HL Deb 16 October 1940 vol 117 cc527-44

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to draw attention to certain problems arising out of enemy attacks on Greater London; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to begin by offering extremely sincere apology to any noble Lords who may have been inconvenienced by the postponement of this Motion from yesterday until to-day. It is one of the main difficulties of serving two masters, of having a civilian as well as a military occupation, that at certain times they are bound to conflict. I very much regret if any noble Lords came yesterday intending to speak and have been unable to return to the fray this afternoon. But I do not think your Lordships would require me to make any apology for raising this particular problem at this particular moment in your Lordships' House. I think it is generally admitted that existing facilities for the protection of the civilian population of London from air attack have been and are still inadequate, and that much remains to be done in the way of assistance for the homeless and destitute. There is a more personal reason for my raising this matter and that is that I represent on the London County Council one of the hardest hit areas in the south-eastern part of London, but while my thoughts are largely with my own people I hope that my observations will apply equally to all Londoners who are exposed to air attack.

I fear there has been a remarkable lack of foresight when envisaging the sort of onslaught that would be launched by the Luftwaffe on the London area, and we have to remedy our unpreparedness as speedily as possible. We have let many months pass by in which what we have to do now could well have been completed. The main error seems to have been to over-estimate the number of casualties which we should sustain and the amount of material damage that would be inflicted, and at the same time not to have foreseen the long night raids and their potential effect on health and nerves.

The two main measures of what we in the Army call "passive air defence" in London have been the provision of shelters and the arrangements that have been made for evacuating part at least of the civilian population. I am not a protagonist of any special type of shelter, and I do not believe that this is the moment to introduce any extensive innovation. If the deep underground shelter was regarded as unpracticable before the war surely the arguments which were used at that time are even more valid at the present moment. The essential thing seems to be, to my mind, that there should be a shelter of some sort, whether an Anderson shelter, an underground communal shelter or a reinforced basement, for all men, women and children living in the London area and carrying on their work from day to day. Furthermore, these shelters—and this is the immediate need—should be made sufficiently comfortable for people to spend nights in them without loss of sleep, without impairment of health and without any loss of efficiency when they go to their work on the following morning.

The Government have announced their intention, and we are exceedingly grateful for this announcement, of providing bunks, lighting, heating and proper sanitation throughout the London area. I venture to hope that the noble Duke will deal fully with these matters in the course of his reply. But the vital thing about these prospective measures is that they should be put into operation forthwith and after the minimum possible delay. The winter is already upon us, and the nights are getting longer and even more bitterly cold than they were during the early autumn. I know from experience—an experience that several of your Lordships no doubt share—what it is like to spend many hours on a frosty night in an unheated air-raid shelter. Can the Government—and I should like to address this question to the noble Duke—give us some idea of how soon they believe that the majority, at any rate, of the shelters of all kinds in the London area will be equipped with these elementary necessities?

An unsatisfactory feature of shelter policy has been the use hitherto made of the reinforced basements provided out of private funds by business firms under their premises. It is true that local authorities have been given the power to commandeer these shelters at night, when they are not being made use of by employees, for any household living in the immediate vicinity; but it is generally recognised that in very many cases this power has not been exercised by the borough council concerned. Speaking only last week in another place, the Home Secretary said—and I should like to quote his words: I have under consideration getting powers for myself to step in side by side with the local authorities and say 'Either you take that basement or I take it'". Another question I would venture to address to the noble Duke is whether the Home Secretary has by now—and it is about a week since that statement was made—had the opportunity to give full consideration to the problem; and whether, as I hope, he has decided to exercise this power himself or through his representatives in all cases where it is not being exercised by the local authority on the spot.

