Lords Sitting of 18 December 1940

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MESSAGE FROM THE EGYPTIAN SENATE.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships that I have this day received a telegram from the President of the Egyptian Senate which he requests me to communicate to your Lordships' House. Translated, it is in these terms:
"In the name of the Egyptian Senate, as well as in my own name, I beg your Lordship to accept and to transmit to the House of Lords our warmest congratulations on the very brilliant victory which has been gained by the valiant British Armies against Italian forces on the Western Frontier of Egypt. This victory, in freeing Egyptian territory, adds a magnificent page to the glorious military annals of Britain and will powerfully contribute to secure the triumph of democracy.
MOHAMED MOHAMOUD, EK HALIL, President."
The same was ordered to be entered on the Jeurnals of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Bill and of passing it through its remaining stages.—(Lord Snell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

LOCAL ELECTIONS AND REGISTER OF ELECTORS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Provision as to superannuation rights of contributory employees.
2.—(1) Any contributory employee who received in respect of work in connection with the preparation of a register of electors or juror's book in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine remuneration, otherwise than as part of an inclusive salary continuing to be received by him, shall be entitled to contribute a sum in respect of that remuneration to the appropriate superannuation fund in respect of any year, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in which a register of electors or juror's book, as the case may be, is not prepared by reason of the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, being in force; and for the purpose of computing in accordance with the provisions of Section eight of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, the average remuneration of any contributory employee he shall be deemed to have received in respect of service rendered in any year in respect of which such contributions were made by him the remuneration by reference to which the contributions were calculated.
(2) In this section the expressions "contributory employee" and "appropriate superannuation fund" have the same meaning as in the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE) moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "who received in respect of work" and insert "or local Act contributor who received in respect of work done by him in the standard year as returning officer at a local election other than an election to fill a casual vacancy, or". The noble Duke said: This is the only Amendment of substance to be made in the Bill. The other Amendments on the Paper are verbal and largely consequential. This Amendment is designed to protect the superannuation position of employees of local authorities who suffer loss of election fees in respect of local elections as well as that of employees who suffer because the register of electors and the juror's book are not prepared. The Bill as introduced in the House of Commons provided only for meeting superannuation losses resulting from discontinuing work on the register and juror's book, but representations have been made that the

151
superannuation losses which may result from the suspension of local elections should also be met. The number of employees involved is comparatively small but there seems to be no reason of principle why they should not be included in the Bill. The Amendment is also designed to extend the protection, both with regard to loss from discontinuance of work on the register of electors and juror's book and with regard to loss from the suspension of local elections, to contributors to superannuation funds maintained under local Acts, as well as the funds maintained under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937. A few authorities, notably the metropolitan boroughs, or some of them, maintain their local Act funds, and on this point again representations have been received. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("employee") to ("in") in line 12 and insert ("or local Act contributor who received in respect of work done by him in the standard year as returning officer at a local election other than an election to fill a casual vacancy, or").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The next Amendment is purely a matter of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("book") to ("remuneration") in line 14.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The next Amendment is also a matter of drafting, extending to the loss of returning officers' fees for local elections the protection given by the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("which") to ("of") in line 19, and insert ("by reason only").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 21, after ("force") insert ("he is not required to do such work").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. i
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The next Amendment is purely a matter of drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, after ("employee") insert ("or of calculating the superannuation allowance of any local Act contributor under a local Act scheme ").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The next Amendment is consequential on the last.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 7, leave out line 7 and insert ("'local Act contributor,' 'local Act scheme' and appropriate superannuation fund' have the same meanings respectively").—The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The next again is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("except that in relation to a local Act contributor the last mentioned expression means the superannuation fund in the benefits of which he is entitled to participate; and the expression standard year means in relation to work done by any person as returning officer at a local election, the last year before the year nineteen hundred and forty in which such work was done by him, and, in relation to work done by any person in connection with the preparation of a register of electors or juror's book, the year nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.")—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title:
A Bill to continue in force the Local Elections and Register of Electors (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1939, with certain amendments, and to make provision for safeguarding the rights of contributory employees under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Act, 1937, in respect of remuneration lost in consequence of the first-mentioned Act.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Amendment which I have to move to the Title is consequential.
Amendment moved—
In the title, leave out ("under") and insert ("and local Act contributors as defined by").—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with, Amendments reported, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WESSEX (NORTH BASINGSTOKE) ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1940.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders standing in my name be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD VISCOUNT TRENCHARD had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they stand by their declaration of the 16th of October last on the organisation of the Royal Air Force; and move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I feel in a somewhat difficult position in addressing your Lordships on the Motion standing in my name. I put this Motion down as long ago as November 29 and I had hoped that it would be debated on December 3. I was twice asked to postpone it, the last time being on December 10. I was very seriously perturbed at the action which was then taken, but during the last eight days I have had time to think things over and, if I may say so, I have calmed down to some extent. I cannot help feeling that there has been some misunderstanding over this matter and that if the Government had heard the speech which I had originally intended to make on December 3, they would have recognised that it was in no sense an attack upon them, although it was a criticism of what was going on. They would have seen that I was merely advancing broad arguments about this very vital question and that I was the last man to say anything which would be of use to the enemy. I had intended to conclude my speech on December 3 with the remark that if any further questions on this very important subject were desired, I would suggest that a Motion should be
154
put down to carry on the debate in secret. I did not think it would have been necessary, but I wanted to explain to your Lordships and to the public some very broad statements of principle on this matter, and to express the hope that in future this subject would not be allowed to be a continual bone of contention. I did not want to embarrass the Government, and I did not flatter myself that I could do so.
