HC Deb 29 March 1939 vol 345 cc2073-174

Order for Second Reading read.

4.49 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot)

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

Although this is a comparatively small Bill, as Bills go to-day, I am assured that it is one with a very widespread appeal. The announcement made by the Lord Privy Seal regarding the proposals which it embodies was acclaimed by all parties, and, indeed, the only serious criticism was that it was too modest even as a beginning. Well, there is something to be said in favour of a modest beginning for a scheme which, from some points of view, must be on trial before it can be pronounced such a success as to warrant extension on a large scale. At all events, the administrative machinery is such that expansion should present no difficulty.

The Bill does not specify the exact number of camps to be erected, but the financial provision of £1,200,000.is considered to be sufficient for 50 camps each to accommodate about 350 children, although, of course, throughout the year each would accommodate a very much larger number of children. I would not be precise about these figures, because final data are not yet available.

The Bill has a two-fold object. Firstly, it is intended that approximately 50 camps, of which seven will be in Scotland and the remainder in England and Wales, shall be built as a supplement to the accommodation available for evacuation from the more vulnerable areas. Let me say at once that it is not by any means an alternative to those other resources. As the Lord Privy Seal said in this House on 1st March: However the accommodation available may be extended by the provision of camps it is clear that, viewing the problem as a matter for which a solution has to be found in the comparatively near future, there is no practicable alternative to having recourse to the fullest possible extent to billeting." — [OFFICIAL REPORT 1st March, 1939; col. 1292, Vol. 344.] I mention this because I do not want those people who foresee difficulties in the Government's billeting proposals to think that this Bill is a solution of their difficulties. The numbers are so large— school children only, not to mention younger children and their parents, in the evacuation areas number about 1,500,000—that the problem of providing camps for any large proportion of them would involve major questions of policy of which finance is not the only one.

It is obvious that for evacuation purposes 50 camps, or, indeed, any number of camps that could be constructed in the near future, will provide no alternative to billeting. They will be a supplement and, no doubt, a valuable supplement, but the billeting proposals must stand. The question has been discussed whether billets or camps would provide the more suitable accommodation for children. It is not necessary at the moment to answer this question. It suffices to say that the camps will be available for whatever purpose proves most convenient, whether it be to provide shelter for children or for other members of the population. It may be added, in connection with war-tune use, that the camps will be designed to permit of rapid expansion, and that under emergency conditions they should be capable of accommodating at least double the number for which they are originally designed in peace. The existence of facilities such as water supply, lighting, sanitation, and cooking arrangements will, of course, make each camp a valuable nucleus around which further buildings can be grouped, if necessary.

Secondly, the camps will be used in peace time mainly for providing school camps for children. Local education authorities are already empowered to provide camps for this purpose or to make use of existing camps, and to incur expenditure for the purpose of sending children to them; moreover, grants may be made by the Government towards the expenses. So far, however, comparatively little has been done in this direction, and I can imagine that the present proposals will be welcomed, from this point of view, by the education authorities. They will not be slow to realise the health value and the educational value of the facilities that the scheme will make available. I do not think I am putting it too high when I claim that the camps scheme will be an important step in our campaign for better health and fitness among the people.

The House may be interested to hear what is the present position as regards school camps. At present there are 20 permanent camps for school children in England and Wales which are provided and run by local education authorities. These contain between them accommodation for roughly 1,400 children, that is to say, 1,400 places. About half of these camps are used for undernourished and weakly children drawn from the poorer homes, in order that they may get the physical and moral benefit of a change from an urban to a rural environment, which they would otherwise have no opportunity of obtaining. They usually stay for a period of about a fortnight, and no charge is made to the parents for the board and lodging of the children.

The remaining camps are used by groups of normal children drawn from town schools to give them the opportunity of doing their school work for a week or two in healthy surroundings. As a rule the parents are expected to make some contribution according to their means towards the cost of food. The average amount charged ranges, I am told, from about 2s. 6d. to about 7s. a week per child, but arrangements are made, either by the local education authority or through voluntary funds, to secure that no child is debarred from attending on account of the inability of the parents to contribute to the cost.

In addition to the camps provided by local education authorities, 16 school camps have been provided in the North of England and in South Wales with the aid of grants from the Commissioner for the Special Areas.

Mr. Kirkwood

Will the Secretary of State explain to us, before he leaves that point, how it comes to be that there are to be 50 camps, which, as far as I can judge, will be beneficial to the people of this country, particularly to the children, but that only seven will be in Scotland?

Mr. Elliot

That was the allocation which was made after a great deal of consultation between the two Departments, and it certainly does not err against the principle of the eleven-eightieths to which we are accustomed in Scotland. I think it is not an unreasonable proportion for a commencement.

Mr. Kirkwood

No. It is unreasonable. The eleven-eightieths, as far as education is concerned, does not bear on this matter at all, because you have to take it in accordance with the population. The population of England is over 42,000,000, and of Scotland it is over 4,000,000. England, I think, ought to get 40 camps if Scotland gets only seven.

Mr. Elliot

I think the hon. Member is raising a point which should come at a later stage of the Bill. I do not think it militates against the principle of the Bill, which is what I am commending to the House, that there should be camps and an allocation of the camps between the two countries. In the second place, I was giving some examples of camps which, in England and Wales at any rate, have been set up by the Commissioner for the Special Areas and which are rather more closely akin to the larger camps which we are thinking of here.

I was saying that these are in the main larger camps of about 300 places each and at present provide total accommodation of roughly 4,200 places. Twenty-nine local education authorities in the Special Areas collaborate in this scheme and are responsible, as hon. Members representing those areas know well, for the selection of the children, preference being given to those whose parents are unemployed and those whose health is likely to derive special benefit from a period of camp life. No charge is made to the parents, the entire cost of maintenance and transport being met by grants provided for that purpose by the Commissioner. A few of these camps are used during the school holidays to provide holidays for unemployed juveniles from the junior instruction centres run by the Ministry of Labour, and very popular indeed they are. When I was on Tyneside on Monday I heard about the camps from one of the education authority members who was up there, and he said, "Although there is driving snow down here, the children are in the camps and as happy as bees."

In Scotland, education authorities have had power to provide school camps only since 1936. There are, therefore, no school camps at present in Scotland, but several education authorities have the matter under consideration. A certain amount of advantage has, however, been taken by education authorities of their powers to provide holiday camps. In 1938, seven education authorities provided camps, and 59 camps of varying size were provided—some under canvas, some in suitably situated school buildings and some in premises leased or borrowed. In all, over 9,000 children passed through these camps, the health value of which has indeed been remarkable. In one case the first batch of campers gained on an average two pounds in weight, while the second batch gained no less than five pounds during their stay in the camp. In addition to the camps actually provided, the education authorities gave financial assistance in two cases, while in one county, 11 camps were run with funds provided from voluntary sources. The Scottish Schools' Camp at Cambusbarron conducted by the Educational Institute of Scotland has met with continued success, and at times the accommodation was not equal to the demand. Nearly 2,000 pupils attended the camp during the year. The trek camps established by the institute last year were continued, and attracted some 200 pupils over 14 years of age.

It will be seen from the figures quoted that, though the practice of sending school children to camps is not as yet very extensive, school camps are well past the experimental stage.

The present proposal will be an enormous step in advance. If the usual practice is followed and children are sent for a fortnight at a time, the camps would be capable of accommodating something like 200,000 children if they are used for six months in the year and no more. They will, however, be heated, and it is to be hoped that they will be used not only in the summer months but for a large part of the year. Indeed, some of the organisations for young people have already been making inquiry whether they can have the use of these camps in the winter. If they are heated it may be possible for them to be run for a longer period than the six months.

