Lords Sitting of 13 November 1940

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

WESSEX (NORTH BASINGSTOKE) ELECTRICITY ORDER, 1940.
Special Order in respect of parts of the Rural Districts of Basingstoke and Kingsclere and Whitchurch in the County of Southampton:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

AYR BURGH ORDER CONFIRMA- TION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.
SECURITIES (VALIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
COUNTY BOROUGH OF NORTHAMPTON ORDER.
CITY OF LINCOLN ORDER.
CITY OF SHEFFIELD ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF BEACONS-FIELD ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF HORNSEA ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF PAIGNTON ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF RAYLEIGH (WARD OF RAYLEIGH) ORDER.
RURAL DISTRICT OF ETON (PARISH OF GERRARD'S CROSS) ORDER.
RURAL DISTICT OF WELWYN ORDER.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 5th instant, be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House on the 5th instant, be approved.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON rose to ask His Majesty's Government if they can state what are the special duties and powers attaching to the office to which Lord Reith has been appointed; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the Motion that is in my name I am sure I should not be I deemed to be doing anything inappropriate if I respectfully welcome the noble Lord who represents the new Department. I should say also that the Motion is framed with a view simply of eliciting information in a friendly spirit. I am sure the subject matter is, or may be, of first-rate national importance. We have at present, so far as I know, only the statement of the Lord Privy Seal in the other House as to the scope of the functions and powers of the noble Lord in his new Department. As the statement appeared it presented a considerable number of blanks and raised many very proper questions. It may well be that the noble Lord will say that he is not in a position as yet to reply to them all. Well, we shall quite understand that that is a reasonable statement at this stage.
Nevertheless in asking this question it may be useful to recapitulate for your Lordships' information the chief points which I have extracted from the statement of the Lord Privy Seal. They amount in brief to this. The Ministry of Works and Buildings are to be responsible for new civil works and buildings required by other Government Departments. With respect to the Ministry of Supply similar functions apparently will

677
be exercised, including new buildings required directly by the Ministry in the way of ordnance factories and such like, and the Ministry of Works and Buildings will approve plans for new private factories or extensions. With regard to the Ministry of Aircraft Production, nothing was said about new factories, but I suppose the same will apply, that they will be provided by the new Department, and that with regard to private factories or extensions of private factories the new Department will supervise the contracts.
They will be able also to call for information from all other Departments—I am now quoting—
"retaining responsibility for the erection and maintenance of buildings and works of construction (including Departments concerned with work carried out by or on behalf of local authorities …"
Then it is stated that the Minister will control the purchase, if necessary, of building materials not at present controlled, and will have supervision over the very important Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on these matters. With regard to reconstruction problems arising after the war, the Ministry will consult
"the Department and organisations concerned with a view to reporting to the Cabinet the appropriate methods and machinery for dealing with the issues involved."
As to smaller matters the Ministry will license private building and determine the order of priority with regard to buildings.
I think that is a correct summary of the statements made by the Lord Privy Seal, who said at the end that the Government would welcome discussion of the matter. It is with that in view that these questions are being asked. First I would like to know what is meant by the term "civil." I gather that the new Ministry will be responsible for all civil works and buildings. In regard to the Ministry of Supply, the new Department, I gather, will build the factories as far as they are wanted, but with regard to private factories or extensions they will approve plans only. I hope that any duplication or overlapping trill be avoided because obviously the Ministry responsible for the new factory which is to make guns, or whatever it is, will be concerned with its technical officers with the layout and provision of the equipment of the factory. Does this mean that the new Ministry will
678
simply approve the plans, or what will be its function with regard to considerable factory extensions which are going on or may go on? With regard to factories under the control of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, a different phrase is used and I wonder why. We are told there that the new Ministry will supervise contracts. Does that mean that the new works and buildings to be erected by, or on behalf of, the Ministry of Aircraft Production will be erected independently; or does it mean that the Ministry of Works and Buildings will have a different relation to the Ministry of Aircraft Production; or does it mean that they will supervise the work? At all events it is a different form of words, and I know that in Government statements when a different form of words is used something different is meant. I should like to know, therefore, what is the difference.
I take it that the word "civil" is also used deliberately. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what, if any, function the new Ministry will have with regard to War Office buildings, Admiralty buildings and other buildings which I suppose would not be described as civil. For instance, there are the new camps that are provided by the War Office. Will they be provided by the new Ministry or will the new Ministry have any responsibility with regard to them? Then there are the fortifications and cement structures which are being built throughout the country. I am afraid they have sometimes been subject to considerable criticism. If the noble Lord's Department can clear up some of the difficulties which have certainly arisen with regard to some of these contracts for blockhouses and so forth, he will render a public service. At all events it will be interesting to know what, if any, powers the noble Lord's Department will have with regard to these non-civil buildings.
With regard to other Departments retaining responsibility for the erection and maintenance of works and buildings, the Ministry of Works and Buildings can call for information. I want to know what that means. It is a strange phrase. It might mean anything. Then there is a very important point with regard to the Departments concerned with works carried out by or for local authorities. That means, I gather, the Ministry of Health.

