Lords Sitting of 17 July 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEMBLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (NORTH LINDSEY WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WEMELEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
FINANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
MILK INDUSTRY (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

POULTRY INDUSTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
3.6 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received. I shoud like, in doing so, to draw your Lordships' attention to two points which are not covered by the Amendments to the Bill at this stage, but to which I promised my noble friend Lord Bertie to refer at a later stage. My noble friend raised a point on Clause 15—namely, that no provision is made for appeal to the Courts by any person aggrieved by the
192
action of Ministers, under subsection (2) (c), in limiting, suspending or revoking a direction or licence. The object of Clause 15 is to secure that all imported eggs that have been preserved by any process are appropriately marked, before importation, to indicate that they have been so preserved. We cannot rely on inspection at our ports and the only alternative is to place on the country of origin the onus of proving that under their regulations any egg that has been preserved will have been marked before arrival here. If Ministers are satisfied about the marking regulations in a particular country, then a general direction or individual licences will be issued to enable fresh eggs from that source to come in unmarked. No further complications would be likely to arise, but there is always the possibility that the regulations might subsequently be found not to be operating to our satisfaction, and it is to guard against that possibility that it is necessary to provide, in Clause 15 (2) (c), for the suspension or revocation of a direction or licence. I think that my noble friend Lord Bertie will agree that this is not a matter on which it would be appropriate to provide for appeal to the Courts against the action of Ministers.
Another point raised by my noble friend which I promised to look into before the Report stage was the question of the laying of orders made under Clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill. It will be seen from Clause 17 (4) of the Bill that the most important order in these two clauses—that providing for the actual regulation of imported supplies—has to receive the affirmative approval of both Houses of Parliament. The orders under Clause 18 are purely of an administrative nature, to enable the Board of Trade to acquire such statistical information as is necessary to them for the proper exercise of their powers under Clause 17, and in such circumstances it is not necessary for these orders to be liable to annulment by Parliament. But under Clause 19 (2) it will be observed that these orders must be laid before Parliament as soon as possible after they are made. I think that clearly defines the point raised by my noble friend on the Committee stage. I understand that there was anxiety in his mind as to whether an important order

193
affecting the regulation of imported supplies could be revoked or amended. He will see that under subsection (4) provision is made to that effect. With that explanation of the two points which are not covered by Amendments at this stage, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his explanation of Clause 15 which, on the whole, is satisfactory; but under Clause 17 he drew your Lordships' attention to subsection (4). Under that subsection an order
"shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of thirty days from the beginning of the day on which the order is made, unless, before the expiration of that period, the order has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament, but without prejudice td anything previously done under the order or to the making of a new order."
That order must of necessity subsist for thirty days at least before it comes before Parliament, and I do not think that the noble Earl has made a good case on that point.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, may I point out to the noble Viscount that under Clause 19, subsection (2), the order which is quoted in subsection (4) of Clause 17, and indeed other orders under Clause 17 as well as orders under Clause 18, must be laid before Parliament "as soon as may be" after they are made.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: But still these orders must exist for thirty days before anything can be done against them.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl for a further explanation with regard to the two matters which he said were not covered by Amendments. The first relates to the making of orders affecting fresh eggs imported into this country, the purpose being of course to dispense in these cases with any marking to indicate that they are preserved; they are fresh eggs. But the noble Earl said there would be no marking here. I take it that does not mean that fresh eggs from a foreign country will be unmarked. They will still be marked "Foreign," "Danish" or whatever it
194
is. We should be assured that such a mark will be on them although, in fact, they will be fresh eggs.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Lords, this is a matter that will be raised under an Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend the Marquess of Aberdeen. Therefore it was not a matter for me to bring before your Lordships' House on this Motion. But the answer is in the affirmative. Unless there is an amendment, which there may be, under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, the regulation as to the name of the country of origin and the statement as to whether the eggs are fresh or preserved will operate in the future as in the past.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 2:
Register of suppliers of stock and of eggs for hatching.
(3) As from the appointed day, no person shall carry on either of the said businesses unless he is entered in the said register as a person carrying on that business, or use any premises in connection with either of the said businesses carried on by him for any such purpose as aforesaid unless the premises are entered in the said register as premises to be so used:
Provided that the Commission may, either absolutely or subject to limitations, exempt any class of persons or premises from the preceding provisions of this subsection.
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in the proviso in subsection (3), after "Provided that the Commission," to insert "after consultation with the Stock Improvement Advisory Committee to be constituted as hereinafter provided." The noble Earl said: My Lords, when this clause was considered in Committee, Lord Addison expressed apprehension with regard to the liberality of the power to grant exemptions which is conferred upon the Commission. The House will agree that it is clearly most important that a fair degree of latitude should be allowed to the Commission in this respect. There is no doubt that their control over the practices of stock suppliers will need to be achieved progressively by stages, so that in all probability in the early days a number of persons may well have to be left outside the scope of control, only to be brought in at a later date.
I have endeavoured to go as far as is considered practicable to meet the objections voiced by the noble Lord, and the Amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper is the result. The Stock Improvement Advisory Committee will include representatives of all sections of the industry, and it is certain that the Advisory Committee would be anxious to ensure that everyone who ought to be within the scope of these regulations should be so included. It is hoped, therefore, that the Amendment to the effect that the Commission have to consult the Stock Improvement Advisory Committee will go a long way to meet the general objections brought forward by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, after ("Commission") insert ("after consultation with the Stock Improvement Advisory Committee to be constituted as hereinafter provided").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for going some way to meet the very important point to which he has referred. I still entertain very serious misgivings about this matter, but I admit that the Amendment which the noble Earl has introduced is a distinct improvement. The improvement would have been of much more value if the noble Earl had agreed to the Amendment I proposed last time in the constitution of the Stock Improvement Advisory Committee as set out in Clause 6. I proposed that there should be representatives of those who purchased the supplies. The noble Earl gave me an assurance, on subsection (3), paragraph (c), that these people would be represented, and I hope when we come to that he will be able to give it in quite explicit terms to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Regulations as to supplies of stock and of eggs for hatching]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, after the second ("the") insert ("said").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("to be constituted as hereinafter provided").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Breeders' accreditation scheme.
(6) When the said scheme has been made and submitted to them, the Ministers, after consultation with the Treasury as to the financial provisions thereof, may by order approve the scheme with or without modification, but the order shall be of no effect until it has been confirmed by a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament:
Provided that no scheme so amended shall have effect until it has been confirmed by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the first Amendment to this clause and the next standing in my name are drafting Amendments arising out of the Amendment moved by Lord Addison to Clause 4 (6). The Amendments are introduced for the sake of consistency, and I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("confirmed") and insert ("approved")
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("both Houses") and insert ("each House").(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out the proviso in subsection (6).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' approval I suggest that this Amendment and the next, to insert a new proviso in subsection (9), be considered together. Your Lordships will recall that during the Committee stage Lord Addison moved an Amendment the effect of which was to provide that an order approving a breeders' accreditation scheme should be subject to confirmation by Resolution of each House of Parliament. On the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour an Amendment was accepted by the Government on the understanding that, if necessary, the matter would be raised again at a later stage. I do not feel it necessary to ask your Lordships' House to reconsider the matter of principle which is involved. In the last two Amendments which have already been passed there is a very small verbal alteration.
But a second amendment, somewhat different from the first, was moved by the noble Lord and was accepted by the House. There was no discussion on it because I think the noble Lord assumed that it was more or less consequential. It is suggested that the scheme that may be amended should only be submitted to both Houses of Parliament if it relates to subsection (3) which is the relevant subsection in respect of the finance of the schemes. It is proposed in this form because it is considered not to be necessary that the Houses of Parliament should be concerned with the approval of an order which is only an amendment of a portion of a scheme of a trifling description. It is to be expected that an accreditation scheme, touching as it will the practice of a large number of poultry farmers, will almost inevitably call for amendment from time to time, but it is considered unnecessary that matters of minor amendment in detail should be submitted to the Houses of Parliament. The main point at issue which my noble friend raised was that the original scheme should be submitted to both Houses, and that subsequently any amendment of the scheme which affected the rates of payment under the grants given from tie public purse should come before both Houses of Parliament. This has been adopted in the Amendment which now stands in my name. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 8, leave out from the beginning to the end of line ro.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I think it is a pity that it should be left to the Ministry to decide what are major and what are minor points. I do not know what the noble Lord opposite thinks.
LORD ADDISON: I was going to make some observations when we came to the next Amendment, which really follows this one, to insert the new proviso. As I understand the position, a major scheme would be submitted to both Houses of Parliament, and that was in accordance with our agreement. With regard to the power that the Commission have under the Bill as it is before us to make such amendments to the scheme as they think fit, the point I raised was that the scheme might be so amended as to be quite a
198
different scheme, and that if that were so, the scheme so amended ought to be approved by Parliament. I understand from the modification now proposed by the noble Earl that an amended scheme will be submitted to Parliament only if it changes matters dealt with in subsection (3)—that is to say, rates of contribution, premium and so on. I admit that that substantially meets the point of my criticism.
It does not, however, meet it altogether, because it is quite clear that a scheme might be so amended as to affect producers in very many other respects than the amount of premium they were going to receive or the contributions that they might be called upon to make, and so far as the scheme was so amended it would not, as I understand it, under this Amendment be submitted to Parliament at all. It might still vitally amend the scheme, but the noble Earl's Amendment is a very substantial improvement I think on the Bill as it was, and although I agree that it would be a waste of Parliamentary time to ask the two Houses to deal with trivial amendments, I should like to see an amended scheme which vitally affects matters submitted to Parliament. Still I thank the noble Earl for what he has done.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment goes with the one which I have just explained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 27, at end insert:
("Provided that an order approving an amendment of any provision made by the scheme under subsection (3) of this section shall be of no effect until it has been approved by a Resolution passed by each House of Parliament.").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Poultry products to be graded on sale.
7.—(1) No poultry product produced in the United Kingdom shall be sold or exposed for sale on or after the day that is the appointed day in relation to that product unless—

(a) it has been graded by reference to the prescribed grades; and

(b) it is marked in the prescribed manner with the grade designation appropriate to the prescribed grade to which it belongs or is indicated in some other prescribed manner to be of that grade:

Provided that—
(ii) the Commission may, either absolutely or subject to limitations, exempt any class of sale from the provisions of this subsection.
(6) Where it appears to a Food and Drugs authority that a person who has acted as mentioned in subsection (4) of this section would, if charged with having so acted, be in a position to avail himself of the defence specified in that subsection, the authority shall not institute any proceedings against him for having so acted, but shall report the facts to the Commission.
3.27 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "produced in the United Kingdom." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I would like to explain the next Amendment in my name as well as this one, because they depend upon one another. As the clause stands now, home-produced eggs only will be subject to the regulations with regard to breeding and marking. Surely all eggs, both home-produced and imported, should be treated alike, and if all eggs had to be graded, that would be so. A practice which is adopted at present is to place at the top a certain number of the best eggs and to put at the bottom various other grades and sell them all together, the lower grade eggs being sold at the high price of the better eggs. I consider that foreign produce should be subject to the same conditions as home produce, and with that object in view I move the Amendment on the Paper. I think it must be quite obvious that it would be unfair to allow foreign produce to come in and not subject it to the same rules as those to which our own industry is subject. I understand that this Bill is mainly to help the British poultry industry, but unless you put foreign imports on the same basis and impose upon them the same conditions as are imposed upon the home producer, the latter is not going to benefit one little bit from this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, leave out from ("product") to ("shall") in line 4.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, may I support the Amendment of the noble Marquess? I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will consider some Amendment of this nature favourably.
200
The English egg will be carefully graded in weights which run within very narrow limits, and it is quite possible in the egg business to make a lot of money by putting a number of smaller eggs amongst the larger eggs and selling them as of the same grade. To the general public, an egg is an egg, and people do not have regard to the weights which are generally laid down in the standards as to size. It is undoubtedly likely to put the home producer at a disadvantage if the foreign egg can be sold as a similar egg to the English egg while slightly lighter. The sellers of foreign eggs will be able in consequence to sell more cheaply and therefore to get a bigger demand. I hope that this Amendment will be favourably considered, although I feel sure that the noble Earl is full of arguments as to its administrative impossibility.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, thinks that on behalf of the Department I represent I am going to raise administrative obstacles, but I can assure him that in this instance that is not the case. I should like, however, to point out another consideration in addition to those which the noble Marquess and the noble Earl have mentioned. They have contended that the regulations adopted by the Poultry Commission to effect the grading and marking of poultry products will impose a burden upon the home industry which equally ought to be shared by the import industry. The consideration that I submit is that during the last fifteen or twenty years the opposite has been the case. The home producer who supplies eggs to the market has had his produce ungraded, while for as long a period as twenty years the eggs imported from Denmark, Holland and Belgium commonly commanded a premium over the price fetched by British eggs because they were voluntarily graded. If the proposal of the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, were to take effect it would mean that the Poultry Commission would be made responsible for furthering the interests of the import trade as well as looking after the welfare of the home industry, which is the main purpose of this Bill.
This Bill is intended primarily as a measure of assistance to the home producer to compete on better terms with