Having said that, I would ask permission to keep as far as possible to the speech which I had intended originally to make, apart from some changes which are necessary in view of the Prime Minister's statement on this subject in another place. I had intended to start by apologising to your Lordships for raising this question again so soon after the debate on the Army Air Arm. Although it was stated in the Official Report on December 10 that I said that I was speaking on behalf of myself, I thought that I had said that I was not speaking on behalf of myself alone. I am in fact speaking on behalf of a very large number of people who correspond with me and who, I know, feel very strongly on this matter. The nation feels much more strongly about it than is sometimes imagined.
The question of making a separate Army Air Arm was first brought up again in the middle of the war by a section of the Press. On October 16 I put down a Motion on this question, and the noble Lord, Lord Snell, who spoke for the Government on that occasion, gave a most satisfactory and definite reply in which he said:
"Your Lordships will be aware that some time ago the Fleet Air Arm was split off from the rest of the R.A.F., and that was not a decision which ought to be repeated."
Subsequently in the same speech he made it clear, as did others in another place, that the question of an Army Air Arm was not raised by the General Staff. His words were:
"This is not the view either of the Air Staff or of the General Staff."
He said that they were satisfied with the arrangements in process of being made for the natural development of Army cooperation work. However, within six weeks of that decision being given, it was almost torn up, and here again we have the same sort of question raised from the same quarters and apparently for the same purpose.
I should like to ask whether the Sea Lords initiated this demand for the Coastal Command to go over to the Navy, and that all the officers and men concerned should be compulsorily transferred to another Service. I cannot believe that they did, knowing, as everyone knows, the wonderful co-operation which has gone on between the Navy and the Coastal Command under that great commander Air Marshal Sir Frederick Bowhill. We have heard nothing but praise from both sides of how well it has worked. The Prime Minister himself said the other day:
"Excellent relations have been established since the war between the two Services, and the closest contact exists between the naval and air authorities."
No, I do not believe it was started by the Sea Lords. I have too much respect for the Sea Lords to doubt that they are doing all they can to co-operate with all the Services—not only the Royal Air Force—in anything that will help to win the war. I think they have felt that they have had all—and more than all—the necessary co-operation in the carrying out of all their demands on the Coastal Command.
It is no good now, after the Prime Minister's statement, my asking for the assurance from the Government in the terms of my Motion. The situation has been changed by that statement, but the Prime Minister in his statement used these words:
"I have come to the conclusion that, while there is no need at the present time to change the position of the Coastal Command as part of the Royal Air Force, it is necessary that the Coastal Command should play a more important part than it has hitherto done in trade protection."
To take the last part of that sentence first—"it is necessary that the Coastal Command should play a more important part than it has hitherto done in trade protection "—I have said that all parts of the Royal Air Force can play a more important part in all phases of the war than has been delegated to them. I have said it for over twenty years and I am glad to see the Prime Minister recognises it. Now with regard to the first part of the sentence. It would have been entirely satisfactory if it had not been for the words at the present time". I also see the Prime Minister said:
"I see no reason to give any specific assurance that would tend to impair the responsibility
156
of the Government to Parliament for the proper conduct of the war."
I agree that the Government cannot tie their hands in any way for the proper conduct of the war, but they can—and I think should—recognise that so long as the Prime Minister's statement is governed by those words "at the present time" the Government might at any time allow this subject to be reopened by any or by all.
This brings me to the subject of organisation. I hope the Government will realise that organisation cannot be built in a day, but dis-organisation can, and has been many times in this war. That is important. Your Lordships accepted the other day, and I think certainly the country has accepted, that the one organisation that has come out well in this war and has stood the strain—not only the strain of the vast expansion, but the strain of fighting to defend this country in all those hard days of the early summer and the end of it—has been the Royal Air Force. It has stood the strain and shows no sign of breaking or of requiring any alteration, or of disorganisation in a day. But again I say that organisation takes time; it cannot be built in a day. Do the Government realise that to make this change work satisfactorily would take three or four years or more? Even if they worked as hard as they could and there was no war it would take more than that. Do they realise that even the Fleet Air Arm, which was started in 1937, is still not complete? Far from it—and it is no fault of the Admiralty or the Air Ministry; it takes time. It would not be in the public interest to go further into details.
But before leaving this subject of organisation I want to say this to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I shall always be definitely opposed to the breaking up of the unity of the Royal Air Force. I have said and must repeat that it is the unity that has made this organisation. In war or in peace it would be a most retrograde step to try to break that unity which has stood the strain. The three Services have co-operated in this war—and they can if they are left alone. Look at what has happened in the Mediterranean, look at what has happened in Greece and in Egypt. Look at the splendid co-operation that has gone on there between the Air and the Army, the Air and the Navy, the Navy and the

157
Army. You cannot make each Service self-contained for war; that is impossible, but I will not go further into that side now except to say a word if I may about the wonderful victories in Egypt and Greece. I think we all admire and welcome the wonderful leadership of General Sir Archibald Wavell who is in command of the major operation in the Desert. We must all admire the wonderful weapon he has forged, first of all, the perfect co-operation of the three Services, and secondly, the wonderful timing of it—and it is not easy. It was only the other day that I tried to show that if you give the Army even a moderate chance they will do just as brilliantly, if I may say so, as any of the other Services. They do their work under their leaders just as well as the Navy and the Royal Air Force and I would like to offer my humble congratulations to them all for what they have done in the Middle East.