It may be asked, "What about holiday camps for adults?" The Government recognise the importance of these in connection with the growing holidays-with-pay movement, and they have consulted a number of persons and organisations connected with the movement. The idea of providing camps to serve the double purpose of school children in term time and adults in the school holidays is at first sight an attractive one, but in actual practice the two purposes cannot readily be combined. Obviously a camp on the dormitory system is unsuitable for family use, and sites in quiet, rural country, which may well be ideal for school purposes, may fail to provide the attractions of sea, river or mountain which holiday-makers might fairly expect.

Accordingly, while the idea of camps for adult holiday-makers has by no means been ruled out of consideration, the present proposals are limited to a programme of camps for school purposes. This will not, of course, prevent the companies responsible for the camps—the companies to which I shall refer later— from making arrangements, if they think it desirable, for the use of any of the camps in holiday time by members of any juvenile organisations, or, indeed, by holiday-makers of any kind to whom camps built on the dormitory plan are acceptable. In the first place camps will be built and laid out primarily for children.

Mr. Hicks

In view of the fact that the camps may have to be used for evacuation purposes in the event of war they will have to be built large enough to accommodate adults in spite of the fact that they are primarily for children.

Mr. Elliot

That is so. They may require some alteration and modification if they are to house adults. Even so, when they are used for evacuation purposes they will still be on the dormitory system. That is the real difference between holiday camps which are possible for the family as a unit and the dormitory camps in which family life as we understand it is not possible.

As to the machinery for carrying out the proposals in the Bill, the central authorities will be the Minister of Health and the Department of Health for Scotland, that is to say, the Secretary of State. The House will be aware that the arrangements for evacuation are, by arrangement with the Lord Privy Seal, being carried out by my Department and the Department of Health, and this consideration, combined with the experience of those Departments in housing, makes the arrangement a convenient one. The actual work of erecting and managing the camps is to be carried out by two companies, operating on a non-profit-making basis, which are to be recognised by His Majesty's Government—one for England and Wales and one for Scotland.

Mr. S. O. Davies

Will there not be one for Wales?

Mr. Elliot

There will be one for England and Wales. There will be two companies, and they will be recognised by the Government as such. They will be the only bodies authorised to operate the scheme and to receive the financial assistance provided for in the Bill. The companies will be governed by articles of association which will preclude them from carrying on any business for the purpose of profit. It has not been considered necessary to set up a special company in Scotland, in view of the existence of a special housing association which is operating over the whole of the country, and which has undertaken the work of building camps. The association is a. non-profit-making company and its chairman is Viscount Traprain, who is giving his whole time to the work of the association.

Mr. Gallacher

Why non-profit?

Mr. Elliot

It seems to me unnecessary to discuss that matter just now. I should have thought that the hon. Member would not have quarrelled with the fact that they are non-profit-making concerns.

Mr. Kirkwood

Who is the lord mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Elliot

Lord Traprain. He is a nephew of the late Lord Balfour. There are other members of the board including the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Welsh). Arrangements are in hand to strengthen the staff of the association to enable it to carry out its wider functions.

In Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumbarton will be glad to know, seven camps are to be built within easy reach of the three Scottish cities mainly concerned—four for Glasgow, two for Edinburgh and one for Dundee. The Department of Health, who will be the Department responsible for the central administration of the scheme in Scotland, are working in close touch with the association, and at the association's request technical officers of the Department have inspected some 30 sites and have reported 10 the association. Lord Traprain has himself visited some of the sites and the association will shortly be sin a position to make their recommendations as to the sites most suitable for the purpose in view. Contact has been established with the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland and both that association and the local authorities concerned, including the education authorities, will be taken into consultation before a final selection of sites is made.

As to the constitution of the English company, the House has already been informed that the Government have been fortunate enough to secure the services of Lord Portal as chairman. I am now able to add that the other members of the Board of Management will be:

Dr. S. Gurney-Dixon (Chairman of Education Committee, County Councils Association).

Mr. George Hicks, M.P. (General Secretary, Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers of Great Britain and Ireland).

Sir Edward Howarth, K.B.E., C.B. (Deputy Secretary, Board of Education).

Dame Florence Simpson, D.B.E. (formerly Controller-in-Chief, Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps).

Mr. Percy Thomas, F.R.I.B.A. (President of Royal Institute of British Architects, 1935–37).

The Government feel assured that they can safely leave the construction and direction of these camps to so representative and distinguished a board.

Mr. Mander

Will they be paid?

Mr. Elliot

No, they will not be paid.

Mr. Hicks

I should never get on a directorate where there is any money in it.

Mr. Elliot

The presence on the Board of a well known architect and a past. president of the Royal Institute of British Architects will ensure that aesthetic considerations are given due weight, a point on which the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, whose generous offer of assistance I have to acknowledge, are most properly interesting themselves.

The House will, no doubt, expect me to give some idea of the control which will be exercised by the Central Department as security for the money which they are being asked to authorise. Briefly, the companies will be required to enter into agreements with the Central Department whereby the companies will undertake the duties of construction and management of the camps subject to the approval of the Central Department, and the Central Department will make advances towards the cost of construction and towards the necessary services. The agreement will provide for the company executing in favour of the Minister a charge on their assets and for the repayment of one-half of the advances made towards the capital cost of the camps and the whole of the advances for running expenses. It will also include other provisions as to investments, audit, and so on.

Within these limits it is proposed to give the companies as free a hand as possible. The Government have already placed at their disposal the advice of departmental architects as regards the methods of construction and the layout of camps, but the companies will be free to take such other advice as they think fit on these matters and generally to select their staff and make their own arrangements for the control and management of the camps; and in fact to run their own show.

It will be necessary also for the Government to assume responsibility for the general siting of the camps, and in this matter I shall, of course, work in the closest consultation with the Lord Privy Seal and the Board of Education. We have had to consider very carefully the best areas to select if the camps are to serve the dual purpose for which they are intended. For purposes of war we have thought it desirable that the camps should be reasonably accessible to the large centres of population for which evacuation arrangements are being made, so as not to impose an undue burden on transport arrangements, which must in any case be heavily taxed under war-time conditions. For peace-time purposes also, reasonable proximity to the large centres is desirable if relays of children are to be taken at short intervals without undue expense.

For both these reasons we have reached the conclusion that the aim should be to secure sites in rural surroundings some 30 miles or so away from the large centres of population. I should add that in speaking of sites I by no means exclude the possibility of obtaining country mansions, which may well form a valuable nucleus around which hutments may be placed. A number of these mansions are in the market, and the fact that they are usually well screened by timber makes them the more serviceable for both the purposes which we have in mind. Before leaving the question of sites, I may add that considerable progress has already been made with this matter. A preliminary survey of something like 80 sites, including country houses,, in England and Wales has been made, and the new company will be in a position to review these at a very early date. A number of sites have been inspected by Lord Portal himself, but no actual decision has yet been taken. The company are keeping in close contact with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England as regards the choice.

A good deal of preliminary work has been done in the direction of devising a standard unit for hut construction with a view to simplifying the manufacture of the huts and their erection on the sites. The company have already been assured of all possible assistance from the Royal Institute of British Architects who are preparing a panel of their members whom they consider to be particularly well qualified to supervise the construction and siting of the camps. In this connection, I should like to call the attention of hon. Members who are interested in camps to the exhibition got together by the Housing Centre which was opened only this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I feel sure that this exhibition will be of very great assistance to those who are to plan the camps contemplated under the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who has just come from the exhibition, tells me that it is a very representative exhibition and very well worth a visit.

Coming to the Clauses of the Bill, Clause 1 makes the necessary financial provision, and I have already referred to the financial arrangements. Clause 2 proposes to give the companies compulsory power of acquiring land subject to confirmation by the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Will the Minister advise the companies to consult the local authorities in big industrial areas before the sites are finally decided upon?