201
the import trade, and if it is to be succesful in its aim I do not think there can be any material advantage to the home industry in extending its provisions to imported produce. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, quoted the case of persons selling eggs from baskets where those at the top are of better quality than those at the bottom. That, I agree, is done in certain instances, but I do not think that that should outweigh what I think is the most important consideration. If it were provided that the Poultry Commission should be responsible for the grading of imported eggs there would be no great advantage to the home producer. We would, in fact, be doing the work of the country of origin in grading imported eggs. It is for that reason that I hope the Amendment will not be pressed, especially as the representative bodies in this matter—the National Farmers' Union and the National Poultry Council—have expressed themselves as opposed to the Amendment of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I cannot agree with the last remark of the noble Earl. The biggest poultry association in this country desires this Amendment to protect the home producer. I would like to emphasize the fact that the standard of foreign eggs is not the same as our own. There is a great import industry, particularly from the three countries referred to by the noble Earl, and they have an enormous advantage. They have a great surplus production which they cannot consume at home, and they can put their worst eggs across here, especially when the practice referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is resorted to and small eggs are hidden so that the purchaser does not know what he is going to get. If the British producer is to produce a better egg and then have to meet competition from inferior eggs which are not subject to any regulation by the Poultry Commission, then the whole point of having a Poultry Commission to look after the interests of British producers has gone. I really feel that this Amendment is essential to protect the home producer. I have always thought that the Ministry of Agriculture to-day is out to give the British producer a chance against the foreigner, but if you are going to allow the foreign producer to send eggs which are not of the same standard as our own,
202
and are not to be regulated in the same way as the eggs put on the market by the home producer, then quite frankly I cannot agree that you are helping the British producer, which is, presumably, the object of the Bill. I cannot agree to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House, but I feel impelled to do so because the noble Marquess challenged my statement that representative organisations of producers have expressed opposition to the Amendment. It is true that the society which the noble Marquess has in mind—I take it he is referring to the Scientific Poultry Breeders' Association—supports the Amendment, but that association is only the largest single poultry association, with a membership of something like twenty thousand members. The National Poultry Council, which is the representative association of all sections of poultry interests, together with the National Farmers' Union, have categorically stated that they are not in favour of the proposal submitted by the noble Marquess. For twenty years and more the home producer has stood at a great disadvantage because his eggs have not been compulsorily graded, whereas eggs from Holland, Denmark and Belgium have been graded. These graded eggs have fetched a premium in the open market because the consumer knew the quality and type of the eggs he was purchasing. Now we have got, under the provisions of this Bill, what the industry has been requiring for many years. That will be the great advantage that the home producer will have over his competitor who imports eggs into the country from abroad. If the Poultry Commission are expected to grade the importers' produce, the vast assistance that will be rendered to the home industry by the grading provisions of the Bill will be lost, and it is for that reason that I would ask your Lordships not to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (ii) of the proviso in subsection (1), after "Commission," to insert "after consultation with the Marketing Advisory Committee to be constituted as hereinafter provided." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment

203
applies to the Marketing Advisory Committee the same provision as was applied after the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, to the Stock Improvement Advisory Committee: that is that the Commission, before giving exemption, shall consult with the relevant Advisory Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 24, after ("Commission") insert ("after consultation with the Marketing Advisory Committee to be constituted as hereinafter provided").—(The Earl of Fever-sham.)
On question, Amendment agreed to.
3.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved to add to subsection (6) the words "and simultaneously to the wholesaler concerned." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is a case where it seems to be desirable that the wholesaler who is getting these eggs should also be warned and given notice, so that if there is anything not quite as it should be he should know that the Commission have had representations made to them and should therefore be protected from doing anything on which the Commission might, as a result of the report, decide against him as a person who is providing contrary to the Statute.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 40, at end insert ("and simultaneously to the wholesaler concerned").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, where a retailer can successfully use the warranty defence which is provided in subsection (4) of Clause 7, the facts of the case are to be reported to the Poultry Commission, because the Commission and not the local authorities are responsible for looking after and supervising the activities of the wholesalers. The object of my noble friend's Amendment is to ensure that the wholesaler concerned gets notification of any complaint against him, and in good time, before the facts of the case are forgotten, so that he may have a proper opportunity of being warned and exonerating himself. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess that this proposal in itself sounds quite reasonable; but the effect of the Amendment would be a great deal wider. The wholesaler would receive notification
204
under the Amendment at the same time as the Commission, and by the time the Commission's inspector came upon the scene the wholesaler concerned would have had the opportunity to cover up what might be the real source of the trouble.
If I may give an example, the wholesaler may be the owner of a packing station and a report made by a local authority may throw doubt upon the effectiveness of his candling and upon his grading. Surely the important thing would be that the inspector should go along at once and see just how that candling and that grading are being done, so that he might ascertain what was at the root of the trouble and how the matter should be put right. To do this effectively he would want to see how the grading and candling of the eggs were normally being carried out, and if the wholesaler concerned were given due warning it would naturally be Impossible for the Commission to ascertain his normal activities in the conduct of business. The only people who need expect severe treatment under this Bill are those who wilfully or recklessly break the law, and it would be to that very restricted class to whom the Amendment would be of greatest advantage, because of the warning that it would give them. It is obviously the work of the Commission to see that grading is done properly; but that will be effected as far as possible by assisting and advising the wholesalers and not by prosecuting them. With that explanation I hope the noble Marquess will not press his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, if I may explain, my idea was not so much to help the wholesaler to do his business as to help the consumer to get what he is supposed to get. Perhaps the noble Earl could consider whether the consumer or the purchaser could be protected in some way when there is a possibility that he is not getting what he is expected to get, or is getting inferior quality. I am sure he sees the point I have in view. I agree that wholesalers are as a rule quite well able to look after themselves—sometimes too well able—but after the noble Earl's explanation I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8:
General provisions as to wholesale trade in poultry products.
(2) A person shall be deemed to carry on the business of selling by wholesale poultry products produced in the United Kingdom if he sells any such product by wholesale in the course of any business carried on by him:
Provided …
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), after "him." to insert
"or in the case of eggs if he shall purchase in the aggregate in any one week more than 1,000 dozen of eggs from a seller who is a person engaged in poultry farming activities and the eggs were produced by the seller in the course of those activities in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of Section seven hereof, notwithstanding that such eggs are sold by him not for re-sale."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to include as wholesalers the very large concerns which buy eggs from producers and sell them in their own shops. At present they only come under the provisions applicable to retailers. Unless these firms are classed as wholesalers they will not be under any obligation to make returns, and a very large volume of eggs of which neither the Commission nor the Board of Trade will have any information will be distributed to consumer. The Commission would consequently be hampered in controlling markets and working a national storage scheme. I look upon this Amendment as a friendly one. I hope my noble friend will agree and will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 5, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the Amendment moved by my noble friend can certainly be described as a friendly one, inasmuch as it has a point of very real substance behind it. At the present time negotiations are being conducted with the section of the poultry industry concerned—that is, the multiple retailer and the branch of the co-operative organisation. I would here and now wish to say that if it would be agreeable to the noble Viscount I would ask him at this stage not to press his Amendment, because negotiations are not yet completed, and the point is having the attention it deserves. If a satisfactory conclusion can
206
be arrived at, there will be an opportunity for a proper insertion in another place. I hope that these remarks will satisfy the noble Viscount that the matter is under consideration at the present time.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am quite satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl, but I should have thought that the proper place to put in an Amendment was on the Third Reading in this House.
LORD ADDISON: May I take it from the noble Earl, with respect to this very important matter, which clearly relates to examination of a different order, that we can be assured that, at all events, there will be an opportunity for this House or the other to consider the point after these negotiations have been concluded, and before the Bill is parted with in another place?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Addison, that such an opportunity and facilities for discussion will be afforded, if not in this House, which I think is improbable owing to the length of the negotiations, then in another place.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Registration of wholesale traders in poultry products]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment cannot accurately be described as a drafting Amendment, but it is an Amendment similar to the two which I have previously moved.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 16, after ("Commission") insert ("after consultation with the said Marketing Advisory Committee").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Regulations as to wholesale trade in poultry products]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: These Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 40, after ("the") insert "said").
Page 14, line 40, leave out ("to be constituted as hereinafter provided").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13:
Marking of eggs preserved by cold or chemical storage.
13.—(1) Provision may be made, by regulations applicable to any class of eggs, for requiring either—
(a) that eggs of that class, which are to be placed in cold storage or in chemical storage in premises used for such storage of eggs by way of trade or for purposes of gain, shall not be so placed until they have been marked in the prescribed manner; or
3.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), to leave out "cold storage or in chemical storage" and insert "storage for preservation." The noble Earl said: My Lords, if it will be convenient to the House, I suggest that this Amendment should be considered together with the other Amendments to this clause standing in my name. Clause 13 makes special provision to ensure the marking of eggs that have been preserved by one or other of the various methods of storage. It would not be sufficient in the case of stored eggs merely to provide that the eggs must bear a prescribed mark when sold. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that such a provision could not be enforced, because it is quite impossible to tell by inspecting an egg whether it is fresh or has been subjected to some form of storage. Therefore this clause requires all commercial egg storage premises to be registered, and regulations made by the Poultry Commission under the clause will place on the occupiers of the storage premises the obligation to mark all stored eggs in the prescribed manner.
Your Lordships will see that the clause refers to "cold or chemical storage." It is felt that these specific references to "cold or chemical storage," and the definition of these terms, might give rise to some difficulty in the future. New methods of storage may come into use which would not conveniently fit into the definitions that have been given of cold or chemical storage. It is therefore proposed that in place of those words should be inserted "storage for preservation" which would cover all eventualities for the future. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 17, leave out ("cold storage or in chemical storage") and insert ("storage for preservation")
208
Page 17, line 39, leave out ("cold storage or chemical storage") and insert ("storage for preservation")
Page 18, line 4, leave out ("cold storage or in chemical storage") and insert ("storage for preservation")
Page 18, line 14, leave out ("cold storage or in chemical storage") and insert ("storage for preservation").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): With your Lordships' permission I will put all the Amendments to this clause, standing in the name of the noble Earl, together.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 15:
Control of importation to secure marking of preserved eggs.
15.—(1) It shall not be lawful, on or after the appointed day, to import into the United Kingdom any eggs unless either—
(c) the eggs bear a mark prescribed by rules made by the Ministers under this section.
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
"(c) the eggs bear a mark indicating the country of origin, and shall not be described as new laid, or
(d) the eggs bear another mark prescribed by rules made by the Ministers under this section."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to ensure that all eggs coming into the United Kingdom shall be traceable to the country of origin, and so enable customers to know what eggs they are purchasing. I know there is a Bill before Parliament to amend the Merchandise Marks Act in a way which will probably give effect to this object, but that Bill is not yet law, and it goes to prove that the necessity for such an Amendment as this has already been recognised by the Government. The provision that the term "new laid" shall not be used simply seeks to tell the truth, by stopping the present misleading descriptions which state that eggs produced in distant countries are new laid.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 12, leave out paragraph (c) and insert the said new paragraphs (c) and (d).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment

209
would be one quite contrary to that to which the noble Viscount has just made reference, and it would be one which he may not yet have considered. I would submit that if this Amendment were carried, its effect would apparently be that if foreign preserved eggs were marked with the country of origin and were not described as new laid they could be imported into the United Kingdom without any mark of preservation having been put upon them. That is one of the very things which this Bill is endeavouring to prevent. That is merely a mistake in the wording of the Amendment, and it would have that very great drawback if it were carried in its present form. Perhaps I may turn to the larger issue. My noble friend is quite correct in saying that there are consultations at present ensuing with regard to the amendment of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, and it is considered that as the general issue is being raised, not only with respect to poultry products but in respect to imports generally, it would be quite inopportune to make any Amendment to this Bill before there was general legislation.
As your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade recently announced in another place that, together with the Minister of Agriculture, he had been considering representations that the existing option to mark goods which require an indication of origin under the Merchandise Marks Act with the word "Foreign" or "Empire," instead of with the definite indication of country of origin, should be withdrawn. They had reached the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds in principle for removing this option, and the practical issues are being studied at the present time. In view of that explanation, I think that it is hardly appropriate to consider further the particular relationship that that legislation would have to eggs. The first paragraph of the noble Viscount's Amendment refers to new laid eggs, which is a matter which clearly relates to freshness and not to origin. It must be admitted, unfortunately, that there are still a good many home producers who supply eggs, if I may so put it, in a less "new laid" condition than some of those that are imported from such countries as Eire, Denmark and Holland. Bearing in mind, therefore, that every individual imported egg already has to be stamped with a
210
mark of indication of origin, it would be unreasonable to prohibit the use of the description "new laid" in connection with any eggs but those which are home produced. For those reasons I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I was not quite sure whether my noble friend agreed with the intention of my Amendment. He referred to the question of the amending of the Merchandise Marks Act, but when is that legislation likely to become law? It cannot become law this Session, considering that there is such a congestion of business.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, with regard to the option to which the noble Lord referred, I understand that the position is that the negotiations now being conducted relate to an alteration in the method of marking goods, not to any proposal that they should not be marked. I take it that the position is that they are either marked "Empire" or "Foreign," or they are marked according to the country of origin. I hope the noble Earl will be able to assure us that there is no proposal that they should not be marked. They should be marked one way or the other, but it is relatively immaterial which.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Certainly in respect of eggs there will be a mark, either specifying that the egg is foreign or Empire, or alternatively giving the country of origin. In the case of Denmark they always stamp on the eggs the word "Denmark" as the country of origin. With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Bertie, I have already informed him that in principle my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has agreed that the option should be withdrawn, but I am not in a position to state when such legislation will be, passed, or whether it will be on the Statute Book by the end of this Session.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we on this side hope that these arrangements for marking eggs will be made before the next General Election.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Power to Enter Premises]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved a manuscript Amendment, in subsection (2), page 33, line 13, to leave out "cold storage or chemical storage" and to insert "storage for preservation". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to the Amendments moved in my name to Clause 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 13, leave out ("cold storage or chemical storage") and insert ("storage for preservation").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36:
Loans and grants for improvement of packing facilities.
(4) All sums to be paid by the Ministers under this section, whether by way of loan or by way of grant, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, and the aggregate of all the said sums shall not exceed fifty thousand pounds.
4.6 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert "of which not more than five thousand pounds shall be expended by way of grant." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to ensure that a large proportion of this £50,000 fund shall not be spent merely on demonstrations, for which grants only are to be provided. I do not think anybody will say that £50,000 is an excessive amount for the purposes of loans under this Bill. The great advantage of a loan, as far as the Treasury is concerned, is that it is repaid, and that interest is paid on it, whereas in the case of grants, the principal is not paid back, and no interest is payable. Therefore, in order to allow as much money as possible to be available for loans, I think it would be wise to put a limit to the amount to be spent on grants. As I understand, these demonstrations are only to last for a very short time at the beginning of the operation of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 40, at end insert ("of which not more than five thousand pounds shall be expended by way of grant").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Marquess will agree with me that it is not possible at
212
this stage to forecast exactly the extent to which producers will wish to take advantage of the facilities for loans which are provided under this Bill. The noble Marquess has drawn attention to the fact that the total provision is limited to £50,000. We cannot conclude that producers will necessarily come forward as readily as some may anticipate for loans, because loans may equally be provided by some alternative accommodation, and the result of segregating the total fund provided into two distinct funds might very well be unfortunate. The money in one fund might not be exhausted while in the other fund it might be used at an early date, and if the Amendment were carried there would be no opportunity of augmenting the one fund which had been exhausted from the balance of the other. I suggest therefore that the arrangements as planned in the Bill are in the best interests of the producer. I should like to assure the noble Marquess and those whom he represents in this poultry discussion that it is not contemplated that any substantial sum shall be devoted to demonstrational purposes. The bulk of the fund is intended to go on loan purposes, for the assistance of the producers in packing stations. I hope the noble Marquess will be satisfied with that explanation.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, before we part from this I should like to express a note of vehement opposition to the proposal of the noble Marquess. As I said last time, in our opinion the proposals of the Bill in regard to packing stations for the benefit of producers are miserably inadequate, and I do not depart from anything I have said. Out of the miserable £50,000 which the Government are proposing to provide to assist producers to set up packing stations, the noble Marquess is going to insist that at least £45,000 should be paid back. That is the effect of the Amendment. I thought he was trying to help the producers, but under his Amendment all the producers will get by way of grant, as a maximum, will be £5,000. I sincerely hope your Lordships at least will not cut down the miserable contribution to that extent.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I say that the noble Lord opposite has quite misrepresented my intentions? My Amendment is

213
intended to be a friendly Amendment, as indeed all my Amendments have been. I am not against the Poultry Industry Bill as it stands. I am trying to improve it. As regards the noble Earl's statement, I am quite satisfied that it is not intended to spend a great deal of money on demonstrations, although I gather that possibly loans are going to be made for other purposes than packing facilities. If that is so I am delighted to hear it. The marginal note says, "Loans and grants for improvement of packing facilities." I presume that that summarises the whole clause. I am delighted to hear that advances will possibly be made for other purposes of the industry than merely packing facilities. After the noble Earl's explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, in the interests of clarity and for future reference I should like to take this opportunity of informing the noble Lord opposite that subsection (1) of Clause 36 is in respect of loans for the establishment of producers' packing stations. Subsection (2) of Clause 36 is for the purposes of grants for the holding of demonstrations of methods of packing dead poultry, etc. Therefore a grant cannot be made to packing stations under subsection (1).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42:
Interpretation.
42. In this Act, except where it is otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say—
"chemical storage" means storage for the purpose of preserving eggs by any process involving the use of gas, vapour, or gaseous mixture, or storage for the purpose of preserving eggs by any other process, being a process which does not alter the composition of the shells, but excluding cold storage;
"cold storage" means storage for the purpose of preserving eggs in a natural atmosphere cooled by artificial means to a temperature not exceeding forty degrees fahrenheit;
"hatchery" means any premises on which fowls eggs are incubated for the purpose of carrying on the business of supplying baby chicks (that is to say, chicks which have never been fed) or started chicks (that is to say, chicks which have been fed);
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out the definitions of "chemical storage" and "cold storage" and insert:
"'storage for preservation means, in relation to eggs, storage thereof for the purpose of preserving them by any process which does not alter the composition of the shells thereof."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 4, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 14, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved to omit the definition of "hatchery" and substitute the following:
"'hatchery' means the premises of any person who for the purpose of his business buys all or part of, the eggs through which the chicks sold are produced."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I wonder how many of your Lordships understand the definition of "hatchery" on page 39 of the Bill. It reads:
"'Hatchery' means any premises on which fowls' eggs are incubated for the purpose of carrying on the business of supplying baby chicks (that is to say, chicks which have never been fed) or started chicks (that is to say, chicks which have been fed)."
I can quite understand that those who are not versed in poultry matters would not understand that definition, but I fancy those who do know something about poultry would also be somewhat mystified. My idea in putting down this Amendment is to have something a little more definite in the Bill as to what a hatchery really is. If noble Lords will look at Clause 2, subsection 8, they will see that there is a big difference in the fees which are to be paid to the Commission. In the case of a hatchery the fee is £5 5s., and in the other cases it is 5s. Therefore it is very important that the definition of a hatchery should be extremely clear, otherwise some people may be called upon to pay £5 5s. when really 5s. is all they ought to be called upon to pay.
I agree that it is extremely difficult to define what a chick is. But as the definition stands in the Bill quite an old hen may be described as a chick. It says "chicks which have been fed," but it does not at all limit the time. There is no

215
definition, as far as I know, of what a chick is, and, as I say, under the definition at present in the Bill you might have quite an old hen classed as a chick. I do not know whether the noble Earl can suggest a better definition than I have put down, but if he can I assure him all those interested in this matter would be grateful to him because, quite frankly, the definition in the Bill at present is not a satisfactory one. I agree it is a difficult matter, but it is very important that the word "hatchery" should have a meaning that the ordinary individual can understand. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 33, and insert the said new words.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess one question on his Amendment, and that is as to the man who buys "part" of his eggs. Which "part" of his eggs does he buy—the yolk or the white?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I am afraid the Amendment of the noble Marquess would not fulfil the object he has in mind. To exclude the class of hatchery to which he refers it would be necessary to proceed otherwise than by amending the definition of the term "hatchery." If he will turn to Clause 2 (1) he will see these words:
"It shall be the duty of the Commission to keep a register (in this Act referred to as the 'Stock Suppliers' Register') of persons carrying on the business of supplying fowls not intended for immediate slaughter or the business of supplying fowls' eggs for hatching.…"
Therefore, there is no mention of the word "hatchery" in the governing subsection of Clause 2. The Bill confers a general power of exemption on the Poultry Commission, and it is quite likely, as was suggested by the Poultry Technical Committee, that the Commission will, in fact, decide to exempt hatcheries which produce their own eggs from the necessity of registering, at least in the early stages of the scheme. I do not think there is any justification for a permanent and irrevocable exemption since it cannot be assumed that a breeder who hatches his own eggs is, for that reason and that reason only, necessarily above all suspicion. I regret I am unable to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is satisfied with the present definition of a hatchery. It is so very complicated that the ordinary man would not understand it. Therefore, I should be glad if my noble friend could possibly on the next stage, or in another place, re-define it, because I think that will be a very great help to the industry.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Bertie, I am assured that the definition at present given to the term "hatchery" in Clause 42, does convey in the plainest possible terms, the distinction to which certain references have been made in your Lordships' House, but I will undertake to review this definition again, and I hope that in subsequent debates in another place there will be an occasion for my right honourable friend to make some statement supporting the statutory definition as included in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I am much obliged for the noble Earl's last statement. It quite meets my point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
4.22 p.m.