679
Here the noble Lord has an immense opportunity. Does it mean that this new Department will have some authority in regard to the planning? I think it is fair to say that planning at the present time is hedged about with a greater complexity of orders and regulations, hearings, appeals and all the rest of it, than any other so-called public service. It is because of the inefficiency, or rather the complexity of the arrangements that we have made so little progress in orderly planning in this country. If this means that the noble Lord will promote, or be authorised to promote, a simplification of our planning procedure, so that we can get some planning authority established which will avoid in future the disadvantages of straggling buildings along new roads and the putting of ugly buildings in beauty spots, and generally exercise some orderly control over buildings such as has been asked for by many different people for many years, it will be, I think, a god send to the people of the community.
I remember that years ago, when Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister, I was Chairman of a Commission on National Parks, and one thing which impressed us was the necessity of a national authority to secure decent planning without regard to any other consideration than that of doing the right thing for the landscape and for the necessities of the community. This ribbon development business and the putting up of ugly shanties—that is the proper description of them—in beauty spots has been a disgrace. We know well enough why the county councils cannot do much about ribbon development; it is because if they do anything they are liable to pay compensation of an unknown amount to those who may have a case against them for prospective, unearned damages. If the noble Lord is to be authorised to introduce some order into planning, both country planning and town planning, I am sure everyone of us will be anxious to give him all the help that we possibly can.
Finally, with regard to post-war reconstruction Mr. Attlee said that the Department would consult the Departments and organisations concerned with a view to reporting to the Cabinet the appropriate methods or machinery for dealing with the issues involved—that is, the destruction of property, streets and so on. For
680
example, we all know how urgent is the need for a better road system in some of our cities. On that we have had special reports more than once. We may, in fact, derive good out of evil if, as a result of some of the destruction which has been wrought by enemy action, we get a better planning of some of our cities, and of the access thereto and the roads therefrom. At all events, on this subject I gather that the noble Lord has still to report to the Cabinet as to the appropriate ways and means of dealing with the destruction of property caused by enemy action. It would be quite unreasonable to expect him to give us to-day any final statement on that subject, but it would be interesting if he could tell us, so far as he knows at present, what powers he has in regard to this very important matter of postwar building reconstruction and planning. That, together with the improvement or control of planning generally, presents the noble Lord with a splendid opportunity, and I sincerely hope that he will be allowed to use it. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has asked the Minister a number of questions of a rather technical kind, arising out of the terms of remit to him which were announced by Mr. Attlee in another place. I should like to say how warmly I welcome the introduction of this subject at this stage, for reasons which I will develop in a moment. He has made some remarks with regard to planning and also with regard to the future. The item in the charter—this rather complicated and difficult charter which has been entrusted to the Minister—which interests me most is that which comes at the end; and, although the noble Lord opposite referred to it as arising out of the destruction of property, I am inclined to see a much wider implication in the instructions which the Minister has had as to the subjects on which he is to report to the Cabinet.
When this announcement was made in another place, the noble Lord was hailed in a good many quarters as the new Minister of Reconstruction. If I had any doubt on the matter, I should have addressed to the noble Lord a question which many hundreds of years ago was addressed to another famous man whose name also happened to be John, in the

681
well-known Biblical hexameter "Art thou He that should come, or do we look for another?" I think it is perfectly clear from a careful reading of the remit, however, that we have with us to-day not the Messiah but the Prophet. I hope that he will turn out to be the Prophet; it may be that he will turn out to be the Great Man himself. I have a great admiration for the qualities of my noble friend and, if he is given the powers, I would welcome him as a full-blooded Minister of Reconstruction. It is perfectly clear, however, that he is not that yet, and that what he has to do is to prepare a plan. I hope that it will be a great deal wider than the sort of plan that my noble friend opposite indicated—something arising merely out of the destruction of property due to the war. That, of course, does a great deal to give us an opportunity, but I think and I hope that the noble Lord will take a very much wider view of the objects for which he has to create the plan.
I was a little surprised that my noble friend opposite, having told us about the I very important Commission over which he presided some time ago, which dealt with open spaces and which arrived at the quite clear necessity for a planning authority, did not also refer to a more recent Commission which has arrived at the same conclusion and which has based it, I think, on what is probably a more voluminous survey of the evidence and consideration of the germane factors than was possible in his case. I refer to the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population, which produced what is commonly known as the Barlow Report. That Report was rendered just before the war, publication being delayed until almost a year ago. It is very fortunate, however, that we have that Report available to-day, because it does form an extraordinarily valuable basis or starting point from which any Planning Minister may set out. The whole of the Commissioners did not agree on the remedies to be proposed; nevertheless there are nine agreed points which were unanimously set out. The divergency was not on the state of affairs which the Commission found or on the need for a remedy, but on a minor point as to whether the remedies, broadly speaking, should be carried out by administrative or by executive action. The nine agreed points are very wide indeed. The Com-
682
mission unanimously found that national action is necessary, that a central planning authority must be created, that the activities of that authority should be distinct from and should extend beyond the powers of any existing Government Department, and so on. It is quite unnecessary to trouble your Lordships in any detail with it, but there we have the charter of a new planning department.
Before I go on to the wider considerations of planning, on which I should like to touch for a moment, there is one question which I would ask the noble Lord. I think that my noble friend opposite has really put it, but we ought to be quite certain that the Minister has power of the kind which is required in connection with this rebuilding of damaged buildings. The sentence which relates to the matter is a very cryptic one; it says that the Minister
"will be responsible for the licensing of private building and for determining the priority of proposals for rebuilding buildings damaged by air raids."
I should like to feel that that meant that the Minister would also have authority to say what was to be rebuilt. It is rather a barren function simply to be able to establish a priority if somebody else is to say what is to be rebuilt and what is not. On that subject, one minor point which I hope to see included in the Compensation Bill which is shortly to come before Parliament, and which of course is a Treasury matter, is this. The Government will be paying out large sums as compensation for buildings which have been destroyed. I hope that there will be a provision in that Bill whereby the Government can keep a string on that money and see that it is not spent in order to put up buildings which may have to be again acquired by the Government for purposes connected with reconstruction. There might be a very great waste of public money there, and it would seem—no doubt it is not as simple as it looks—that there should be included in that Bill some provision by which that money will not be paid over irrevocably. There might be a provision for compulsory purchase up to the amount of the sum involved, or something of that kind. I throw out that suggestion for what it is worth.
With regard to the question of town and country planning as it stands at present, the effect of the present arrange-