The other aspect of defence against air attack is, of course, evacuation. It is obviously necessary that all civilians who are not compelled by their work and by their present usefulness to remain in a danger zone should be removed as soon as possible to a safer spot. It is gratifying to know that the evacuation of women and children from the London area is proceeding more and more rapidly from week to week. The figures are mounting steadily, but—and this indeed is a matter of grave concern to all of us—there are still nearly 200,000 children in the London area, and it has been estimated that not more than about 15 per cent of them are receiving any education at all. The only alternative to compulsory evacuation is for the Government to make voluntary evacuation more interesting and attractive. They should, I venture to suggest, intensify their evacuation propaganda among parents, pointing out the educational advantages as well as the greater safety of the children. I hope that they will take the further step of providing hostels for old people and for children who are above school age and who are at work in London, who have to be there, who have to be looked after, and for whom such comforts as can be provided should be made available.

It is also to be hoped that provision will be made for the married men who are left behind, so that wives and mothers will not feel that they are neglecting their family duties by taking their small children away into the country; and that is certainly, I think, the biggest obstacle at the moment to voluntary evacuation. The Government could do much to remove it by enhancing the attractiveness of moving out into less dangerous areas and lessening the inconveniences that will, I fear, be inevitably experienced by those members of the family who are left behind. Although the view is entertained in many quarters, I do not myself consider that compulsory evacuation would be justified unless and until the voluntary method has been tried to the uttermost.

Let me now turn for a moment to another aspect of this great problem, the plight of those who have lost their homes in the course of the night raids. Much has been done to alleviate their tragic lot, but much more remains to be done. For most of the East-Enders—and I am thinking principally of them—whose homes have been destroyed by air attacks, the most grievous loss is probably the destruction of their furniture and household and personal effects; because these they naturally regard as their own property, accumulated, it may be, over many years, whereas the house in which they live belongs to their landlord, to whom they pay their weekly rent. I share the view expressed last week by, I believe, my noble friend Lord Nathan, that not enough is being done to rescue whatever can be saved from these damaged homes. The local authorities have the power to remove the contents of derelict houses if their owners are unable to do so, but in fact they find these things extremely difficult to arrange. Household effects have therefore deteriorated by exposure to the weather. It is to be hoped that in this instance also the Government will be able to discharge this function wherever local authorities are unwilling or unable to discharge it.

In addition to those who have lost their personal effects and who are being compensated in a very small way by the Public Assistance authorities at the moment, there are thousands of families who have lost everything; and it is cold comfort to them to be told that after the war they will be fully compensated by the Government. We are extremely thankful that the Government intend to introduce a scheme for the compensation of the victims of air attacks, and no one maintains that all claims can be met as soon as the damage is done; but I should like to see some sort of provision in the Bill for payment to be made at the earliest possible moment to wage-earners who have lost their household effects. It will not help them at all, however, if they have to pay a premium under the voluntary insurance system, which I understand is part of the scheme proposed by the Government. I do not believe that the lower-paid wage-earners can afford even an exceedingly small premium. What is needed is for the voluntary compensation scheme to apply to the better paid wage-earners and to those with larger incomes, and a scheme of compensation which will cover the household effects as well as the house property, if any, of wage-earners who earn a weekly sum below a certain limit. I sincerely trust that if such a scheme is considered desirable by the Government they will not wait until the end of the war—which, as everyone fears, may be a very long way off—to put it into effect. It ought to be possible to arrange for some degree of priority under the compensation scheme, so that the lower-paid wage-earners receive what will, after all, amount to a very small sum, to provide for the losses which they sustain in the way of personal effects and household property, before the more well-to-do section of the community is compensated for its losses.

