Lords Sitting of 20 February 1940

Preamble
The House met at half past three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  KING EDWARD THE SEVENTH WELSH NATIONAL MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]

    ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Coventry Corporation Bill, the King Edward the Seventh Welsh National Memorial Association Bill and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Bill. The reason for this is that Private Bills cannot be read a second time in your Lordships' House until the Attorney General's Report has been received, and the Attorney General's Report did not arrive until after the seventh day from the First Reading. Your Lordships are therefore asked to suspend the Standing Order, and I beg to move accordingly.
    Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bills.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed.
KING EDWARD THE SEVENTH WELSH NATIONAL MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SOLICITORS (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.33 p.m.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is in the main, though not entirely, an emergency Bill which is introduced in order to deal with the difficulties which arise in the present emergency; that is, in effect, owing to the state of war in which we are now. The principal provisions deal with a relaxation of the different conditions and rules which the present law imposes for the qualification of solicitors to be admitted as such. It is found that it will be necessary to relax these rules in order to deal with the circumstance that many articled clerks will be engaged in work of national importance. Some may be called up to serve in the armed forces and some may be engaged in other national work, and in those circumstances it is proper that they should be relieved from a certain period of what would otherwise be the compulsory period of service under articles, which is, as your Lordships know, a sort of apprenticeship. In addition to that, there are certain examinations which the Law Society feel might in certain cases be the subject of total or partial exemption.
The first clause deals with exemptions from the intermediate examination. The second enables a candidate to come up for a final examination at an earlier date than the present Statutes permit. The third enables service on work of national importance to rank, in the discretion of the Law Society, as service under articles, subject to a provision that there must be at least two years' service under actual articles. Clause 4 enables the Law Society in particular cases to treat attendance at courses of lectures as equivalent to service under articles. Clause 5 deals with the granting to the Law Society of the power to suspend the award of prizes and so on during the war, and Clause 6

559
deals with a facultative transfer of certain powers from the Master of the Rolls to a Judge of the High Court.
Clauses 7, 8 and 9, although they are closely related to the state of war in which we now are, are not strictly speaking emergency measures, because they are-not limited to the duration of the war. Clause 7 deals with the fee which the Law Society is entitled to exact for the issue of a practising certificate. The fee is £1, and under the present law 5s. may be retained by the Registrar, and the remainder has to be devoted to legal education. It has been found that that amount of 15s. out of every pound is not normally required for that purpose, and, subject to various safeguards, Clause 7 provides for a certain discretion in the Law Society in the application of that 15s. Clause 8 deals with the number of examinations which the Law Society has to hold. The present Statutes fix a definite number, but it turns out from time to time that there is no occasion for so many examinations and the Law Society are asking here for a discretion in reducing the number in proper conditions. Clause 9 deals with the transfer of certain discretions with reference to articled clerks from the Master of the Rolls to the Law Society. That question was dealt with in a Bill which had a Second Reading in this House last year. It was approved in the Joint Select Committee and it is now included in Clause 9 of the present Bill. Speaking from my own experience as Master of the Rolls, I see no reason whatever why these things should not be transferred from the Master of the Rolls to the Law Society. The present Master of the Rolls, Sir Wilfrid Greene, is of the same opinion. I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor approves of this Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Wright.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

SPECIAL ENACTMENTS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power of appropriate Minister to extend time.
1.—(1) Where, by or by virtue of provisions regulating the discharge or exercise of a duty or power to which this Act applies, a time is limited or a date is fixed within or at which the duty is to be discharged, or the power may be exercised, or an exercise of the power is to take effect, those provisions may be modified as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section…
(2) An order made under this Act may provide for the extension of any time limited as aforesaid by any period not longer than three years, for the postponement of a date fixed as aforesaid in relation to the discharge of a duty by not more than three years, or for enabling a power to be exercised, or the exercise of a power to take effect, at any date not more than three years later than a date fixed as aforesaid in relation thereto:
Provided that no such order shall contain any provision that would have the effect of reducing the length of any period of notice required to be given in relation to the discharge of a duty or the exercise of a power.
3.39 p.m.
LORD SNELL LORD SNELL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "three years" and insert "one year." The noble Lord said: When this Bill was before the House for a Second Reading, I ventured to suggest that in regard to Clause 1 there were some difficulties which we should like the Government to explain; and I have put down this Amendment, and the two that follow it, rather for an exploratory purpose than as a direct criticism. The clause provides that there may be postponed for three years certain undertakings that it is found inconvenient to deal with at the present time. My noble friends and myself are very concerned indeed as to what the state of the unemployed will be immediately after the war. Judging by past experience we may anticipate an enormous influx of people on the unemployed market, and it is of the very greatest importance that every step should be taken to absorb them into employment as quickly as possible.