EVACUATION PROBLEMS.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE rose to call attention to the difficulties connected with the evacuation of the civil population in times of war; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords during the debate on Clause 56 of the Civil Defence Bill, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was good enough to invite me to put down a Motion which would enable us to go into many of the problems connected with the evacuation of the people under that clause. I am exceedingly glad that he gave me that opportunity, for the more I look into this clause the more startled I am to find that in neither House of Parliament has it received one quarter of the consideration which it ought to have received. It is, in the words of a correspondent of mine, "an infringement of

217
the liberty of the individual and a constitutional innovation such as we have seldom seen," and these things are contained in one clause of a Bill of, I think, eighty-five clauses.
I will come back to the actual terms of the clause in a minute, but before I do that I want to make it clear that I am not challenging the policy of dispersal of the population on the imminence of war, and I also do not wish to convey to the House any idea that there is an unwillingness in the country, in the reception areas, to do their pest for the poor people who are bombed or frightened, say, away from their houses. I am quite sure we can rely on the solidarity and the helpfulness of spirit of the British people to ensure that the first reception of these refugees will be hearty and practical, but I would ask the House to note that there is a great difference between the policy of the Government as regards evacuation and as regards reception. Evacuation is in no way compulsory. Reception, now that the Civil Defence Bill has passed into law, is absolutely and entirely compulsory.
A word as to the size of the problem. I gather from the White Paper—and I think it was mentioned in this House—that 16,000,000 people inhabit the reception areas, and that the Government contemplate evacuating some 3,000,000 of people who are members of what they describe as the priority classes. What are the priority classes? We have not been told. Certainly we are not told anything about priority classes in Clause 56 of the Civil Defence Bill. But if noble Lords have furnished themselves with the White Paper, if I may call it such, Memo. Ev. 4, 1939, they will see that priority classes consist of school children in organised units in charge of their teachers, children of pre-school age accompanied by their mothers or other persons responsible for looking after them, expectant mothers, and the adult blind and crippled population, the last category being the only category that contains any male adults. Now it is to be borne in mint that the scheme of evacuating these priority classes of the people in crowded centres was worked out on a voluntary basis many months ago, and I venture to say that the great majority of this nation, and possibly even of your Lordships' House, have not yet
218
appreciated the fact that the voluntary basis has gone and that everything now is on a compulsory basis. This, of course, makes a very substantial difference to the views of the reception areas towards the scheme.
In the first place, under a voluntary basis, there is, of course, a general elasticity possible. For example, people have put their house down to receive three children on the voluntary basis, and subsequently find that their own grandchildren or children need some of the rooms. Under a voluntary basis they notify the local authority and a change is made. It is no doubt possible that they could notify a local authority and have a change made even under the compulsory system, but they have no certainty of that. That is a very simple case, and there are thousands of others which noble Lords could think of where the hardship would be considerably greater. Then, apart from the loss of elasticity, the spirit of willingness which accompanied volunteering roust, of course, be damaged by the fact that, however willing you are, in the end compulsory power can be exerted against you, and you may be obliged to take in these evacuees.
I will now turn to Clause 56 of the Bill and read a few words to show exactly what is the burden laid by that clause upon the reception areas. I will abbreviate it as much as possible. In the first place, there are to be plans for the transference of numbers of the civil population from one area to another in the event of war, or the imminence of war, and for the accommodation and maintenance of the persons concerned. Noble Lords will note that here the reference is simply to members of the civil population. There is no mention of priority classes or any one or more sections of the people. Then we go on to find under subsection (3) that
"The Minister, if it appears to him that, in view of the imminence or existence of an emergency … it is expedient so to do, may make regulations for the purpose of securing accommodation for any persons transferred.…"
He may provide for occupiers of premises being required to furnish such accommodation as may be specified. He may declare the circumstances in which, and the extent to which, responsibility shall be assumed by occupiers of premises for

219
the feeding and care of any children accommodated therein, and he may authorise the imposition, on summary conviction, of fines, not in any case exceeding £50. The two points I want to make on that are, first, that the whole of the civil population is included as evacuable into the reception areas and the private homes of the people in those areas, and secondly, that this is a compulsory business enforceable under a fine of £50.
If we turn back to history we find that billeting has been one of the great grievances of the people since very early times. A Petition of Right in 1628 made against the King the point that no billeting was legal whatever. In 1689—I think by the Mutiny Act—billeting in victualling houses was allowed, but, in the words of the Act, "no private houses whatever." Since then, under the Army Act, 1926, limited powers of billeting in private houses have been granted to the Government, but generally speaking, apart from the annual provision by the Army and Air Force Acts, billeting even of soldiers and sailors is in principle illegal. There is all the difference in the world between billeting soldiers who are under discipline, whose commanding officers are within easy reach and who are occupied during the greater part of the day outside the billet—apart from which they are at any rate in a position of having at any time to give up their lives for their country—and the billeting of civilians who will probably be at a loss for occupation and liable to hang about the house, and who will be under no discipline whatever. I want your Lordships to appreciate that now any householder among these sixteen million people is liable to have billeted upon him anyone of any age, of either sex—in the words of the old jingle, tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, gentleman, apothecary, thief, either mad or sane, drunk or sober. I submit that that is an innovation of the greatest importance, and a very great danger. I do not know what innovation could be greater.
The first question I would put is, what are the Government going to do? Do the Government pledge themselves not to use the powers given them under Section 56 of the Civil Defence Act to billet other sections of the population outside the priority classes on private householders?
220
Imagine the case of some man whose business does not tie him to London being billeted in a country cottage of a normal type with three bedrooms, occupied by a man and his wife and child. The householder himself may be called up for military service, and he may find himself going to the war, leaving an adult male stranger in his house with his wife and child.
LORD STRABOLGI: Where does the noble Lord get that from? It is only cripples and children. Where do the adult males come from?
LORD PHILLIMORE: I have been trying to explain that under Section 56 the Government have power to billet adult males on any householder in the reception areas. If the noble Lord will look at the section again he will see that what I say is right. If I am wrong I shall be only too delighted to be corrected. The next doubt in my mind relates to a much smaller matter, but if this billeting is to be worked happily the provisions under which it works must be just and the regulations must be justly carried out. We all know that considerable damage generally occurs where children are concerned. The White Paper, to which I have again to refer for want of anything else, announces payment of 10s. 6d. and 8s. 6d. a week to cover full board, lodging and all care necessary to give the child a home. What does that include? We ought to know whether it is meant to include such things as breakages—broken glass, broken lights, broken crockery, damage to utensils and damage to bedding. As I say, that is a comparatively small point, but it is one which is going to rank as a grievance or not according as it is justly treated in the eyes of the housewife.
Then we come to a somewhat larger point which concerns fire, burglary and theft insurance. Some noble Lords may remember that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill made a statement as to the intention—I think "intention" was the word he used—of the insurance companies. Since then there has appeared in The Times a letter from which I should like to quote. In that letter it was stated that insurance companies had decided that they
"will not regard the housing of persons evacuated in pursuance of any Government or local authority scheme, in the event of a national emergency, as invalidating claims

221
under insurance policies in respect of private dwellings in which such persons are accommodated."
I do not want to disparage that generous offer, but the mere fact that it has to be made goes some way to prove that under existing policies the risk is not covered. And if the risk is not covered by the policy, no letter to The Times will alter the weight of that document. The risk will be read in the terms of the document. I have yet to learn of any noble Lord, or of any other person, receiving an endorsement to his policy from his insurance company covering this additional risk. Further I would point out that this does not cover farm buildings which might well be used for billeting purposes. I would like to ask the Government to say whether they have yet consulted their legal advisers as to whether in the absence of any further endorsement of policies they consider that the risk of fire, burglary and theft is covered.
Now I am brought to the general point of the enforcement of discipline and the settling of disputes in receiving areas. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that there will be disputes, that some of them will be acrimonious and that they will be very difficult to settle in the small compass of a country home. The most astonishing thing I have yet discovered in connection with this is on this very point. In the White Paper to which I have referred so often there is one paragraph—paragraph 74—which says:
"It is inevitable, however, that an influx of strangers on the scale contemplated will give rise to a certain number of difficulties and minor disputes, particularly at the outset. It is contemplated"—
I hope noble Lords will mark these words—
"that in the event of an emergency a tribunal will be appointed by the local authority with power to determine appeals made by householders …."
What judicial powers have local authorities? How can they set up a tribunal? Under what power? I suppose it is contemplated that my rural district council will be given judicial powers by some Defence of the Realm Act which will be passed when the war has begun—if there is to be a war. But at present can any judicial powers reside in a local authority, and if not, who is going to settle these disputes? Further, who is responsible for the general administration of the evacuating policy before war is
222
actually declared and afterwards? I hope we shall have some light on that point.
Then I should like to ask the noble Earl whether the provision that is contemplated, I believe, in empty houses has yet been effectively made for handicapped children and blind and crippled persons. That surely should be seen to, and seen to very promptly. Finally, I should like to ask for what duration of time Clause 56 holds good in the eyes of the Government. Apparently, as in any other Act, the duration of its power is unlimited, and even if it is confined to a war such as the last one, to a duration of four years, the tax on the receiving population will be something appalling. It is not to be supposed that the care of little children is a light job when it is added to all the other jobs that the housewife has to perform. It can and will be gladly undertaken for a certain time, but I am convinced that if the next war should go on as long as the last, it will break down the whole morale and health of the country population that have the strangers within their homes on the scale contemplated.
It will not only be for the duration of the war. It may, and probably will, hold good until an appointed day after the war is over, when the war is finally declared to be over. We all know from experience of the last War that that day was considerably after the actual cessation of hostilities. You have only to think of the reaction against Dora after the War, and of the way in which war measures such as the Rent Restriction Act were prolonged—I do not say wrongly at all, but they had to be prolonged—to know that the housewife may have this period fixed upon her for a wholly intolerable time. I would ask the Government, if they can, to make a pronouncement upon the question of the duration of this compulsory hospitality. I will say no more, but I hope I have said enough to convince the House that this section in the Civil Defence Act might well have received greater attention than it has. I beg to move.
4.44 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I do not want to enter into a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, who has brought forward this very important Motion, though I may say he has tempted me to do so. I should have

223
liked to ask him, it he allowed me, what his alternative is. We on this side of the House agree with some of his strictures: we think the Government have rather plunged into this business, and that a great many of the implications have not been thought out. But the noble Lord goes on supporting this Government, and we are trying to efface them. If he is as dissatisfied as he makes out, he ought to help us, I would suggest respectfully, to get this Government out of office. We agree with him that this Government are muddlers. We know they are doing their best, but I do not find any alternative put forward by the noble Lord.
I wish for a very few moments to draw attention to a matter which I also ventured to raise during the discussion on the Civil Defence Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, was good enough to say that he would look into one particular matter to which, I suggest, considerable importance can be attached: it is an evacuation question and is principally concerned with transport. There are a great many people whom it would be a good thing—the Government admit this—to get out of the big cities: old people, semi-invalids, young children and so on. A great many of these will be moved out by their relatives voluntarily, by their own means of transport, if they are allowed to do it. During the discussion I ventured to raise the matter because there was a good deal of doubt about whether people would be allowed, for example, to travel on the roads. I am thinking of people with their children at school in London, Manchester or wherever they may be, who want to get them into the country and are prepared to take them there themselves. There was a good deal of apprehension on that matter. Now I understand it is not intended to interfere with such voluntary effort. I also suggest to the Government that they should go a little further and try to organise it.
The situation is this. The L.C.C. school children are all organised and moved out by special trains, and so are the young children with mothers who are prepared to go with them—and only a very small percentage of the mothers in London, by the by, have agreed to go with them. All those will be taken care of. The invalid and decrepit in the care of the L.C.C.—I am talking of London now—are going to be moved out. But now
224
you have a vast population who are prepared to go but have not been invited to register: there are no arrangements for them, and I suggest that you will have chaos unless there is a little organisation. One of the suggestions I ventured to make was that there should be issued a plaque or ticket to go on the windscreen or headlamp of a motor car so that the people controlling the traffic during the evacuation would be able to give priority to those holding those tickets. I suggest that the people entitled to hold those badges, or whatever they may be, should be people who are evacuating young children, aged persons and invalids—their own relatives, probably—and that they should be given priority, just as you give priority to those who are invited to attend a Trooping of the Colour, or anything else where a great congestion of traffic is made inevitable.
It is perfectly simple; it is done again and again in any big affair in London, when you issue those badges. Get the badges ready now; and the next step is to invite the people to register. From my own knowledge very little is being done in the way of organising this part of the exodus. May I also put this question to the noble Earl? I should like to add, from the correspondence I have received as a result of the Motion, the suggestion that you should issue some sort of badges or tickets—permits—to people who prefer to go, or who indeed can only go, by train, as well as to those who go by road. There are a good many people who would be just as much entitled to go away in the special trains as anyone else, or as anyone who would have priority in road travel, and some sort of badge or organisation is needed for them.
Now I come to the question of the roads themselves. I understand that the Government say: "It is all right, we are going to make the roads all one-way traffic and there will be no trouble in getting out." In order to attend your Lordships' House this afternoon I travelled up by road from Hampshire, and it was extremely difficult to make progress on that road at all between Basingstoke and Staines—to-day, now, with the ordinary Monday morning traffic. The road is up in six places in narrow lanes, with men standing and working "Stop" and "Go" signs. Now the Government have apparently prepared for some emergency or crisis during the