There is one comment which I should like to make on the broad question of the administration of civilian defence in the London area. It has been said in many quarters that the administrative authorities are far too numerous and varied and that they should be superseded by some sort of regional officer with dictatorial powers. I do not altogether share this view, and it seems to me that those who offer this criticism tend to over-simplify the immensely complicated administrative problem involved and its solution. There can be no doubt, of course, that something is seriously wrong. Only last week—if I may venture to quote an instance—I heard of several hundred homeless people in some tenements off the Commercial Road who were wandering about for a long time without knowing where to go. Ultimately, they were told by a policeman to find their way to a rest centre at a distance of about half an hour from their homes and, when they arrived there, they were told that there was another rest centre for them just a few streets away from where they lived. Much unnecessary hardship has been caused to these unfortunate people by ignorance of where to go and of what to do when they reach their destination. The Minister of Health announced last week that information officers will be appointed, and that in every borough representatives of all the different agencies which assist the homeless will be assembled under a single roof. That is an admirable instruction, if it can be carried out; but I should like to ask the noble Duke how many London boroughs have already acted upon the advice of the Ministry in this respect.

My main criticism of the existing administrative machinery in London is not so much of the existence of a multiplicity of authorities, which seems to be really inevitable when so many different aspects of the social organisation are involved, but rather the lack of co-ordination between them in the discharge of their separate functions. Furthermore, I cannot escape the conclusion that too great a burden of responsibility has been laid upon the borough councils, the local authorities on the spot. In addition to running their normal services under extraordinarily difficult circumstances they are now expected to undertake a vast amount of relief and A.R.P. work. The Minister of Health admitted last week in another place that one of the worst mistakes had been to throw too much work on the local authorities. I am convinced that this error has not as yet, whatever the intentions of the Government may be, been rectified. Finally, I should not like to pass from this topic without paying a very humble tribute to the spirit of our Londoners. They are suffering extreme and extraordinary hard- ships, they are making the heaviest sacrifices with a steadfastness and a cheerfulness that are, I believe, an example to the whole country. Their stubborn endurance, I venture to believe, will be a really memorable page in our British history. I beg to move for Papers.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)

My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble Earl opposite for having raised the subject and for the very carefully considered and studiously moderate speech which he has made. It covered a great deal of ground and the questions extend to other Departments than that for which I answer in this House, the Home Office. I hope my noble friend will realise that even though I may not be able to give him an answer on every point he has raised, every point will be carefully considered by the appropriate Department, and that though he may not get an answer this afternoon his speech will nevertheless bear fruit and will have been very well worth making.

He said, with I think some justice, that the mistake which the Government seem to have made was that of overestimating the casualties and underestimating the damage to property and the numbers of those who would be rendered homeless, and I am afraid I must admit that that is indeed the case. Our policy in regard to air-raid shelters was laid down as the result of a report made in April, 1939, not very long before the outbreak of war, by the Lord Privy Seal's Conference over which Lord Hailey presided and which was an exceedingly able, representative and authoritative body. It foresaw, I think, many of the difficulties, but did not foresee what has now become the principal difficulty with which the Government have to deal, and that is that the public, very naturally, desire a shelter which not only provides temporary shelter but also permanent living accommodation—a dormitory. I think the example of Barcelona, which was very carefully studied, may have done a good deal of damage in this respect. There raids occurred, and I think that, although it is very easy to be wise after the event, we might well have foreseen that what would occur in the event of a great war with Germany would not be occasional raids but a per- manent state of raid conditions, under which the public would very naturally desire shelter, and provision was made for raids. Shelters of all kinds have been provided—the local shelter, affording a very considerable degree of safety, and some deep shelters, not very many. I will not dwell on that point because the noble Earl opposite, I think quite rightly, said he did not stress it, and if deep shelters presented insuperable, or almost insuperable, difficulties before the war they present greater difficulties now.

But shelters of various kinds were provided—the Anderson, which has provided a very great measure of security indeed and has fully justified the hopes placed in it, and the local community street shelter, which has not been used so much as it should have been. These shelters are uninviting in appearance and any damage to them can be plainly seen, and for that and other reasons the public have not used them. Actually they have stood up to the tests extremely well. Your Lordships can have an opportunity not many minutes' walk from this House of seeing where a bomb has fallen not more than five yards from one of the brick surface shelters in which, I think, if it had been full certainly not more than two or three people would have been injured, I think none killed and the overwhelming majority of the people in that shelter would have been completely secure. Most shelters, I regret to say, have not been used as fully as is desirable. Companionship is always agreeable, and still more agreeable in times of stress and danger, and there has been a very understandable tendency on the part of the public to seek for communal shelters where companionship, always dear to the Londoner, is available.