In regard to this clause, we fear that, either from lack of preparation for that emergency or perhaps because of the increase in the cost of raw materials, local authorities and other people will be tempted to wait for the maximum period of three years rather than face slightly increased costs of raw material and so on, to the great disadvantage of the unemployed people; and we feel that it is highly important that contractors and local authorities should be encouraged, or even pressed by the Government, to get their work into operation as quickly as possible. We also fear that if this is not made clear in the Statute itself, a general promise made in Parliament about the matter may be overlooked. I repeat, I am not moving this Amendment with my mind made up upon the matter, but rather putting before your Lordships our anxiety respecting a state of things that may occur, and I and my noble friend will wait to hear what explanation or consolation we may get from His Majesty's Government on this point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("three years") and insert ("one year").—(Lord Snell.)
3.43 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am very glad that the noble Lord has put down this Amendment because, after what he said on the Second Reading, I could see there was uneasiness in his mind and in the minds of others of your Lordships about the effect of the Bill, and also because it enables me to assure the House that His Majesty's Government are no less concerned than the noble Lord with the possibilities of the unemployment position after the war. I am to say that this point will be very carefully considered in any instructions which may be issued to the Departments in connection with this measure when, as we hope, it shortly becomes law. At the same time I am bound to point out that the fact that a public authority have another three years, instead of one year, within which they may carry out works, will not of itself give the authority any incentive to postpone the works till the last moment, with all the risk that they may then have to seek a further extension of time, not by means of an order under this Bill (which may then be no longer in operation) but by the far more expensive pro-
562
cedure of Private Bill legislation. On the other hand, one cannot wholly exclude the possibility that an authority may abandon entirely some authorised scheme of works, if they can count upon an extension of time of one year only.
In drafting this Bill we were considering not merely the present phase of the war, but the position which might arise after heavy aerial attacks, which fortunately have not occurred; and there may be many cases in which it will be abundantly clear at the outset that an extension of time by one year will not suffice. The effect of the Amendments on the Paper, if they are carried, will be that the authority can look forward with assurance for but one year ahead, and will in a second, and perhaps in a third, year be put to the risks of further applications and to the expense of publishing and giving notices under Clause 2 (3) of the Bill, while the appropriate Minister may have to issue successive Gazette notices under Clause 2 (5) and possibly to hold a succession of local inquiries under Clause 2 (3). We are anxious that this Bill should be an agreed Bill, and we do not care about the Amendment of the noble Lord. I hope after the explanation I have given that my noble friend may see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
3.46 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: I am very glad the noble Lord opposite, Lord Snell, has raised this question. I do not propose to offer any objection to the Bill itself, but the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, only a week or two ago, raised the same question and expressed fears that the Government had not set up a Committee or Conference to think forward and for the next two years at least, so that when men come back from the war they may find work awaiting them. A large number of men will be thrown out of employment in the shipyards, probably in the coal industry, probably in the munition works, at the end of hostilities, and if this Bill does anything to make it more difficult for work to be found for those men it will be very much to be regretted. This gives an opportunity for some of us who are directly connected with industry to ask the Government—although perhaps it may not be in order that I should raise this point now—whether they are setting themselves to prepare schemes with which

563
to find work for demobilised men. I was on a Committee of the Reconstruction Ministry under the noble Lord, Lord Addison, twenty or so years ago and we made a hopeless hash of it. Men came back from the war and there was no work for them. I came to the conclusion that after setting up a Committee on that occasion, it took at least two years to get any new scheme working. I am glad, therefore, that the noble Lord opposite has raised this question, so that we may stimulate the Government into thinking that the time has now arrived and the opportunity should not be put off till the last moment to meet in a hurry the objections to which the noble Lord, Lord Snell, has given voice.
3.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I did not quite realise the purport of this Bill, otherwise I should have given notice to my noble friend below me of a point which is relevant and which interests me very much. When war broke out, there were many schemes pending of civic development and town and country planning all over the country. They were stopped, and the schemes are now in suspense. The Royal Fine Art Commission, of which I am a member, had to deal with some of these problems in their pending and normally current responsibilities, and a short time after the war began we wrote to relevant Departments asking if the schemes could be brought to maturity and then put into suspense until a fitting time came to put them into effect. But we cannot get an answer from the Ministry of Health and I think I am justified, therefore, in placing this matter before my noble friend below me.