225
next two months. As far as I can make out, if we can get through without serious trouble to the end of September, the danger period will be past. That can be shown by the calling-up of the Reserves, by the calling-up of the Naval Reserves, and so on; it is during the months of August and September that we pass through what I suppose can be called a danger period. Would it not be possible to make some appeal, or issue some emergency order, or do something to compel these local authorities to stop or complete immediately their road repairs so as to have such roads as we have at their maximum efficiency during August and September?
I assure the noble Lord and the Government that if, for example, they want to evacuate anyone westward—I have referred before to the westerly exits from London: they are appalling in ordinary times, but if they wish to evacuate anyone westward, the present roads will not stand the traffic which will have to use them. You have your Great West Road, and a magnificent road it is to Staines, and then you have, I think, a complete bottleneck. Then the road is narrow and winding, as in the times of the Saxons, as far as Basingstoke, and in many places it is under repair. You will never be able to get people along that road in time of emergency. I see by the newspapers that there was a terrible blockage last night—the ordinary Sunday night traffic jam—on the road between Denham in Buckinghamshire and Uxbridge in Middlesex, that 2,400 cars were passing there every hour, and that there was a two-mile traffic jam. I really think the Government will have to do two things. One is, as a great emergency, to put men especially to work on these roads, and to stop other repairs, so as to have these roads in a maximum state of efficiency during August and September. There should also be some organisation over the exits by the roads. I am not referring to children going out to the billeting areas. As to that, I think the organisation is excellent. I am talking about other people, and if such people know beforehand I am sure they will co-ordinate, but if they do not know, and if they are left to go as they please, there will be anarchy on the roads and trouble indeed. Those are my suggestions, which I hope are constructive.
226
May I revert to the interesting speech of Lord Phillimore? With all respect to the noble Lord, he seems to think that war under modern conditions can be waged without any special inconvenience to people who are not actually mobilised, and that his 16,000,000 people in the billeting areas are going to suffer terrible hardship because they have to put people up. I venture very respectfully to differ from the noble Lord. I believe the spirit of the people is very high, and that they will put up with anything if it be necessary, but that they will not put up with muddle and inefficiency. In this respect, I am asked by my noble friend Lord Addison, who has taken a great part in his own county in the matter of organisation, to draw attention to one other matter, and that is the provision of bed-cling and blankets. He tells me that he is on important committees, that very little has been done for the provision of bedding and blankets, that it is being left to the local authorities to tackle, and that in the last three weeks the price has gone up 25 per cent. and more. I think that that needs the attention of the Government as soon as possible.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I ventured to ask some questions on the Second Reading of the Civil Defence Bill on the subject of evacuation, and as it was not convenient to deal with them then, I hope I shall be forgiven if I repeat them to-day. If I do repeat them, it will not mean that I am an enemy of the Government or would be a recruit to the Party of the noble Lord opposite. I should like, if possible, some explanation about the private arrangements referred to in some of these circulars. I understand that right up until an emergency is declared there is nothing to limit the absolute right of an owner to let his house to whom he likes, for as long as he likes, and at what rent he likes, and I presume that the tenant of such a house would have the same right to remain in the house after an emergency had been declared as would the owner if he had been in occupation. Again, even after an emergency has been declared there seems to be nothing to prevent the owner from letting his house to whom he pleases. Indeed, it does not seem that the Government are very much concerned about trying to maintain any accommodation clear in advance of the arrival of the

227
refugees. I have no doubt it would be extremely difficult to do so without placing a great burden on owners in ordinary times of peace.
No doubt, too, the Government are relying on the promises of the owners, made at the time the survey was taken, to keep their houses clear for refugees, although a number of circumstances may have caused great alterations in the particulars disclosed in that survey. To find accommodation for the official quotas of refugees the Government appear to rely almost entirely upon their compulsory powers for billeting after the refugees arrive. For this purpose they seem to be taking very wide powers indeed. I imagine, for instance, that the billeting officers would have the right to evict, to turn out, certain classes of people if necessary. I quite appreciate that there may be no practical alternative to this rather rough-and-ready method, but I am afraid that the billeting officers will not have a particularly easy or pleasant task. It does seem to me that these difficulties, which rightly or wrongly I anticipate, might perhaps be lessened to some extent if the public had a more accurate idea than I believe they have, as to the very large changes that have been effected in this scheme since it was first introduced. For instance, we were, I believe, at first told that nobody would have children billeted on him unless he was prepared to receive them, but under Clause 56 of the Civil Defence Act, as Lord Phillimore has pointed out, that idea seems completely to have gone by the board.
As I read the Bill, people may be put compulsorily in loco parentis and made responsible not only for the feeding and accommodation, but also for the care of children, although they may not desire to take these children. That is a remarkable and quite unprecedented departure from the original scheme, and I think that if people are going to have children put upon them under those conditions, they ought to be made aware of it in advance. As to the power which I presume is inherent in this Bill, by which billeting officers can turn out certain people altogether, subject to the right of appeal to the local tribunal, I feel that if it was known generally in advance that certain categories of people were liable to be turned out in this way, they might
228
not venture into those evacuation areas at all, and the task of the billeting officers would be made much easier. Even if the Government cannot divide the unofficial refugees into categories of that sort, I feel it would be a great advantage to know which private arrangements, if any, made by individual householders, could be counted as part of the official quota, and which could not. If, for example, an owner contracted privately to receive an entire school from a vulnerable area, could that be regarded as part of the official quota of refugees, and, if so, what would be the proper procedure to ensure that they were so counted?
My next point deals with a matter which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is a question of the advance expenditure on preparations for evacuation. It seems to me at the first glance that it is a little illogical that authorities should be empowered to spend a great deal of money on various aspects of civil defence, such, for instance, as the preparation of shelters and trenches on a very elaborate scale for children, and at the same time apparently be debarred from acquiring beds or blankets in preparation for maternity homes. It seems almost unthinkable that expectant mothers should be put into houses where no adequate preparations have been made for their reception. I am sure that the Government have some scheme in mind whereby these stores could be made available, but I do not think that scheme has hitherto been disclosed.
Again, I referred the other day to the situation that would arise in certain parts of the country, which attract normally large numbers of visitors during the holiday period, if the evacuation should take place during those months; and I asked whether any consideration could be given to any scheme put forward by the local authority, if they so wished, to Incur expenditure by adapting public buildings or by some other method, so as to have some reserve of accommodation if it appeared to them to be necessary. Finally, I asked whether there was any general advice which could be given to holiday makers, who might find themselves away from home at the time of a crisis, as to whether they should stay where they were, or whether they should return to their homes. I understand that there is now in course of distribution a leaflet

229
which gives some answer to that question, although it does not appear to me to be a complete answer.
I must apologise if I am asking questions on which information has already been given. Indeed, I think that some information has been given on some of these points, but, if I may say so, it seems to have been given in rather a spasmodic way. I have found local authority officers eagerly scanning the newspapers to see whether they could get information from debates in Parliament, or from letters in the papers. I have of course every sympathy with the Ministry of Health, who have this immense task of preparing for one of the largest migrations in history, and yet at the same time have to live a normal life and to proceed in peace time as if there were none of these difficulties to cope with. I hope that at any rate a clear and comprehensive answer to this and a large number of other questions can be given as soon as possible.
5.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I speak on this question without a great deal of knowledge, because I really am, so far as this subject is concerned, only an ordinary inhabitant of a reception area who is prepared to receive a certain number of children. I have perhaps an advantage over otter people similarly situated, in that I have had the opportunity of talking to some of these people who are voluntarily giving their services to organising the reception area in my district, and I must confess that all that I have really gleaned from conversations with them has been that if the volume of data which is being sent out on this subject is any criterion, the war has already begun. Unfortunately one knows from experience that the results from paper of this nature usually vary inversely with the volume, and so it seems from the point of view of the ordinary inhabitant. They do not in the least know what is going to happen in the event of war. They are perfectly willing to do what they can, but they would like to know beforehand what is really expected of them, and that, I think, is the principal complaint that they have.
My noble friend Lord Phillimore raised a large number of points which I think, generally speaking, one can agree with, but which are not matters of concern to
230
the people who are expecting to have refugees in their houses in the event of war. Those people are interested in matters of much more domestic concern, and if only they could be told: "You have agreed to take in so many children. All right, you will, in the event of war, get four or five or six children of certain ages, and they will not have their parents," or "they will have their parents," or something of that sort, then those people could make their arrangements. All that has happened in most cases has been that they have said they would take in children, or they would take in blind persons, or cripples, and they have heard no more at all. They cannot make their preparations in advance, which they would like to do. They are quite prepared to receive these people, but they would like to know what the people are, and who they are. So far as the area that I live in is concerned, I believe preparations have reached the first day of evacuation. The area has been informed that so many unaccompanied children will arrive on the first day, and they have gleaned from various sources that "unaccompanied children" means children without their parents, but not necessarily without any adults. I believe they would have their school teachers with them. Is that right?
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): Yes.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: But the first day is not going to be the only day during which evacuation will take place. There will surely be many others coming, either by road or by rail, and the areas and the individuals in the areas want to know. They do not mind about compulsory powers. They rather welcome compulsory powers, because that brings into the scheme those who, perhaps from selfish motives, are anxious to keep out; but they do want to know.
On one other point I think there is a certain amount of criticism. A great deal of this work is being done through the officials of the local authorities. Those officials are pretty busy men at the best of times, and superimposed upon their ordinary duties is the immense task of organising the reception of the refugees who have been evacuated from vulnerable areas. First of all, they hardly have the