Now I come back to the question under debate. As I think your Lordships know, I believe thoroughly in the offensive. Surely events are proving to us every day that offence pays, and how our long sitting-down during the first six months of the war did not pay. But I have no desire to stimulate a controversy. I am only anxious to point out what a grave mistake it would be to do anything to undermine the unity of the Air Force. The Government, I suppose, will, in making their statement, undoubtedly make it on the lines of their statement in another place, which, as I understand it, means that there will be no change in the existing organisation and that the Coastal Command remains an integral part of the Royal Air Force as in the past. If the noble Viscount who leads this House will give me his assurance that he will convey my remarks on organisation to the Government, in which I tried to express the impossibility of altering an organisation in one day, and will give me the assurance that the Government recognise this, I should be;, I will not say quite happy, but much more content.
Finally, if the noble Viscount or any of your Lordships wants to go further into the many technical reasons against any change being made:, or for any change being made, I would thoroughly agree with the Government that further discussions should take place in a Secret
158
Session and a Motion should be put down for the purpose, as I think it will be inadvisable for me to state in public any of the many reasons I should advance on the other side. I hope, though, that that will not be necessary. I would earnestly ask those noble Lords who were going to support me before to consider whether the suggestion I have made is not wise, and I hope they will see their way to agree with it. My noble friend Lord Mottistone has asked me to say that he has two important public engagements to-day and cannot be in his place but that he agrees with every word that I was going to say. I hope that the controversy, almost acute, which was not raised or initiated by me, nor do I believe it was raised by the Navy, will now stop and that the three Services will continue to work in perfect co-operation for victory as they have done in the last six months and more. Methods may change but sound organisation will not change. I beg to move.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, it would perhaps be convenient to your Lordships in the circumstances if I were to make one or two observations on what has fallen from the noble Viscount. The first thing that I would say would be to thank him for the effort that he has made—in which I hope I may be able to co-operate—in the removal of misunderstanding, if such there were, in regard to the handling of this matter by your Lordships' House. I owe him a word of apology for the unintentional inconvenience that was imposed on him by the action I felt it my duty to take last week and which I regret having been obliged to take without having had the opportunity of consulting with the noble and gallant Viscount about it in advance.
It is fair that I should also say that the noble Viscount who has raised this matter has not been the first to raise it in public, and that he has just made a speech to your Lordships from which, I am quite sure, he has done his best to exclude the note of controversy which we all desire to avoid. I certainly appreciate very much the way in which he has sought to find the middle way through our difficulties as regards procedure which I hope we may be able to tread. Your Lordships will remember the attitude I felt obliged to take last week in regard to debate on

159
this matter, and it was with great satisfaction that I heard the noble Viscount say that he was, on reflection, in agreement with the view that, if any of your Lordships should consider it necessary to embark on a technical discussion of the matters arising from this subject, it would necessarily have to be done, as he thought, in Secret Session. His Majesty's Government, as I said last week, hold that view very strongly, and should that situation arise I would sincerely hope it may also be shared by your Lordships' House.
In his speech of last October in your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked whether it was the intention to maintain the present organisation of the Royal Air Force in order to enable the results so far achieved by that Force to be extended and developed. When he put that question he attributed the great achievements of the Royal Air Force that were then, as they are to-day, in all our minds, to the fact that it had been planned and developed on the basis of a unified Air Service possessing an organisation that was flexible and an organisation designed to meet all our needs in the air wherever and however they might arise. He referred to various reports that were then current of a proposal to establish an Army Air Arm, and urged His Majesty's Government to reaffirm their intention to stand by the organisation that had served the country so well in recent months. My noble friend Lord Snell, to whom it fell to reply to Lord Trenchard, then stated that the Government had no intention of changing the basic organisation of the Force, and explained the arrangements which had been made to meet the air requirements of the Army without detracting from the volume of our air effort.' As I understand it, what the noble Viscount is to-day, in effect, asking is whether the principles that were then set out in the speech made by my noble friend Lord Snell applied to the question of meeting the air requirements of the Navy or, in other words, whether it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to keep the Coastal Command as an integral part of the Royal Air Force or to transfer it to the Royal Navy.