I will give a little example. A great town is preparing a central scheme of development for its own civic and municipal extension, for its judicial work and for welfare. That scheme had gone very far but it was not finished. The whole thing was suspended, and the architects were told that they could not be paid until it went on. What happens? They lose touch with the scheme, and their staff who were engaged on it look for work elsewhere. The scheme itself is some day to be taken up again, but taken up at the wrong moment, after a long interval, when interest in it has been lost, when continuity in the development of a great civic work like that has been lost. This equally applies to planning,
564
to a great deal of work such as bridges, which the Ministry of Transport do, and to town and country planning as such. It is a great opportunity now, considering that, on the whole, architects and town planners form the profession which has been almost more hardly hit by the war than any other in the country. They have ample opportunity, these elderly men, of finishing their work and doing so at their leisure, with the greatest care and circumspection, and, of course, when the time comes—happily, let us hope before long—when these cases can be resumed, then the authorities have got work which they can place at the disposal of contractors forthwith. I hope that point of view will be taken into account.
3.52 p.m.
LORD SNELL: First I should like to thank the noble Lord for the reply he made and the explanation he gave. I hope your Lordships will agree that the point I raised was not a frivolous one, but one of which we must take increasing account. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and also to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, for the points of view they put before your Lordships. We see the very greatest danger of enterprises being postponed as long as possible, whereas our desire is to get them advanced as far as possible. Take a case that comes immediately to my mind—that of the Abingdon Street improvement. That is now held up, and may be held up goodness knows how long after the war is ended. That would seem to be an illustration of the case where the matter could be expedited with advantage both to the profession which the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, mentioned and to workmen and everybody concerned. As I understand the noble Lord who replied for the Government, this matter will receive the attention of the Minister concerned, and he will at his discretion communicate with local authorities and other people regarding it. I am not quite certain as to what a general undertaking of that kind involves, but sufficient unto the day is the promise thereof. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I do not propose to put the Committee to a Division on the matter, and should be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

RURAL HOUSING.
3.55 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy for rural housing; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I put this question to His Majesty's Government to-day it is because it seems to me there are somewhat contradictory indications of what the Government's policy as to rural housing may be. On the one hand, the local authorities have, I understand, received a circular from the Ministry of Health discouraging them from going on with schemes for the improvement of rural housing on the grounds of lack of supplies and of the undesirability of making loans for this purpose at present. As a result many local authorities have, in fact, closed down on schemes which had already been approved. On the other hand, we find that materials for agricultural purposes are given a very considerable priority. In fact, I understand, they come immediately after military and A.R.P. requirements. Also, I hear, the Lands Improvement Company have been informed that they may again make loans for rural housing.
These three points seem to me to be mutually contradictory. In the first place, if there are no materials, it is curious that agricultural requirements should be given such a high priority; and, secondly, if loans must not be raised for this purpose, it seems to me that the raising of loans by the Lands Improvement Company will have very much the same effect as the raising of loans by local authorities. I did not know when I put down this Motion that, curiously enough, it would follow on to some extent the discussion on the Bill to which your Lordships have just been listening. Probably all of us would approve of the holding up of public works at the present time if that were combined, as the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, has pointed out, with a detailed, well-thought-out scheme, or series of schemes, for putting these suspended plans into action immediately after the war in the hope of holding off or mitigating the inevitable unemployment which must follow the war in the slump, but I submit that in this matter of rural housing the position is somewhat different because rural housing seems to me to partake of a dual character. It is not merely
566
a public work, however desirable public works may be, it is in addition a social service.
The countryside should be a reservoir of strong and healthful stock on which our people can always draw, and in so far as the countryside has in the past failed to fulfil that purpose, it is, I believe, very largely the fault of the present condition of rural housing throughout England. Another result of this inadequate and poor housing in the countryside has been that decline of the rural population which we on this side of the House have so often deplored along with the decline in the productivity of our land, for which we are now paying in our inability to produce the foodstuffs we require in wartime. I am convinced that no one cause—not even low wages—is as responsible for that flow of population from the land as is the lack of amenities, and, above all, the poor quality of rural housing.