683
ments are very fully set out in the Barlow Report. Quite briefly, they are that planning is at present local; it is all carried out by the local authorities. Some of them have regionalised it, many have not. But there are very great difficulties in the way of any proper planning. The greatest, I think, is that so many Government Departments have planning powers which they exercise with great zeal, directed towards their own objects, but, of course, with less regard for the interests of other people and other Government Departments. A climax in a way was reached—your Lordships will remember the case—in 1935, when on two successive days we had before us Under-Secretaries, one of the Ministry of Health and the other of the Ministry of Transport. The representative of the Minister of Health told us all about the tremendous number of houses he was building and the splendid progress he was making in that direction. The very next day the Under-Secretary representing the Ministry of Transport came along to say that there was such a terrific number of houses being built about these beautiful roads that something had to be done to stop it, and that was the origin of the Ribbon Development Act. It was a patent example of the need for a planning authority.
I think we must take for granted that that situation has to be cleared up. Not only the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport but the Board of Agriculture have great planning powers. The Board of Trade have planning powers. All the three Service Departments are acquiring enormous tracts of land and putting up places all over the country. Even the Forestry Commission are acquiring large tracts of land. And, farther, statutory undertakers to some extent are excluded from the control of planning acts. I take it for granted that one of the preoccupations of the new Minister will be to include in his Report to the Cabinet some provision—I do not suppose for a moment that he has the planning powers, but some provision whereby these planning powers can be coordinated. It is perfectly clear, taking the matter further from the point of view of national planning, that no satisfactory national plan can ever emerge from a patchwork of local plans. I think that is really what has been the cause of the
684
trouble with our planning. We have planned from the bottom and timidly instead of planning from the top and boldly. The word "planning" has acquired—I will not say a certain disrepute, but there is a good deal of prejudice against planning because I think it has been found so often to be rather of a negative character.
From the national point of view the planning that I want to see, and that I hope my noble friend the Minister is going to prepare for, can best be described as a taking stock of the national resources and having regard to the whole of the national resources, industrial and agricultural, the whole of the amenities, including the coastline, and looking at those in relation to the population. The great mistake we have made is to appoint a Commission to see what is wrong with industry, another to see what is wrong with agriculture—all sorts of independent inquiries instead of getting a national plan regarding the whole of the national affairs from the national angle, and then fitting in the supplementary parts of that plan afterwards. And the starting point for our plans and consequently for our survey ought to be the human needs of the population. After all, it is so that the population may live and work and play that everything exists, and the needs of the population should be the starting point. The goal of such a plan must be the greatest possible satisfaction of those needs.
Now, since the Barlow Report, there has come the infinitely greater opportunity that is provided by the war, and that is where the greatest importance of my noble friend's task lies. He has got an immense amount of work to do with the question of building, but for the future the importance of his task lies in the creation of this machinery for planning from a national point of view. And there is one matter—I was going to say one snag if I might use the expression—which I think the noble Lord would do well to tackle at the earliest possible moment. It is the difficulty which has done more to wreck planning schemes than any other—that question of compensation and betterment. The Barlow Report has something to say on that subject. I sincerely hope the noble Lord will give that matter his closest attention and—I will not say get it settled but try to provide the basis for a reasonable

