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and therefore it is not in order to raise the matter at all.

The only reason I asked a question was because the matter had been raised.

On that point of Order, I would like to point out that the Colonial Secretary has made an entirely unfounded observation in saying that the expenditure of the money on this church meets with the entire approval of this House. Nothing of the sort.

I am always ready to except the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's views.

On the point of Order. The Colonial Secretary is making the matter worse. He is not merely saying that it has the approval of this House, but that I am the only person who disapproves it. Therefore, I must ask for the right of reply to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in this matter I am not speaking for myself at all, but for the vast body of opinion in this country which knows that church. Therefore, I ask to be allowed to reply to the right hon. Gentleman's entirely unfounded assumption. This is a most damaging principle.

I think I was wrong in allowing the Secretary of State for the Colonies to raise this matter at all, but he was giving a reply to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). As it is clear that there is going to be no expenditure on this church under this Bill, the matter cannot be raised.

I was only trying to be courteous to the hon. Gentleman who raised the question. With regard to the question of the wells of Palestine——

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is acquainted with the work which has already been done and the expenditure which has already been incurred in providing a water supply? Is it intended under this scheme to pump the water from below up to Jerusalem? How much money has been spent on that business already, and has it succeeded or failed? I am nervous lest a large part of the money advanced under this loan will be used simply to wipe out money which has already been spent and largely wasted in trying to produce a water supply for Jerusalem. I think that we are entitled to know before we leave this Clause how much of the money is to make good the loss which the Palestine Government have already incurred in failing to find water for Jerusalem.

There is no question of repaying any money spent in the past. This money is entirely for new work. It is to be spent in carrying the water which can be obtained from the springs. The whole of the technical side has been most carefully considered, and I think the Committee may rest assured that what is being done is based on expert advice.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out, "fair conditions of labour are observed," and to insert:

"trade union rates of wages are paid."

I am glad the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has brought this matter before the Committee, because when the Money Resolution was before the House I mentioned the point about paying trade union rates of wages. I wondered how it could be inserted in the Bill, however, because one realises that in Palestine the conditions are more difficult than they are here, where we have long recognised trade union rates of wages. I can see how extremely difficult it would be to have a static condition of trade union rates of wages in Palestine, more especially with the two kinds of labour available there, namely, the Jewish and the Arab; but while we are conscious of the difficulty, it is up to us in the House of Commons to try to lay down conditions that will be a guide to them. Fair conditions for the Arab labourers may be quite different from fair conditions for the Jews, and I want to be quite satisfied on that point.

I do not say at the moment that I shall vote for the Amendment, because it would be foolish to say that without understanding the position in Palestine, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we on these benches, especially those of us who come from the trade unions and who want to get fair conditions for our workmen, know that even in this country, where we have established fair conditions for a long time past, there are many times difficulties in getting the employers to keep up to that standard, so that in a new country, where contracts are given to all kinds of people, one can easily recognise that they might all try to undercut one another and, therefore, make it very difficult for fair wages to be paid. I join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in hoping that we shall get a better explanation from the Minister on this question.

I think the Committee will agree that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has put an important point in an extremely reasonable way. There is really no difference of opinion between any of us on this matter. What we wish to do is to get fair conditions of labour observed in Palestine, whether the labour employed be Jew labour or Arab labour. I can set the hon. Member's mind at rest at once by saying that there cannot in this case be any question of some contractor trying to cut wages. I think the whole of this work will be done by Government Departments, and, therefore, the labour will be employed direct by Government through the different Departments. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) really appears to get some very inaccurate information. He said the most awful conditions had arisen on the works at Haifa Harbour. I know from my own experience and from reports that I have received that so far from there having been labour difficulties at Haifa, things there were admirable. The greatest care was taken by the people responsible for the work——

Rubbish!