I do not think that, in view of the severity of the present attacks on shipping, it is altogether unnatural that the
160
question of the control of air units operating over the sea should have been raised at the present time. Your Lordships will, of course, readily appreciate that the air requirements of the Navy are of two kinds. There are first the aircraft carried in ships—the Fleet Air Arm. These are now a part of the Navy, and no question arises in respect of them. Secondly, there is the requirement for shore-based Air Force squadrons working in co-operation with the Royal Navy. That duty devolves mainly on the Coastal Command of the Royal Air Force, though calls are made on the Bomber Command and on the Fighter Command to an extent that necessarily varies from time to time with the prevailing tactical situation. A suggestion, as we all know, has been made that all these squadrons which are called upon to co-operate with the Navy should be transferred to, and should become an integral part of, the Royal Navy and, as is natural, and as your Lordships are also well aware, there are two sides to this question for each of which the respective advocates are of opinion they can advance strong argument. Into that argument I do not intend now to enter, and I hope, indeed, as the noble and gallant Viscount suggested, it will not in fact be felt necessary for this debate to cover ground that is inevitably very controversial.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a carefully considered statement last week in another place, the terms of which are no doubt in all your Lordships' minds and which perhaps it is not necessary for me textually to quote on this occasion. I would only add to what he said this word, that I have no doubt that all of us, whether in the Government or out of it, can readily agree with the noble Viscount in feeling what a vital bearing and import upon all war like operations must be exercised by organisation. No doubt opinions may differ, but on the general question of the vital importance of organisation there should, I suppose, be no two opinions. I hope and believe, from what has fallen from the noble and gallant Viscount, that the statement made by my right honourable friend in another place will have been a reassurance to him and to others associated with him, and will lead him and, as I hope, will lead your Lordships, to feel that it is not necessary at the

161
present time to enter more closely into the discussion of matters which, if they are to be debated in detail, cannot usefully be so debated in Public Session. It only remains for me to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, once again for the way in which he has treated a matter that is certainly not free from difficulties, and to assure him, as he asked me to do, but as in any case I should have done, that I shall certainly make it my own personal responsibility to see that his observations are conveyed to the responsible quarters where they ought to be considered.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should think it will have given satisfaction to all parties to have heard the two speeches to which we have just listened. I confess that many of us were perplexed over what happened last week, and although perhaps the speeches now made have not altogether removed the grounds of our perplexity, still I suppose we must be content with them as they are. At the same time, I think it would be right for those of us who have supported the view advanced by the noble Viscount more than once in this House to say that we still share his misgiving at the existence of the words "at the present time" in the statement to which he has referred. That does not mean, I am sure, that any body of persons would wish other than to see that the Coastal Command should have more and more equipment, better and fuller maintenance, and that any defects, if there are any, should be remedied to the full. But we have in our minds all the time that the adequate supply and rational and proper co-operation evidently desired by all of us are quite different from suggestions that might mean the uprooting of an organisation that has taken years to build and elaborate—suggestions which, I am sure, would be viewed with grave misgiving. However, for the present I gather that we are all content to leave it where it is, but in doing so I would like to reiterate one's hope that the words "at the present time" do not mean that action will be taken which will undermine the confidence of those who have played so great a part in the organisation of the Air Force, and undermine their confidence in the continuation of their effort in all its branches.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I desire in a single sentence only to say that the noble Lords on these Benches agree with the course suggested for our procedure to-day by the Leader of the House and endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, having heard the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, I will only add this. He said there are two sides to this question. Yes, I accept that, but I would ask the noble Viscount when I withdraw, as I propose to do, my Motion for Papers, to request the Government to bear in mind the fact that if ever they are considering this matter again they will give time to those who know why the organisation was built in the way it was built. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AIR-RAID SHELTERS.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I desire to draw attention to the present provision of air-raid shelters and to move for Papers, and I would ask your Lordships to think especially of the needs of workers in thickly-populated munition centres. It will be generally agreed that indiscriminate bombing in crowded industrial areas exposes the civilian population to danger greater than that which threatened front fine troops in the last war. Such a development, it may be said, was foreseen by successive Governments and their servants, but if this be granted it must be admitted that there has been a sad lack of clear vision. During the first six months of the present war our aerodromes were favourably placed for night raids over Germany. We dropped leaflets. The war, in the expressive American phrase, was "phoney." The air-raid shelters produced were adapted to a "phoney" war. The possibility of attacks, merciless and savage, by waves of bombers coming hour after hour and dropping hundreds of tons of high explosives, to say nothing of ordinary and explosive incendiaries, was never seriously faced. The consequence is that to-day in our industrial areas a state of affairs exists that demands rapid and decisive action.

163
In calling the attention of your Lordships to the evils of the present situation I will be careful neither to give information which in any way might help the enemy, nor to speak in a manner which might rightly be termed defeatist. Our people have shown and are showing heroic endurance, especially the lower middle classes and the skilled workers, who are, as we know, not only the largest but also the most valuable section of our population. More than that they have, generation after generation, given leaders of commerce and industry, of science, of letters and religion. Some sociologists have speculated that under the stress of industrialism this section of our people was losing the qualities that had made England great. The last year has proved that such gloomy beliefs were false. The section of the community which I have just described provides not only the best men of our military forces, it provides also the munition workers, men and, more especially, women and girls, without whose steady labour the military machine could not exist. They are as important as your armed forces. Their safety is equally imperative. Their confidence and good will are essential to national morale. As I have said, they are showing heroic endurance.
There is also among them—and I use words That are deliberately weak—a growing feeling that their protection against air raids is less satisfactory than it might be. I must stress this fact, although I know that during the war it is thought inadvisable to focus attention on popular discontent. The policy of silence can be carried too far. It was carried too far in France and contributed to the collapse of that country six months ago. I say that to-day it is dangerous to pretend that complaints do not exist with regard to matters which are the common subject of anxious conversation among millions of our people. I find myself, with great regret, forced to the conclusion that the Government's air-raid shelter policy has failed. How serious the consequences of that failure are only those who have first-hand knowledge of the shelters and the miseries associated with them can properly understand. I imagine that most of your Lordships have never been at night in a public shelter in an industrial area or at any time in the
164
strutted cellar of a worker's house. My own knowledge comes from personal observation and in larger measure from social workers, from clergy and ministers. All unite in a demand for better protection, for shelters that so far as is possible shall be, above all else, safe, sanitary and dry.
Existing shelters belong to a few definite classes. There is first of all the Anderson shelter, a great invention, giving protection against anything but a direct hit and so small a target that a direct hit is unlikely even in a heavy raid. But if the subsoil be clay, and clay is common in this country, the Anderson soon becomes waterlogged. Then it is not enough to dig a nearby sump. You must get your water away into the local drainage system, and this is a task beyond the average householder when he has put up his Anderson. Even when the Anderson is thus drained, if the bedding in it is not to get damp in a few hours, it has to be cemented inside. It has been impossible to get cement. I would mention next the strutted cellar of a worker's home. Of that I would say that unless strutting is massive—and how can it be?—the protection is illusory. I could take you to cellars where all will agree that collapse of the house would mean collapse into the cellar. The strutting merely adds to the danger of fire.