231
time to get on with a task which, if one is to believe all one hears, is of the utmost urgency, and may have to be completed in a very short time. Secondly, they are a very excellent body of men, but I wonder whether in every case they are entirely suited to understand what, in fact, are the human and the domestic problems which are exercising the minds of those who live in those reception areas. The officials are, no doubt, excellent as officials of local authorities, but I wonder whether the voluntary worker who lives in the area is not a person better fitted to carry on the organisation in the area, instead of its being under the guidance of already overworked officials, who very often have not got the experience of the country areas (because most of these are country areas) which enable them to know what the real problems are.
That is a matter of organisation, and an important matter of organisation. I have a feeling at the back of my mind that the organisation generally is far too centralised. It is centralised largely in Whitehall, and there again your official in Whitehall is already overworked. He does not know the small problems that matter to the extent which they do matter, as any countryman realises, in the reception areas. I feel very much that this question of evacuation would go much more smoothly, much more happily, if only those people who are going to receive the refugees were given the fullest possible information and told exactly what was expected of them. If they were told that I am quite certain they would do all in their power to help the Government.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I agree very strongly with what has just fallen from my noble friend. One of the chief troubles in this emergency is the complete uncertainty in which we are living. I do not know who settles the areas for evacuation, but I would just give you my own experience. A good many months ago, long before there was any question of compulsory evacuation, I settled with the town clerk of my own town, Wigan, in South-West Lancashire, to take in as many infirm and aged people, convalescents, from the local infirmary as could conveniently get into the house. That was understood and
232
agreed between us. A few weeks afterwards he told me that my home was no longer in his evacuation area and that I had been moved into the Liverpool area. So I went across to Liverpool where I saw the town clerk, who telephoned to the director of education, and in five minutes it was arranged that a girls' school, with their mistresses, should be sent to my house in case of emergency. That suited me very well. It is a very large house, full of very famous and beautiful things, and it so happens it has Got a floor which would be suitable for teaching these young ladies from Lancashire dancing. A few weeks later I got a letter from the town clerk of Liverpool saying: "We have been shifted. We are no longer going to the Parish of Haigh. You are now in the Manchester area." I went across and saw my friend the director of education in Manchester, and he said: "We have got schools in Manchester too. I will send you one of them." And that was settled. A few months afterwards I got a letter from him to say: "You have been moved out of my area, you are now in the Salford area." I then went across to Salford and the town clerk of Salford said: "I guarantee you cannot be shifted to anywhere else this time."
But all that illustrates what fell from my noble friend just now. It is this uncertainty. I do not know who sets up this geographical distribution of evacuation. I suppose it is the local authorities. But what I find is that all these local authorities are desperately afraid of London, not merely that they look to London for guidance, but they are frightened. They say: "What will London say to us? Will London give us the money if we spend this? We are quite certain London will repudiate." There is this burden of London weighing upon the initiative of local authorities all the time. I might say that local authorities can themselves be a little tiresome. A friend of mine who lives in North London—this is not in connection with evacuation, but with the next thing to it, air-raid precautions—has got a small garden attached to his house and he was told by the authorities that he ought to put a shelter in it. He has been under fire all his life, and he did not much believe in the kind of shelter that could be erected in a back garden. But he is

233
a man who has served under discipline and imposed discipline for fifty years in the public service. The shelter was made in the garden, and he was told the local authorities wanted to see him. His household consists of himself, his wife, and I think two maid servants. A man came and saw what he had done. He had put two or three garden chairs into the shelter, and a small hoard of food which, acting under instructions, he had purchased. "Oh," said the local authority, "this is a furnished house, and you will be rated upon it." Could we have an assurance that we are not going to be rated on our improvements?
Can we be told a little more specifically? I do hope my noble friend Lord Munster will not be afraid of making mistakes. Far better make a blunder and rectify it afterwards, if possible, than leave everything in the present state of uncertainty which is the very way to make blunders when the emergency occurs. If my noble friend will be really firm and really tell the Ministry of Health they have got to make up their minds one way or another, he will relieve our anxieties and reassure all those in the country who are really beginning to wonder if London is not a very big nuisance.
5.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Phillimore said at the beginning of his remarks, the Motion which stands in his name on the Paper was placed there at my suggestion in order that the House might have the opportunity of hearing a full and comprehensive statement from His Majesty's Government upon the whole problem of the evacuation of the civil population from vulnerable areas in the event of any emergency. It will be my endeavour to give the House this comprehensive statement, setting out the measures which His Majesty's Government have taken or are taking, and further to reply to the very many questions that have been addressed to me. I am perfectly prepared to admit that the fullest information should be given and made available not only to your Lordships but to everybody in this country whom this scheme affects. After all, it is a scheme of such magnitude that, if put into operation, it must vitally affect the normal everyday life of many residing both in the receiving and the evacuation areas. It must be clear to
234
everyone that all plans for evacuation must be substantially completed in peacetime in order to ensure that the arrangements made can be swiftly and smoothly put into operation.
My right honourable friend in dealing with the whole of this question has worked in very close co-operation with other Government Departments. The Ministry of 'Transport, for instance, who deal with railways, and the Traffic Commissioners have been brought into consultation; the Food Defence (Plans) Department, which deals with food rationing for the evacuated people during the first forty-eight hours and, further, with the redistribution of food supplies; the Ministry of Labour and the Unemployment Assistance Board, who deal with maintenance allowances and, finally, the General Post Office, which in the event of this emergency will deal with the questions of allowances to householders who provide accommodation for the evacuated persons. The whole object of my right honourable friend's scheme is to secure the organised dispersal of the priority classes, and it would be useful for me to repeat once again—for they have already been stated in this debate—exactly what these priority classes are. The whole of my remarks to-day will be based entirely on these priority classes and nobody else. They are, firstly, school children with their teachers; secondly, young children under five years of age and their mothers; thirdly, expectant mothers; and, finally, the blind and crippled. Those are the priority classes to whom my remarks will refer.
The House will note that the classification of the country into evacuating, neutral and reception areas has already been completed in discussions of my right honourable friend with the local authorities concerned, and the general proposal is that of moving 3,000,000 children from the vulnerable areas into the reception areas, which have, at the present time, a total population of, roughly, 16,000,000 persons. As far back as January 5 last, a circular letter was sent out by the Government to all local authorities concerned requesting them to carry out a survey of the accommodation in their areas, and that survey was made on the basis of one person per habitable room. From the results which were finally submitted to the Ministry of Health there appeared to

235
be ample accommodation available for those who were to be transferred. I think, as that question has been dealt with at some length by noble Lords who have spoken, perhaps I might give the House quite briefly what actually resulted from this survey.
It appeared that the amount of surplus accommodation, on a basis of one person per habitable room, would provide for about 6,250,000 persons; further, that private arrangements had been made in these areas for about 1,130,000 persons, and that voluntary offers to take in accompanied school children were made in respect of 2,500,000 children. In the opinion of the local authorities who submitted replies to this circular letter, accommodation could be properly made available for 1,200,000 additional persons. That survey did show a most remarkable willingness on the part of all those in the reception areas to assist and to render every possible help that was in their power in order to reach the goal which my right honourable friend had in view, and indeed no words of mine can express the gratitude that we feel to those private persons who have wholeheartedly entered into this problem. I have little doubt that we can rely upon their co-operation to bear this burden in precisely the same cheerful spirit that was so apparent in this country on Saturday last when the first batch of young men were called up for military training.
These summaries which finally reached the Ministry of Health were examined and a decision was given as to the number of persons to be allocated in each district. I understand that quite soon intimation will be given by local authorities to the individuals in the reception areas as to the number of children they will take, but I want to make this quite clear. Any noble Lord who has agreed and told the local authorities that he is prepared to take a certain number of children will receive that number in the event of an emergency, but compulsory powers will be used to enable the local authority to make those individuals in their area who have not agreed to take these children liable to house and board a certain number. In determining the figure as to how many persons should be allocated to each district, my right honourable friend has three points in mind, which perhaps for the sake
236
of accuracy I may read to the House. First, that the total number should not in any case be more than double the total number of children and teachers for whom voluntary offers have been made; secondly, that the total number should not exceed the surplus found to be available by local authorities after making allowance for private arrangements reported to the local authority at the time of the survey; and, thirdly, that the figure communicated to the local authority should be the net figure after making allowance for accommodation required for military billeting and other Government arrangements. These allocations communicated to the local authorities at the end of March amounted to 3,700,000 persons.
Before I go on to the large number of questions that were addressed to me, perhaps I might deal with one other matter. There appears to have been a certain amount of anxiety and bewilderment expressed by noble Lords. For my part I regard this evacuation scheme as another stage in our policy of preparedness, for we are assuring as far as human ingenuity can devise it a scheme for 3,000,000 persons of the priority classes to be moved from what I might describe as the battle zone into less vulnerable areas, and I fell sure that by this means we are imparting a feeling of encouragement to a very large number of parents and lessening the chances of slaughter of non-combatants by hostile aircraft.
There might be questions raised that were not mentioned in your Lordships' discussion to-day, in regard to payments to persons in reception areas who receive one or more of the priority classes. We propose to pay 10s. 6d. a week if one child is taken; 8s. 6d. a week for each child where more than one is taken, in the case of children under school age accompanied by their mother or some other responsible persons. Where the householder is providing only lodging and not board, payment will be at the rate of 5s. a week for each adult and 3s. a week for each child. There will be a further sum of 5s. paid where the householder provides lodging for any teacher who accompanies the schoolchildren.
Having given the House a brief statement of my right honourable friend's intentions in dealing with a scheme of great magnitude in the event of an emergency, perhaps I might now reply to some of the

237
questions which have been addressed to me in the course of our discussion this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Phillimore asked me if I could give him any indication of the length of time during which these priority class persons would be allowed to remain in the reception areas. It is frankly not possible for me to forecast the length of time during which occupiers of premises are to be required to furnish accommodation, any more than it would be possible for us to forecast with any degree of accuracy whatever the length of the duration of a war. But I think I can say that the approximate duration of time during which these children would remain in the reception areas can be defined as that period of time during which it is considered probable there would be danger if they remained in the crowded cities.
I pass from that point to the question of the Civil Defence Act and in particular to Section 56 of that measure. It is quite true that this Act gives compulsory powers to the local authorities, and such powers must be in existence for use by the local authorities in the event of any emergency. I look upon these compulsory powers which will be given to the local authorities as powers enabling them, as I have already said, to force these priority classes upon individuals who have not been willing to take them under a voluntary effort. But I have not any doubt in my own mind that the response to the circular sent out by my right honourable friend will cover every single child whom it is wished to transfer in the event of an emergency. There will be regulations made under Section 56 of that Act, and my right honourable friend is I think at the present moment discussing these regulations with the associations of local authorities. He proposes to set up small tribunals with a simple and easy procedure. Those tribunals must be localised and have full knowledge of local conditions. For instance, housing conditions will be one most important matter. Let me make it quite clear that the local authorities themselves will not be the appeal tribunals, but will be responsible for seeing that the machinery of these tribunals is set up and functions at once. I shall refer again to the appeals which may be made to these tribunals in the course of a few moments.
Then my noble friend asked a question concerning insurance offices, and here
238
perhaps I may make some observations to the House. This question as to the compensation for damage which may be suffered by householders as a result of their reception of evacuated persons has been raised on several occasions. I think my noble friend on a previous occasion mentioned the possibility of damage being caused by the town child's ignorance of lamps as a method of lighting. Then there was the question of loss which might be suffered by householders from larceny, and next damage in general. On the first point—namely, the question of damage by fire—my noble friend and I were successful in obtaining from the insurance offices in the form of a letter to The Times a statement of what they were prepared to do to cover against fire those individuals who receive the priority classes. I have been in communication again with my own agents to find out in what position I should be in the very unlikely event of larceny by one of these priority classes. I am informed quite definitely that my insurance company is prepared to cover me against that eventuality without any additional premium. But let me say at once that I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend that it is high time, if it has not already been done, for the insurance companies to state quite categorically their intentions with regard to insurance policies, so that every individual in the reception areas may know exactly the position in which he stands. It will undoubtedly remove a source of grave doubt in the minds of many persons.
I informed my noble friend Viscount Samuel that I was going to refer to a question which he raised during a previous discussion in the House as to whether the Government would pay for damage caused as a consequence of evacuated persons being of a criminal character. As I have pointed out at some very considerable length, the persons to be evacuated are those in the priority classes—of which I have given a definition—and therefore I think the question of evacuated persons having a criminal character does not arise.
Now I come to the main question of damage. I think my noble friend will realise that this word "damage" may cover anything from substantial injury to my noble friend's property to the normal depreciation which results from the occupation of a house. I cannot help