There is, in addition, if I may put it so, a particular war-time reason why, I submit, the encouragement of rural housing should not be suspended along with other public works. It is, I understand—we were discussing it in this House a fortnight ago—the intention of the Government not to abandon their evacuation policy. In so far as that policy has failed, its failure is, I believe, more than to anything else due to the conditions in the countryside which were found by the evacuees. The town dwellers were horrified by lack of electricity, of running water, and of sanitation. They found their lives so unbearably uncomfortable that they were easily persuaded to return to their homes in the towns. The Government are, we understand, going on with the evacuation scheme. I believe, as a result of my own experience, that it will be found that the most satisfactory form of such a scheme, certainly so far as the children are concerned, is one which groups the children in fairly large groups, presumably in country houses or in towns. But there is another point to which I would draw your Lordships' attention in this connection. It is that if, as we all feel, we may within the course of the next few months have the bitter experience of aerial bombardment, there will be a different kind of evacuation, what one may call an involuntary evacuation. This evacuation can only be accommodated in the cottages of the countryside.
I think it must have already occurred to those who have had anything to do with evacuation—I know in my own neighbourhood it caused considerable anxiety—that water supplies would be totally inadequate for an enormously increased population in the small towns and villages. In the event of such an involuntary evacuation, I believe that this problem would become really pressing, and if disease broke out, I think that the situation of the countryside, lacking proper water supplies and sanitary arrangements, would make the proper care and cure of such ills incredibly difficult. I am told by scientific friends of mine that there is reason to believe that in the next year we may be visited again with the influenza scourge. Those of your Lordships who have recollections of the scourge in 1918—quite apart, incidentally, from the natural dangers of disease caused by evacuation—will, I am sure, agree with me that it is infinitely desirable, if such a possibility even exists, that conditions in the countryside should be improved as far as possible in order that its toll may be less serious than it otherwise would be.
I have not put these points at any great length, partly because I, too, have been suffering from influenza, and I am afraid my voice might give out, but I think I have put my points fairly clearly. We on this side of the House will not be suspected for a minute, I think, of any great enthusiasm for any of the Government's past schemes for the improvement and increase of rural housing. We have criticised those schemes both for their extent and their quality. The one we find inadequate and the other unsatisfactory, but we would far rather that something were done than nothing at all. We believe, and I believe, and I am quite certain that many of your Lordships on the other side of the House who live in the country will agree with me, that it is extremely undesirable that the improvement of housing conditions in our countryside should be abandoned. I beg to move.
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Lord opposite has raised this question. It is a long time since we had a debate on housing, and I think that has been very largely due to the fact that
568
many of us were satisfied with the progress which had been made in the campaign both against overcrowding and against slums. Then the war came and, almost inevitably at first, all the housing schemes were suspended on account of the cost, on account of the difficulty of getting material, on account of the heavy burdens placed on the housing authorities, and also certainly as far as the urban districts are concerned, on account of uncertainty as to what may happen in the future. Many of these reasons applied at any rate at the time to the rural districts. But I think recently it has become plain that there is a new problem, or rather an old problem in a new form arising in the rural districts. I am approaching the matter from a somewhat different angle in this respect to the noble Lord who has just spoken. We all realise that it is quite essential that we should produce much more food. We are anxious to see an immediate revival of agriculture. We are told that it is necessary that a very large number of acres—I think the number given was two million acres—must be brought under cultivation, but the difficulty is that you have to find people to work on the land. We are hearing a great deal about the Land Army of girls and women who have volunteered for this kind of work, but I am not certain if it is always realised that it would be at the present time extremely difficult to find any accommodation for them. It is one thing to have a great army of volunteers ready to work on the land, it is quite a different thing to find any accommodation for them in many parts of England anywhere near their work.
Let me just remind the House of the position before the war. I had the honour to preside over a small sub-committee appointed by the Minister of Health to report on the subject of rural housing. We had evidence from all parts of the country, and some of our members went round as a kind of small commission to various districts. We came to the unanimous conclusion that there was a serious shortage of houses then, and that a large number of the houses of the country were quite unsuitable for modern needs. Perhaps I may just quote an extract from our Report:
"Witnesses were unanimously of the opinion, however, that the provisions of the

569
existing Acts are not sufficient to meet the whole of the housing need in many areas and that, even after the maximum number of houses has been built under these Acts, a serious shortage, which in their view can only have a most unfortunate effect on the well-being and contentment of the rural population and on the efficiency of agriculture, will still remain in the majority of districts."
Then we went on to point out that there was a shortage of the right type of cottage and said:
"The cumulative effect of all these causes shows itself in a marked shortage in certain parts of the country of cottages suitable for young workers, and it was represented to us that this lack of adequate housing accommodation was a material factor in driving young workers into the towns, notwithstanding the unsatisfied demand in many areas for competent agricultural labour."
That was a report made barely three years ago.