685
settlement. Without that, town planning is always going to be faced with very great difficulty.
Now the question of the reconstruction is a bigger one than the question of town and country planning, but whatever ideas we may have about the reconstruction, however large, however grandiose the reconstruction we may aim at, the only possible basis is a basis of sound town and country planning because that all depends on the right use of the land. If we get the right use of the land then we have got a proper basis on which to found national reconstruction. I think the greatest indication that we can get of the importance of planning is the appalling waste which is apparent from the present lack of planning. From the point of view of a Minister of Reconstruction one has to lament the immense ingenuity which has been devoted to the creation of labour-saving machinery and devices, with the only result that half the population works harder and the other half are unemployed. We spend millions on putting buildings in the wrong place, both houses and factories. This is all so obvious that I venture with great diffidence even to repeat it to your Lordships; but that is the situation. We have wasted enormous resources, the waste is continuing and without some planning of the proper use of land that waste will continue.
We shall not be able to stop at national planning. We are here in the centre of an Empire with regard to which also we shall have to think in the future. In attempting to plan industry, agriculture and the rest of it we have to think of how things are going to work in with the Empire, and I can imagine no better basis for a plan than some decision by the Government that for a period of years after the war a great programme of Colonial and Empire development was to be undertaken. When we think of industry we, have to think largely in terms of our heavy industry. There will be a tremendous turnover, as everybody knows, from the war effort to the peace effort when peace comes. It seems to me that when we have had a look at our industry and our agriculture, seen where the population is in relation to that industry and that agriculture, if the Minister of Reconstruction knew that he could rely on a
686
great programme of Colonial development which would help our heavy industries for many years after the war, he could have something to fit into his general plan.
One hopes that in times to come planning will not stop at these Islands. When I say "planning" I mean reorganisation, which I think is a better word. In business one talks about reorganisation and one is regarded only as sensible to do it. With our national and Imperial resources we ought to reorganise in exactly the same way and see that the best use is made of whatever resource we have; but, that being done, one hopes that sensible arrangements—that is all that planning is—will go further even than Imperial planning. One of the most striking things in President Roosevelt's speech a few days ago was a passage in which he indicated a realisation on that side of the Atlantic that economic nationalism has got to come to an end. Nothing would better enable sensible arrangements and sensible planning to be done or would give us a much greater hope of future peace and happiness than we have had in the past. I think I have said enough to indicate my hope that the noble Lord will take the widest possible view of his task and I can do no more than wish him the best of luck in carrying it out.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, the welcome that will be extended to the noble Lord will be one of hope, slightly tinged with anxiety. The noble Lord has the well-earned reputation of being a strong man, but the task he has undertaken requires a vast variety of qualities, all of which he will be expected to possess. Never since the time of Sir Christopher Wren has an opportunity of such magnitude presented itself to the social and artistic reformer. The moment is clearly ripe for the solution of three problems, all of which have long been urgent and of deep concern to all those interested in the physical and spiritual welfare of our vast urban communities. These three problems are the slum problem, the traffic problem, and the æsthetic problem. This is not the moment when I should feel justified in probing very deeply into the vast intricacies of these problems, which will occupy the mind of the noble Lord for many months to come; but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention for a

687
few moments to what would appear to be the general outline of the task which it is hoped the noble Lord will undertake.
In creating this new Ministry the Government have shown that they realise that the bombs of the enemy have crystallised these ancient and neglected problems. It has been objected that, although it may be true and obvious that the replacement of the homeless population is essential, yet it is absurd to pretend that the Blitzkrieg has done, or ever will do, as much damage as the Great Fire, or that the noble Lord will have the "clean slate" which inspired the great architectural genius of Sir Christopher Wren. But, even if we grant the truth of that objection, it must be remembered that the noble Lord has upon his side an incentive to drastic reform which was unknown to the seventeenth century, and that is the condition of the evacuated people. So humiliating to our civilisation has been that revelation, and so determined is the demand that it shall be removed, that the noble Lord will have every conceivable support in destroying the slums that have escaped the attention of the enemy.
The solution of the traffic problem though not so dramatic in its appeal as the slum problem, is of vital importance to the future of urban life. The noble Lord will have at his disposal the detailed yet imaginative ideas embodied in the Brassey Report, and it seems clear that it will assist the progressive solution of both these problems if they are taken together and made part of a bold and comprehensive plan for the modernization of our large centres of population. Broadly speaking, we look to the noble Lord to sweep away the last vestiges of the industrial revolution and to rebuild our cities nearer to the heart's desire. We come, thirdly, to the aesthetic or artistic problem, and I hope the noble Lord will assure us that he is in close touch with the expert opinion both of the Royal Institute of British Architects and of the Royal Academy Planning Committee, of which Sir Edwin Lutyens is the Chairman. One cannot help being alarmed at the prospect of any form of bureaucratic art—usually the least inspiring of all the varieties of aesthetic production—and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he cannot see his way to
688
refill immediately the place held by the late Lord Crawford on the Fine Art Commission. It would, perhaps, be natural if the noble Lord were reluctant to provide his own watchdog, but long experience has convinced everybody that the State is not to be trusted in these matters, and that an expert eye must be kept upon its activities.
The new Ministry is fortunate in the conditions under which it is setting out to solve this triple problem. War inevitably increases the power of the Executive and also produces in everybody the unusual but useful feeling that the cost of what you propose to do cannot be allowed to count against the importance of its accomplishment. The noble Lord, therefore, is in the happy position of having at his disposal unlimited power and unlimited money. It is a combination that could not occur in peace-time and I hope he will take advantage of it by removing from his path as a first essential step, the obstruction that has, at any rate in London, always prevented any real progress being made in the past. The multitude of conflicting authorities, sometimes overlapping, sometimes hostile, always indifferent, has been the bane of London government. It is to be hoped that the noble Lord will obtain the necessary complete jurisdiction by the ruthless use of an Order in Council, for if he does not he will undoubtedly be strangled by the red tape of local authority. In the creation of a widely based and comprehensive plan to cover this triple problem, you cannot consult too many people who really know about slum clearance, traffic and artistic layout; but when you pass from the creation of a plan to its execution I feel sure that the noble Lord will temperamentally agree with me that no petty interference from local or personal interests should be allowed to stand in the way.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel sure the House is awaiting eagerly and in a friendly spirit the first Ministerial declaration to be made in this House by the noble Lord whose presence here as Minister of Works and Buildings we welcome. The discussion to-day has turned on two matters, connected and yet distinct. The one is the specific functions of the Minister of Buildings in respect of the immediate problems arising out of the

