HL Deb 26 February 1941 vol 118 cc485-516

VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to ask His Majesty's Government what is their policy for town and country planning after the war; and whether such legislation as is necessary will be presented to Parliament at an early date; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it may be that some among your Lordships will think that the present is not a propitious time for considering a matter which does not directly concern the conduct of the war. There may be some who believe that no one in this country should divert his attention even for an hour from the actual winning of the victory; but I would submit reasons to your Lordships for thinking that that view is not one which should be accepted. When the end of the war comes, and it might perhaps come more suddenly than is now anticipated, when the collapse of Germany has taker place, it is easy to see the situation that will arise in this country. Some of our towns have been largely destroyed and they will be eager to proceed with the: work of reconstruction. Hundreds of thousands of families who have been evacuated from their ordinary homes, often scattered, will wish to reunite, but will find that their old homes have been destroyed There is already much overcrowding, and there will be at least two years of normal building to be made good. At the same time there will be millions of men demobilised from the Armed Forces, and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of men and women released from the work of making munitions. Their wages will have stopped, and they must at once find other employment; perhaps in many cases their old employments will not still be available.

If, beforehand, there have been no plans made for meeting that situation then all the evils which have been seen in this country for many years past will be repeated, and perhaps emphasized. Industries will again be located haphazard; the countryside will again be invaded and often spoiled; building will again take place wherever it can be done easiest and quickest, and that will be along the main roads. Ribbon development, which has not been stopped—the ribbons have been made somewhat broader but they have not been made shorter—will be given a fresh impetus. It is the most inconvenient of all ways of housing the people, giving them fewer social facilities and amenities, and increasing most the dangers of the highways; nevertheless, if there are no plans, it will be reverted to because it is the cheapest form of building, and the evils which have been deplored will be repeated. The work of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population will be ignored, the effort of bodies such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England will be defeated, and, just as we condemn now the failure of the citizens of London after the Great Fire to adopt the great planning schemes proposed by Sir Christopher Wren, so we, in our turn, will be condemned by posterity for having failed to seize a great occasion, and we especially in Parliament, in the one House and the other, will be blamed for these missed opportunities.

Yet surely all this will happen unless plans are ready in advance, for when the war stops—and it may stop suddenly—the nation will not be able to wait, it cannot wait, for plans then to be improvised and the necessary legislation passed. The cities that have been partly devastated will not wait, the homeless families and the millions of men and women unemployed will not be able to wait. In those circumstances I trust no one to-day in your Lordships' House will suggest that the Motion which I have brought to its attention is premature, or that it is out of place to discuss such matters when the war is perhaps reaching its critical stage. On November 13 this matter was brought before the House. Post-war reconstruction raises, of course, many wide issues. It has among its aspects general questions such as the education of the people, nutrition, health, standards of living, status of the workers in industry—all these things come in. My Motion does not touch these wider aspects, not because I ignore them or underestimate their importance, but because so general a discussion would be discursive and unfruitful. It is better to concentrate at one time on one particular aspect.

The Government indeed have shown that they are alive to these broader considerations, which raise large questions of policy and which can be dealt with only by the Cabinet, and they have appointed a Committee from this Cabinet under the Chairmanship of Mr. Arthur Greenwood to engage in preliminary discussion of these wider issues. But there is one, not wholly self-contained but almost self-contained, group of questions which come under the name of town and country planning, to which specific attention has been given by the Government, as shown by the establishment of a new Ministry of Works and Buildings, the head of which we have the privilege of having in this House. Now, on November 13, when the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, was mentioned, he made a statement to us and he explained that his functions were twofold. In the first place his Ministry is to deal with Government building. That is a matter of immediate importance in connection with actual war needs, and, therefore, must necessarily take precedence over all else, and it was with that part of his functions that his statement on that day mainly dealt. But, secondly, his Ministry has to consider reconstruction of town and country after the war, and he told us he was charged with the duty of reporting to the Cabinet on the appropriate methods and machinery for dealing with the issues involved. He then had newly assumed office, and it was not expected by anyone that he would be able to give us a full statement of his policy, but he said in this House that in a few weeks he expected to be able to do so. Three months have since elapsed, and we may hope that to-day he will be able to give us further information.

