HC Deb 11 June 1941 vol 372 cc295-304

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. H. Morrison

What was it that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council then did? This was done at his wish, and, I imagine, at the wish of the Departmental Ministers concerned, in amity and friendship; and the Civil Defence Committee of the Cabinet came in for the purpose of consultation and coordination. I want to re-emphasise what my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said. I am almost hesitant to say what a co-operative, friendly body the Civil Defence Committee of the Cabinet is, because I might give the impression that it is a mutual admiration society, a dead sort of body, in which nothing is done. That is not so. There are examination and questioning, and at times cross-examination, of Ministers, including the chairman. There are discussions upon reports, oral and written reports, from the Departments. If ever I or any other Minister have said at that committee that we should like a report written or oral, about any subject, I have never known any Minister say, "What is it to do with you?" or be sticky about it. Along comes the report, and we discuss it. I do not believe that there has been a single quarrel; and that was true when my right hon. Friend was chairman. That is not because it is a soft kind of body, a sort of freemasonry of Civil Defence; it is a live body. But we feel that we are fellows in trouble, so to speak; we all have our problems, and we put them on the table and try to solve them between ourselves.

Side by side with this threefold problem of the appropriate Department doing its job, the Ministry of Home Security performing its function, and the co-ordinating through the Civil Defence Committee of the Cabinet, my right hon. Friend developed the system of Regional Commissioners. That gave him further and vitally important co-operation and association at the regional level. The Regional Commissioner is a typically British institution. I remember that when my right hon. Friend announced the scheme he was asked whether these Commissioners would be dictators. Some people thought they would. If he had said, "Yes, they will be," he would have been in trouble. It is true that they were potential dictators, in the sense that if communications with the Central Government break down, they will become His Majesty's Government But is was not suggested that they should be dictators. They were typically British. I admit that they do not work to precisely defined functions, under regulations, paragraphs and sections. Come to think of it, the House of Commons does not work to a written Constitution either. Part of its charm is that this British Constitution moves along as it goes. If we had a written Constitution, we should be embarrassed in conducting this war every day of the week. It is a very good thing for us that we have not got a written Constitution, even if its absence has its dangers.

The Regional Commissioner has not his written constitution. I admit that there is a case to argue that there should be set down in black and white, "A, B, C," "1, 2, 3," the powers, duties, responsibilities, functions and rights of the Regional Commissioner. But if you set them all out, some wise town clerk who got an order from the Regional Commissioner would very soon want to prove, and in my experience very soon would prove, that what the Regional Commissioner wanted him to do under Section 1, Subsection (2), paragraph I (a) he had not the power to do. That would soon be argued, and the Minister would have to settle whether he had the power, and the Law Officers of the Crown might be brought in. That is not the British way of administration. Ours is a looser way. I hesitate to tell the House what one Regional Commissioner said when we were talking about the matter. The Regional Commissioners themselves are not worried about this. They know that it works all right. One Regional Commissioner said that the glory of being the Regional Commissioner, with no definite powers at all, is that "you can jolly well do as you like." And that really is true If he had definite powers, he would be pulled up on legal argument every day of the week. He has not definite powers, but he goes with the authority of His Majesty's Government behind him. That is the great thing. He is appointed, on the submission of the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be, by His Majesty the King. In fact, broadly speaking, the local authorities do what he tells them to do, and they accept his guidance and leadership. They do not ask him what powers he has, because they know that behind him are the Ministers of the Crown, including the Minister of Home Security who can give a direction for the supersession of the local authority if that should not be done.

Mr. Simmonds

But the Home Secretary would admit that leadership is not always conspicuous in the Regional Commissioner. Perhaps he is thinking of the future?

Mr. Morrison

Leadership varies enormously in all ranks of life.

Viscountess Astor

Is it not very difficult for a Regional Commissioner to come to a town that has been heavily blitzed and do anything more than tentatively make suggestions?

Mr. Morrison

I do not think that that is so, with great respect to the Noble Lady.

Viscountess Astor

Would the Home Secretary explain to the House why, after the first, second and third blitzes the Regional Commissioners do not come together to formulate some plan to help to save the rest of the country from the horrors of the blitzed towns?

Mr. Morrison

The Noble Lady is speaking without her book. The Regional Commissioners have had several meetings since then. Why does she make these dogmatic statements?

Viscountess Astor

I am asking the question.

Mr. Morrison

The Noble Lady asked why they did not meet. She ought not to make these dogmatic statements. After all, I have a reputation to preserve as well as she has. Why should she say that they have not met when she does not know whether they have met or not? They have met several times since the blitz began. In my Department and at my instructions —and what is true of my Department is true of other Departments —every time a blitz has come we have encouraged regional consultations and so on —[Interruption]—That is true. My hon. Friend must appreciate that it is so. These things have happened. The lessons of the blitzes have been circulated and taken notice of all the time.

Viscountess Astor: I am sorry to interrupt again, but why is it that the Regional Commissioners or the Home Secretary do not ensure more co-ordination between county authorities and borough authorities? If they did, there would not be difficulties about billeting- outside the borough and people trekking to the country and sleeping in lanes.