My right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred in another place to the very real apprehension which he feels about this tendency to get together. He is new to his tremendous responsibility and is still engaged on a study of the facts and figures available, and on sizing up the situation. But I think without being indiscreet I can reasonably say that he will come down on the side of the policy of dispersal so far as possible, which was the policy of his predecessor in office, rather than on the policy of concentration. It is extremely hard to provide anything approaching 100 per cent, safety—one may say, I think, it is impossible. One big bomb may do damage even in the deepest shelter. It is quite impossible to provide deep shelter, and there is a very-real danger that roomy basements, tube stations, and places of that kind, which have the great attraction of comparative immunity from noise, may attract large numbers of people, and that the idea of safety which the silence gives may prove to be no more than an illusion.

It is possible, I think, to provide something like 100 per cent, of safety if you ignore some of the other factors which ought to be considered. A proper zigzag slip tunnel, with very little head cover to provide against falling splinter, affords a very large measure indeed of safety—the kind of shelter which we have provided for soldiers, for instance, which provides a very large measure indeed of safety, but it provides, of course, no comfort at all, and it is quite impossible and unreasonable to expect the population of London to spend its nights in trenches of that type. It is out of the question. As you increase the comfort, and therefore the space requiring to be covered, your danger increases very rapidly; and, as your Lordships may be aware, there have been some very regrettable cases of heavy-casualties having occurred in shelters which, because of their quietness, had earned the confidence of the public but which, in fact, had not proved to be safe.

I can assure the noble Earl that the Government are pressing on with great rapidity, in meeting this demand, which had not been foreseen, for what is called dormitory accommodation—that is, making a shelter not merely a temporary refuge for the duration of an air raid, but a place in which the family will spend its nights during the coming months. More than one million bunks are on order, and their installation will begin next week. That is a beginning, and a beginning only, of the Government's programme of bunks. The question of warming these shelters presents very great difficulty. My noble friend Lord Horder, as your Lordships will be aware, is Chairman of a Committee which is investigating this difficult subject. He had hoped to be here and to speak this afternoon, but I can well imagine that the demands upon him are very heavy, and it may well be that the events of last night have prevented his being here. I am sorry to say I do not see him, and therefore I shall not get his advice and he will not be able to inform your Lordships himself.

The problem of heating does present great difficulties. Almost all forms of stoves tend to set up poisonous fumes. You have the problem of limited space occupied by a very large number of people, and it is one of which it is very hard to see the solution. I can only tell your Lordships that it is being gone into by the men the Government thought best qualified to advise upon it, and it is under very active consideration at the present time. The question of lighting is also under consideration. There, again, there are great difficulties. Some people want to sleep, some do not. You cannot really have a light on in the shelter for some and out for others, and it is a question of very great difficulty.

I should like to emphasize the point that while the Anderson shelter cannot be used everywhere—there are many houses, flats, and so on where the Anderson shelter is quite impossible—it does provide, on the whole, the greatest measure of security it is possible to attain. It can under certain circumstances be heated, you do secure dispersal, and though a particular individual may be no safer in his Anderson shelter than elsewhere, the use of Anderson shelters by the public as a whole does provide a greater measure of security for a greater number of persons than any other form which has yet been devised. There have been most regrettable cases of people leaving their Anderson shelters for the greater companionship, greater quiet, and greater sense of security—though not real security—provided by a communal shelter, who would have been alive to-day if they had stayed in their Anderson shelters.