The greatest care was taken to give fair conditions both to Jew and to Arab. You have there, not created by Government, but existing already, different standards of labour and different wage rates obtaining. What was done with perfect satisfaction at Haifa was that rates of pay for the Jews and Arabs were fixed in this way, that the Arab was paid by time and the Jew by piece, and I have never heard a single complaint from anybody about the way in which the work was conducted there. The conditions there are different, and the only result of putting in the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be to preclude the Government from employing any Arabs at all on any of these works, because the only trade unions are Jewish trade unions, and you would have to pay—although it would be entirely inappropriate and although it has never been paid to any Arab before, and is not fixed at least in relation to Arab capacity for work or circumstances of employment—whatever happened to be the nearest possible rate of wages for that kind of work which you found agreed by the Jewish trade unions. The only result of that would be to prevent the Government from employing Arabs on these works. I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Member thinks that that would make for unity between the Jews and the Arabs, which I am glad to find is his attitude. The words in the Bill were very carefully thought out and discussed between parties in this House, and they are put in advisedly as the most practical way in which we can give effect to the general desire of the House. This is Government work, and the sole object will be to see that there are fair conditions of labour; and in the light of past experience, I suggest that these words should stand.

We have reached a very interesting point in this Bill, a point in which I have taken a little personal interest. With regard to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he will be offended when I tell him that he is about the last person in the world to hear any complaint from the Arabs as to their conditions of employment on the Haifa Harbour works. I think any complaint would much more likely reach my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and myself, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the situation is indeed very difficult. First of all, I would like to point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment that it is quite possible that his Amendment might not work, because payments of rates of wages do not include conditions of employment, which sometimes are as important as the rates of wages. There is, therefore, a little difficulty on that score.

There are two standards of life in Palestine—the European standard, brought there by the Jew, and the African standard, which has always been there for the Arab. The argument for differentiation in wages always has been, I am informed, that when the Arab gets work in Palestine to-day his standard of life is improved by about 200 per cent., but the standard of life for the European Jew who has emigrated to Palestine is improved by about 25 per cent. That has taken place when the wages have been differentiated to a very great extent. I was very keen to find out why contractors and employers were not paying the same wages to the Arab for doing exactly the same work—and exactly the same amount of work too, by the way—as the Jew, and I had rather an interesting answer from one gentleman. He told me that there were Arab employers in Jerusalem who themselves were paying more to their Jewish servants than to the Arab servants for exactly the same kind of work. We have, therefore, that difficulty. I am not without hope that the British Government in Palestine will not allow that differentiation to continue for all time. It seems ridiculous in the extreme that two men should perform exactly the same task and turn out exactly the same kind of work, as I have seen them doing, and that one of them should be paid, merely because he is a European Jew, from two to two and a-half times as much as the Arab in wages. When the Arab gets accustomed to all this differentiation and the improvement in the standard of life in Palestine, which is consequent upon our being there, I cannot conceive that he will be satisfied for all time with that situation.

Let me say a word on this problem of paying wages and the employment of the two races on these contracts. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how the Arabs and Jews are going to be employed. Is there a policy in Palestine as to how many Arabs are to be employed and how many Jews? What is the ratio to be? I should like to know, also, whether there is anything in Palestine which is detrimental to the Arab coming into the trade unions. I have reason to ask that, because in Palestine many obstacles are placed in the way of trade unions, and were it not for the great courage and determination of the European Jews in Palestine, I do not think that their particular unions would live. For some unknown reason the atmosphere created by our Government in Palestine is not as conducive to trade unionism there as it is here, and it is not too good here on occasions.

We are, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, in a difficulty. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman presses this Amendment, I would vote for him except for one difficulty. I am not satisfied that merely to insert "trade union rates of wages" would cover all that I want in respect of conditions of employment, because I have found that, even in this country, the payment of wages in itself does not bring the workman to the point that I think he ought to reach. There are other conditions connected with employment apart from wages. I do not know whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will press this Amendment to a Division, but he and the Secretary of State seem to be on very good terms this morning. The temper has not risen quite as high as I have seen it on other occasions, because, I suppose, the Chairman has been good enough to rule out any debate on the Holy Sepulchre, I would again like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the ratio of employment for Arab and Jew, and as to the actual differentiation in the rates of wages as between Arab and Jew in any work that is carried on now and in any of these contracts. I am afraid that these are rather subtle question. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to carry the answers in his mind, but I thought perhaps he might be well informed on these issues.