Mr. Elliot

Yes, certainly. I think that in all cases the companies would do so, but I will certainly bring that suggestion to their notice. Those who have been interested in the Scottish Housing Company will agree, I think, that they have in all cases consulted the local authority before proceeding actually to the purchase of land. We have compulsory power here, because it is important that the work should go forward without delay, and the figures which I have quoted as to the distances we hope to be from the big towns show that we have only a limited field of choice of land. Indeed, apprehensions have already been expressed in the House that excessive prices may have to be paid. To those apprehensions this Clause provides the answer.

The need for speedy construction justifies also the provision in Subsection (2) of the Clause that for two years from the passing of the Bill the Minister may confirm Compulsory Purchase Orders without holding a local inquiry. A similar temporary provision was included in the Housing Act of 1919 and for the same reason.

Mr. Kirkwood

Shall we be in the same position as we were during the last War? We were taking over plots of land and found that the landowners were raising the price of the land on account of the exceptional circumstances, and so we took over the land and after we had the land we discussed the terms. Shall we be put in that position?

Mr. Elliot

We shall be able to do better than that, I should think. We shall be able to take it over after a reasonable valuation by a Government valuer. The whole purpose of this procedure is to secure expedition, and I can assure the House that we shall proceed forthwith to acquire the land and to construct the camps, and if necessary arguments will be carried on at greater leisure at a later date.

Mr. Gallacher

Appropriating the land?

Mr. Elliot

Yes, but with reasonable compensation.

Clause 3 provides, in effect, that where plans and specifications have been submitted by the company to the Minister and approved by him restrictions imposed by local by-laws or under the Planning Acts or the Restriction of Ribbon Develop- ment Act and similar legislation are not to apply. Here, again, the principle of this provision was accepted by Parliament in the Housing Act, 1919, under which by-law restrictions were over-ridden if housing plans had been approved by the Local Government Board. The justification was then, and is in greater degree now, the need for speed.

Dr. Haden Guest

Does that mean that there will be a lower standard with regard to the siting of places or will there he a higher standard? We do not want the countryside any more destroyed than it is at present.

Mr. Elliot

The standard will not be lowered because, as the hon. Member knows, under the Planning Act an appeal against the refusal of a local authority to permit development lies in practically every case to the Minister, so that direct approval by the Minister of plans submitted to him in the first instance is really not anything more than short-circuiting procedure. Anyhow, the Minister will remain responsible and open to be shot at in the House. The position of the Minister of Transport is substantially the same under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, and in dealing with any proposals which might come within the scope of that Act I shall certainly consult with that Minister. The last thing he would want is a camp set down in the middle of an arterial road.

It is not, of course, the intention of the Government that considerations of health or amenity or road safety should be overlooked. But the construction of these camps is too urgent a matter to await normal peace-time procedure. It is, however, intended to keep in touch with the local authorities concerned and their officers, and the Government feel assured that, particularly in view of the composition of the Boards of Management of the two companies, the camps will, in fact, be well designed, well situated and well built.

Clause 4 applies to the Companies the provisions of Section 37 of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, which enable the Unemployment Assistance Board to enter into arrangements with local authorities for the employment, on work for such authorities, of men to whom the Act applies (for periods not exceeding three months) at rates of wages customary in the district and under conditions suitable for making the men more fit for entry into or return to regular employment. Under Section 37 of the Unemployment Assistance Act the men who are to be employed must come straight to the work from a training course. There is no similar restriction in this Clause, but I anticipate that, for reasons indicated below, most of the men before being engaged on the work will have passed through the Ministry of Labour Instructional Centres.

The House will appreciate that it is not the intention of the Clause to deal with skilled men. The object is to secure employment for men of the unskilled type who have suffered from long unemployment and who are, therefore, handicapped in obtaining employment in the ordinary way. To secure even on a small scale the entry into regular industry of men of this type—particularly of men from the lower age groups—is, I am convinced, an aim which the House would commend. One of the obstacles is undoubtedly the physical condition of the men themselves, which will often have deteriorated. In these cases the men will require some preliminary process of reconditioning to make them fit for regular work, and a preliminary course at an Instructional Centre will be arranged. Even if he has kept himself fit, a man who has been long unemployed is handicapped in obtaining employment by the mere fact that he has been so long out of work. Other things being equal, an employer will naturally prefer to give the job to a man who has a fair record of work rather than to the man who has done no work for a long time.

As it will naturally be more expensive to the company to employ men who, at the outset at any rate, are not of full industrial value, the arrangement will provide for a contribution by the Board to the company of the additional cost involved in employing such men. The men themselves will be employed under ordinary conditions and will receive pay at the recognised or customary rates. The period of employment so far as regards any contribution by the Board, will be limited to three months, as by the end of that time a man should be fit to take his place in the ordinary labour market. Every effort will, however, be made to secure regular employment for all men who come under the arrangement when their employment terminates, either with the same contractor or elsewhere.

Mr. McEntee

Is it proposed that men should be employed direct by the companies or through a contractor?

Mr. Elliot

Naturally the company will be its own judge, but I think that in most cases it would let out the contract to a contractor and the men would be taken on in the ordinary way by the contractor.

Mr. McEntee

Will the companies have the right to inform the contractor that they desire that a certain number of men should be taken from the Unemployment Assistance Board, and will a contractor be compelled to employ them, and if so, who will get the payment to be made from the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. Elliot

Like all other bodies placing contracts the company will have the power of laying down conditions under which they desire a contract to be operated. They could arrange for no men or for a proportion of men to be taken on. The conditions would be laid down in the contract and an arrangement would be made between the Unemployment Assistance Board and the company for the sums to be paid to make certain that the contractors can pay the men the full recognised or customary rates of wages. Section 37 of the Act of 1934, in fact, expressly stipulates that the arrangement must provide for the payment of wages at the rates customary in the district. It is not suggested that the number of unemployed men who are likely to be employed under this Clause will in the aggregate be a large one, since much of the work must necessarily be carried out by skilled labour. But it is hoped that in the clearance of sites and for similar purposes the companies will take advantage of the Clause, and that a valuable experiment will thus be initiated.

I understand that since the publication of the Bill apprehensions have been expressed in some quarters that the effect of this Clause might be to interfere with the normal working of the building industry and prejudice the position of men in the industry. It is hardly necessary for me to assure the House that nothing is further from our intention, and, in order to set at rest any misgivings, I gladly give an assurance on behalf of the Government that before any arrangements are made under the Clause full consultation will take place with the joint organisations representing employers and employed in the trades concerned. I shall make it my business to secure this as one of the conditions upon which the company will operate, though I have no doubt that the company will themselves see the desirability of adopting such a procedure, and the fact that the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) has consented to join the board of management will in itself be a guarantee that any duty to consult will be carried out both in the letter and the spirit and, I hope, without unnecessary delay.

Mr. Viant

The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) will be in a minority.

Mr. Elliot

Those who have had experience of being in a minority on such companies know that a minority has always the very powerful lever of resignation if something is being done of which it disapproves—

Mr. Ede

Why have you not exercised it?

Mr. Elliot

Because I do not disapprove. I cannot conceive of any company starting upon an undertaking of this kind which would wantonly run into conflict with the great organisations of employers and employed in this country.

In conclusion, I would like to refer to the large amount of sympathy that has been expressed towards this scheme. A great number of persons have been kind enough to offer their services in the running of the camps, and help is also promised by various organisations which exist for the purpose of furthering the movement for providing the children and youth of the country with healthy holidays under conditions which appeal so strongly to the younger generations in these times. To those people, our potential customers, I am especially grateful. Here is a case in which the precautions which we are taking against the dangers of war have proved capable of serving the constructive needs of peace, and the House, without distinction of party, will, I am convinced, give the Bill its blessing.

Mr. Creech Jones

I should like to put two points to the Minister. He used the word "hutments" in regard to construction and also referred to standardised sets or units. Does that mean that we shall only be using timber in the construction or will a variety of materials be used?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)

The hon. Member must not make a speech.

Mr. Creech Jones

I am asking a question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is asking it at too great length and is raising Committee points.