My noble friend paid a well-deserved tribute to the courage and endurance of the Londoner, and it has indeed been beyond all praise; but I ought also to say that he has in some cases not shown so much ability to self-help as would have been desirable. There have been cases—not many, but some—of individuals and families being killed in their Anderson shelters owing to the shelters not having been erected in a proper manner. The Anderson shelter does not set up to be itself entirely splinter or blast proof. It is designed to carry the weight of a certain amount of earth which will render it very largely proof against anything except what we call a very near miss. Some people have erected their shelters, taken the trouble to cover them with the right amount of earth, and have enjoyed immunity. Others have left their shelters with scarcely any earth protection, and shelters in that condition are still to be seen. I hope it will go out that the citizen who possesses a garden can, without very great difficulty to himself, so cover his Anderson shelter as to make it very much safer than the shelter itself, which is merely a tin hut and nothing else.

The noble Earl raised the question of evacuation. The figures are perhaps not entirely satisfactory, but evacuation is proceeding apace. About two thousand children are leaving London every week unaccompanied under evacuation schemes, and, accompanied by their mothers, between twenty thousand and twenty-four thousand are leaving weekly. That is making very substantial inroads on the number of children who are left in London. One of the astonishing features of the period through which we are passing is the great reluctance of the Londoner to leave not only London, but his own district of London. There is a very strong attachment to the life of the district to which the family belongs—to their neighbours, their circle of friends, and so on. I had anticipated there would be some criticism of the failure to find accommodation for the homeless. Actually there is no dearth of accommodation for the homeless. There are substantially more places available in reasonably safe basements, commandeered premises, shelters, and so forth than there are people willing to go into them. With regard to this question of the homeless there are eighty-five First Line Centres open in the County of London, all of which have their full complement of staff on duty day and night and a large majority of which have a nurse on duty every night. There is an information officer on duty at every rest centre in London.

Reverting for a moment to the question of shelters, my right honourable friend has in draft powers to take over privately-owned shelters which are not required by the firms at night, but so far it is believed that the local authorities are making full use of their powers to requisition these shelters. Though my right honourable friend is taking these powers, he has at present no evidence that he will have to use them. To go back to evacuation, I am sure my noble friend's remarks about further steps which may be taken to make evacuation more attractive will be very carefully considered. He is, so far as my study of the subjects leads me to believe, entirely correct in saying that one of the major difficulties in the way of the evacuation of women and children is that the woman is unwilling to leave her husband, who may be engaged on some vital task which he cannot leave. She does not know who will cook for him and mind his house, and therefore she is reluctant to leave him. That question is deserving of and will receive the most careful study.

The noble Lord also dealt with the question of compensation for the loss of furniture. I will bring to the attention of the proper authorities what he said. The whole subject is one of enormous complexity. What is being done at present is that those under a certain standard of income are being given immediately the wherewithal to make good the most pressing necessities. There is also coming into being a comprehensive insurance scheme which will enable those who have had the misfortune to lose all their possessions to be compensated at the expense of those who have not—a general fund on ordinary insurance principles. I am not quite clear whether the Government will, in fact, find it possible while hostilities last to compensate those who have lost their furniture beyond any immediate necessities either in cash or in kind, but it seems to me likely that the necessity will not arise, because, after all, a family which has been evacuated to other premises does not immediately require furniture.

Though I am not really in a position to speak for the Government on this subject it seems to me that if people are still living in London normally their furniture can be replaced, but, if they are being evacuated to the country, are being passed through rest centres and evacuated to other premises in the country, then compensation for the loss of furniture is not a pressing matter, because they will not require compensation until their home is rebuilt and they are in a position to occupy it again. While they are occupying billets, or are in hostels or other accommodation, the necessity that they should receive furniture is not pressing. Though I have not had an opportunity of discussing that particular question with my right honourable friend, it seems to me unlikely that the Government can put that matter high in the priority list, but what I would like to emphasize is that there are these eighty-five centres open, every one with its nurses and staff and information officer on duty.