I am frankly floored by the hon. Gentleman's second question. I cannot give the wages actually paid to Jew and to Arab, and the fact that it would probably also be complicated even if I could, owing to the differences of piece rates and time rates, it would make my answer hardly intelligible. I must, therefore, admit myself beaten on that particular detail. With regard to the proportion, it is the aim to get a fair proportion as between Jew and Arab labour, assuming both are available. I think it is actually something like 30 per cent. Jew and 70 per cent. Arab.

Numbers or money spent?

I think money spent. Anybody who has had practical experience will realise how impossible it is to work rigidly to any kind of formula. It would be quite easy for me to say that a mathematical formula has been devised which will be carried out. I am too practical, however, to pretend that you can carry out completely any arbitrary formula of that kind. Of course, the division of labour as between Jew and Arab naturally assumes that there are both Jews and Arabs who are available for the job. It would, of course, be ridiculous in public works and relief works such as we have had in Palestine, to say that there must be a certain proportion of each race whether they were available or not. So far as they are both available, we maintain a reasonable proportion.

I do think that considering this Amendment has been on the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman might have got up his case a little better beforehand. I want to know what are his ideas of fair conditions of labour as stated in the Bill. The Bill says that fair conditions of labour are to be observed in the execution of these works. I have not the faintest idea, having listened to the right hon. Gentleman, what are his ideas as to the meaning of those words. I gather from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) that they deal with the wages that are to be paid to the Jews and those that are to be paid to the Arabs, and the proportions of Jews and Arabs who are to be employed. I really do not know that this is the whole meaning of these words. We had the same thing in Tanganyika, where fair conditions of labour were held to refer to the conditions of wages and the medical attention given to the Kaffirs working on the bridge. What do they mean here, however? Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that he has come down to the House without having the faintest idea what wages are paid to the Jews and the Arabs?

I think there are now really three classes of labour in Palestine. You have the Jew, admittedly civilised and a worker who has to support an entire family. You have also the Arab, who has for many years under our rule, in close association with the Jews, improved his standard of life and comfort, and whose wages have risen remarkably in the last 13 years. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman noticed it, but the really remarkable change in Palestine to-day is the way in which the natives now travel about. There are omnibus services all over the country; the means of intercommunication have very largely increased. Whereas in old days the people never went outside their villages, they now go into the towns and visit the cinemas. In addition, the whole style of architecture has changed. The standard of comfort of the ordinary native, not merely the rich native but the poor native, has definitely and very largely increased. If the administration in Palestine wanted to point to one thing which did justify their administration I think they could very rightly point to the increased standard of comfort of the indigenous inhabitants of the working class. We want to encourage that class and to bring them up to the Jewish level, so that they may have Western wants and Western minds, trade union organisation and the intelligence to hold their own in the stiff competition which exists everywhere among coloured people in the labour market.

A new element is coming into Palestine which is a real menace not merely to the Jews but to the advancing civilisation of the Arab or Levantine labour in Palestine. We find this element particularly on the Haifa Harbour works. If the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiries he will find that much of the Levantine labour—the non-Jewish labour—on the Haifa works has come in recently. It is engaged more particularly in the stevedore business and in the discharging of ships' cargoes. It consists of Arabs of a distinctly lower level of civilisation, who have come in and replaced the educated intelligent natives, doing to them precisely what, in past days, they did to Jewish labour, that is, undercutting it and tending to drive down the standard of comfort. Of course, I know that it is no use dividing the Committee on this Amendment, and I do not propose to do so, but I hope that before the right hon. Gentleman actually authorises the expenditure of money under this loan we may be able to get from the Colonial Office a report of what exactly is meant by "fair conditions of labour," showing whether that phrase applies not merely to work done direct by the Government but to work which they sub-contract, and showing, also, whether they are alive to the importance of protecting the civilised standards of the Jew, improving the already semi-civilised standards of the indigenous dative population, and helping labour to organise and to get into a position to bargain, in preference to following the natural tendency of all administrations to get cheap immigrant labour from outside.