239
thinking that it would not be reasonable or practicable to pay compensation for the latter, which must be regarded as being covered by the amount paid for billeting. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government do accept the principle that householders who undertake this work should be able to make claims for any substantial damage to their premises. The Government will undertake to consider such claims, as they are now doing in the case of other claims for war damage, at the expiration of an emergency.
Having dealt with these principal points, I now come to answer some other questions which were addressed to me. My noble friend opposite asked whether it was contemplated that persons owning cars would be allowed to make their own arrangements for transporting themselves and their children out of vulnerable areas at the outset of any emergency. It is not our intention to impose any general ban on the movement of private cars at the beginning of an emergency, but persons transporting themselves and their children out of vulnerable areas must not, of course, interfere with the official evacuation plan. For instance, they must not attempt to take accommodation reserved for the official classes of evacuees. Further, the Commissioner of Police is now in the course of making arrangements to minimise the possibility of chaos on the roads leading out of large towns and cities. The question of the noble Lord opposite concerning repairs to main roads I will certainly communicate to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport. In the Metropolitan Police District, however, the Commissioner of Police has worked out plans for getting evacuation traffic away as soon as possible and with the least possible interference with essential traffic. I am advised that in an emergency a scheme of one-way outward routes will be put into operation and the roads will be sign-posted by the Automobile Association. Arrangements have already been made for policing these routes. I understand further that the attention of chief constables in the provinces, which will presumably be the reception areas, will be drawn to this question, and that they are working out similar plans, also with the co-operation of the Automobile Association.
240
In the previous discussion we had on the Civil Defence Bill, I think my noble friend Viscount Mersey asked me whether the operation of public service vehicles would be curtailed in an emergency. I think my noble friend anticipated quite correctly the reply which I should give him to-day. It is obvious that during the progress of official evacuation considerable demands will be made on public service vehicles, in some cases for the picking-up of persons for entrainment, in others for the transport of evacuees from the entrainment station to the point at which they will be dispersed to billets. In case of war the existing services of public service vehicles would be curtailed by reason of the rationing of fuel, and possibly also by the creation of new demands for services consequent upon movements of the population. I understand that a short pamphlet was issued some time this year on the organisation of public service vehicles during war, and if my noble friend will endeavour to obtain one of these pamphlets he will find the answers to the majority of the other points which I think he raised on that discussion.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask whether the noble Earl will be good enough to answer my question whether the Government propose to invite the registration of the priority classes I have mentioned who are outside the London County Council scheme, so that you know where you are?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes; I have not finished yet. The noble Lord interrupted me before I reached that point.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My noble friend raised the question, as I understand it, of persons who are not of the priority classes, and asked whether they could have badges to be fixed to the windscreens or to the lamps of their cars. I have communicated that suggestion, as I promised, to my right honourable friend, and he is in the course of considering it. I am not at present able to give my noble friend any further answer to the question which he put to me on a former occasion, during the discussion of the Civil Defence Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: Could I just make this point plain? Children in London of

241
the same age as London County Council children are surely in the priority class, even though they cannot be brought within the London County Council scheme?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think it would be true to say that children of any class, rich or poor, certainly all come within the priority classes. One further question, about the transport arrangements for the civil evacuation: there is, as I see it, bound to be a certain dislocation of traffic on main roads. It is the intention of my right honourable friend that the majority of those evacuated from vulnerable districts should in fact use the train services. Arrangements have already been made with the four main-line railway companies and the London Passenger Transport Board, and a comprehensive scheme has been worked out to give effect to the wish of the Government that the greater majority of these priority classes should move by train and not by road. I have here a long description of the time-tables which it is proposed to set in motion in the event of this evacuation taking place: how and when goods traffic will run, and a variety of other details which I do not think it would be the wish of the House that I should enter into at the present time.
I apologise for keeping your Lordships so long, but the question is of immense magnitude. I am endeavouring now to answer the principal points which were put to me. There is the question of bedding and blankets, which I think was raised by the noble Lord opposite: have they been ordered? I understand that tenders have been issued for these beds and that the greater number of blankets have been obtained and are in fact in the course of distribution to the local authorities. Perhaps here I might mention one matter which is probably in the minds of many noble Lords. It has appeared to me that noble Lords might wish for some information upon the domestic management of a house in the event of receiving some of the priority classes to which I have referred. It is hoped that the local authorities will provide personally for domestic arrangements in certain cases. In such cases it will be for the local authorities to do what they can to further and assist these domestic arrangements. But it is the wish of my right honourable
242
friend that wherever possible domestic staffs in private houses should be encouraged to remain at their posts. There will be a variety of work which they can well accomplish in the general care of the priority classes, and in helping to look after the clothes and other requirements of these persons. Moreover, the receiving local authorities have been asked to arrange a system of communal meals during the day, which of course will save the housewife in the poorer-class district from having to engage herself in considerable heavy work in looking after those whom she may have been willing enough to receive.
My noble friend behind me, Viscount Gage, asked me what would be the position of those from the vulnerable areas who were on holiday in the event of war coming. Here again my right honourable friend is anxious that persons who may be caught in an emergency spending their holidays by the seaside should remain where they are, but the male member of a family should return to the district from which he comes—that is to say, if he is naturally in a vulnerable area. My noble friend further asked me a variety of questions dealing with the arrangements which he might have made privately with a certain school for the evacuation of that school or block to his own house, even though he has informed the local authority that he is prepared to receive a certain number of refugees who might be allotted to him. I am not quite certain that I could give the noble Viscount a clear and concise answer, but my advice to him would be that if he has accepted the local authority's scheme voluntarily to take a certain number of children, and now desires to add to that number by taking the whole of one school, he should certainly consult his own local authority first. I can envisage a situation arising in which the local authority, because of my noble friend's action, might have to force others in that district to take a number of extra children or refugees, which would not otherwise have been the case.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Do I take it then that it is impossible to include children from the vulnerable areas, coming as a school together, in the official quota for that district? I noticed in a communication to the Press the other day

243
some information from the Minister which did not seem to tally with that which the noble Earl has now suggested.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I do not see any objection on the merits of such a proposal as the noble Lord has suggested to me, but I think it will depend on the position in the district whether such a change would cause any embarrassment. For instance, the transport arrangements might be seriously curtailed, either on the journey down from the vulnerable area or from the time when the children were coming from a particular station to the house which had been given to them by my noble friend. I perhaps did not make it quite clear that the number which a local authority will have the responsibility of accommodating in their district will remain as before, but if this quota occupies the available accommodation in the district the withdrawal of the offer to take a number of children in the district would obviously cause some embarrassment. On the other hand, if there is a surplus of accommodation the matter is quite capable of adjustment. As I have already said, it would he helpful if individuals who want to make any changes of the kind suggested would communicate with the local authorities, and ascertain whether such a change will cause any embarrassment to them.
I think I have replied to the majority of the questions put to me. My noble friend Lord Radnor complained that there had been a volume of paper sent out, and Lord Gage said that no instructions had been received at all. I feel somewhat between the devil and the deep blue sea, but I have no doubt that the local authorities are making every possible arrangement they can to meet a question of immense magnitude, which has been thrown upon them by the situation which has developed throughout the world to-day. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will continue with his plan for removing the priority classes from the vulnerable areas, and that he will make sure that anything which is now lacking shall be completed forthwith, until such time as we can look to the future to see law and order, and peace and happiness, prevail in a very weary world.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Motion, may I say that it is not quite clear from what the
244
noble Earl said about private arrangements—where private arrangements are made to take a school as a whole, and private arrangements are made for their transport—whether the transport arrangements are likely to be upset by the Government arrangements with the transport companies?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think, as Lord Crawford has just suggested, that the answer is "most probably.'
5.54 p.m.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I feel grateful to the Government for giving us this opportunity of debate, and to the noble Earl for having cleared up many matters which were obscure. I feel very gratified by the answers which he has given to my questions, and particularly that he gave a pledge, in so far as the Government can give a pledge on a matter of this kind, which he phrased when he said that the whole scheme will be based on priority classes, and no other. I take it that the powers under Section 56, under which any of the population can be transferred to the receiving areas, will not be used beyond the priority classes?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: They certainly will not be used at present, for the scheme which the Government have always worked on is that of priority classes. I can picture, however, in the event of war, some disaster happening in some particular district whereby the whole of that district might have to be moved forthwith, and by compulsory powers. I can, however, give the noble Lord this assurance, that it certainly will not be used in peace time.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The noble Earl has now raised up the very dragon of which I was afraid. It is quite possible that a situation might arise of the kind which he has described, but it would not necessarily be met justly or well by the compulsory billeting on private houses of the adult male section of the population. There are other ways of housing such people outside private houses, and I am sorry indeed to find that my fears in that direction are not altogether allayed. The noble Earl also said—and there I received great comfort, because I do not think he could have said anything more—that as regards the period of duration of billeting it would not last beyond the time when danger in the evacuated area could be

245
said to exist. That is very satisfactory. I thought also that his reply as to claims for substantial damage being admissible was very valuable, and I only received with a certain amount of regret the intimation that the general powers conferred on the Minister of Health by this Act will be used to set up local tribunals. Some of these powers seem to go very far, and raise the question of the relations between the local magistrates and police and these tribunals. The noble Earl has been set a heavy task, and I am very grateful to him. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.
5.58 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY had the following Notice on the Paper: To call attention to the anxiety which exists as to the position of owners of and persons interested in houses and buildings in the event of the destruction thereof or damage thereto as a consequence of hostile attack and the desirability of a statement being made by His Majesty's Government which will relieve this anxiety and which would also have the effect of removing the existing uncertainty with regard to the matter which is causing inconvenience and delay in connection with the construction of buildings and with building development; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion in my name is put down as a result of clear evidence of the very widespread interest in this question, and the anxiety of property owners with regard to what their situation might be in the event of damage in war. It is regrettable that so much of the time of this House should be taken up in the discussion of matters which are so closely associated with war, but it seems clear from the statement which we have just heard from the noble Earl, in reply to the debate which has just concluded, that the subject is indeed one which has already received very wide examination by the Government. It cannot be denied that whatever may be the difficulties in these matters the circumstances in various directions have compelled consideration of them, and indeed the very precautions of which the Government have given evidence in the
246
various Bills that have been produced and the statements that have been made do envisage that widespread damage is a possibility which cannot be left out of account. The debates on the Civil Defence Bill brought into relief the situation that would be created with regard to various classes of property owners in the event of a conflict. These problems are at the present moment the subject of a Bill which deals with ships and stocks of merchandise and stocks in warehouses—war risks of a limited character. Up till now it has been asserted that the problem to which I have drawn attention is so complex, and presents such difficulties, that it must be held in suspense. It appears to be a matter, from the point of view of the Government, of delicate adjustment between the complexity of the problem, the dislike of commitments which a solution would involve, and the dislocation and disquiet which result in the country with regard to property because of the disinclination to tackle this question.
The authoritative statement on this subject up to date may be regarded as the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made in another place in January of this year. In that statement the Chancellor admitted that such loss ought not to be treated as merely the concern of those who directly suffer, but must be regarded as falling upon the community as a whole. He therefore admitted the principle of collective responsibility. He said this proposal had been exhaustively examined, and then in a succeeding sentence he used two words which do not appear to me to have been well chosen. He said the insuperable difficulty is that no possible basis for an actuarial calculation exists. It seems wrong to have used the word "insuperable;" the Chancellor of the Exchequer might well have said "bewildering," for the country has within recent times seen that solutions have had to be found for questions which up till then appeared insuperable. Again, the fact that "no possible basis" exists does not prevent certain precedents being established, and so perhaps the word "precedent" would have been more appropriate than the word "basis." He did say in that statement that a plan had been worked out for an emergency, and that the reconstruction of essential property would be included where necessary.