Mr. Elliot

Obviously the companies will exercise their own discretion as to the materials and the style, but of course, it will be very desirable to use light methods of construction throughout, so as to get as many camps as possible built for the money.

Mr. McEntee

Before the Minister finishes will he say something about the furnishing and equipment of the camps? I did not hear him mention that, and among the names of those who are to form the board I did not recognise the name of anybody who has any experience or exceptional knowledge of that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Elliot

As I have tried to point out, each of the companies is to run its own course. Each has a competent board of directors, some of whom have had great experience in running camps—Sir Edward Howarth and others—and it is undesirable that I should lay down too many conditions in advance. We are setting up a responsible body of men and giving them a good cheque and telling them to get on with the job.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

This is a Bill to establish two statutory companies not trading for profit, to be charged with constructing and managing 50 camps of, as the Bill says, a permanent character. The camps are to fulfil two purposes. In time of war they are to be arranged for additional accommodation for children and others from the towns. In time of peace they are to serve as camps for schools in a different category, and, if the scheme is enlarged, as we hope it may be, for adults as well. To this end, Parliament is asked to vote £1,200,000 of public money, of which more than half, £700,000, is to be a loan which will be repayable to the Government by the companies, over a period of 20 years and with interest at 4 per cent.

I say at once that we on these benches do not oppose the Bill; on the contrary, although it is a small Measure, it carries out demands which we have voiced inside and outside the House for years, and we shall give it our active support, subject to questions and to criticisms which we may have to put forward. We give it our support, because we believe that such camps are needed for both purposes of which the Minister has spoken and which are set forth in the Bill. They are certainly needed as an additional method of protection and because of the dangers of aerial warfare. For years we have been saying from these benches that air armaments ought to be abolished by international agreement, and I still believe, having watched the proceedings in Geneva for many months, that they could have been abolished. We have been predicting that, if air armaments were not abolished, air warfare would involve bestialities of the most revolting kind. Well, time has unhappily proved us right. Air armaments have intensified warfare, and in the furnace of war international law has been destroyed. The experience of war has been that the air weapon is bestial in its cruelty, to a point which none of us can imagine or conceive without seeing it. In consequence, we are now obliged to spend vast sums in national defence against this danger and included in those sums is this £1,200,000 for which the Minister asks to-day.

For my part, I shall vote this money with a much lighter heart than any of the rest of the £2,000,000,000 which we are asked to vote. I regard the expenditure on the camps as desirable in itself, for the sake of the peace-time results which we hope they will produce, and quite apart from the war-time measures which they involve. We regard the camps as an essential step—indeed as an overdue step—in social progress. Our only complaint, as the Minister anticipated in what he said, is that the Measure is on far too modest a scale. I go so far as to say that it is utterly inadequate for the purposes for which it is proposed and that it is, at best, only a small experiment. So far as air raids are concerned, it is an experiment which perhaps comes so late that its use is very doubtful for the crises with which we may have to deal.

Before I deal with the broader aspect of the scheme and the measures which the Government propose, I would say some- thing about the technical details of the Bill. Apart from the machinery of the making and managing of the camps, which the Minister described, I want to put some questions and offer some suggestions to him. In the first place, the Minister said a little about the finance of the Bill but not so much as I had hoped. I quite realise that the Government's calculations with regard to the management of the camps must, in a considerable measure, be guesswork, but I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the success of the camps as a social feature may well depend on the payments per head which are to be made by local authorities for school children and teachers, and which must be made for adults in respect of holidays, if any adult holiday camps are arranged. 1 should like to ask whether it is calculated that the companies will be able to repay this £700,000, and thereafter to carry on the camps as a commercial and self-supporting proposition, and on what basis of payment per week the estimates have been made. I should like to know whether there have been any close estimates at all and whether the Government have any idea about the number of months in the year during which the camps might be used. The Minister said that they might be used for six months, but I think the period might be longer. The more the camps are used the better will be the chance of making this experiment financially successful. Can the Minister tell us anything about the annual overhead charge for staff and maintenance? If any such information is available it would be of value to the House and of interest generally.

In the second place, I ask the Government whether they are really satisfied in their own minds that £20,000 is enough for a camp for 350 people, together with the equipment which it must have. The Minister spoke of the necessity of devising simplified plans for the camps. Simplification is desirable and we should be the very last to advocate extravagance of any kind, but these camps are to be of a permanent character. They are not only to meet the temporary purpose of an immediate war crisis but are to last for many years and to serve a permanent social purpose. If they are made of inferior materials, or if the workmanship and equipment are less sound than they should be, the camps will deteriorate with great rapidity. A little extra expenditure may well make a great and real difference to the value of the camps in fulfilment of their social purpose. I hope that the Government will not spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar.

I was extremely glad to hear the Minister say that the proposals of the Bill will eliminate the risks of speculation and profiteering in land, materials and equipment. In that connection it is already reported, not only in relation to the first 50 camps but to the much greater programmes by which the first 50 must be followed, that there is a great deal of speculation in land as the result of the proposals for the camps. No doubt hon. Members have seen in the "Daily Telegraph" the remarks of an eminent authority, Mr. Langley Taylor, president of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. The Government have not been startlingly successful in other parts of their armament programme in preventing profiteering, but we hope that they will be more successful in regard to the camps.

I would say here a word about Clause 4, which deals with the arrangements under which the camps are to be constructed. I agree with the Minister that, on reading Clause 4 for the first time and without knowledge of what was in the mind of the Government, one could easily come to the conclusion that there was an intention to interfere with the normal operations of the building trade. I do not propose to speak further upon this subject because I hope that it will be dealt with in detail by my hon. Friends the Members for East Willesden (Mr. Viant) and East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), but I want to thank the Minister for what he has said about the principle which the Government propose to follow and to say that I am very glad—I think we all are—that they intend to instruct the boards of management that in this matter they shall work in close co-operation with the employers and the trade unions in the building trade.

I turn to the composition of the boards of management of the recognised companies. The boards are to be composed of directors. The Minister has given us a list of eminent persons whose qualifications I recognise to be very high. The Government are quite right to hold that the boards must include people who have a knowledge of construction and of architecture, and that is why they chose my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich and' a representative of the Royal Institute of British Architects. They are also quite right to put on two representatives of education. I wonder whether that is enough. There are a good many voluntary organisations which have much experience in running camps of this description, such as the National Council for Social Service, the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, the Workers' Travel Association and the Youth Hostels Association. I wonder whether the Government would not do well to take someone from the ranks of those voluntary organisations to put on the boards.

There are certain questions which I think to be of higher national importance, connected with what are usually called the amenities of the countryside. The camps have to be camouflaged, but we have also to ensure, if we possibly can, that they will not be an eyesore on the British country. There are to be 50 camps at once, and a great number more later on, if the experiment succeeds. If they are wrongly sited, if they are hideous in construction, if their design is ugly and if they are painted in colours which disfigure the landscape for miles around, as so many buildings do—everybody knows it—then by this Bill we shall do much to debauch the diminishing stretches of British countryside that still remain. I urge on the Government with great force that they should reconsider the composition of the boards and perhaps choose some representatives, such as representatives of the National Trust, who have special knowledge of this matter and whose concern it will be to see that the companies do nothing which might be held to spoil or interfere with the natural beauty of the countryside.

