(Jewish Telegraphic Agency Mail Service)
Interesting details in the proposed Palestine Government Loan and in the attitude of British public opinion towards that question are seen from the minutes of the July 21st session of the House of Commons, where the matter was first debated.
The resolution authorizing the raising of the loan was in two parts, the second part relating to loans for Kenya, Uganda, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland or Tanganyika not exceeding ten million pounds.
Lieut-Commander Kenworthy pointed out that there were two distinct questions being considered in this Resolution. He was not opposed to the Resolution, but he asked that it should be put as two separate questions, one dealing with the Palestine loan and the other with the loan for the African Protectorates.
Mr. J. Jones asked if the new board of guardians in West Ham were going to pursue the same policy in regard to loans as these new people in Palestine, seeing that West Ham represents a population greater than Palestine.
MR. AMERY EXPLAINS SITUATION
Mr. Amery said: “As I understand the position, what the Committee is being asked to approve of to-night in this Financial Resolution is the general principle of Imperial guarantee for a series of loans which will be raised, not by two Governments, but by six or seven Governments. One of these Governments is the Government of Palestine, in the case of which the total amount is £ 4,500,000, while the others are the Governments of various territories in East Africa. I will certainly endeavor, if it is of any help to Commander Kenworthy so far as the discussion of the details of this Resolution justifies it, to separate the two main aspects of the question, and I hope, therefore, that no inconvenience will arise if he wishes to confine himself later mainly to one of those two aspects.
“In Palestine,” Mr. Amery said, “we are dealing with a country not of immense spaces and immense potentialities, but a small country which has developed largely since the War and still is, within its possibilities, capable of considerable development. If I might give some of the revenue figures of Palestine to show the justification of this loan, I would say that the revenue and expenditures balanced for 1923-24 at £ 1,633,000; in 1924-25 the revenue exceeded £ 2,100,000 and the surplus was nearly £ 300,000; and in 1925-26 the revenue was very nearly £ 2,750,000 and the surplus exceeded £ 700,000. That, I think, is a very satisfactory figure.”
Sir F. Wise asked, “Why was there a Grant-in-Aid in 1925 to Palestine?” The Colonial Secretary replied: “The Grant-in-Aid was, as far as administration is concerned, a Grant-in-Aid for Trans-Jordania, but there was also a Grant-in-Aid in respect of the defence forces which cover both Palestine and Trans-Jordania, and the justification of that lies in the fact that the recent surpluses have been in a period of rapid advance to prosperity, and that it is essential, in a small colony like that, which only three years ago was barely able to pay its way, and where we have had to cut down right to the bone, to build up something in the nature of a reserve. But we do intend progressively and rapidly to reduce any grant-in-aid that can be said to be spent even for defence in Palestine, and that position is fully accepted by the Palestine Government. In trade, too, I think that the figures are interesting as justifying our policy. The total imports of Palestine in 1923 were under £ 5,000,000 in 1926 they were over £ 7,300,000. The exports in 1923 were just over £ 1,500,000. In 1925 they had gone down slightly to £ 1,200,000. It may be of interest to the Committee to have the particular figures in relation to this country. The imports to Palestine from this country, according to the Palestine statistics, in 1925 amounted to over £ 1,000,000; according to the Board of Trade figures they amounted to about £ 750,000. That, of course, is partly the difference between f.o.b. and c.i.f., and it can also be accounted for by transhipment through Egypt and other causes. According to the Board of Trade we imported from Palestine £ 1,155,000 of Palestine produce in the last year.
THE PURPOSES OF THE LOAN
“To come to the actual purposes for which this loan is to be devoted, a substantial part of the money is being raised for the purpose of repayment–in the first instance for the purpose of repayment to this country for the railways and for expenses incurred by the Government during the period of occupation immediately after the War. The money will be used, in the first place, to repay a lump sum of £ 1,000,000 to the British Exchequer as part of the payment for the Palestine railway system which is being taken over by the Palestine Government.”
Colonel Wedgwood asked: “Part only?”
Mr. Amory answered: “It is part and not the whole. The total value of the railway is about double. Palestine is paying £ 1,000,000 this year out of the loan towards the liquidation of this debt to the Imperial Government.”
Colonel Wedgwood asked: “The rest remains a debt due to us?”
“It is also going to pay a sum of about £ 260,000 in the present year,” Mr. Amery replied. “In respect of a certain amount due to the Imperial Government for deficits during the period of the Imperial occupation, and for certain stores taken over from His Majesty’s Government. Therefore, the total amount from this £ 4,500,000, or from the accumulated surpluses of the Palestine Government, which is coming directly to this country in alleviation of the burdens of the taxpayer here during the current year, will be about £ 1,260,000. I do not think that critics of our policy in making ourselves responsible for the mandate of Palestine five or six years ago would have admitted for a moment the idea that Palestine would be in a position to-day to pay off so large a proportion of her obligations in this direct fashion. Over and above that, a considerable amount has been borrowed by the Palestine Government from the Crown Agents in respect of railway improvements and other public works carried out during the last year or two. These various items, which are in the nature really of clearing off past obligations, will amount together to about £ 3,000,000. The remainder is wanted, in exactly the same way as the expenditure in East Africa is wanted, for necessary development, more particularly of railways and harbors.