I come next to public shelters. Here at once a new problem enters. It is sanitation. Those seeking public shelter have left their homes for, it may be, twelve or fifteen hours. You must have lavatories, and, speaking generally, these must be connected to the main drainage system. You cannot, therefore, as a rule have deep shelters. Surface shelters, or shelters sunk a few feet into the earth, are imperative. All over the country, a large number of trench shelters have been dug. Of them it must be said that almost invariably the sanitary accommodation, if it exists, is hopeless. As I have learned from the clergy of Birmingham, and have confirmed by my own observation, many trench shelters are to-day waterlogged. Most of the others—I think I am not exaggerating—are damp. And lest it be thought that I exaggerate or that Birmingham is exceptional, I will quote from an investigation by Manchester medical women reported in the Manchester Guardian of December 9 last,

165
These medical women say of north Manchester:
"The trench shelters provide the greatest problem, since, of eighteen Corporation trench shelters, designed to hold fifty persons in each, eight were flooded and ten were damp."
They go on:
"The people do not expect a great deal to be done for them. What has dismayed them is that the efforts they have made to improve the shelters have been ruined by wet."
I will not quote further from a most illuminating report. Speaking generally, trench shelters fail because damp, crowded shelters without adequate sanitation spread dirt, vermin and disease.
I pass next to consider the familiar brick surface shelter. It is splinter proof: it gives some protection from blast: but it is not safe against a hit or against a near hit. As evidence I will quote Miss Ellen Wilkinson. Speaking on December 3 last, after a visit to Liverpool, she said:
"I was surprised to find how well the little brick shelters have stood up in this heavily bombed area. Those that were actually in the line of blast, of course, went down, but the others stood up."
I would comment that the workers will not be satisfied with surface shelters that collapse when in the line of blast. May I interpolate a tribute to Miss Wilkinson, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security? We are, I would say, greatly fortunate in having in her position a woman of capacity, of understanding and of great human sympathy. She has learnt at first hand of the miseries to which I am directing your Lordships' attention. Many of these surface brick shelters are damp because of the use of lime mortar. The flat roofs should have been of the best reinforced concrete, but owing to the use of inferior materials water seeps through. Some roofs, as inquests have revealed, owing to use of inferior materials, have even collapsed under their own weight. Local authorities doubtless did their best, but it was impossible to get cement. If adequate supplies of cement are forthcoming in the future the brick surface shelters can, no doubt, by extensive reconstruction, be made dry if internal heating be introduced, but they will not be safe.
I would repeat that the three primary needs in public shelters are safety, sanitation and dryness. May I give point to
166
this general consideration by quoting from a report laid by the Christian Social Council of Birmingham before the Chairman of the local A.R.P: Committee on November 7 last? The report spoke of streets and courts by name and number. For obvious reasons I must suppress such details, but here is one statement:
"For seven houses (in a specified court) there are two attached twin surface shelters, unfinished, with mud floors, dimensions 6 ft. by 4 ft., extremely malodorous. The clean old woman occupying one of the houses said it was impossible to keep the cats out."
The report went on to say—and it is to this point that I would especially direct the attention of your Lordships—that people from such courts could use adjacent public shelters. These shelters, however, are only blast and splinter-proof, and they are almost under the walls of a great factory likely to be an enemy objective. As a consequence, these shelters are not much used, owing to the fear that they may be hit.
Need I say more to justify my statement that the Government's air-raid shelter policy has failed? The blame cannot be put upon local authorities. They have not had adequate freedom. The lack of cement has been a lamentable hindrance. As for the provision of ventilation and heating to counteract dampness, Miss Ellen Wilkinson herself said, on December 4 last, that the provincial towns have only recently been given permission to do these things. In the report of the Birmingham Christian Social Council dated November 7 last, a report which was drawn up after the interview with the local A.R.P. Chairman to which I have referred, it is stated:
"The question of the waterlogging of the public shelters seems to be due to the specifications of the Government, and now they "—the public shelters, not the Government—"will all have to be stripped and recovered if they are to be made habitable."
I should like to give a personal experience. A fortnight ago I visited a vast underground shelter in Central Birmingham. The drainage from the latrines that had been erected was inadequate; in blunt Saxon, the shelter stank. Almost everywhere there were drops of water on the roof. People in one corner had brought their beds and—it was a pathetic sight—had tried to protect them from wet by stretching sacking above them. In one part of the shelter, where the water

167
lay half an inch deep on the floor, I asked a workman what was the cause of the dripping from the roof. He replied: "The water lies above there; the Corporation have not been able to get cement to finish it off." That was a fortnight ago. I could, of course, produce masses of further evidence to show that in the provision of air-raid shelters the policy of the Government has been ill-planned. Local authorities have been hampered by restrictions which should not have been imposed; they have not had freedom to experiment, and in consequence they, and I think the Government, are urging dispersal. In effect this means that the workers, if their Anderson shelters are wet, must remain in their homes. "Crouch under the stairs while the raid is on" has actually been given as official advice. Now, it is one thing for those who live, as most of us do, in solidly-built houses so dispersed that bombing (save as spasmodic terrorism) is not worth while, to accept the risk of staying at home; it is quite another thing for a worker to remain in a fragile home near a munition factory which is likely to be heavily bombed.