Lastly, under this heading, I want to ask the Minister whether it might not be better to have on the board direct representatives of the municipal authorities. The Minister will be aware that a number of municipal authorities are beginning to take an interest in camps and that some of them, in receiving areas like Brighton and Bridport, have made municipal camps of their own; and that there are others, such as Lambeth, which has decided to make a holiday camp in the country to which it can send children from the borough. There will be great advantages in maintaining the closest possible co-operation between those who are making such holiday camps for public use and not on a profit-making basis. As a matter of fact, the London area committee of the National Fitness Council called a conference of London boroughs on this subject not long ago, and the experts there assembled considered under several headings the advantages of co-operation of those who were concerned in this matter. The headings were: Elimination of competition in acquiring sites, reduction in construction costs through bulk orders, the need of a unit-construction plan, suitable distribution of camps, the interchange of facilities between borough and borough, and so on. If the municipal camp idea develops, as I hope it will and as an authority well known to us, Alderman Wilmot, of Lambeth, said at the conference that he was certain it would, there should be the greatest advantage in having on the boards representatives of local authorities, in order that all the enterprises might be linked as closely as could be.

I would like to raise for a moment the subject of the powers of the companies and to ask some questions. Under the Bill as it stands, the companies are to become the virtual dictators in what might be a most important department of the national life. It is true that under the Bill the Minister has to give approval to certain things but, as I understand it, that is only before the camps are constructed. Thereafter the companies will not be subject to his control or advice in any way. They will be operating with public money. They will be public corporations acting for the public as a whole. Surely they should be under a statutory obligation to submit their accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for audit every year, in order that he may make an annual report which the Minister can lay before Parliament for its consideration. I am sure the Government will see that some amendment of the Bill is necessary to ensure that this Parliamentary control will be maintained, and I hope that during the Committee stage the Minister will be able to put forward proposals in this sense.

As regards the technical details of the Bill, I would like to say a word about what the Minister told us was in his mind, namely, the expansibility of the camps in time of war in order that they may take in extra refugees. He said he hoped that the camps would perhaps be able in time of war to take double the number for which they were constructed in time of peace. I shall argue in a moment that we are going to have some very nasty surprises in regard to the number of our evacuees if ever we suffer from air attack, and I think we shall need every scrap of accommodation we can get, especially in country districts well outside the towns. Therefore, I think it is desirable that the camps should be expansible in a very much larger degree than the Minister suggested. One person who has given a great deal of attention to the matter has suggested that they might well be expansible to the extent of 10 times. If that is too much, I think it is only an exaggeration of a vital point.

If they are to expand, there are two things which the Government should keep in mind. In the first place, they must, as the Minister said, be planned from the very start with this in view, with central buildings, sanitary arrangements, and, above all, water supply, for the water supply in some existing camps is not all that could be desired. In time of war an almost unlimited water supply would be essential, and it could easily be provided at a moderate expenditure. All this must be planned in advance, and, in addition, I venture to suggest, the Government should purchase, when the camps are made, adequate areas of land around them, in order that they may be expanded at once without delay. I would urge upon the Government that in that regard they should, if need be, err on the side of extravagance. Further, if expansion in time of crisis is to be immediate, the Government ought to prepare in time of peace large reserves of building materials, with sectional parts of hutments, of which the Minister spoke, properly camouflaged and ready for transport, and large quantities of the necessary equipment. In the case of aircraft we keep great numbers of reserve machines in spare parts. Why should we not keep great numbers of camps in spare parts in the same way? I hope the Government will proceed on that same principle with regard to camps, and that they will add to the Bill such further provisions as may be required for this purpose, and will make the necessary additional financial provision, so that expension may be instantly possible on a greater scale than the Minister suggested.

The main thing, of course, that must be done if there is to be adequate expansion—and here I come to our more general criticism of the Measure—is that the whole scale of what the Government propose should be increased. In our view, except as an experiment intended to lead to further big developments at once, the Bill is utterly inadequate to either of the two purposes of which it speaks. Let me take them in turn, dealing first with the air-raid danger. Last July, the Lord Privy Seal's Evacuation Committee told us that the whole issue of any future war might well turn on the manner in which the problem of evacuation from densely populated industrial areas was handled, and they went on to say, elsewhere in their report, that accommodation was the limiting factor in the evacuation that could be done. I believe that to be true, and I am extremely uneasy, because I do not believe the Government have yet thought about evacuation in terms of figures that bear any realistic relation to the facts. As present, as I understand the Minister's figures—he will correct me if I am wrong —the Government are making plans to evacuate about 2¾million people: children, their teachers and guardians, mothers with small children, and expectant mothers. They believe in addition, as a result of the survey which they have carried out, that about a million people are planning to evacuate themselves—making arrangements with their friends in the countryside; and the Government are extremely satisfied with the position, because the survey shows that the householders in the reception areas have voluntarily offered something between four and five million places.

I venture to think, with great respect, that all these figures are dangerous fallacies. I do not think for a moment that the number to be evacuated will be as small as the 2¾ million on which the Government seem to be working. Consider the experience of Spain. In Spain the air forces were very small, and were largely concentrated on the front. General Franco and his German and Italian air forces never worked on the theory of the knock-out blow. They made a few experiments, at Guernica and for a few days at Barcelona, but certainly they did not try to win the war by smashing the morale of the civilian population, as I believe they could have done much more quickly if they had set out to destroy Barcelona and Madrid. And yet in Spain there were 3,000,000 refugees out of a population of 15,000,000, very largely as the result of air bombardment, which drove them from their homes.

Our case, if we experienced an air attack, would be far worse than that of Spain. The aircraft would operate, not by scores, but by hundreds, perhaps even by thousands, and they would certainly try the knock-out blow. We know that the knock-out blow violates every law of God and man, but we also know that within the last fortnight two Governments, those of Czecho-Slovakia and Lithuania, have been reduced to complete national surrender by the satanic threat of the knock-out blow. And we have no deep shelters such as the Spaniards had. Our towns are built of brick, and not of stone, and most of them are jerry-built at that. I am certain that the number of people that would have to be evacuated from our towns and cities would be far higher than that on which the Government are calculating to-day. But let us start with their figure of 2¾million, mainly composed of mothers and children. I am certain that, as their discussions proceed, they will be forced to add the "mixed bag" about whom they are not quite decided—the aged people, the invalids, the infirm, the spinsters, and others who are not engaged in productive work. That would probably mean at least 2,000,000 more. Then there are those who are going to evacuate themselves. If there are already, as the survey shows, a million people who have made their own arrangements, how many more people are going to evacuate themselves when the air bombardment actually begins? The Minister ought to see the red light when he reflects on that most sinister figure of all, the million people who have already made their own arrangements for evacuation.

In addition, there are certain areas which, I am convinced, will have to be totally evacuated, and for which the Government have made no allowance at all. I have cited before in this House the experience of Barcelonetta, the working-class part of Barcelona, which was systematically bombed and thereafter totally deserted by its inhabitants for many months. I am sure that, if an air attack upon us is anything like what we and the Government expect, the London dock area, and perhaps all London from the docks right up to Westminster, and even beyond, will be totally unfit for human habitation, even if it is still possible to carry on some kinds of productive work. If we put those things together, and then consider that the billeting places will probably be fewer than the four or five million on which the Government are calculating now, unless people are packed very tightly, and if we reflect that many areas which they are reckoning as reception areas or neutral areas can only be so described by a flight of the imagination, and will not survive the onset of war—I think of Chelmsford, Colchester, Derby and other places I have mentioned before—we are forced to the conclusion that far more people will have to be evacuated than the Government expect, and there will be fewer places than the Government are now allowing for.

Considering the proposals of the Bill against the background of these facts, and remembering that the Lord Privy Seal told us that the result of a war might depend on the arrangements made for evacuation, and that the limiting factor was accommodation, we find that these camps provide, on the Minister's calculation, 17,500 places in time of peace, or 35,000 places in time of war, representing, on the Government's own figure of 2¾ million, in the one case 0.7 per cent., or, if you double the peace-time allowance, 1.4 percent. Even if that were expanded 10 times, as some people have suggested, it would not make an appreciable contribution to the problem to be solved. If these are the only camps that we are to have, I do not think they are worth the diversion they have caused of the Lord Privy Seal's attention from deep shelters, with regard to which, six months after Munich, we have still no decision. This is a very small-scale experiment, almost wholly useless for the conditions with which we have to deal at present. If the Government want it to be of any use at all from the point of view of defence against air raids, they must rapidly bring in an additional Measure which will propose action on at least 10 times the scale that is now proposed. Even if they do that, I am still not sure that it will be entirely adequate in the period during which, probably, the issue of peace and war will be definitely decided, but, whether they are in time or not, I personally should not regret any expenditure which might be undertaken for the purposes of such a proposal.