The Government acted on the recommendations of the Report. The Housing (Rural Workers) Acts were renewed and pressed with great vigour, and an Act was passed giving a much larger subsidy to make it possible to build a larger number of houses. All that has been interrupted by the war. But the point I want to make is that if there were a shortage of houses three years ago the shortage has lately been intensified. It has been intensified, I will not say everywhere but in many districts, from these causes: Partly because of the evacuation a large number of houses are now unable to take lodgers, and a large number of houses have been bought by people who wish to move into areas which they regard as safer. Nor is that all. I know from experience that the villages which are near camps and near the large aerodromes which are springing into existence in almost every direction, are crowded. It is impossible to find accommodation in them at the present time. If then you are going to have, as you must have, a great army of land workers, where is the accommodation for them to be found? That is the problem I want to put to the Government. I fully recognise the tremendous difficulties—shortage of material, cost of material and so on—but I think some solution to this problem must be found, and I venture to hope that it will not be merely a temporary solution, the putting up of some buildings which will decay in a year or two. I hope not only that something will be done to meet a temporary emergency, but
570
that something will be done to provide houses for the large number of people who, we hope, after the war, will move from the unhealthy overcrowded districts of the towns into the more healthy districts of the country.
4.13 p.m.
LORD ROCHE: My Lords, I also would thank the noble Lord for raising this question and I should like to be permitted as a mere rustic member of your Lordships' House to add a very few observations. The underlying assumption of the noble Lord, as I gathered it, was that the Government have abandoned the policy of rural housing and that they are wrong in doing so, although their policy, in the view of the noble Lord, left very much to be desired. I confess that that attitude of strong criticism reminds me a little of an incident that happened to me in the year 1926. As your Lordships will no doubt remember, there was a coal strike and a General Strike in that year. It fell to me, on a Sunday morning, to be compelled to go to the county infirmary to see a valued servant who was dangerously sick. I found on the roads that Sunday morning a number of casuals whom the local casual ward had been unable to retain for the usual week-end. They had been sent on their way because the ward was overcrowded. I selected a suitable companion for my journey and we conversed by the way. I asked him how things were viewed in his circle. "Well," he said, "if you sits quiet you hears all sorts of opinions and it is very interesting." I said, "Well, what do they say about it?" He said, "Some blames the masters and some blames the men, but most blames the Government." I confess that it seemed to me that in that attitude—of course in no other respect—the noble Lord very much resembles the majority disputants in those casual wards.
Actually there is, apart from that criticism or assertion, no evidence whatever that the Government have abandoned any policy in this matter. I hope we shall hear that from the noble Duke who will speak for the Government. But I think it must be appreciated that certain great difficulties have arisen and that there is of necessity for essential purposes a slowing up of the execution of any such desirable policy. May I just give your Lordships an illustration of what I mean

571
by those difficulties? I am a trustee of a charity which owns land and recently the trustees proposed to build some houses for rural workers under the last Act. We were minded, notwithstanding the war, to go on if possible with that building. We could not lay our hands upon our hearts and say that it was essential that they should be built, but it was certainly desirable. The situation is this. Before the war a pair of houses, built in the style required, would have cost about £900. After September 1, they would have cost at the lowest, £1,250 to £1,300. Why? Because wages have gone up, freights have gone up and all costs have gone up. But that is not the end of it. Timber for building purposes, as your Lordships know, mainly comes from the countries surrounding the Baltic. Your Lordships know and the noble Lord himself knows, what is happening now, owing to the action of Germany and Russia, in connection with the export of timber. Of necessity, timber for new construction is not permissible at the present time. I do not want to go too narrowly into this matter. One hopes that that state of things will be remedied in the future, but at present it is impossible, as I understand it, for the Government to make timber available for new construction of that kind.