I plead that the Government should not only permit but should also encourage local authorities to build surface shelters of the so-called Haldane type. I need not describe these shelters in detail, as pamphlets advocating their construction have been widely circulated, and they are of course known to all the Ministers concerned; but, in brief, the sides and top of these shelters are of cement, made monolithic. The top is some five feet thick and capable of resisting, so experts say, a 500 lb. bomb. The shelters can be made dry and sanitary. I ask, your Lordships will have noticed, for surface shelters of this type. It is calculated that shelters of this kind to accommodate 750 persons would need 300 tons of cement, and steel and labour would also be required. Labour is more difficult to obtain now than it was, say, in June last, when the need for relatively safe shelters, such as those for which I am pleading, could, I think, have been foreseen. Steel is none too plentiful, but, unless all the gossip that reaches me is wrong, there is not that acute shortage of it that our enemies would desire. Inasmuch as these so-called Haldane shelters are protection
168
for front-line workers, steel could rightly be diverted for their production, and I suggest that labour might well be released from the Army. Some surplus labour would be available if the continued building of brick surface shelters were brought to an end.
Steel and labour can, I think be provided; there remains the question of cement. Portland cement has been in the hands of a "ring." The term was used by the Director of Army Contracts in his evidence before the Select Committee on the Estimates of 1938. On page 234 of the Report it will be found that he said that there was "no effective competition outside". The ring, whose title is The Cement Makers' Federation, is said to control something like 80 to 90 per cent. of the output. The policy of rationalisation pursued of recent years has meant that cement factories have been closed down. Such closing, of course, has meant an increased need of transport. The number of workers in the industry is remarkably small, and has declined from some 13,600 in 1924 to 10,400 in 1935—I have no later figures. According to the Economist—I will not quote Left Wing papers—of December 3, 1938, just over two years ago, Viscount Wolmer, then Chairman of the ring, pointed to the tendency of newcomers to enter the industry as "a dangerous development likely to lead to indiscriminate price-cutting." The warning was sufficient; the plan to erect two new factories was abandoned. Needless to say the principal companies of the ring are, to put it mildly, prosperous.
In early July last, the need of cement for home defensive works—and I do not under-estimate the importance of that aspect of the need—and for air-raid shelters was obviously about to become acute. The overcoming of the shortage lay with the cement ring, if the Government did not intervene. The Times— not, I think, a Left Wing paper!—on August 25 last urged that the Government should see at once whether cement production was. "at the maximum, and not merely the maximum of plant in present production." On October 2 last the Chairman of Associated Portland Cement, the chief constituent, as I understand it, of the ring, said that all cement plants but two were operating to fullest capacity; but, if my information be correct, he did not say that closed

169
plants were being reopened or that new-plants were being established, or that, to meet the shortage, Portland blastfurnace cement was being introduced. On October 3 last, the Financial News, after an interview with a spokesman of the ring, commented:
"It is readily understandable that the Portland cemens interests, which have to take into consideration the long-term welfare of the industry, should be diffident about sponsoring any suggested emergency measure likely to prejudice this welfare."
The long-term welfare of the industry-means, does it not? the post-war profits of the ring. Should they have weighed against the needs of the State?
On the morning of November 30 last, when I opened an exhibition of Haldane shelter models in Birmingham, I interviewed a leader of the City. I learned that on that day the lack of cement was seriously hindering local effort. A change came on December 3, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings said (I quote from the Official Report):
"With the formation of this Ministry "—
the Ministry of Works and Buildings—
"the industry"—
that is the cement industry—
"is now controlled, and the question of making provision for the manufacture of blastfurnace and other types of cement and for laying down additional plant is under active consideration."
He added:
"There are at present ample supplies of cement for all purposes, and there are over 250,000 tons already in stock."
To some the reply gave great satisfaction. Miss Ellen Wilkinson, speaking in Manchester on the following day—I quote from the Manchester Guardian of December 5—said:
"The cement problem—thank Heaven—is solved at last."
Could the Minister who will reply for the Government tell us what that problem was?
Had there been a long drawn-out conflict between the Government and the cement ring, during which the Government had hesitated to imperil the long-term welfare of the industry? I ask for information because many who earnestly desire Haldane shelters remain apprehensive. Is there enough cement now available? The annual output of cement was, a year or two back, some 9,000,000 tons.
170
The quarter of a million tons mentioned by Mr. Hicks is but ten days' supply. But, further, the question of laying down new plant and of producing blast-furnace cement is only "under consideration." Surely the period of consideration by the Government should have ended months ago. For months action has been urgently necessary. And may I add another consideration? It is no secret—I quote from the Financial News of December 3 last—that
"most of the active cement-making capacity (of the country) is concentrated in a few large and vulnerable plants."
Have the Government done anything to meet the danger of this situation?