Mr. Morrison

This is more of the argument from the particular to the general. Neither my Noble Friend nor my hon. Friend opposite ought to do it, because it is a sign of inconsecutiveness in thinking. It is not true; it really will not work. My Noble Friend takes the view which I myself expressed in earlier days when I had less responsibility. It is that the billeting authority outside the borough should be the county council. [An hon. member: "Why not argue that now?"] I cannot argue that now, because it is a matter for my colleague the Minister of Health. It would be a happy life if I could be in Opposition as well as a Minister of the Crown, as I am sure my hon. Friend opposite would like to be a Minister of the Crown himself as well as on that bench. I did argue this case, and I understand the point of view. My right hon. Friend takes the view that the county council should be used as the co-ordinating authority but that the executive authority should rest with the district council. Because of a difference of opinion it should not be assumed that the whole machinery is wrong and hopeless; as a matter of fact, the Regional Commissioners are typical British institutions and are a success. They move by persuasion, by kindness and by co-operation and have an enormous degree of authority.

Although I have argued the case strongly against the creation of one Ministry for Civil Defence, His Majesty's Government do not close their mind on the matter. If we find that any modification in that doctrine is required, we shall not be afraid to make a modification. We did it in the case of the fire brigades and are in the process of making them a national organisation, but when you come into the field of these other services which are just as much interleaved with various departments of local government administration as other functions of central administration are interlocked with other Departments of State, then we must think twice about our shortage of expert technical and administrative man-power before making any radical changes.

Dr. Guest

Would not my right hon. Friend consider appointing a Committee of the House to investigate this matter in view of the obvious difficulties which have been shown even in his own speech?

Mr. Morrison

No, Sir; I think that would be wrong. The machinery of government is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government, and if the House of Commons take the view that the Government's conception of government is all wrong, they have, as always, the remedy. Any Government that tries to pass its responsibility from itself to a Committee of the House is a Government which is unfitted to hold office. Let me give hon. Members an example of regional organisation. I went to Coventry the day after their heavy blitz. I was not the Regional Commissioner; I was the Home Secretary and the Minister of Home Security. I went there in association with Lord Dudley, Regional Commissioner for that area, and his officers and I did there a job which was typical of the kind of job which a Regional Commissioner does after a blitz. We went to the council offices. The atmosphere there was difficult, but the morale had not gone. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was with me on that occasion; my Noble Friend the Minister of State came during the day. It was a great experience. The municipality was not broken. It is important that the municipality should not be broken. If it is said to a municipality before a blitz comes, "Remember that when the blitz comes you will be out of it, and the Regional Commissioner or Ministers of State will take over "—if that is said to local authorities before raids come—what will be the effect on them? Inevitably they will say that they need not worry and that they will leave things to the Government and the Regional Commissioner. That is not the basis on which British democracy has been built. There must be self-reliance on the part of the local authorities, as they had it in Coventry the morning after that raid.

They had had a terrible battering. At the council offices, where I saw the mayor, the Chairman of the emergency committee and the officers of the council, I asked myself what that atmosphere reminded me of, for I knew that I had experienced it before. It reminded me of a political headquarters the morning after a general election in which one has experienced a thorough defeat at the polls. It reminded me, for instance, of the office where I worked after the General Election of 1931, when I felt that things were awful, altogether too bad, but when I determined to pick myself up and get ready for the next fight. As near as I can describe it, that was the spirit in Coventry at that time. As both political parties have experienced set-backs, hon. Members will know what I mean.

In the afternoon of that day, we had a meeting in Coventry at which there were present the mayor, the chairman of the emergency committee, the chief officers of the town council, the representatives of Government Departments, and the Regional Commissioner. We considered the various fields of trouble. We said, "As soon as you can do so, your job is to get on to your feet. Do not be too slow, do not have elaborate committee meetings; give your chief officers their heads; let this officer do that and that officer another thing, let the Minister of Labour do this and another Minister that," and so on. The Army gave us men. The Army have been very decent about these things all the time. I said to the town council, "Do not be afraid of the Army, but treat them as man to man."

What was the result of all this? And let me remind the House that this is the sort of job that the Regional Commissioners have to do, and do better than I was able to do it, because they have surveyed the whole of the ground before the blitz takes place. The result was that we did two things. We brought to the aid of a stricken town all the services of the State and the Departments of the State that were represented immediately on the spot. Then we pulled together with the departments of local government; we pulled together with the forces of the Army. Within an hour we had a team working on the reconstruction of the city of Coventry in the problems which it had to face. That is the sort of thing that has been done in one town after another. The machinery for that co-ordination and pulling together was there, and had not to be invented. It is a machinery that is not to be found within the details of any Act of Parliament or any Order-in-Council. It is a typical expedient that comes from the richness of our administrative experience of dealing with difficulties and problems that cannot be measured and defined. Enemy attacks from the air leave situations that cannot be foretold in actual detail before the event occurs.