689
war, particularly Government buildings and the various matters to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred in opening this debate. The other is the wider aid ulterior question of post-war reconstruction and the preparations to be made for it. Although the first of these two is the more urgent and must necessarily absorb a great part of the Minister's attention at the outset, it is to the second, I think, that the House addresses itself with the greater interest and it is that which has formed the main staple of the speeches that have been made.
No one can foresee, of course, what will be the domestic situation in this country when the war ends, but unless all the signs of the times are misleading, we can anticipate that there will be throughout the nation a very powerful demand for social progress and for reconstruction of the environment of the people. The nation will not tolerate indefinitely the conditions in which a large part of the working classes have been compelled to live by our inheritance from the nineteenth century. The conditions of most of our industrial towns and especial of the working-class quarters in them, are recognised now throughout the whole nation as being a disgrace to our age and to our country and will not be tolerated indefinitely. Furthermore, there is the opportunity that is given, to which reference has been made, by the havoc that has been wrought in certain places by the action of the enemy. Although we must not exaggerate that, and, as the noble Lord who has just spoken said in his most interesting speech, the conditions are not comparable, at all events not as yet and not likely to be, with those which prevailed in London after the Great Fire, still unless something definite and specific is done to make use of the opportunities that have in fact arisen in certain places through destruction to effect a more satisfactory reconstruction the nation will be profoundly disappointed and dissatisfied.
Thirdly, when we come to the turnover from war production to peace production, it is almost inevitable that there will be a large measure of unemployment, and if some hundreds of thousands or even millions of people are unemployed while at the same time no vigorous prepared action is taken to deal with these long standing problems, again you will find a
690
spirit of resentment. Before the war, of course, a great deal had in fact been done during the interval between the two wars. Four millions of new houses were built and about a third of the whole population is housed in those new buildings Yesterday, in the tributes that were paid to the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, marked emphasis was laid by all speakers on the excellence of the work he did in the matter of housing, which commanded the assent of the whole nation. The same spirit which evoked those tributes now would desire that that work should be continued.
There has also been before the war a strong movement among various voluntary organisations and their supporters, approved by the general body of opinion, for the preservation of rural England, for the adoption of the proposals in the main of my noble friend Lord Addison and his Committee on national parks, and for preventing ribbon development, and unless in due time now, during the war, we prepare for the situation which will almost certainly arise at the end of the war, there will be throughout the country a spirit of impatience and frustration which may soon develop into anger. Unless sensible people beforehand have plans ready and their course of action prepared, you may find that revolutionary people will obtain the ear of the working classes and will introduce perhaps a period of confusion, spoiling the opportunity which now arises and perhaps preparing the way, as usually occurs in such cases, for a reactionary movement afterwards which may deprive us altogether of our opportunities. It will be a great danger if there is a feeling in the nation that the rights of private property are being allowed to obstruct proper planning, and I trust that this House and the other House will approach these problems aware of that danger and determined to obviate it beforehand.
There are reasons why planning has made slow progress. Although it is untrue to say that nothing has been done, for much has been done, the amount done has been quite inadequate. One of the main reasons why more has not been done is the tangle of local and central governing authorities to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and other speakers, in particular Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It has been

691
mentioned that the whole question of ribbon development is the province of the Ministry of Transport while town planning is the province of the Ministry of Health, and in many matters the local authority does not know to whom to look for direction. My noble friend Lord Addison said there was urgent need for the simplification of planning procedure, and he looks to the Ministry of Buildings to effect that simplification. But we have to beware of the danger that we may merely be bringing in yet another Department, not to secure simplification, but adding another complication, if the Ministry of Buildings comes in. Who is to have direct dealings with the local authorities? You cannot exclude the Ministry of Health. You cannot exclude the Ministry of Transport with regard to roads. Are you to bring in thirdly the Ministry of Works and Buildings and have county councils, city councils and town councils dealing with three Government Departments at once?
The question arises who is to prepare the new layout for dealing with all this matter? Is it to be the Ministry of Buildings? That is a question I would desire a specific answer to, and I am sure the whole House and the country would also desire to see it answered. Is it the noble Lord's function to provide the initiative and to give general directions upon the whole of this reconstruction work? If not, whose business is it? Ultimately, of course, it can only be effected by the Cabinet. Lord Balfour of Burleigh in his valuable speech said someone must take into account all these various proposals as affecting town planning, rural planning, agriculture, roads, national parks and all the rest and co-ordinate them into one whole. But it can only in the last resort be the Cabinet, and the work will never be well done if there are not members of the Cabinet able to form a committee who are keen about this work and who understand it, and are the authority to carry through some large measure of reconstruction. That is the particular matter to which I would invite the noble Lord, the Minister who is to reply, to address himself. Is it his function to provide the initiative and to co-ordinate the whole, at all events in the way of preparation and of planning, and, if not, whose function is it?
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (LORD REITH): My Lords, I have listened with close attention to all that has fallen from those who have participated in this debate, and to the close attention I have added the respect which you would expect from a newcomer both to your Lordships' House and to this sphere of activity on which the previous speakers have been able to speak with experience and with authority. I have been asked many questions, and such of them as I can answer I shall. I think the reason why I shall not be able to answer them all is already known to your Lordships. I thought perhaps my best plan would be to describe briefly the functions of this Ministry under five heads. First of all, there is the Office of Works with the work which it did prior to the formation of the new Ministry. Secondly, there are the war-time additions to the responsibilities of the Office of Works. Thirdly, with the advent of the Ministry, there are many further war-time responsibilities. Fourthly, there are responsibilities arising out of the control of materials as are indicated in the document that the Lord Privy Seal read in another place. Finally, there is the future, post-war planning.
As to the function of the old Office of Works that was alluded to in paragraphs (1) and (3) of Mr. Attlee's statement, it included ancient monuments and parks; Government buildings of all sorts; all civil buildings, including museums, diplomatic and consular buildings throughout the world, post offices, employment exchanges, custom houses and such like; design, provision, care and maintenance of them all—a heavy responsibility—some agency work for Service Departments not included above; and all supply services for Civil Departments. Here, in answer to my noble friend's question, I may say that a Civil Department is in fact any Department which is not one of the Service Departments. I think the Ministry of Aircraft Production is regarded as a Civil Department. To continue, there were all Supply Services for Civil Departments, that is, furniture and general equipment. These were provided on a small scale only for the Service Departments until quite recently, when some of the Service Departments invited the assistance of the Office of Works, but the