I do not think the Committee realise that the chief advantage to this country from the development of a place like Palestine is that if we raise the standard of comfort among the people we create a market for our goods. So long as the people are content to follow their old-fashioned customs—never to go anywhere except on their flat feet, for instance— there is no sale for motor cars or for omnibuses, or for many other things; but as the standard of civilisation rises, new wants are created among them. I do not think it is at all a bad thing to stimulate wants in uneducated primitive people, because the satisfying of them will make a call upon the labour of this country

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked a specific question as to whether this phrase "fair conditions of labour" would apply to work done by sub-contractors as well as work done direct by the Government. If any work is sub-contracted by the Government of course the same conditions will apply as in the case of direct labour. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is not only a question of wages, but of the general conditions under which the work is carried out, and those conditions would be the conditions which a good employer would observe in each area, having regard to the wage rates ruling at the time.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out paragraph (b).

I am certain the Secretary of State is delighted to see that I am moving to omit this paragraph. It lays down that all plant, machinery and materials imported into Palestine and used in the execution of the work must be manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom, except where the Secretary of State has special reasons for allowing them to be obtained elsewhere. I do not intend to press this Amendment to a Division.

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to press it to a Division.

I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a great many years, and I am perfectly certain that when he drafts this sort of paragraph he puts his tongue in his cheek and says "Well, that will please some fools." Now, that is not the way in which the Secretary of State should conduct business. He knows, just as I know and everybody else knows, that every penny of this £2,000,000 will somehow leave this country for Palestine, and even if the Palestinian Government, with their natural pro-Nazi proclivities, bought all the machinery in Germany, still that money would leave this country somehow. It might go to Germany, although I do not recommend that. All loans made to any foreign country or any colony must sooner or later leave this country either in gold, machinery or goods. The right hon. Gentleman knows that as well as anybody, but he has, I suppose, in order to please the groundlings, to exercise a certain amount of coercion upon the Palestinian Government, and he therefore puts in this Clause to say that what must be will be. It is supererogatory—is that the right word? and it is typical of the right hon. Gentleman, who has always been one of those tariff reform people and insists upon it. I am satisfied with moving this and directing attention to an example of pre-historic obscurity or obscurantism which ought not to find its place in an Act of Parliament, and against which those of us who are still reasonably intelligent economists may rightly and properly protest.

The right hon. Gentleman criticises the simple and proper provision that the orders arising out of the loans for which the British Government are giving the guarantee shall be placed in this country. I believe that it is entirely fallacious to say that every penny will necessarily find itself spent on orders in the country of the lender. I do not think that it does it "sooner or later," as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, but even if his economics are sound, and I do not think they are, I prefer that the orders shall come here sooner, rather than later or not at all. That is why the orders are coming here in the first instance, and that is a very reasonable arrangement. We enable Palestine to borrow money cheaply in this country by reason of this guarantee, and in consideration we get the orders. That seems to me to be a sound and businesslike proposition.

I hesitate to enter into this controversy between the two right hon. Gentlemen on a technical economic problem. Am I right in assuming that, in spite of the desire of the Minister that all the goods necessary for these contracts to be entered into by Palestine shall be manufactured in this country, it is still possible for some of those contracts to go to Germany, Italy or elsewhere? The Minister in his answer administered a dose of medicine to my right hon. and gallant Friend, based on the assumption that this is a loan; but all we are doing is to guarantee the loan. We are laying down certain conditions in connection with it, but it is not as if the guarantee were in itself the loan. I have no intention of entering into the discussion between the two right hon. Gentlemen, except to ask whether it is not possible that, under the wording of this Clause, some orders might go to other countries outside?

I think that this phrasing follows the usual form in these cases, as there may be some special reason for placing an order outside. I do not contemplate any difficulty under this Bill, but you may have, in certain cases, an order for a particular kind of thing which can only be obtained in one particular place, and then you place the order there. Once or twice in other cases, prices have been raised unreasonably because there was a monopoly, and the House has therefore always put words of this kind in in order to make sure of being able to buy at a reasonable and proper price.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out "250,000," and to insert "50,000."