I would only make one observation on what has fallen from the right reverend Prelate and it is this. There is a shortage of houses for rural workers in some cases, but not in all. There are mitigating circumstances, even now, if they may be so called. In the neighbourhood which I know best, there has been a great mortality of old people. One beneficial effect of the Old Age Pensions Act is that old people, thank God, do not now go into the workhouse, but a less beneficial result is that none of them care to live with their children. They generally occupy houses themselves and very often the surviving spouse occupies quite a good house himself or herself. You have only to look at the obituary notices in The Times to see on some days as many as ten people dying over ninety years of age, to realise what is happening in the villages. In the village I know best, quite a number of good houses are available for the Land Army or evacuees if their delicacy would permit them to occupy them for any pur-
572
pose whatever. The position is not universally as acute as might be imagined. No doubt there are places where it may be. As I see it we must concentrate our efforts, first of all, on winning this war and making ourselves ready to use all materials as they become available, and, most of all, we must see that that is done with despatch and skill so soon as our purpose can be bent to reconstruction rather than to defeating the attack upon all possible reconstruction.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should not for a moment dispute the argument which the noble and learned Lord put forward with regard to the shortage of timber, which I believe is the main reason why house building cannot go on at the present time. But that being so, it remains the fact that we must not blind ourselves to the position that the complete cessation of building is bringing in its train very undesirable consequences. I have no doubt the noble Duke who is going to reply for the Government is quite aware of that. Many small building contractors are finding themselves in very great difficulty, and indeed I think many of them will have to bring their businesses to an end. The architectural profession, also, is in very great difficulty. If many architects and many small builders do go out of business, it will be very much more difficult to resume building when we want to do so. I shall be very much interested to know from the noble Duke whether it is really shortage of timber, almost alone, which is holding up building. I believe there are alternative methods of building so far as materials are concerned, which would be available, although of course you must have a certain amount of timber in house building. I know very great concern is being felt about this in the ranks of the small builders and the architects, and therefore I shall be very glad to know from the noble Duke if it is shortage of timber only which is holding things up or whether, if fortunately timber should become available, it would be considered possible to do something about house building which is of the very first importance.
4.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I

573
think your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord opposite for having raised this very important subject, and I can safely say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is very grateful to him for having given me the opportunity of saying something about the Government's policy regarding rural housing. To get a true picture of the position, it is necessary to go back to the conditions prevailing on the outbreak of the war, in September last. The view then almost universally taken—fortunately it was a mistaken view; let us all hope it may continue to be a mistaken view—was that the resources of the local authorities would be concentrated to a very large extent on repairing the damage done in the country by enemy action from the air. It was known also that timber supplies would necessarily be restricted as a result of the war, a state of affairs to which my noble friend behind me has just referred, and it was thought that there would be very much heavier demands than have occurred on those building supplies which remained available. On September 8, therefore, the Government sent out a circular (Circular No. 1866) to which the noble Lord opposite referred, urging local authorities to curtail all expenditure which was not definitely connected with the waging of the war. Houses in an advanced state of construction were to be completed, but the construction of new houses was to be postponed for the time being.
LORD FARINGDON: Might I ask the noble Duke if he could say anything about reconditioning at the same time?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes; I was coming to that in due course. There were also provisions about the construction of houses for purposes connected with the war which obviously would have priority. That was the position on September 8. Since then, the policy has been modified to some extent, in that it has been recognised that agricultural work is quite definitely war work, and arrangements have been made to give the utmost priority possible to the construction of agricultural dwelling-houses. Limitations necessarily exist. My noble friend behind me asked whether the shortage of timber was the only reason for the curtailment of building programmes. It is not, I think, the only reason, but it is a governing reason.
574
Another reason is the shortage of finance, which is quite obviously a factor which has to be taken carefully into account. Shortage of timber is a very serious governing factor.
The policy now is that all houses which were already under construction when war broke out are to be completed; that is to say, the Government will give every facility in the way of subsidy and in the way of priority of materials for the completion of houses which were already under construction. As regards new houses, the Ministry will give the same facilities for the construction of any houses the construction of which is recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture; that is to say, if the Ministry of Agriculture gives its certificate that these houses are necessary for its agricultural programme, then, without further question, the Ministry of Health will give all the facilities which lie within its power. Where such a certificate is not forthcoming from the Ministry of Agriculture, the question of a subsidy or the grant of priorities will be considered on its merits, but where a certificate is given then automatically the Ministry of Health will do all that lies within its power.
I now come to reconditioning. It may be within the knowledge of some of your Lordships that if the war had not unhappily intervened, it was the intention of the Ministry to embark this autumn on a drive with regard to rural housing, and, in particular, with regard to securing the wider operation of what I have always thought a very excellent measure (it was described at the time as much too modest) the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, which provided for the reconditioning of rural houses. That Act has been operated to a very considerable extent by some counties, to a limited extent by others, and to no extent at all by quite a substantial number—which I think is a very regrettable fact. It was the intention of the Ministry to embark on a real drive to see whether that Act, which, I believe, had great potentialities for good—this will be of interest to my right reverend friend who spoke just now—could not be put into wider operation. There were various objections taken by the local authorities, but it was hoped that we should get the Act more widely applied.