Your Lordships will wish rather to hear his statement than to listen to other members expressing their own views and reciting facts and grievances which are already well known to all of us. I desire therefore to address to the noble Lord, Lord Reith, four questions to which I hope he will be able to give us replies. The first is this: With regard to the preliminary investigation of these matters, what is the relationship to one another of the two authorities that have been set up within the Government, the Ministry of Works and Buildings and the Cabinet Committee over which Mr. Arthur Greenwood presides? What are their respective spheres? Is it clear that they do not overlap or, what would be even more serious, are they working apart and possibly even pulling different ways? Or has the whole subject been divided between the two authorities, giving town and country planning specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and leaving the rest of these wide questions to the Cabinet Committee?

The second question which I would address to him is: What future organisation at the centre is contemplated in the Government? That is indeed the foundation for all else. Now there is at the centre a confusion of authority. The actual planning of areas by the local authorities is under the supervision of the Ministry of Health. That Ministry is the central authority under the Town and Country Planning Act, but the urgent and difficult question of ribbon development is under the superintendence of a wholly different Ministry, the Ministry of Transport. It is regarded as being part of the question of highway construction. The matter of new high roads is also for the Ministry of Transport, although that is a vital element in planning, for as the skeleton is to the body so the highway system is to the location of industry and to the social life of the country in general. The location of industry is now not the concern of any Ministry. There is no central body charged to deal with it. The effects on agriculture of planning and building and the location of industry would probably be a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, but I am not aware that that Ministry has specifically been charged with considering that question. The interest of agriculture in the matter of national planning has hitherto been far too little considered.

I submit to your Lordships that it is essential that there should be in the future one Ministry to which the local authorities can look for guidance. Such a Ministry would no doubt have to consult with other Departments—with the Board of Trade on some matters, with the Ministry of Agriculture on others, with the Defence Departments for some purposes—and on such special questions it would be necessary to have inter-departmental agreement. But essentially it does appear to me to be vital that there shall be one great Department charged with the direct concern of all these matters relating to town and country planning. It will have to be a major Department of State. Possibly it is premature for the noble Lord, Lord Reith, to give us guidance on this particular point, but I would venture to express my own view, as one in constant touch with this question for many years and who during the last few months has been in weekly, almost daily, consultation with some of the leaders of the national movement concerned with planning, that there must be a new Ministry, not an addition to the present hierarchy, rather in some respects a concentration, but a new Ministry with its own title which would absorb the present Ministry of Works and Buildings and would take over from the Ministry of Health its powers with regard to town and country planning and would absorb also parts of the functions of the Ministry of Transport.

The Ministry of Health is now overburdened. If it were concerned with questions of health alone, those would be sufficient to occupy the attention of a Minister and a Department just as education gives ample material for the work of a Minister and his Department. Furthermore, after the war that side of our social life will undoubtedly be greatly developed and new and important questions will arise with regard to the organisation and expansion of the medical services and the hospital system. Moreover, the Ministry of Health has to deal with all questions of national insurance, dealing with health in particular, and other miscellaneous matters of local government. Looking back over the years to the days when I had the privilege of being President of the Local Government Board, the predecessor of the Ministry of Health, I know full well how wide were the functions of the Local Government Board, and now those of the Ministry of Health are far wider still. It would be an advantage to the nation if the Ministry of Health were relieved of some of its present functions in order that it might give fuller attention to the rest. All the more it would be wrong to put fresh burdens upon that Ministry whose burdens are already excessive. Therefore I suggest that these questions of planning should not be regarded as a vested interest, so to speak, of the Ministry of Health, but that they should rightly, and speedily, be transferred to the great new Department which should be envisaged.

The location of industry again which must come into this matter is a most formidable question presenting very great difficulties and grave problems. If there is no central Ministry charged to superintend the location of industry over the country, then nothing would be done and the evils that have already arisen would continue and multiply. On the other hand, if such a Ministry did too much, it might work much mischief. By hampering enterprise and injuring industries, it might impoverish the people. This new Ministry which I think we should envisage ought not to have functions that are only those of criticism. The functions should be positive and constructive. It should not only be charged with the duty of regulating the action of local authorities, and acting as a court of appeal, but its duties should be also to initiate and to stimulate. My second question therefore to the noble Lord is: Can he yet tell us what kind of organisation at the centre is contemplated to control the future development of town and country planning?