693
degree to which they invited it varied greatly from one Department to another.
Secondly, there is the Office of Works with war additions. The expansion of existing responsibilities is as follows: office accommodation, particularly immense additions in London for bigger Departments and for new Departments; staff, which, excluding the Post Office—and the Post Office before the war accounted for 250,000—is to-day about 215,000 against a pre-war figure of 120,000; considerable additions in the provinces; evacuation arrangements for Departments, including not only the hiring but often the erection of temporary offices in the country; to some extent furniture and general equipment; supply services covering furniture and similar equipment for offices, hospitals, camps and barracks and ordnance factories, and the supply of pumping units and other equipment for the emergency fire services to an estimated value of £13,000,000. I could give your Lordships all sorts of statistics, but I think they are not all relevant. I will mention only some items. There are 26,000 fire engines provided by the Office of Works for use all over the country 7,500 miles of hose, 10,000 office buildings and 3,000 stores. Rental payments amount to nearly £4,000,000. That is the first part of the war additions.
Thirdly, as to new work, there are ordnance factories designed and erected for the Ministry of Supply, and here in reply to my noble friend Lord Addison I may say that as he observed there is clearly indicated a difference of treatment between the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production, whereby the Ministry of Supply work was to pass to the new Ministry but similar work for the Ministry of Aircraft Production might pass by agreement. There are refrigerated and other stores for the Ministry of Food, hospitals for the Ministries of Health and Pensions. There is a total of about £50,000,000 work under that heading.
Then there is work which may be or may not be transferred from other Departments. This is a part where I cannot be more specific, although I know that my noble friend Lord Addison invited me to be. There are two headings here; work which is not to be
694
transferred and work which may be transferred. With regard to the first, highly specialised work at present carried through by the Service Departments, either by direct labour or through contractors—aerodrome buildings, fortifications and defence works and work overseas—would remain with the Service Departments. There may be differences of opinion as to what is "highly specialised work." I once was an engineer but what I might think was mass concrete work might appear to somebody else as highly specialised. There will be discussion as to what is and what is not highly specialised, or anyhow there will be room for discussion. We can leave it at that. By and large it may be that Service Departments will be inclined to interpret that expression as meaning that they should retain what in fact they are doing now and have for some time been doing. As to the second, there is what may come by agreement, and here is what the Lord Privy Seal said in another place about that:
"The Ministry may arrange, by agreement with the Service Departments or the Ministry of Aircraft Production, to erect on their behalf new works and buildings not of a highly specialised character, such as stores or depots or houses and buildings of an architectural nature, and for the supervision of contracts for the erection of new private factories or the extension of existing private factories required for war production."
The noble Lord asked a specific question as to duplication. I can assure your Lordships there will be no duplication, but here again I would point out that this comes under the heading of things which may come by agreement but with regard to which the new Ministry are not given definite powers. What we are going to do is to discuss with the Service Departments and the Ministry of Aircraft Production their programme, in order to ascertain what services and what works and buildings they consider not to be highly specialised and which they might therefore transfer to the new Ministry—in other words, what should be transferred and what will be. That paragraph in the statement refers also to direct building which the Ministry may be carrying out for other Departments, and to supervisory powers to which the noble Lord referred.
Fourthly, there is what I have called general building control, that is, co-ordination of Government buildings and,