The war has clearly made any kind of a drive of that kind impossible; but

575
the position as it is now is that where agricultural houses in the country are occupied by agricultural workers, the fullest facilities for reconditioning as provided under that Act will be allowed, and they will be particularly encouraged where the reconditioning provides additional accommodation; and the Ministry had in mind particularly the question of additional rural workers, to which my right reverend friend referred, when it made that provision. The figures are not so impressive as I should like them to be, but a very great deal of work is proceeding at this moment. Between July and November some 2,600 rural houses had been completed and out of 5,810 houses which were under construction, 4,878 have reached an advanced stage and are receiving the subsidy and facilities, and all proposals which have been received since then for the completion of the balance have been approved by the Minister. There are the limiting factors to which I referred: the shortage of labour, which remains a serious factor, and the question of finance.
The question raised by my noble friend behind me, Lord Balfour, of the disastrous effect of a cessation of building on small firms—and especially small firms in outlying districts—has been very, very fully present in my right honourable friend's mind, and it is his object to provide, so far as he can, for small builders in agricultural districts who are unlikely, owing to the nature of things, to benefit from the armament programme and the Government orders which are going in some quarters. My right honourable friend does intend in some respects to prevent these firms being overtaken by idleness and ruin, and as far as possible under the limitations necessarily imposed by the war to continue with the programme of improving the standard, the quality and the quantity of rural housing. I hope I have dealt with the various points which have been raised. Put very briefly, the position is that the policy of the Government is, as I said, that agricultural work is war work, and so far as possible, subject to the limitations imposed by the war, it is the policy of the Government to give the largest amount of facilities and the highest priority to material which can possibly be arranged.
4.31 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I think the right reverend Prelate and the other noble Lords who, like myself, were exercised about this matter of rural housing will have drawn a good deal of comfort from the noble Duke's review. I was very glad to hear Lord Balfour of Burleigh make the point about the unemployment amongst small builders in the countryside. I would remind the noble Duke that it is those small builders who are particularly affected by reconditioning, as that is the kind of work which they do. The larger schemes fall to the bigger contractors as a general rule. As regards reconditioning, I am not entirely clear what the Government's policy would be. I am sure that other noble Lords who have had experience of reconditioning will have found, as I have found, that very often the best way of reconditioning is to make two inadequate cottages into one. Would that be considered by the Government as an increase of accommodation? It is, of course, an increase of accommodation in one cottage, but it is making two cottages into one. All reconditioning, therefore, is bound up with new construction, which it is necessary to have in order to be able to decant the population. I do not know what the Government's attitude would be to that. I hope they would regard the increased size of the cottage as an increase of accommodation, treating it as one cottage and not as a reduction in the total number of cottages. I think we may all be thankful for what has been said. We hope that the supplies will become sufficient to carry on the work to the full extent that the Government can allow. I thank the noble Duke for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

THE "ALTMARK": GOVERNMENT STATEMENT.
4.33 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask whether His Majesty's Government have a statement to make concerning the German ship "Altmark."
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, this admirably conducted operation resulted, as your Lordships are by now well aware, in the rescue of 299 officers and

577
men belonging to a number of British merchant vessels sunk by the German armoured ship "Graf Spee." These prisoners had been closely confined on the German naval supply ship "Altmark" for periods up to more than three months. His Majesty's Government are at present awaiting full reports from the naval officers concerned in this very gallant affair, but I am sure that your Lordships will join His Majesty's Government in the satisfaction they feel at the release of the officers and crews of the vessels sunk by the German raider after their long ordeal, and that you will desire also to congratulate the Royal Navy most heartily upon, this notable addition to its annals.
Apart from the original protest, which was handed to my noble friend the Secretary of State on Saturday last, we have received no official communication from the Norwegian Government, but your Lordships have no doubt seen an account in the Press of the full statement made by the Norwegian. Foreign Minister in the Storting last night, and His Majesty's Government desire to make certain comments upon it at once. This account makes the action, or rather inaction, of the Norwegian Government even more difficult to understand than we had previously supposed. We had imagined that the Norwegian authorities had conducted some examination of the "Altmark," and our complaint was that this examination had been so perfunctory that it did not reveal the presence of the British prisoners on board. It now appears, however, that the Norwegian authorities conducted no examination of the ship at all. According to Professor Koht's statement, the "Altmark" was stopped a little south of Trondheim Fjord by a Norwegian torpedo-boat, whose commander made a request to inspect the ship. It appears that, according to the Norwegian view, as the "Altmark" was regarded as a warship and carried the German State flag, the Norwegian officer could not make a request to search the ship. He examined her papers, which were found in order, and apparently on this allowed her to proceed. It appears, however, that the chief naval commander in Bergen was not quite satisfied and, on February 15, the "Altmark," when about 100 miles from Bergen, was stopped by a Norwegian guard ship demanding to inspect the ship.