We want these camps; as I have said, for their peace-time uses, and we want them soon. We want them for school camps; we want them for holiday camps for adults. We believe that the need and the demand for such camps already exists on a scale far beyond what the Government have allowed for. Indeed, everyone knows that there is a tremendous demand and an urgent need for school camps for children. The Minister told us of some enterprising local authorities—I think he said there were 20—who have begun to make such school camps, and of 14 or 15 more in the Special Areas who have co-operated in making other establishments of the same kind. I know of the activities of one of those local authorities, namely, the Surrey County Council, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will describe its work to us later. I know also that the Glasgow City Council have established holiday camps for necessitous children, where, I believe, they keep children for a fortnight at 30s. all in. But these are only tentative beginnings.

I think all hon. Members on this side are agreed that a period of camping in the country ought to be an essential part of the curriculum of every town and city school. It would be immensely beneficial to the physique, the mind and the character of the child. As a general proposition, I do not think that that is disputed by anybody in any walk of life, from His Majesty the King downwards. I believe that, if the Government are sincere when they deplore the fact that the people are leaving the land, they ought to make arrangements to let the children see the country, and then perhaps some will decide to stay in it. This is a matter in which we have been far outstripped by foreign countries. In Poland, Sweden and Denmark, school camps of this kind have been in general use for a large number of years. One of the most vivid memories of my life is of going to the Olympic Games in Stockholm in 1912. Amidst all the excitement and pageantry there is nothing that remains in my memory like a visit to a school camp in a lovely forest outside Stockholm. That was nearly 30 years ago. We are not nearly as advanced as Sweden was then.

We are not accustomed to think of Poland as being, in social legislation, very advanced, but Poland, having begun experiments in this direction with schools in the slums, have now applied them to almost all the schools in their towns and cities. In the big schools the classes go out at different times of the year for periods of two or three weeks—sometimes longer. The camps are put out in the woodlands and fields. They are in use for 10 months in the year, the whole time that the schools are at work, and it is found that the longer the period for which the children are kept in them, the better the results. If they live in them for a month they put on more weight in the last week than in the first three weeks together. And I do not think the advantages are all in regard to health. In Poland they teach the children gardening, vegetable cultivation, and looking after chickens and cows; and those who have studied the Polish system agree that it really provides character training as well as physical and mental training. Every hon. Member, from his own experience, must see that if we can have the same thing here it will be of immense advantage to our nation. The essence of town and city life is constant change and movement. Unless it is corrected in other ways it must lead to restlessness and instability and an unsatisfactory approach to the problems of existence. The true corrective is the peace of the country, where a gentle order and natural life can be found. A Measure which proposes that only 200,000 children should pass through these camps every year is only a first step, which we hope is destined to lead to greater things.

That same consideration is of no less force with regard to camps for adults. I share the view of the Minister that it is extremely difficult to organise a camp which will cater for both children and adults—and I do not want to do it, because I hope the school camps will be in use for schools virtually the whole of the year, except when they are in use for Boy Scouts and similar organisations. I hope, therefore, that there will be separate adult camps. There is an immense demand for them. You can tell it by the extent to which holiday camps, run on commercial lines, are springing up. On stretches of our coast there are small towns of chalet bungalows, with recreations and amusements of all kinds. Some of these, no doubt, serve a useful purpose; some are nuisances to local authorities; some are undesirable in various ways; some are eyesores; and nearly all are organised with a view to making the visitors spend their money in a senseless way. Some of the camps are organised on a great scale. There is one where they take in 2,500 people at a time in August. But even these do not begin to meet the need. There is still a great unsatisfied potential demand. You can tell that by one simple figure. The Youth Hostels Association membership has increased in seven years from 10,000 to 80,000, and they still cannot nearly meet the demand made on them, and the only limiting factor in their expansion is the lack of capital to set up more hostels.

There is a vast new public coming along which has as yet had no chance to make use of these facilities, and in any case could not use them on grounds of poverty. I mean those who are now about to receive holidays with pay. According to the Government's figures, the number of those having holidays with pay is increasing by 1,000,000 every year. That may be so. There are at least 12,000,000 more who have not yet got them, but will have them soon. These are nearly all lower-grade manual workers. They cannot pay the charges of the commercial camps. Something will have to be done for them. The Lambeth Corporation calculate, according to Alderman Milner, that in the camp which they are to make they will be able to provide a week's holiday at a maintenance cost of not more than 45s. for adults, with corresponding charges for children. That will be within the reach of those who soon will be demanding holiday camps for the million. I hope the Government will now determine that this Bill shall be only a forerunner of much larger measures to meet the need. Whatever money they ask for, we on these benches will very gladly vote it for this purpose.

I hope that Ministers who are to speak later in the Debate will be good enough to deal with some of the technical details I have raised, that they will explain a little more the financial basis of the Government's calculations, that they will give more guarantees about profiteering and the quality of the camps, that they will reconsider the composition of the boards of maintenance, and that, by amendment of the Bill, they will place these companies under Parliamentary control, providing for an audit and an annual report. I hope they will make much greater provision for expansion in time of war. Above all, I hope they will tell us that they have in mind the utter inadequacy of this present Bill for the social purposes of which the Minister spoke, and that they intend to bring in a more ample Measure very soon. In this regard, at the present moment, they must, of course, think of war requirements, and I hope they will think of what the Lord Privy Seal said last July. Instances were quoted to us by the Lord Privy Seal then of children in London who during the last War suffered serious and permanent injury because of the shock to the nervous system of repeated air raids. He went on to say that no one could gauge what the conditions would be in a future war; we must assume that they would be infinitely worse than in the last War. I hope the Government will remember that. I hope they will remember also what it will mean to the children of our poorer classes, and to their parents, if at last they can have an opportunity to enjoy, on equal terms, the peace and the beauty of the countryside.

6.12 p.m.

Major Sir Ralph Glyn

All of us, I think, agree very largely with what has been said by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). At the same time, we realise that this is not intended by the Government to be anything more than an experimental scheme. I agree that it ought to be brought under Parliamentary control—not that I doubt the efficiency of the board, because I think the selection made has been extraordinarily good, but it is right and proper that this House should not lose sight of the tremendous advantages that will accrue to the population from the provision of these camps. I hope we can think for the moment of the aspect of this problem as it affects the town child. There is, near my constituency, a camp which has been in use for children for some time, and I have seen the effect it has had on the children coming from the crowded parts of Oxford. If it has that effect on children from a comparatively small place like Oxford, one can realise the immense ad- vantages there would be if we could bring children from those densely crowded places where they can hardly get a breath of air, and where—amazing as it is in this small country—they not only do not see the country but do not see the sea.

The camps must obviously be in units so that they can be rapidly expanded, and the amenities ought in every case to have some regard to the recreational facilities. It is important that the children should learn to swim, and have a chance of getting around the countryside. I know that in the Surrey County Council schools a great deal has been done to instruct the children, before they go to the camps, in the kind of things that they must remember if they are to retain the friendship of the people in the country. We do not want to see paper thrown down and gates left open. These are very simple matters, in which children would be delighted to co-operate if they knew what was required of them. Many of the teachers would gain almost as much as the children from a short residence in the country.