There is some dispute as to the number of displaced Arabs who need resettling. I think the right hon. Gentleman said there were 800 and I said that there were about 500. I do not think that that is material; in both cases those reports are somewhat out-of-date. Since they were arrived at, there has been a considerable boom in Palestinian industries, and most of those displaced Arabs will have been found work. I cannot think that they would be particularly anxious to be put upon unreclaimed land for which they are to pay rent. This £250,000 among 800 Arabs works out at about £300 a piece. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not the way to look at it. I think it is. You are merely finding compensation for displaced Arabs, and you strike the cash balance and it works out at £300 a piece. As the number will now be reduced to about 250, the balance will work out at £1,000 a piece.

Does anybody in his senses suppose that the Palestinian Government will resettle 250 Arabs at a cost of £250,000? It is possible that they will buy land, divide it up into new villages and put the Arabs on it. They are proposing to get from those Arabs rent for the land and probably also a sinking fund on the money advanced. Their great experience of Palestine will tell those officials that it is very unlikely that they will ever get any rent or instalment of capital returned. It is not a businesslike investment to take 250 Arabs, who within the last 10 or 15 years have been moved from a plot of land, from wherever they may be, to put them down on a new settlement, and to trust to Providence that they will make a success of it, pay interest on the money and restore the capital. I am particularly anxious, and the Minister must be anxious, that as much of this money as possible is put into reproductive works so that the interest comes in automatically, and does not become a charge upon the taxpayers of Palestine, or, still less, a charge upon the taxpayers of this country. I can imagine the President of the Board of Trade fulminating, if he were in my place, against the idea that you can cure unemploymemt by trying to settle people in jobs they do not want to do, in an uneconomic way that will never bring back interest.

That is in a country where there is un-employment, and I myself think that a little inflation in such a case is all to the good. But in Palestine there is no unemployment; the displaced Arabs could find work more suitable to them, and more advantageous to the country, than by working on bits of land purchased with this £250,000. The figure of £250,000 was arrived at three years ago, after the French report, and I think, though I am not quite certain about this, that it was arrived at after the cases had been examined and the very large number put in had been reduced to the reasonable number that is put forward to-day. I cannot believe that any official in Palestine really thinks, and probably the right hon. Gentleman himself does not really think, that £250,000 could be profitably spent in this way, and I think we are entitled to suggest that the sum should be reduced from £250,000 to £50,000, which would amply meet the case of those people who are really suffering through being removed from their land years ago.

I want to make it perfectly clear to the Committee that this class of landless Arabs which has been created by the Jewish immigration into Palestine has been used over and over again, ad nauseam, as an example of the iniquity of allowing the Jews to come into Palestine. When the Jews bought up the land in Emek, that land was unused and unusable land. The few Arab villages in that area were villages of nomad Arabs, who, with some sheep and goats and a very few head of cattle, wandered over a very large area. That land was brought from, and paid for to, the Arab landowners, largely absentees living elsewhere. The occupiers had no rights or titles, but lived from hand to mouth as tenants. If the purchaser had been anybody but the Jewish National Fund, those tenants would have had to go, and no question would have been asked; but the Jewish National Fund conceived it to be their duty, and I think they were right, not merely to act upon the letter of the law and take the land which they had bought at very high prices. Accordingly, in addition, they made compensation at the time to these displaced nomad Arabs, and provided them with the means of making a living elsewhere. That has all been forgotten, and has been left out of account in piling up this imaginary tale of the grievances of the Arab against the Jew. The final result is that the Palestinian Government, and we ourselves under this guarantee, are to find further large sums for those natives who lost their lands. Just across the Indian Ocean, in Kenya, you have 2,500,000 people who have been deprived of their lands, or a large part of their lands, who have been deprived of them without compensation, and who have seen their boundaries consistently and continuously shifted back and back; but no word is said by the right hon. Gentleman about the conditions under which the natives in Kenya——

We are now dealing with Palestine, not with Kenya.

The parallel is exact——

If the right hon. Gentleman proposes to argue on land conditions in Kenya, that obviously does not arise on this Amendment.