695
in fact, of all building. That part of the statement was quite clearly intended to refer in the first place to priority, and the policy which dictates priority, and in the second place to national resources in terms of material and labour. Paragraph (6) of the statement indicates that the Production Council over which the Minister without Portfolio presides lays down the general order of priority for Government buildings. I am a member of that, and I am responsible for the Works and Buildings Priority Committee on which all Departments in any way interested in building are represented. As Chairman of that Committee I shall determine to the best of my ability and with expert advice the application of the Production Council's priority decision in respect of particular buildings, and there may be an appeal.
Another paragraph says:
"The Minister will be responsible for such control or central purchase of building materials not at present controlled as may be necessary."
Controls exist already in the Ministry of Supply for iron and steel and timber, and one or two other things only slightly used in building, in respect of which the function of the new Ministry is limited—although there are plenty of complexities and difficulties there—to allocation between building demands of whatever bulk allocations have been given to it by another Committee called the Production and Materials Priority Committee. It may interest your Lordships to know that buildings take only about 10 per cent, of the total steel and about 25 per cent, of soft wood.
In the exercise of this duty the Minister will be, as the Lord Privy Seal said,
"empowered to call on all Departments retaining responsibility for the erection and maintenance of buildings and works of construction (including Departments concerned with work carried out by or on behalf of local authorities or public utility undertakings) to furnish from time to time such information as he may require as to the present and prospective demands of themselves and their contractors for labour and materials, and any points ancillary thereto."
Now, that entails an examination of all Departmental building programmes and schemes to ensure that their estimated requirements have been prepared with due regard to economy in design and materials, and that they are in their appropriate place in the order of
696
priority. To take care of this side of the work, I have appointed a consulting engineer of eminence and experience, Mr. Hugh Beaver, Priority Officer for the Ministry and Controller of Building Materials. The only Controls yet established are for cement and bricks. The Controller of Building Materials will as such be himself Controller of Cement and Controller of Bricks, but two special divisions of the Department have been formed for these matters, each under a Director, Lord Wolmer and Mr. T. P. Bennett respectively. The necessity for other Controls is being investigated, particularly with regard to material for roofing. The policy of the Control will be to secure the maximum co-operation of the industry with the minimum interference; but it has been made clear to them that every power which may be necessary to secure the maximum output of which each industry is capable will be taken and used.
Mr. Beaver will examine, as I have just indicated, the whole present programme of works and buildings of all Departments. He is in touch with the Departments already and, when he has reached agreement with them—at least so far as agreement may be possible—he will give me a draft programme of future construction on which the Departments will have an opportunity of expressing their views. I hope, however, that, as the actual construction of works is largely a matter of technical knowledge and practical experience, agreement will to a large extent be reached between the Priority Officer of this Ministry and the technical officers of other Departments.
As another aid to securing effective use of materials and labour, the Minister is charged with the duty of examining building design, specification and practice. That is quite important. He is charged with the duty of instituting research into such questions as the adoption of substitutes, and he will make full use of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. He is empowered to call on Departments which continue to build to satisfy him that they are making full use of the results of research.
Finally, and further to conserve the use of materials and labour, there is this system of private building control. All

697
private building over £500 is subject to authorisation or licence, beginning on October 7. The authorisation may be issued by the various Departments concerned, or to local authorities for carrying on their work, or to public utility undertakings. For other classes of private building consent in the form of a licence must be given by the Ministry. Before the Ministry gives the licence it must be satisfied not only that the work in contemplation is essential, but that the demand for labour and materials can be met without prejudice to other more important work, and that it does not make an undue claim on the national resources. Two or more technical officers of the Ministry in each of twelve regions in the country will deal with this matter, keeping in touch with representatives of other Departments and consulting them about the schemes which are submitted. They can pass plans on their own up to £5,000, and can refer to headquarters up to £25,000; after that the matter goes to the Works and Buildings Priority Committee. It may interest your Lordships to know that 1,200 applications were received up to October 26, to the value of just over £4,000,000, of which over £3,000,000 were for works in course of execution before the control was established. In reply to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who asked whether or not the Minister of Works and Buildings had the power to approve the design, the answer is, No.
Let us now come to the fifth heading, the future. Let me read the reference to this in the Lord Privy Seal's statement, paragraph 10, with some care:
"It is clear that the reconstruction of town and country after the war raises great problems and gives a great opportunity. The Minister of Works and Buildings has, therefore, been charged by the Government with the responsibility of consulting the Departments and organisations concerned with a view to reporting to the Cabinet the appropriate methods and machinery for dealing with the issues involved."
There it is, my Lords—a restrained statement, meaning precisely what it says; and I, too, will be restrained and careful when dealing with this matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Esher, asked specifically whether I was seeking expert advice. I can assure him that I have been seeking expert advice, am seeking it and will continue to seek it. I was not aware, I am afraid, that the appointment to the
698
Fine Art Commission, to fill the place rendered vacant by the death of Lord Crawford, was for me to fill; but, if that be so, I shall do something about it quickly, and I shall not be controlled in my appointment by any fear of subsequent trouble from whoever may be appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, and the noble Viscounts, Lord Esher and Lord Samuel, all referred to the difficulties that there might be in dealing with other Departments or, to use the relevant words, "the Departments and organisations concerned." They referred specifically to the difficulties that there might be in dealing with local authorities. Of those difficulties I am well aware. My noble friend Lord Balfour referred to certain difficulties of a financial nature, and of these, too, I am aware.
With regard to this clause in the terms of reference of the Ministry which deals with the future, I am sure your Lordships will agree that no energy must be diverted from a resolute and urgent prosecution of the war. Your Lordships will have observed how much war responsibility in fact rests on the Ministry in the other four sections with which I have dealt. But it is encouraging—not that I expected anything else—to find that your Lordships feel as I do (and let me assure your Lordships that I do so feel) that this urgent prosecution of the war, with the determination not to have energy diverted therefrom, need not and ought not to prevent our looking ahead. We realise that there are victories to be won after the war is won and that, although we must first make sure of the future, we ought also to do our best to make sure that that future is both fair and good, There is an eager and even anxious looking forward to that better Britain of our dreams, which, in part, devoted men and women were beginning, here and there, to make come true.
As noble Lords have in fact already suggested, we must not overlook what has already been done or put in hand. In the great work accomplished by the Royal Commission on the Distribution of Industrial Population, to which reference has been made, the devoted work of Sir Montague Barlow and his colleagues for two years before the war, there is a considerable volume of authoritative guidance. There are the labours and conclusions of numerous pioneers in the field