Also, in regard to this scheme in the Bill as drawn—this may be a matter for the Committee stage—it ought to be possible to get the collaboration of companies with public utility concerns; for instance, with the Thames Conservancy, where there is a very large area and where that body has most efficient engineers, where there are districts where camps can be put up with good sanitation, where the communication is good, and where the children can obtain swimming facilities, and so on. The support of the scheme in the minds of the general public largely depends upon the three conditions which the hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned always being borne in mind. The site must be suitable from the point of view of camouflage and of protection from air attack; it must not be unsightly and so gain the disapproval of the residents who live in the district; and it must be a site with which communication is easy, which is one of the most important problems.

In all schemes of evacuation the railways are to be asked to carry a tremendous burden, and it will be necessary to remember that beside troop and munitions movements, the evacuation of civil population will, to a large extent, be running in a contrary flow to the military requirements. It also means that there may be the evacuation of casualties From casualty clearing stations to base hospitals further off. Therefore, these camps should be sited where communication is easy, and, if possible—and I imagine this is already understood—every group of schools that may use a particular camp for a fortnight in the year should be the group of schools which would go there in time of emergency. The children would know the district, and the people would know them. They would not be strangers in a strange place. In time of aerial attack, one has to remember that everybody's nerves are a bit strained, and it makes all the difference to children if they can go to surroundings that they know and meet familiar faces and people who are really anxious to comfort and to help them.

There is also another aspect, and that is in regard to medical inspection and supervision. It is of the utmost importance that there should be such a relationship created between the school medical officers in the counties and the districts where these camps are placed, and their opposite numbers in the urban areas, so that there can be an interchange of views. A great deal can be done in regard to nutrition and matters of that kind if there is close collaboration between the medical profession who work among children in town and country. The experience of many of us has been that children in rural districts are sometimes unable to get milk as easily as children in the towns. The milk is rushed up to the big towns, and it is very hard to get it under the present dispensation. If more can be done, as is being done in some districts, to teach children how to cook and how to produce vegetables in the gardens round these camps, there will be brought into the minds of the town children the idea of what the land itself is, and the joy of working on it and cultivating it.

I feel strongly that those who live in the country will be very short-sighted if they object to the expansion of this scheme. if we are to make the people contented on the land, we shall have to raise the standard of rural labour all round and make it productive. At the present moment there is not the inclination to encourage children in the country to remain on the land, and certainly to the town child it is an entirely unknown occupation. Therefore, this scheme offers not only a tremendous hope for the future health of the children, but it is a scheme which will give a great deal of work to unemployed persons at the moment. I am sure that public opinion will see to it that these places do not become eyesores, and I agree with my right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill that that subject is a matter of tremendous importance.

I hope that the House will pass this Bill without an unnecessarily long discussion, because I am sure that once the scheme is established the effects will be so obvious, especially if a report is made to Parliament annually as to the work done by these camps, that there will be a continually progressive scheme of establishing camps for children and making them part of their ordinary school life. There is one other matter that should be borne in mind. There is no reason why these camps should not be used for far longer periods than six months. I also visited the camps in Poland and Sweden, and a great deal depends on the care and maintenance of these camps. I hope that we shall utilise the kind of buildings which they have found in Sweden are able to withstand the weather. I hope that there will not be a great deal of expenditure on bricks and mortar, because I believe that these camps, probably as invention enables us to take better advantage of fresh air, may even become out of date. Nothing is more interesting than to notice how the new schools in different parts of the country are improved in type as a result of experience. I should be sorry to see these camps stereotyped in bricks and mortar at the moment. Have your foundations of concrete and your wooden buildings, and use perhaps shingles for roofing. If properly looked after, these buildings will last far longer than we shall want these camps there; they can be put up a good deal more quickly and will give a greater volume of employment for those who are out of work.

There is, I hope, a possibility that in this scheme we may do something to help in regard to the winter recreation of the children. If these children go to these camps, what they will miss most will be the lights and sounds of the big city. How are you to meet that? We do not want to rush them to the local cinema. We want to give them occupation and game space, so that in the evening they can occupy themselves. I believe that during those evenings it will be possible, by collaboration, to bring about useful contacts between the country children and the town children in these camps, so that they will get to know each other better, play their games and realise that there is not the division between town and country which is so often thought to exist. These camps have to be made a success. If they are to be a success you have to study the psychology of the children and those who are with them. If you are going to use the camps in the winter they have to be bright and happy in the evenings, just as they are going to be full of happiness and good health in the summer months.

I am discussing the question solely from the point of view of the children, because the requirements of the adults are being met very rapidly. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman opposite said about some of the disadvantages of these adult camps. The large railway companies are studying this matter. In view of the opposition that has been aroused by persons who own boarding-houses in seaside resorts, one has to proceed with caution. There are camps to which people want to go where there is not a moment of peace morning, noon and night, and where you get neither rest nor sleep, and you live on the edge of your nerves, but people apparently are willing to pay to do it. If it is their idea of a holiday, and this is a free country, I have no objection to such camps being provided, but not at Government expense. We should leave that to those who cater for that sort of amusement. There are other camps. I hope that, in conjunction with the trade unions, it will be possible for camps to be started, perhaps through the Workers' Travel Association or otherwise. That is what we hope to see. We hope it will be possible to establish camps at points off the main line and on branch lines, where there are good facilities, and that the arrangements will include not only the cost of living in the camps for a definite period, but will include a special return excursion ticket. It is better at the moment to concentrate on what is the real and urgent need of establishing camps to be used in time of war to get children out of the appalling conditions that would exist, and we ought to do it on sound lines and develop it as quickly as pos- sible. Therefore, I welcome this Bill very much. We all ought to congratulate the Minister of Health and the officers of his Department upon the way they have worked out this Measure and for the collaboration of the Board of Education. I am sure that we are seeing to-day the start of something which is going to do more for the physical happiness and well-being of the children of this country than almost any other Measure which this House has considered for years.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Mander

We on the Liberal Benches gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill and will do everything we can to secure its rapid passage into law. It is one example of good coming out of evil. It does not often happen, but something of the kind is occurring here. It is true, as has been said, that, unless this is going to be regarded purely as an experiment, it will be of very little use. I regard it, and I hope the Government do, frankly from that point of view. If these companies succeed in doing their work and they become popular and effective, I hope they will take very rapid action indeed to push on with the building of similar camps all over the country. They are bound to have, as has been said, the most far-reaching results on the happiness and the health of the future generation of the people who will live in this country. I hope that they always will be used as school camps and not for the other purpose which, unfortunately, we have to bear in mind. The Minister said that there are to be seven camps for Scotland and the rest for England and Wales I would like him to give an assurance—and I know hon. Members from Wales feel strongly about this—that there will be a definite number allocated to Wales. Perhaps later on we may have a statement. At least three of the camps should go to Wales, there should be one in the North and one in the South, and another in a suitable place.

As to the purposes for which the camps are to be provided, namely, that of camp schools, they may be divided into two. There is the camp school used for the purpose of taking out the children for the week-end, when they do not get any teaching, and there is the still more useful type of camp where the children are kept for a fortnight or more when they can actually do their school work there. These are the two types, and I hope that the latter will be the one which will function the most. The Minister has said that the question of providing housing for those taking holidays with pay is a difficult one and is not contemplated in connection with this Bill. I hope that the corporations will find that they are able to develop on these lines later on, as it is of the utmost importance from all points of view. Something has been said about Parliamentary control, and I entirely agree that it is essential that this House should keep its finger on the pulse of what is being done and be in a position to raise matters connected with the general policy that is being pursued by these corporations. We do not want to be in a position to ask a question as to why one brick is laid upon another or anything so minor as that, but we do want to know the general policy in an annual report, and so keep the control in our own hands.