I think, if I may say so, it does arise. Let me put it to you in this way. I am suggesting by my Amendment that the compensation paid to these displaced Arabs in Palestine should be limited. In view of the paucity of their numbers, and of the fact that in Kenya no such provision is made at all for compensating those who have been shifted from their lands within the last 25 years, I ask the House to consider whether this £250,000 is not really rather an advertisement of the grievance against the Jew, endorsed by the British Parliament, than an actual effort to do justice to people who, as has been the case all over the world, have been losing their land as civilisation advances.

The allusion to the parallel of Kenya happens to be singularly unfortunate, because we have just finished a most exhaustive inquiry into every native claim, historical, equitable, legal, tribal or individual, and it is proposed that additions should be made to the reserves to satisfy those claims. We should be guilty of a breach of faith if we accepted this Amendment. I say "we" advisedly, because it includes hon. Members opposite as much as ourselves. It has been common ground between us for years past that genuine cases of displaced tenants have to be dealt with. The Labour Government committed itself to that, and we accepted the commitment. We have made the most exhaustive inquiries on the spot into individual cases, and the very large numbers which were put forward have been written down, as a result of this careful investigation, made in accordance with the tests What I explained to the House in a Debate a year ago, to an estimate of something like 889 families.

The estimate of £250,000 is not an old estimate; it is an up-to-date figure based on the estimated minimum cost of making the re-settlement. I do not in the least expect, as the right hon. Gentleman apparently does, that these Arab cultivators, when re-settled free of debt and with nothing to do with the moneylender, will not be in a position to pay a reasonable return. If any of the 889 do not wish to take advantage of the land made available for this purpose, of course we do not then propose to spend more, on those Arabs who propose to take advantage of the, scheme, than the minimum amount necessary to carry it out. The idea that, supposing only half take advantage of the proposal, the cost of re-settling each family will be doubled, is ridiculous; that is not at all what is proposed. We shall only spend whatever is actually necessary for the resettlement of each of these Arab families who have qualified after very careful tests, and I think we should be guilty of something very like a breach of faith, in respect of an undertaking to which we are all committed, by accepting this Amendment.

I am very glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, if there should not be 890 claimants for this money, proportionately less money will be spent. I think it is very important that that should be made clear, so that there may not be unlimited expectations of getting additional compensation. May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman that a rent will be charged proportionate to the amount of money advanced? At what rate of interest will that charge be and will it include any sinking fund?

It is hoped that, over a period of time, the amount that the Government expend on the settlement schemes will be repaid by those who benefit from them.

At 3½ per cent. interest?

It would be very wrong to ask me to commit the Government of Palestine to a particular rate.

It would be wrong to commit the Government of Palestine to anything, but will the rate be artificially low or will it be normal?

The intention is that there shall be a repayment of costs. One does not know what the agricultural conditions may be from year to year in particular holdings. I cannot say at this moment, when all the land has not been acquired, whether all the land is equally good and it would be very unfair to try to fetter the Government of Palestine in a resettlement scheme of this kind by saying "You are to charge such a rate of interest to every tenant."

Is it the intention of the Government that these re-settled Arabs shall have the opportunity of acquiring the title to their holdings?

Yes.

That is a very important point. Last time the right hon. Gentleman said that they were not to get the title, but that they would be tenants of the State. Do they get the title without paying or before they have repaid any of the instalments? Is there anything to prevent them disposing of their land to someone else immediately they have the title?

Of course, under proper conditions, they will be able to dispose of their land. We must credit the Government of Palestine with a certain amount of common sense.

I am quite prepared to give them credit for common sense, but I want to know in which way they are going to direct their common sense. It is easy to say, "These people are going to be and to remain tenants of the State," and it is easy to say, "We are going to give them a title to their land subject to ground rent and a mortgage." I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman himself has any idea as to how you are to prevent a man who has been given the title deeds of his estate from mortgaging or selling the property.

He will not acquire the title to his estate till he has repaid the money the State has advanced for him.