The Government have also in mind the whole question of hostels, and are considering setting up a special body which will work in close co-operation with special commissioners to establish hostels for members of families who might be left behind. The aged and infirm are being looked after at First Line Centres from which they are gradually being evacuated into hostels on the fringe of Greater London, and into special institutions which are being set up for them in the county of Surrey. It can be said that the London County Council now have the running of the rest centres well in hand. The fourteen boroughs who were asked to requisition and to equip accommodation in advance for homeless people have taken over 2,438 properties with accommodation for 20,375 people, and 5,699 places are already in occupation which provide accommodation for between 14,000 and 15,000 people. It is estimated that about 30,000 homeless people have been billeted in the London region. The numbers of the homeless vary night by night, but, speaking generally, it can be said that in the last weeks there have been no homeless for whom, if they are willing to leave the district, accommodation could not be found.

The problem is a very serious one, and will become more serious as the winter goes on with the nights becoming longer and the weather more severe; but it can be said that London has stood up quite magnificently to a very heavy ordeal. The spirit of one people is not only unbroken but not even to the smallest degree dented or bent. London is carrying on and London will carry on, but as one goes about and sees the wanton and wicked damage that has been done I think one realises that the evil men who are responsible for it are making an entirely new chapter in history. Attila had a very bad name and it lasted a very long time, but Attila was a little plaster saint compared with the men with whom we are now dealing. I believe when this lamentable chapter of history is finished they will go down not for hundreds but for thousands of years to come as having been guilty of the greatest barbarity known in our history up to now. That barbarity will not win the war. The spirit of the Londoner and of the citizens of the other towns who are going through this horrible time wil defeat him. We shall come through and we shall achieve victory.

LORD STRABOLGI

Mr Lords, before my noble friend replies to the very interesting and sympathetic speech of the noble Duke, will your Lordships forgive me if I make two constructive suggestions upon this great problem? There is a great need now of looking ahead. My noble friend Lord Listowel in his admirable speech, if he will allow me to say so, dealt with the main picture of Greater London under fire, and the noble Duke in his sympathetic reply showed that every one of the points my noble friend referred to is being dealt with as quickly as possible. So far so good. But now it is very necessary to look ahead. The noble Duke spoke of a long winter and of the ordeal arising from the weather and longer nights. The two suggestions I make are the following.

The first is easily done and quickly. From my own observations there are not enough mobile canteens. I particularly have this from the Auxiliary Fire Services. They are frequently employed all night and they have no means, in spite of the good will of the inhabitants of the district, of getting even a cup of tea or a sandwich. They take out something with them, and are given biscuits, but that is about all. I have spoken to my noble friend Lord Woolton, the Food Controller, and he has ordered more canteens, but my impression is that many more are required. Wherever there is a big fire you ought to have a mobile canteen. You can extemporise them. You can have them fitted up on any commercial vehicle. They would be a splendid help to these people doing this great work.

The other matter is a much bigger one. I think you have to visualise the possibility of a long winter of attacks on Greater London and other cities. With regard to Greater London particularly, I think you will have to organise a wider system of reliefs. If people who are doing essential work can get a few nights of quiet rest in the country they will be much better fitted to withstand the ordeal. There are certain people, such as caretakers in large buildings, whose duty it is to stay in them and be ready to act in case of fire. These people, with broken nights and so on, ought to have something done for them. This is a matter which will require great organisation, but it can be done. These essential people have to be regarded as soldiers. Soldiers are only kept in the front line for a certain period and then they are given leave. You must, I suggest, do the same thing in this case. This is an aspect of the problem which I suggest should be given particular attention now. If you can bring people from the less battered towns to London and exchange places for a few days—I am sure they would be willing to do it—hard pressed people would get a much needed rest. I put forward the suggestion in a friendly spirit and with a desire to be helpful.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

My Lords, with your permission may I say that I know that the question of mobile canteens is engaging the very careful attention of my noble friend the Minister of Food? He had hoped to be here this afternoon to take part in the debate with reference to this particular question. He has very many pressing calls on him at present, but I know that he is giving attention to the question. I will bring to the notice of the proper authorities the other questions which have been raised and I think they will be regarded as valuable.

VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT

My Lords, I should like to put one point. I am not sure that it is in order, but with your Lordships' permission I will risk it. What I want to know is whether it is necessary, when we are told in the Press that a hospital in a certain district has been bombed, that we should not be told exactly what hospital has been bombed. The result is that every nurse and most of the patients in hospitals in the area are overwhelmed with inquiries from their relatives as to what has happened. Is it necessary to suppress the name of the hospital? I know the argument that it is better not to let the enemy know—I do not think much of it myself, but I understand it—but if that is so, why give the information at all? Why cannot the information be held back until it is possible to say definitely where the hospital is? That would not only relieve the telephone service but would relieve the anxiety of a great number of people.

LORD FARINGDON

My Lords, I rise for a moment only to deal with what seems to me a misapprehension under which the noble Duke labours. He has said that the replacement immediately of furniture is not necessary owing to the fact that people who have been rendered homeless and are evacuated will not require furniture until they return to their homes. I can assure the noble Duke from considerable experience in reception areas that one of the things that is threatening the success of any evacuation scheme is just this lack of furniture. Large numbers of people have been accommodated, and probably in the future more people will be accommodated, in requisitioned houses. Just before the recent intensification of the war in London there was a most undesirable return of evacuees to London and I believe you will get—and are probably getting already—even in the present appalling circumstances a return of evacuees to London.

I myself in the last two days have met three families in a rural area who have been put into requisitioned quarters. They came from Stepney and they told me that if they had enough money in their pockets they would return at once because the houses into which they had been put were completely without furniture. These people find anyhow the conditions in remote areas in the country unfamiliar and more or less disagreeable, but I think they might find them tolerable if the houses into which they were moved were adequately furnished. Local authorities have not the furniture, and although neighbours supply what they can they probably have evacuees in their own houses and have not much spare furniture. I do impress upon the noble Duke the desirability of reconsidering this question of the need of furniture. I assure him that to make evacuation successful furniture is one of the first essentials.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has rather misunderstood the position. Before I went on to deal with the general question of insurance and compensation I said that the weekly wage-earner who lost his furniture was compensated forthwith and given the wherewithal to replace immediate necessities. He does get immediately, through various organisations, the things that are immediately necessary, and it was after I said that these immediate necessities were being dealt with that I went on to speak of general insurance and replacement of furniture. I do not want to leave the noble Lord or any of your Lordships under any misapprehension. The people are receiving, with a minimum of delay, the wherewithal to replace the minimum furniture without which you cannot live in a house. I do not want your Lordships to be under a misapprehension that the Government do not think this is a necessity and an immediate priority necessity.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Duke for the friendly and serious consideration of the points that I raised and his assurance that he would bring to the attention of the various Government Departments concerned my remarks. I was particularly pleased to hear that the installation of bunks in shelters will begin as early as next week and that the whole process of providing essential amenities is being speeded up. I do not wish to enter at this moment into a controversy about furniture, but I think there is perhaps a certain degree of misunderstanding on both sides of the House. What my noble friend Lord Faringdon meant was that furniture provided by the Public Assistance authorities was insufficient in an unoccupied and unfurnished house to make a comfortable home, while the Duke was concerned to point out that none of the evacuees are left without the indispensable necessities for sleeping and for the daily occupation of the house to which they are sent. But the point I endeavoured to make was that in fact they require the replacement of the furniture they have lost in order to make a comfortable home, and it would not cost the Government a great deal under any insurance scheme to cover the cost of replacement in these extremely hard cases. I sincerely hope that the Government will not expect the lower-paid wage earners to pay out premiums from their meager income in order to recover the whole value of the furniture they have lost after hostilities have ceased. On the whole, I am ex- tremely pleased, and I am sure anyone reading this debate will be equally gratified, by the assurances that the noble Duke has given on behalf of the Government. With those assurances in mind, I will ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.