As to the number of those who are likely to be evacuated, an estimate has been made that there will be some 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 persons who are non-essential to war economy. It is clear, therefore, that in addition to what has been provided in the way of billets, a vast expansion of this scheme will be necessary. I understand that each camp will provide accommodation for 300 to 500 persons in peace-time, and in wartime for 700 to 1,000. Obviously, the meaning is that in war-time they will be much more crowded together. I suppose it is natural that under such conditions they will not expect quite the same facilities as in peace-time, but I imagine that there will be a certain amount of sub-divisions in order to make the camps suitable in war-time. With regard to the right size, it has been estimated that for the. camps themselves not less than 10 acres is required for each camp, and that in addition 10 acres should be provided for the purpose of playing fields and general amenities. That means a site of between 20 and 30 acres.

But there is a great deal to be said for the Government going further than that and buying the land round about each camp, otherwise it will rise in value and will be bought for the purpose of providing some cheap amusement park, and perhaps destroying all the work that has been done to provide a camp which does not interfere with the amenities of the district. I think that is a very important point. Ample provision should be made to keep these camps intact in really rural surroundings. It is estimated that the cost of a camp in peace-time will be about £ 40 per head, excluding land and furniture, and £20 per head in wartime, so that you get 50 camps costing £1,000,000, which is the estimate we have had put before us. When you consider that the average amount spent on buildings for the last three years in this country is about £250,000,000, an expenditure of £1,000,000 seems a very small thing indeed, and, obviously, it is not going to interfere with the general building programme of the country. I attach great importance to securing that these camps shall be built in such a way that they do not become an eyesore on the countryside, as has unfortunately been the case in some instances. There is no necessity for it. It simply requires foresight and careful planning from the beginning. I have no doubt that if there is careful planning, if the buildings are soundly located and if suitable materials are used, they will not interfere with the beauty of the landscape or with the general amenities of the neighbourhood. I have no doubt it will be thought wise to use for the purposes of these camps low grade pasture and grazing land of a nature which has no high agricultural value.

With regard to the proposition from a financial point of view, I think that if the scheme is skilfully devised and became popular, and is generally supported in the way we hope it will be, there should not be any great material loss to the country as a whole, indeed, we may hope that the expenditure may pay for itself. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he was going to make the fullest use of the experts who are so anxious to place their services at his disposal. He has actually on the board a representative of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and the Royal Institute of British Architects. I hope that in connection with every scheme a really competent architect will be engaged to lay it out and that there will be consultations with a panel of expert town-planning architects. The services of these people are available and the Government will be well advised to make use of them. I think that is the intention.

I hope there will be consultation with such bodies as the National Trust when any of their properties come into the question, as may be the case, and with the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, when any question of commons may crop up. I think that particular regard should be paid to placing a camp in any area which has been scheduled or mentally scheduled as a national park recommended by the National Parks Committee of 1931. Quite obviously they should be guarded with special care because we do not want to interfere with their future usefulness from that point of view. With regard to materials I think it will be found that the best way will be to use pre-fabricated timber, the construction to be concentrated in one place and done on the cheapest possible scale. It could then be sent out: to the various camps and there would also be a reserve of which rapid use could be made in war-time.

The Minister of Health made a reference to actual experiments which have taken place during the last 20 years in connection with these camps. He said there were about 20. I think I am entitled, as an example, to make a reference to the work that has been done by the Wolverhampton School Camp, because it was a pioneer effort, one of the earliest. It was started in 1923 under the capable direction of the Director for Education for Wolverhampton, Mr. Warren. During the period since then 29,000 school children have passed through the camp. They come 90 at a time, 45 boys and 45 girls. They leave school on the Friday afternoon and stay there until after breakfast on the Monday morning, when they are brought back again by bus. In that sense the rates of the town support the camp. There are occasions when different local bodies and associations, like the Rotary Club, take over the camp for a week-end. During the holidays at Whitsun and in the summer, children stay there over the whole period of a week or a fortnight. No charge is made and only the poorest children are selected. They are looked after by the educational staff of the borough, who render the most valuable voluntary service both in time and money, because they pay their own expenses. In this particular case—other camps may be different—the whole cost is borne by voluntary contributions.

The camp costs £1,000 a year, and that money has all been raised locally in the town. At the beginning the building was of wood, but in 1938 they decided to erect a brick building and raised a sum of £7,000 for the purpose, a contribution of £1,000 being made by the directors of the Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club. I have been to the camp on a number of occasions and anyone who has visited the camp cannot but be pleased at the immense benefit it is to the children who have the good fortune to go through the experience. I hope that the experience of the last 16 years of Wolverhampton in this matter will be made use of and that the services of those who have been working there will also be used by the Government. I am quite sure that they will be ready to place their experience and advice at the service of the Government. I would just like to add this, that at a time when the nation in connection with National Defence is devoting such a vast expenditure of money and so much energy to building up instruments of destruction it really is pleasant to spend one afternoon, at any rate, on an aspect of the Defence programme which is going to render some benefit to the nation as a whole for many decades to come.

6.42 p.m.

Sir Jonah Walker-Smith

I should like to mention one or two matters before making the request which I want to make to the Minister. I understand that the Minister of Health will be responsible to this House for all that happens so far as this subsidised non-profit making company is concerned, and that we shall be able to put such questions as we may desire to put about this company to him. I understand also that the Minister of Health is responsible for the plans and constructions of this subsidised company. I think that is perfectly right, having regard to the personnel of the board of the company. I thought that the Minister had reserved to himself the question of determining the allocation of these particular camps. I hope that that is the case, and if it is the case I hope there will not be excluded from an allocation those particular areas which for the time being have been scheduled as neutral. I can quite understand that in evacuation areas it will be quite impossible to set up these camps and that the areas which are scheduled as reception areas will naturally be the most desirable for the allocation of these camps, but I would like to be assured that large industrial areas which are scheduled as neutral, which are in fact very attractive to any enemy bomber, and which are very vulnerable, will not be excluded from the possibility of having the benefit of one of these camps so far as they are used for peace purposes.

Let me make my request to the Minister. It is that he should delete from the provisions of the Bill Clause 4. I think when he has given consideration to the views I have on this matter he will agree that such a Clause is unnecessary and undesirable, and that it will be a very mischievous Clause in the Bill at this particular time. There will be no one who does not agree with the general proposal for the building of these camps. I agree that it is right and proper that this should be regarded as experimental. When the Minister and others have obtained a wealth of experience as a result of the expenditure of this comparatively small sum of £1,200,000 for these few camps, and the policy has been accepted and the principle established, I believe that the number might very well be multiplied by at least 20 times. I gather from the Minister's remarks, and also from the estimate of the cost, that the proposed method of construction is one which is regarded more as temporary construction, although the camps will be of a permanent nature. I do not think there is anything to be said against that. Obviously, it indicates the intention to adopt some method of mass production. Having regard to the fact that the necessity for the speedy completion of this construction has been emphasised by the Minister on two or three occasions, it is very desirable that there should be some method of mass production; but if such a method is to be used, I would point out that it is a very unsatisfactory method to adopt for the purpose of training the unemployed who are at present under the general control of and a charge upon the Unemployment Assistance Board. I wish to emphasise that such a method of construction is quite unsuitable for the training of these unemployed men, as I think the Minister fully appreciates and as, I think, was appreciated when the Bill was drafted, for Clause 4 states that: The Board may under Section thirty-seven of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, enter into agreements for their employment upon work for local authorities "— work which, it is implied, is suitable work on which to continue the training; that is to say, leisurely work, work which is not mass production, and in connection with which speed is not essential, work which is a suitable link in the general chain of training. It is recognised that work on the construction of these camps is quite unsuitable for that purpose, for the Clause goes on to state: Provided that the employment of persons upon work for a recognised company in pursuance of an agreement made under this Section need not be in continuance of, or part of, training and instruction afforded in connection with a training course, and where the work is not utilised as part of a training course. That proviso is inserted because it is recognised that the particular class of construction work involved is quite unsuitable as an element in the training of these men. Therefore, quite unlike the provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, this proposal for the utilisation of these unemployed men is in no way connected with their efficient training. As far as that is concerned, the mask is thrown off. If the purpose is not to t