During the latter part of this speech especially, I have tried to speak with great restraint. If more rapid action by the Government might have been prejudicial to the long-term interests of a powerful and wealthy monopoly, inaction has imperilled the happiness, the health, and even the lives of millions of our fellow-citizens, and especially those on whose labour the country's war effort depends. May we have an assurance from the Government that they will empower local authorities to erect air-raid shelters of the so-called Haldane type or alternatives that shall be relatively safe, dry and satisfactory? And will the Minister endeavour to secure that labour and steel for the purpose shall be available; and, above all, that the disastrous lack of cement shall be finally ended? I beg to move for Papers.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I should like to support almost all—not quite all—that has been said by the right reverend Prelate on the provision of air-raid shelters. With regard to the design of Haldane shelters mentioned by him, no doubt this design is very excellent, provided it is not erected in areas where another type of shelter could be constructed which could be adapted for peace-time purposes after the war. I think that is necessary, but I propose to deal with that point a little later on. I think a number of your Lordships will agree that the shelter policy has been rather a vacillating one. It has never apparently been thought out in a large way, and in fact for a time it was considered unnecessary to provide any type of protection for people living in the Western centres of Britain. One is sorely tempted to repeat to-day almost exactly

171
the same speeches which were made in your Lordships' House nearly two years ago, and it seems a pity that His Majesty's Government at that time did not seek advice from a more representative body of engineers and experts, who had studied the question not only from the engineering but also from the psychological point of view.
I remember arguments being put forward that the people at home would not like to feel that they were being better protected than their relations and friends in the Fighting Forces, and that as it was not possible to provide full protection for everyone in this country, protection from blast and splinters only should be considered. I am glad to see that the question of using the Underground Railways for shelter has now been settled, that certain unused sections of the Underground Railway lines are also going to be used, and that additional spurs are to be constructed from the main tunnel. That of course is all to the good, but the whole root of the trouble has been the lack of co-ordination between the different authorities. On the one hand there are the local authorities, on whom a tremendous burden has been placed by war activities; and on the other the Government Departments, such as the Ministry of Home Security, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport and also the Regional Commissioners. I cannot help feeling that casualties might have been less severe, if there had been some central control and if proper accommodation had really been provided and had been erected by a central authority. In that case the country would not now be faced with a very difficult problem limited by materials, labour and, what is most important, time.
His Majesty's Government have gone a very long way to improve matters by freeing the local authorities from the burden of finance in the construction of shelters. The designs put forward by the local authority are of course submitted to the Ministry of Home Security, which is right and proper, and no doubt if they are reasonable they are accepted, and building takes place. But I do trust that good and well-planned designs will not be whittled down so that their usefulness is greatly impaired by some niggardly financial claim, which I know occurred in the case of two designs put forward by
172
certain London boroughs. The particular shelters I have in mind have already been built, but the protection afforded and then-amenities are nothing like what they might have been if the original plan had been adhered to. There is, however, also the case of local authorities who, for some reason or other, are loath to put forward any satisfactory and well-thought-out scheme at all. This shows how necessary it is that there should be some central controlling authority who, if the local authorities are unwilling to act, can exercise his overriding powers. In fact, I am amazed at the apparent satisfaction on the part of certain local authorities with the totally inadequate shelter accommodation which they so far have provided. There is a steadily growing demand for more public shelters, and surely it is time that the controversy which has now been going on for some years as to the rival claims of Anderson shelters, large public underground shelters, basements, etc., should cease, for it is obvious there is a need for them all.
I fully appreciate the very great work that has been done by the Ministry of Home Security and more especially their organisation of A.R.P. as a whole, but I feel that there has been a certain lack of grasp of essentials in the production of shelters. I suppose one of the principal points which had not been foreseen—and it is very easy to be wise after the event—was that the public would require to use shelters for a prolonged period, and consequently none of the necessary amenities had been provided. I am of course aware that every effort is now being made to provide sanitation, ventilation, heating, bunks, etc., and no doubt considerable improvement in these directions is now taking place, but this cannot be properly arranged in small surface shelters which, from the point of view of dispersal, are admirable; but if such shelters had been constructed below ground as units of a complete structure, all the required amenities could have been provided and at the same time the policy of dispersal maintained.
The question is what type of shelter can be built which can give reasonable protection and all the amenities required and yet can be constructed in a comparatively short time. I trust I shall not weary your Lordships if I summarise the requirements of a good shelter which have already been

173
put before you by the right reverend Prelate. I propose to do it a little more fully. It must give a large measure of protection, a reasonable degree of comfort, absolute dryness, good lighting, ventilating, and heating where necessary. It should comprise a number of chambers of limited capacity, each separated from the other, thereby making provision for the dispersal of the occupants into small groups and providing accommodation for medical and first aid centres, infirmary, lavatories, dormitories, and canteen. All of these separate units should be interconnected so as to be under a central supply and control. Such shelters could not only be built beneath the open squares of London and other large cities but, if sufficiently strengthened—and this is a point I particularly wish to make—could serve as the foundation of basement floors for various types of buildings which, after the war, should and could be erected on them.
There are plenty of spaces which have now become available owing to demolition by bombing and on which buildings will eventually be erected. By this means the capital involved in shelter construction will not be entirely lost and unproductive after the war. Squares and open spaces in the centres of all large cities can be provided in a comparatively short period with shelters similar to the one I have described which, after hostilities have ceased, can be used as underground garages, provision for which has already been made in the Civil Defence Bill. In Dockland and in areas where a garage would be unsuitable shelters can be constructed so that they may be used as warehouses, which are very necessary at the present time. I am convinced that there is no reason why shelters should not be built which combine the necessary reasonable protection and amenities and at the same time will have a capital and productive value after the war and not be an entire loss to the nation. Any other scheme which does not provide for this combination is, to my mind, a gross waste of public money. I need hardly remind your Lordships' House that the Home Front is of paramount importance, and that the war can be just as easily lost on this Front as in any other theatre of war.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I only want to say that my friends and myself on more than one occasion have taken part
174
in, or initiated, discussions on this subject in this House, and we do not propose to-day to repeat the speeches in other forms which we have made before. I sincerely hope that the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire) will be able to make a more satisfactory statement than we have had hitherto, but it is fair to say that the terrible statement, as I can only describe it, which was made by the right reverend Prelate is in line with others which have been made in this House before, and it fills one with profound and continued uneasiness. I regret too—and in saying this I am making no reflection on the noble Duke who is going to reply—that the Minister of Works is not present, because I think the statement made by the right reverend Prelate with regard to cement and other building materials was of an exceedingly grave character. I believe it is a fact that the head of this great concern has been made the Controller of Cement. If that is so, it requires justification and explanation. I am sure he will do his best, because I know him to act fairly and properly with respect to the great matters committed to his charge, but it is not right—I am sure it is not—that those who have been responsible for the policy which has been mentioned to us to-day should have been put in complete charge of this business. It should have been someone who is not at all interested in the business in any way whatever.