“There is a good deal of railway work which needs to be done. The largest items, however, will be the improvement of Jaffa Harbor and, still more important, the creation of a really adequate harbor at Haifa, which has all the natural conditions needed to make it one of the great harbors of the Middle East. I believe that a moderate expenditure–the highest expenditure estimated by the engineers and surveyors so far is £ 1,000,000–would provide a harbor there which would enable a very great development to take place, not only in Palestine, but, perhaps, throughout the whole Middle East, and I am not excluding even the possibility of railway development from Haifa across to Iraq.”
“Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any actual new railways have been made in Palestine?” Colonel Wedgwood asked.
Mr. Amery replied: “I do not think any new routes are being made, but I think that some short cuts across the existing lines near Jaffa and a deviation through Jaffa itself are in contemplation.”
Mr. W. Graham, former Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government, said: “The Right Hon. Gentleman has just explained to us that this loan, which is to be raised by the Government of Palestine, presumably in the open market, and which we are to guarantee as to principal and interest, is in part a loan designed to repay to us a certain debt due on railways, and also in part to repay certain deficits associated with the period of administration. It must be plain to every Hon. Member of this House at once that, as a financial proposition, a loan of that kind is to that extent at least in a different category from a loan which is raised for productive purposes for enterprises and will probably entail rather more onerous terms for the Government of Palestine than would otherwise have been the case. What is the view of the Treasury in a problem of that kind? Are they justified in asking the taxpayers of Great Britain to soulder the responsibility of guaranteeing as to principal and interest a loan of that description?
“We on this side are not hostile to these schemes of development by any means. The right Hon. Gentleman was so far well within the mark in saying that probably in all parts of the House there is a very keen desire to promote this development. Although we on this side want to take very definite steps to try to secure just conditions and the best possible terms for the labor employed, it is no part of our case to oppose development. Hon. Members will not misunderstand my criticism, which is devoted entirely to the financial aspects of the claim.
“I am suggesting that having regard to the arguments which the Government itself has advanced, you should lower this amount, and I think you could lower it appreciably without doing any injustice to these territories. I cannot conclude without expressing regret that we have heard so little on the purely financial aspects of these proposals.”
Mr. Snell (Labor) stated: “I will try to compress into a very few minutes a statement as to what I personally think are the views of the majority of the Members of the Labor party on this measure. The development of territories which are required to open out to us markets for our industries at home is not a purely academic question or one for idle speculation, but it is of very great urgency and real and vital importance. So we are compelled to look at it first of all from that point of view. I will not go into the reasons why the expansion of our trade is necessary if our people are to be fed in this country. I will, however, allow myself to say that the Labor party, in its approach to this problem, has always urged the development of our national estate in this country, including the full development of our land, our minerals, and all the resources at our disposal which would provide employment for our people and enrich the nation as a whole.
“If we apply the same idea to our colonial dependencies we are following out a line of consistency that means to us the development of our Commonwealth estate for the benefit of everybody concerned in it.
“On the proposal of Palestine, it appears to me, we have a problem of very great interest and complexity. Within 9,000 square miles or so we have a community of Moslems, Christians and Jews, each with almost every possible subdivision of interest and functions of sect and nation, and the problem of settlement is very difficult. In this country our minds run upon the rough division of interest as between the Arabs and the Jewish people. I do not propose to go into that question, except to say that it is our desire on these benches to see that both have a square deal, and that if development takes place it shall be a development which will affect the whole population, to whatever race, sect or religion they belong.
“We should like to know something more of the details of development. We have complaints from the Jewish Labor organization that Government work in Palestine is given out to the cheapest trader or tender, and that the tender is based upon the cheapest kind of woman and child labor. We hope that this House will not lend itself to expending money in a way which is undignified in that sense. We note that very little, if any, social legislation has taken place in Palestine, so far. We would like to ask for the inclusion of a Fair Wages Clause in whatever contracts are involved in the application of this loan? Finally, we feel that contracts, whenever given, should not be made the excuse for the importation of the cheapest form of sweated labor from the Sudan or elsewhere, to the exclusion of labor amongst the Palestinian people themselves. That is a matter to which we shall have to direct the attention of the House in the subsequent stages of this discussion. For the moment, I think I am speaking for practically everyone on these benches when I say that we do not wish to oppose the development of our Colonies in any way, but we do wish, and we shall insist so far as we can, that the development shall be such as will bring blessings to the humblest person living in them as well as to those who are more prosperous.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