247
That statement, together with the additional replies to various questions asked at the same time, stands up till now as representing the authoritative position of the Government.
Attention should be drawn to the fact that in that statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to a Report which was then shortly to be issued and has since been issued—in February this year—a formal Report to the Lord Chancellor which deals with the responsibility for the repair of property damaged by hostilities. That covered a very wide field, and has doubtless presented the picture of what would be involved. But I want to draw attention to some misconceptions which exist with regard to these questions, and they are rather widespread. It is too often believed that this is a matter which affects in the main the wealthy owners of property. Such is far from being the case. It is obvious that there is an overwhelming number of small householders in the country who are affected, and there are large companies concerned solely with the ownership of property, which have a multitude of small shareholders in various classes of the community. Evidently, then, the ownership of this property is indeed widespread. I would add, too, that very many of those companies are concerned solely in the investment of funds as a permanent lock-up for savings, which further emphasizes the fact that this question touches a very large number of small holders.
The next point which arises is the disorganisation which is being produced in the building trade. Uncertainty is causing a reluctance to embark on any new enterprise, and it is quite possible that the figures which would usually be the yardstick of measurement at the present moment mask the actual situation, because Government building in a multitude of directions readily absorbs those energies of the nation which are usually directed to the building trade, so that unemployment and a general hold-up would not appear at the moment. It is unnecessary to remind your Lordships that in the building trade all kinds of ancillary considerations are brought in, like the employment of architects and the preparations of plans for buildings, to say nothing of the multitudinous activities
248
associated therewith. The present uncertainty is causing a real stagnation in the property market. That is not unnatural. You can readily picture the ill-effects of a cumulative movement of this kind. There is a reluctance to put money into mortgages, and there is the disinclination of people to commit themselves by way of leases or the purchase of property. Your Lordships, who are so familiar with these problems, do not need to be reminded of the widespread eddies of a movement of this kind. But I think it would be appropriate to remind you of the large amount of money which is going into houses. Under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and the Housing Acts there have been up to date since January 1, 1919, a total of over 200,000 advances amounting in all to over £101,000,000. It should also be recollected that the mortgage assets of building societies are given as amounting to over £636,000,000, whilst the total number of borrowers may be in the neighbourhood of 1,400,000. That serves to illustrate the widespread responsibility which can itself carry anxiety with it to those concerned.
It is suggested by the statements which have been made that the problem is so complex that there is no basis for assessing the liability which the country might assume in giving any undertaking as to what repayment would be made out of public funds to compensate owners of property. Presumably the situation does not differ very much from the kind of problem that was presented in the United States recently with regard to Social Services. The United States is essentially a democratic republican country, but it was far behind this country in its Social Services. Such legislation had been traditionally regarded as unnecessary, and had been resisted by employers of labour as an undesirable burden on industry. Your Lordships can picture what was required of the Federal Government in introducing a scheme of insurance at the height of the depression to a Continent of 130,000,000 people. The difficulties of the absence of precedent were there overcome, and this might well give a suggestion of something that would be an encouragement to the consideration of this problem here.
I ask your Lordships' indulgence in reminding you that the last general conflagration produced examples where the State had to assume very widespread

249
responsibility. In the case of shipping, for example, there is a clear precedent in the general charge put on by shipping out of which a pool was formed to pay compensation. We all realise that the restoration of property destroyed on a big scale in Northern Europe was effected at the cost of some public funds, and, anyhow, compensation was paid. On the question of collective responsibility, what about the vast expenditure that is being sanctioned now to carry out all these A.R.P. plans and provisions? We have again the example of the extension of Government insurance to overseas trade—admittedly, in the Bill, an uncharted sea; but it involves the responsibility that the State will collectively assume novel obligations because of the unusual character of the circumstances in which we find ourselves.
I humbly presume to remind your Lordships of how in the past we have had clear evidence that orthodoxy has been wrong. We must remember that going back to the gold standard in 1925 certainly hamstrung a large number of our industries and was a great misfortune, while going off gold in 1931, committing the country to vast borrowings in order to try to keep us on gold before we were finally drawn off, showed the bankruptcy of orthodox finance in assessing a new set of problems. Everyone is certain to-day that the deflation of the early thirties was a great misfortune and was entirely wrong. It produced uneasiness and social disturbance, and that was because of the reluctance on the part of the State to take certain responsibilities. I put these things forward because it seemed right there should be some answer in advance to the suggestion that provision for compensation cannot be made because there is no precedent and because the possible burden on the State is unbearable. It is for that reason that I am disinclined readily to accept the assurance that this or that is impossible.
It may well be that the sentiment of the country would hasten the Government to take some steps which would have been better taken before. As an instance of the unfortunate result of absence of effective examination of a problem, take in recent times the instalment system of finance which affected a vast number of people with small incomes throughout the country. Hurried legislation was put
250
through both Houses without a proper examination of that problem, as a reluctant reply to a very widespread demand in the country. It is for that reason that I suggest there is a proper reason for setting up a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament or some other body which would make a full and up-to-date examination of the problem of how and in what way compensation should be forthcoming from public funds to the owners of the property destroyed in the event of war.
May I just recapitulate the two main lines on which I base this appeal? There is, first, the uncertainty which exists in the country with regard to the value of property, and all the disquieting effect that has on the vast financial machinery in this country which is concerned directly with the ownership of property or indirectly with the results of the fluctuating values of property; and, secondly, the dislocation which may well result, from tardiness in handling this problem, in the building trades as a whole and in new enterprise on which they depend. Lastly there must be in this country millions of small householders whose ownership of their houses represents their life savings, and one can readily imagine the uneasiness which must exist in their minds as to what will be their situation in the event of their property being suddenly destroyed. It is on those grounds that I say there is a widespread interest in this question in the country, and in spite of the assurances which we have had hitherto that the problem is most complex, I make this repeated appeal to the Government that they may yet consider it worth while to establish some body which would give the matter further consideration.
6.21 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, in a word or two I want to say that the Labour Party have been giving a great deal of study to this matter, especially my honourable friends in another place, who are very interested in it. I think we would agree with everything the noble Lord has said except his remedy of setting up a Committee, which would only mean delay and give the Government one more excuse to procrastinate. I understand that a heavy attack is being made this very day on the Government in another place on their War Risks Insurance Bill,

251
and that the Government are going to fall back on this well-tried plan of a Committee. All I can say is that I do hope the noble Earl, if we will allow me to say so, can tell us that this Committee will act very quickly, and that when they have reported their decision will be implemented quickly. In the meantime the situation is going to be like this. The War Risks Insurance Bill, which has not reached your Lordships' House, does insure ships, cargoes and goods in storage, but apparently people whose houses are damaged in war are to wait till after the war before they get anything at all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has said, the position of householders is causing great anxiety and uncertainty, and we think that the Government should introduce a scheme at once and begin collecting premiums on a voluntary basis. I, with most of your Lordships, have house property in a vulnerable area, and I cannot get any insurance for it against war risks. Those risks cannot be underwritten at all, and it is obviously a matter for the Government. The State will have to pay for the damage eventually, therefore why not start at once getting in your premiums? I believe most property owners will be only too delighted to begin paying an extra premium in order to get cover for their property. Later on the Government can go in for a compulsory system, but we certainly do want something now. I think the noble Lord is to be commended for raising the matter in this House. The only trouble is that he has chosen to do it to-day when the matter is under discussion in another place. However I wish him luck, except in the matter of a Committee, which will only be a delaying tactic.
6.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the only reply I have to give is to read a statement given in another place by the President of the Board of Trade upon the Second Reading of the War Risks Insurance Bill. Perhaps, with your Lordships permission, I might read it to the House. In these matters the Government have been advised by a Committee, which was set up some time ago, which consulted confidentially outside interests with special experience, and the suggestion was exhaustively examined that in respect of fixed property the Government might
252
introduce an insurance scheme, collecting premiums from owners and undertaking to pay in full for any subsequent damage whatever might be its extent. As has already been pointed out by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a statement he made in another place on January 31 last, the insuperable difficulty to a scheme of this kind is that no possible basis for an actuarial calculation exists, and the conclusion is inevitable that a scheme which would commit the community to so vague and indeterminate a liability is one to which no Government could pledge public funds. There is, however, another possibility which has been under consideration—namely, that some scheme might be devised for collecting premiums for the purpose of producing a compensation fund which would be drawn upon to the extent to which it was available. As to this I have a word to say in a moment.
Let me first, however, point out that it is quite inaccurate to represent the Government's attitude to compensation for fixed property as a mere non possumus. On the contrary, the announcement already made lays down these propositions which the Government have already accepted: (1) The general principle which ought to be applied is that loss or injury ought not to be treated as merely the concern of those who directly suffer it, but must be regarded as falling upon the community as a whole and consequently as constituting a proper subject for compensation. In other words, the loss ought not to be left to lie where it happens to fall. (2) It has always been recognised and was expressly stated that emergency reconstruction of essential property, including where necessary housing accommodation, would have to be undertaken with Government assistance as soon as possible after the destruction of such property occurred. Otherwise, how is a factory which has been hit to resume essential activities and how are people whose houses may be destroyed or damaged to be rehoused? While, therefore, it is quite impossible to contemplate the immediate reconstruction of everything, it has always been recognised, and stated, that necessary repairs to essential property which has been damaged must be undertaken with Government help, as far as possible, during hostilities. (3) Moreover, a register of damage done to every kind of property must be promptly made

253
when the damage occurs and it has been announced that this is being arranged for through the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue. And at the end of the war, the resources of the State must be made available, on the highest scale compatible with the then circumstances of the country, on the general lines that there would at any rate be a payment in full up to a certain limit of loss, and thereafter if claims could not be met in full there would be graded assistance.
There remains, however, the suggestion that these provisions might be supplemented by a scheme under which contributions would be collected on the one hand and the proceeds would be distributed when loss occurred on the other. There are very great difficulties in such a proposal but the Government have already come to the conclusion that it should be further examined. The Government cannot promise to provide unlimited amounts out of public funds for compensation, and the final adjustment must wait for the end of any future conflict. But we should be very willing to see a practical scheme evolved, if that is possible, in the nature of mutual provision by which property owners make a contribution to a common fund and from these resources secure that some interim compensation can be provided. Accordingly, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to convene, on behalf of the Government, a conference of four or five gentlemen of acknowledged standing and to ask them to examine the practicability of evolving any scheme for mutual provision against risk of war damage to fixed property in private ownership, excluding ships, cargoes and commodities already covered by the Government's insurance scheme.
The Government must maintain the view that no scheme could be acceptable which would promise to provide unlimited amounts out of public funds for compensation, and the object of the further inquiry is to examine any suggestions that can be made consistently with this essential condition. If a practicable scheme could be evolved, it would not necessarily be rejected merely because it involved
254
some Government contribution of reasonable and ascertainable dimensions. Steps are being taken to constitute and convene this conference at once, and the conference will be asked to advise whether participation in any scheme which they find it practicable to recommend should be compulsory upon all property owners or whether it should be voluntary. The conference will have power to call into consultation such persons as they may think are able to assist them in their deliberations. The day by day proceedings of the conference will have to be confidential, and indeed some of the matters with which the members of the conference will have to deal are necessarily secret, but when the time comes the Government will be glad to consider how far the conclusions can be published. It is hoped to announce very shortly the names of those who are being asked to assist in the matter.
6.29 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I would first of all like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for associating himself with the matters which lie behind my Motion. I should also like to thank the noble Earl very much for the statement he has made. Your Lordships will understand that a long statement covering so wide a field will require to be studied in some detail, but it conveys the impression that the Government recognise the need for immediate further consideration of the whole problem which I raised and, further, that certain aspects of the problem have already been recognised. I thank the noble Earl for his statement and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, before we adjourn I should like to state that it has been thought desirable to arrange that to-morrow's meeting should be at three o'clock as there is a great deal of business on the Paper.
House adjourned at half-past six o'clock.