He will be a tenant of the State until he has repaid all the money. That is exactly the same as being a tenant in perpetuity. The position, therefore, is that, so long as the tenants of these lands have not paid back the capital invested in their holdings and a reasonable rate of interest on that sum, they will not acquire the holdings at all. In those circumstances, it is extremely unlikely that any of them will become tenants of their own farms. It is extremely unlikely that many of them will jump at the opportunity of accepting this offer at all, and, so far from being pledged to £250,000 for this, apparently by the Labour Government, or pledged to any figure whatsoever after an examination of the numbers who are displaced, I cannot see why we should be called upon to find as much as £250,000, and I think it should be much less.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, after "Jerusalem," to insert "Tel Aviv, Jaffa."

The second expenditure of this money is to be on water supply and drainage schemes, and it is specifically stated that those drainage schemes are to be at Jerusalem and Haifa and the water supply at Hebron. There you have money being voted by us, but really of course by the Palestine Government, in certain selected places. All the towns in Palestine need water and drainage, and in course of time they will all get it, but here you are providing for certain selected fortunate municipalities the whole of the cost of water supply and drainage, leaving to all the other places in Palestine the necessity and the expense of finding their drainage and their water supply from their local rates. That seems to me to be an injustice to the places that are not helped and an extraordinarily bad precedent for our Colonies and Dominions generally. Jerusalem, of course, has had a great deal of public money spent on it already to provide a water supply. Unfortunately the thing did not work. Of course, to supply Jerusalem, which is 2,400 feet above sea level, with water is extraordinarily expensive. Perhaps a case might be made out for Government assistance towards that water supply, but I cannot see why there should be any necessity for Government assistance at Haifa. There is not even a Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Haifa. It is a prosperous and developing mercantile port.

The Amendment does not deal with Haifa.

It deals with it in this way, that the original proposal was that Government money should be spent on drainage and water supply for Haifa, leaving out the far greater claims of Tel Aviv and Jaffa. My Amendment is intended to direct attention to the fact that you ought to treat all these places alike. The argument for Jerusalem is that there you have an exceptionally expensive business and a site which has a great many associations, but at Haifa you have none of these things. Why, therefore, pick upon Haifa and say you will expend £30,000 on waterworks and drainage when you are not spending the same money on other places but are calling upon them to find the money for themselves? That seems to me to be an obvious injustice. Exactly the same applies to Hebron. If you are going to provide money for a water supply at Hebron, there is ten times as much reason for finding the money to supply with water other places which are drier even than Hebron. You have no right to spend public money on certain selected sites and leave other places to find the money locally. It is not justice, and the only result will be to stir up a spirit of disappointment and bitterness in the places that are not helped and to delay, instead of hastening, those very necessary alterations at Tel Aviv and Jaffa which are wanted to make them sanitary. Naturally, if the Government find money for some of the places, the others are not going to find money for themselves very quickly, though they may be forced to find it. My protest is against the Government picking and choosing their own friends for financial assistance and leaving out other places.

This is not a case of giving a grant to one town at the expense of another town, because the water supplies (not for Hebron, which is a poor place), but for Jerusalem and Haifa, when completed, will be "elf-supporting. It is impossible to carry out the whole water supply of all parts of Palestine out of this can. Cases of the most vital necessity have been selected. No one who goes there will deny the terrible necessity, as well as the much greater need, of supplying water in Jerusalem. Haifa is developing, and it is very reasonable that the Government should assist in the case of Haifa, as it is not just a town of Palestine, but a great port serving the whole of Palestine and a great Jewish community, with its orange groves, and a water supply would serve the port of Haifa as well as the town of Haifa, It is reasonable and businesslike that in the circumstances of Palestine as a whole the Haifa water supply should figure in this scheme. What it comes to is that the High Commissioner, with all the advice open to him on the spot, considers that certain works are most urgent and important in Palestine. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes a different view and says that he would put in works in certain other places, and I am going to ask the House to accept the considered judgment of the High Commissioner rather than that of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Rubbish again. I did not suggest selecting other places, but that you should act justly. The right hon. Gentleman, as far as water supply is concerrned, has now pledged himself to make the money spent on water supply in Jerusalem and Haifa self-supporting, that is to say, that the locality will pay a price for the water necessary to make it a productive investment. That is all to the good. He has not said a word about drainage. I do not know whether the same view covers drainage, or whether they are not going to have money spent on drainage which should be spent out of the pockets of the locality. The claims of Tel Aviv and Jaffa are every bit as good, and it is not a question whether it is expedient.