Finally, I come to the point of the local authorities. I do not want to press my hon. Friend unduly, but there was a letter of his in the "Times," and an article in the "Times." He took the view that local authorities should wholly, or partly, or largely, go out of this business of Civil Defence, and I must confess I thought his speech supported that, although he said he did not wish to get into that field of controversy. Neither do I, because it is not a real issue, and I do not think it is a practical proposition. What have we done with local authorities? We have given to the appropriate local authority a function allied to that with which it is familiar in peace-time under its emergency committees and we have added to these duties. The emergency committees are expected to cover the whole field of administration and we are sending a communication out to them to remind them of that. It is important that these committees should not be composed of the most elderly members of the council; local authorities should choose the younger and more energetic men for this work. It has been suggested, and, indeed, I have considered the question, whether we should alter these emergency committees because, for example, they are not bright enough. We can obtain the power to do so by a Defence Regulation, but I am doubtful whether it is wise, because when we have made a change, and said to the local authority, "That lot has got to go, and you must put in another lot," they will be able to put in whom they like, in which case they may be rather awkward.

Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)

I really do not understand why they should get awkward merely because they do something that is in the national interest.

Mr. Morrison

My hon. and learned Friend is leaving his democratic Liberalism, which can be a very obstinate institution, a long way behind.

Mr. Davies

It is because I am anxious to preserve that democratic principle that I am anxious to do all that is necessary to preserve it, not merely for a temporary period, but for ever.

Mr. Morrison

I quite agree, but I will tell my hon. and learned Friend a story of a Liberal. There was a chap who was told that the time had come for him to make way for a younger man. He said, "Are you telling me to go, because if you are, I am not going? If you are appealing to my sense of duty, I will think about it." Owing to his sense of duty, in due course he went. Is not that typically British, and, if I may say so, typically Liberal? Therefore, if we take power to say who shall do the work, the machine will tend to be resentful, the officers awkward, and the rest of the council difficult. Is it not better to say, "Look here, gentlemen, there is this fault, that fault and the other, and I want you to put them right." Is that not likely to be the better way? In short, once you begin to tamper with local government, there is no moderate course between that and wiping them out. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, when he was Minister of Home Security, did displace a local authority in their Civil Defence functions, and I agreed with him, and put in a controller. That has succeeded, but we do not want many of these cases. Controllers do not grow on every apple tree. They have to be found.

Moreover there are difficulties about it. You have to fit the new Civil Defence man into the structure of the municipal machine. You can get to the point of saying that the local authority should go out of Civil Defence altogether. It is arguable, but when it is argued there is this to be said, that then you are in precisely the same difficulty as you are in national administration of cutting off parts of the departments of the medical officer, of the education officer, of the public assistance officer, of the borough surveyor, of the town clerk—of all of them in a period when you are faced, not with a superfluity of administrative and technical skill, but a shortage. There fore I was not a bit surprised when I asked the Lord Mayor of Plymouth, "Do you think it would be right for me to supersede your emergency committee?" and he said, "No." [Interruption.] I did not propose to bring the Noble Lady into it, because I did not think it fair to blame the husband for his wife, or the wife for her husband. But I asked the Lord Mayor of Plymouth if it would be right to push them out, and he said, "No." "Would it be wise to displace the local authority as Civil Defence authority?" He said, "No." He is a man of a very different temperament from mine—I admit, a more peaceful person ality—

Viscountess Astor

Tell us what else he said.

Mr. Morrison

I cannot give a verbatim account of it. It would be most embarrassing. It is comes to that, I should not like to give a verbatim account of all that I said to the Lord Mayor, but there was his view, and it is so. I am not going to say that local authorities are perfect. [Interruption.] I hope the Noble Lady is not going to talk about "passing the buck." I can assure her that that is two-way traffic.

Viscountess Astor

I am willing to take it on.

Mr. Morrison

We will talk about it some day. Local authorities are not perfect, but a lot of them are as near perfect as Governments and Members of Parliament. On the whole, taking it by and large, British local government has nothing much to apologise for. It has risen to the occasion in this war. I shall be accused of spoiling them and being emotional and being afraid of them. I am not afraid of them; I have taken away their fire brigades and have done it perfectly peacefully, and I think it was right. If I had tried it six months before it is probable that the House would have made a great row about it. When I was Minister of Transport I did not hesitate to take the tramways away from the London County Council and put them under the London Transport Board. Knowing local authorities, I know their faults as well as their virtues. I am the last man in the world to be afraid of them. They have their imperfections and their faults, but, taking them by and large, they have done a great job. They have served their country well. In so far as they fail, if I find them corrupt or basically inefficient, I will shift them, order them about, get them on the move, but when suggestions for their destruction come from quarters some of which have not the clearest of records in the democratic struggle, when it comes to uplifting representative institutions for the sake of doing it I am not willing to do it. I believe that, with the imperfections which exist, and to which we will give attention, this great organisation of Civil Defence has done as good a job as any of the Armed Forces of the Crown. The House of Commons can say to Ministers, "We are watching you, we shall be ready to trip you up, to criticise you and push you off, but we are entitled to say, broadly speaking, "We have fashioned a machine between us which has rendered our country a great service in its hour of trial."

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.