I would only add that whilst we do not propose to prolong the discussion to-day, we shall, at a very early date, on the resumption of our sittings, call attention to the matters referred to and to the Report of my noble friend Lord Horder, which was left in a very unsatisfactory condition in a recent discussion, and want to know what progress is being made. I am sure it is of the first importance that this House should continually keep this subject before the people, and in doing so we shall be rendering a real service. Every debate we have, and the speeches which have been made to-day, only reinforce what we have said three or four times already, that there is necessity here for unity of direction and control, and that until we get it we cannot hope or expect to have adequate provision.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I must apologise in advance for the inadequacy of my reply. Unluckily,

175
neither of the Departments principally concerned with this question of shelters—the Ministry of Home Security and the Ministry of Health—is represented in this House, and although I made every endeavour yesterday to get into touch with the right reverend Prelate who initiated this debate, I was unable to do so. I had hoped to get into touch with him and find out what points he would be raising in order that I might as far as possible get information from the Departments concerned. If in these circumstances I can only answer the right reverend Prelate somewhat sketchily this afternoon, I can assure him and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate that I will call the attention of the Departments concerned to everything that has been said so that it shall receive the most careful consideration.
I think it should be realised that the brick and concrete surface shelters to which the right reverend Prelate referred have really got a very satisfactory record from a performance point of view. They have frequently withstood very close misses, and from the point of view of the amount of safety they provide they have really done extremely well. From other points of view such as comfort, dryness, and, above all perhaps, freedom from noise, they have been very much less satisfactory, and there is no doubt that they are the least popular form of shelter. My right honourable friend is making every effort in heavily raided areas, by the provision of bunking, heating and lighting, to make these shelters more comfortable and to increase their popularity.
I do not propose to go into the difficult and complicated question of cement to which the right reverend Prelate referred, but I am informed that the cement position is now very greatly improved. As your Lordships will be aware, this shelter question began to receive very serious attention at just about the same time as the invasion of this country seemed probable, and the demand upon the available cement by the Army was necessarily enormous. It was that competition rather than any shortage of cement which for a time made the distribution of cement extremely difficult. The position is to-day very much better, but I do not want to hold out to
176
your Lordships any hope whatever that the enormous quantities required to provide really safe shelters for the whole of the population in bombed areas are likely to become available, and, if they were available, it is doubtful whether the steel and the labour necessary to erect them would be available also. I am informed that to provide really safe shelters something like one ton of cement per person would be required, and your Lordships will readily realise that under war conditions, with a shortage of labour and difficulties of distribution, that is really out of the question.
Short of that my right honourable friend is pressing ahead, and I think I can fairly say pressing ahead rapidly and successfully, with the improvement of shelters. There are still some bad shelters—too many of them—but there are less this week than there were last week and last week there were less than there were the week before. Where damp and so forth can be put right it is being put right; and unsatisfactory shelters are being abandoned and new ones provided. Sanitation presented a very grave problem, but this is being dealt with, and my right honourable friend authorises me to say that by the end of the year, or very early in the new year, he believes that the problem of sanitation with regard to the Tubes and Tube stations will have been solved. We discussed the question of bunks when we last debated this matter, and your Lordships will be interested to hear that the provision of bunks is proceeding very fast. Bunks have been installed for 206,000 people, and other bunks for over 200,000 have been issued and delivered to local authorities, but have not yet been installed. My right honourable friend has urged the local authorities to get on with their installation as soon as possible. There are feeding arrangements now in about a thousand shelters in addition to mobile canteens. There are 126 canteens in Tubes, and seven tons of food are delivered daily to stations in specially adapted trains.
I think I have said enough to show your Lordships that my right honourable friend is aware—and he is not in the least complacent about it—how much there is to be done, and that, subject to possibilities, he is pressing ahead as urgently as possible with the improvement of the

177
shelters. Much remains to be done, and the difficulties are very great, but so for as they can be tackled my right honourable friend is tackling them, and I think I can say he is tackling them with energy and resolution.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I wish to thank his Grace for he reply he has given, but I must express very great regret that he does not hold out hope that comparatively safe shelters can be erected in the great industrial areas. His reply will arouse widespread misgiving, but I trust that on reflection the Government Departments concerned may see the urgent need of doing more than the noble Duke was able to promise. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NAVAL AND MARINE FORCES (TEMPORARY RELEASE FROM SERVICE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
RAILWAYS AGREEMENT (POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CENTRAL (COAL MINES) SCHEME (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1940.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I move that the Order standing in my name be approved.
Moved, That the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Onslow, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) be added to the Committee of Selection.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Earl of Onslow, I move the second Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That the Viscount Hutchinson (E. Donoughmore) be added to the Special Orders Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House adjourned.