The drainage will be covered, when it is completed, by the drainage rate.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that these supplies are to be paid for by the people.

The only other Amendment which I select is that in page 4, line 12, after "various," to insert "barracks and."

I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after "various," to insert "barracks and."

I am in agreement with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman as to the need for spending money on barracks accommodation whether for the Army or the Police. The reason why nothing is taken in this loan for that purpose is that other arrangements are being made, and in the Estimates for Palestine this year £50,000 is being set aside for married quarters, and £20,000 for the Palestine Police to meet the case.

The Palestine Police! Does it include the British?

Both.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I am sorry that I have not been able to move my Amendment, in page 4, line 12, to leave out the word "educational," but perhaps I may be in order in dealing with the point on the Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill." Various educational buildings are to be erected out of this loan money, and it raises a very large question which the Committee should face. I suppose that these educational buildings are partly religious and partly educational buildings. We are more and more in Palestine supporting what I cannot help thinking is an erroneous form of education. The right hon. Gentleman himself happens to know that in Cyprus for 50 years we went on what I may call the Palestine lines. We supplied what little Government assistance was required for education entirely to the Church, and education in Cyprus was entirely under the control of the Church. It became the focus of all the anti-British spirit in Cyprus.

When the right hon. and gallant Member refers to the Church, he does not mean the English Church?

No, the Greek Church. That 50 years of anti-British clerical education which took place in Cyprus resulted in the Governor's palace being burned down and in the deportation of the troublesome people of Cyprus. In Palestine we are doing exactly the same thing. We are laying exactly the same ill-foundation for permanent peace of the pro-English population in that country. If we are going to start building schools for all the various religions in a place which is overstocked with religion as much as any country is, where you have proselytism dwarfed by the contentions for every square inch of every holy place, that is the worst country in which to endow religious education. Religious education and anti-British education run so much together. The various nationalities who have vested interests in the education of a fraction of the population are all active, and propaganda goes on from every direction; propaganda to exalt their particular church, propaganda to attack the British Government. I do not think that we ought with our eyes open to go in for preserving at all costs the religious grip upon education in Palestine. I include the Jews, the Christians and the Moslems in that statement.

All the education there is concentrated in religion. The education is built upon the principle which was well recognised here 70 years ago but which we have found disastrous in all the other Colonies and parts of the Empire, and which we have changed or eliminated elsewhere. All the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman is having over education in Malta to-day come from the same root; this desire to preserve, to cultivate and to exascerbate religious education and religious feelings, instead of attempting as we are now attempting successfully in Cyprus to shift the system over to a system of schools where you have touch with religion, where you have the teachers responsible to the State, appointed by the State, trained in State schools and teaching State ideals, instead of acting from the point of view of a particular religion. That is one of the things that we ought to consider when we are voting on this Schedule. I do not suppose that I shall have much satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman, because the subject is new to him, but in years to come we shall find that the religious difficulties in Palestine are difficulties that we have encouraged and which the administration there has encouraged in error.

I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman on the question whether it is or it is not a wise policy to pay capitation grants to what, in the jargon of this House, I might call denominational schools. In Palestine capitation grants are paid both to schools maintained out of the funds of the Moslem Council and to Jewish schools maintained by the Jews. That policy is not unknown in this country. Our own Board of Education and our own education authorities give capitation grants to what we call non-provided schools.

That is not building schools.

No, and that question is not relevant, because it is not proposed that one farthing of this money should go to the building of what I might call non-provided schools. The only building that will be assisted will be the building of Government schools which, in the words of the right hon. and gallant Member, are manned by Government teachers, acting under a Government education department and inculcating the curriculum which the Government lays down. That is what the building grant is for, and not for non-provided schools.