699
of town and country planning, individually and in associations, against, as I have discovered, all sorts of frustrations, oppositions and discouragements. There is also the noble Lord, Lord Balfour's 1940 Council, Lord Esher and his London Group, and there is much valuable experience in the public services. But I suppose the speed, the complexities and the materialism of modern life have confused and confounded us. Anyhow, there appears in some respects to have been a failure in vision, in the divine impatience, the high resolve no longer to tolerate the intolerable—and there, I imagine, is a good text for any Minister who has anything to do with this subject.
Mr. Attlee spoke of "great problems and a great opportunity" Paragraph 10 of my terms of reference is restrained, and I too have spoken with restraint. But nobody of any imaginative sensibility at all can survey this field unmoved and uninspired. The need is dire and urgent, the objective almost incomparable. But do not misunderstand or exaggerate those terms of reference. Your Lordships have had them. I have not been told to plan the reconstruction of Britain or England or London or anywhere; still less to rebuild. I have been charged to consult with others concerned and to report to the Cabinet "the appropriate methods and machinery for dealing with the issues involved." I will do it as quickly as I can and within a few weeks, and I am proud and thankful to have been so charged. I think there is no more to be said at present.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure every one of us is grateful to the noble Lord for his statement. We are all men of experience, and we know that neither he nor anyone else can achieve the impossible, but I believe that every one of us will be heartened, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, by the vision and determination expressed in the noble Lord's concluding sentences. We shall, I have no doubt, hear very much more about this in the future. He has a gigantic job, and he knows know that he has the good will and good wishes of us all. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (BYSSINOSIS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRI- ATION) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1ª and to be printed.

THE WAR IN THE MEDITERRANEAN.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, may I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether there is any statement he can make to the House about the war?
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made the following announcement in another place, and I am sure your Lordships would desire to have it read:
"I have some news for the House. It is good news. The Royal Navy has struck a crippling blow at the Italian Fleet. The total strength of the Italian battle-fleet was six battleships, two of the 'Littorio' class, which have just been put into service and are, of course, among the most powerful vessels in the world, and four of the recently constructed 'Cavour' class. This fleet was, of course, considerably more powerful, on paper, than our Mediterranean Fleet, but it had consistently refused to accept battle. On the night of November 11–12, when the main units of the Italian Fleet were lying behind their shore defences in their naval base at Taranto, our aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm attacked them in their stronghold. The reports of our airmen have been confirmed by photographic reconnaissance.
"It is now established that one battleship of the 'Littorio' class is so badly down by the bows that her forecastle is under water and she has a heavy list to starboard. One battleship of the 'Cavour' class has been beached and her stern, up to and including the after turret, is under water. This ship

701
also is heavily listed to starboard. It has not yet been possible to establish the fact with certainty, but it appears probable that a second battleship of the 'Cavour' class has also been severely damaged and beached. In the inner harbour of Taranto two Italian cruisers are listed to starboard and are surrounded by oil fuel, and two fleet auxiliaries are lying with their sterns under water. The Italian communiqué of November 12, in admitting that one warship had been severely damaged, claimed that six of our aircraft were shot down and three more probably shot down. In fact, however, two only of our aircraft are missing, and it is noted that the enemy claim that part of the crews have been taken prisoners.
"I felt it my duty to bring this glorious episode to the immediate notice of the House. As the result of a determined and highly successful attack, which reflects the greatest honour on the Fleet Air Arm, only three of the Italian battleships now remain effective. This result, while it affects decisively the balance of naval power in the Mediterranean, also carries with it reactions upon the naval situation in every quarter of the globe.
"The spirit of the Royal Navy shown in this daring attack is also exemplified in the forlorn, heroic action fought by the Captain, officers and ship's company of H.M.S. 'Jervis Bay' in the Atlantic, in giving battle against overwhelming odds in order to protect the merchant convoy which they were escorting, and thus securing the escape of by far the greater part of that convoy.
702
"The Mediterranean Fleet have also continued to harass the Italian communications with their armies in Libya. On the night of the 9th–10th, a bombardment was carried out on Sidi Barrani, and though the fire was returned by the shore batteries, our ships sustained no damage and no casualty. Moreover one of our submarines has attacked a convoy of two Italian supply ships escorted by a destroyer, with the result that one heavily laden ship of 3,000 tons was sunk and the second ship certainly damaged and probably sunk.
"I feel sure that the House will regard these results as highly satisfactory and as reflecting the greatest credit upon the Admiralty, upon Admiral Cunningham, the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, and above all upon our pilots of the Fleet Air Arm who, like their brothers of the Royal Air Force, continue to render their country services of the highest order."

SECRET SESSION.
Lord SNELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the further sitting of the House this day be secret.
Moved, That the further sitting of the House this day be secret.—(Lord Snell).
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House adjourned.