578
The "Altmark's" Captain refused to submit to inspection and the request was dropped. Even the fact that the Norwegian authorities discovered that the "Altmark" had used her wireless in Norwegian territorial waters, in violation of the Norwegian regulations, did not lead the Norwegian authorities to take any action beyond making a complaint and accepting an apology based on the statement that the Captain of the "Altmark" was unacquainted with the Norwegian prohibition. All that I have just said is taken from a statement made by Professor Koht, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, to which I have already referred.
Moreover, before His Majesty's ships took any action against the "Altmark," the commanding officer, acting on the instructions of His Majesty's Government, proposed to the Norwegian naval officer on the spot that the "Altmark" should be taken to Bergen under joint British and Norwegian guard in order that the matter might be properly investigated there by the Norwegian authorities. This offer was refused. The British commanding officer then invited the Norwegian officer to accompany the British boarding party on board the "Altmark," but he declined to do so. It will be seen, therefore, that on not one occasion but on three or four, the Norwegian authorities failed to carry out a proper investigation of the case. It was not until after these refusals that His Majesty's ships took action against the "Altmark," and it is plain that if they had not done so the ship would have been allowed to complete her voyage to Germany without let or hindrance and without any inquiry into the circumstances. I observe also that Professor Koht stated that the Norwegian authorities did not know that British prisoners were on board the "Altmark." Considering that this fact was prominently reported weeks ago in the Press of the world, this is indeed a most surprising statement.
It is difficult in these circumstances to resist the conclusion that the Norwegian authorities have displayed complete indifference as to the use which might be made of their territorial waters by the German Fleet. Even if such indifference was due to German pressure it is nevertheless, in the view of His Majesty's Government, inconsistent with the active and impartial exercise of the duty of a

579
neutral towards ourselves as belligerents. According to the views expressed by Professor Koht, the Norwegian Government see no objection to the use of Norwegian territorial waters for hundreds of miles by a German warship for the purpose of escaping capture on the high seas and of conveying British prisoners to a German prison camp. Such a doctrine is at variance with International Law as His Majesty's Government understand it. It would in their view legalise the abuse by German warships of neutral waters and create a position which His Majesty's Government could in no circumstances accept.
3.39 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Snell was good enough to ask me to make any comment that appears to be necessary on the answer to his question. I should like first of all to associate my noble friends with the expressions of admiration for the good seamanship, gallantry and enterprise of the Royal Navy in rescuing these 300 British officers and seamen in the circumstances. I also venture to say that, whatever may have been the negligence of certain Norwegian officials, we do feel great sympathy with the Norwegian people, and especially with the Norwegian merchant seamen, who are being murdered on the high seas without any excuse whatsoever by Nazi piracy—I use the word employed by the former Lord Chancellor, Viscount Maugham, for these crimes.
This is not the time to go into the legalities of the whole affair, but I have not noticed any reference to the fact that every one of these 299 merchant seamen was illegally captured in the first place by the "Graf Spee." The right to sink captured merchant ships on the high seas is hedged around by International Law, established for generations, with very strict rules. None of these rules was observed by the "Graf Spee." Every one of those ships sunk on the high seas was illegally sunk; they should have been taken before a Prize Court, and every one of those seaman was therefore illegally a prisoner. It is certainly not in any case for Germany to complain, whatever the Norwegians may say. Also apart from this the Germans have put themselves right out of court, for, from
580
the beginning of the war, their warships and aeroplanes have committed vile crimes on the high seas and have continually, from the very beginning, broken their own pledged treaty by the illegal use of submarines to sink, without any warning, Allied and neutral merchant ships, and to murder their crews and the helpless passengers they carried.
As a sort of rider to that, I cannot refrain from remarking that one of the most extraordinary features of this affair was that, though it was known for days by the German naval authorities that this prison ship was proceeding down the Norwegian coast, making use of territorial waters to escape, and although it was almost at Germany's naval backdoor, apparently no attempt was made by the regular warships of the German Fleet or by the German aeroplanes to make any sort of diversion in an effort to prevent the capture of the "Altmark" or to attempt its recapture. Germany must have had some local strength quite close to the scene of the capture—our ships of war cannot be everywhere—and I should have thought that an enemy that was not demoralised by its own crimes would have come out and made a fight for it.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I think we shall be holding the Royal Commission without any further delay, and therefore we will just wait until the Commission is ready.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bill received the Royal Assent:
Trade Boards and Road Haulage Wages (Emergency Provisions).