My third question is: What is the scheme with respect to local authorities? If now planning is hampered by divided responsibilities at the centre, it is hampered even more by a confusion of authorities in the localities. That is the chief reason why town and country planning, in spite of the Statutes that have been passed by Parliament, has not made greater progress than it has done. There is that confusion of local authorities. It is made worse by the fact that the boundaries of our local government areas are for the most part obsolete. Many of the county boundaries date from the Heptarchy. They have little regard for modern services. In such matters as water supply, sanitation, electricity, gas, roads, transport, as well as health and education, the local areas are for the most part too small, and frequently they are wrongly divided. Again, care for the interests of agriculture is not sufficiently possible with the areas that we now have, and the development of rural community life cannot be properly considered where there is the separation that we now have. There is too great separation between town and country. They must intermingle and interweave their activities. Therefore, for many years past a number of us have constantly advocated the formation of regional authorities, that is to say of new local authorities, which should be constituted by one or more of the boroughs together with a very considerable surrounding area, and these should be the principal units for dealing locally with these matters of planning.

When I speak of regions I am not referring to the new Civil Defence Regions that have been set up during the war. These will probably be continued after the war, but if they are I would plead that they should be given a different name, for the use of the word "region" at present involves much confusion. It is applied at one moment for areas such as I have just been describing, and secondly to the much larger areas of the twelve Civil Defence Regions that have been set up. These last would have many useful functions to perform if they were continued after the war and might, with advantage, enter into the general scheme of planning if powers could be devolved upon them by the Central Ministry and delay avoided by all superintending not being concentrated entirely in Whitehall. One may envisage the present twelve Civil Defence Regions remaining as authorities to whom a great deal of power could be devolved from the Central Ministry.

But they are much too large to carry out the actual work of planning. Take the great North-West Region for example. One cannot imagine it zoning particular areas effectively for industries, for residence, for green belts, and so forth. Then there is the Southern Region, which stretches from Banbury right down to Southampton and Portsmouth. We need, therefore, smaller regional authorities, much smaller than the Civil Defence areas. I have mentioned that it is very necessary to have a review and readjustment of local boundaries, but that must take time, and the matter is too urgent for it to be undertaken at this stage, and it is probable that the new regional authorities must be in the nature of joint boards such as have already been set up under pressure of actual needs in many parts of the country. Joint regional planning boards should therefore be, in my view, the principal units in the actual execution of the work. The existing Regional Boards would play a very useful part, and in other areas where they do not yet exist, it should be the duty of the new Ministry to secure their formation. My third question is, therefore: What is contemplated as a scheme for local authorities?

My last question relates to land control and finance. That has been the other main obstacle which has stood in the way of the proper planning of our country. The law provides that where a planning scheme comes into effect, those owners of property who suffer detriment from it are to receive compensation while those owners who benefit from it are to pay a betterment tax. But the scheme, although logical and just, has not in practice been found to work very well. The local authorities are deterred from taking comprehensive action because they know that they will be obliged to pay compensation on the one hand, and they do not feel any security that they will receive any adequate revenue from betterment upon the other. Therefore there is a risk which they have often not shown themselves willing to face. It is probable that the right policy will be found to be to avoid all these questions of betterment and compensation, in many cases conferring on the planning authorities very large powers of purchase of great areas of land designed for development in order that the planning can be carried out without delay, and without hindrance because of these innumerable questions arising from particular interests in property.

On January 29 the noble Lord, Lord Reith, announced that an expert Committee had been appointed to consider these questions of compensation and betterment under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Uthwatt. But he said that they had also been charged with the duties of considering means of stabilising the value of land required for development and redevelopment, of finding means to avoid land speculation, and of the enactment of further powers of public acquisition of land. The Committee was not to deal with policy issues. The noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, pointed out that it would be difficult to impose that restriction for these were essentially matters of policy. But Lord Reith, in answer to a question which was put in the House, said that the appointment of this Committee was not intended to prejudice or delay discussion on policy in due course. I hope we have now arrived at the stage of "due course" and that we may be told something of the policy to be adopted in these wide matters of land purchase and the prevention of speculation.

These matters in earlier days would almost inevitably have given rise to controversy, possibly even to fierce and bitter political controversy. But I think, at least I hope, that in these times we shall find that property owners as a whole have no desire to press their rights in such a way as to hinder and block social welfare. Not only would they regard it, I hope, as a national duty rather to help forward reforms of this kind, but also care for the legitimate interests of property would indicate that that would be a wise course; for it is to the interests of property to endeavour to preserve the good will of the nation and not to allow the rights of property to be regarded as a barrier to social progress. There are, it is true, some who scoff and sneer at those whom they call sentimental idealists, who hope suddenly to create a new heaven and earth by Acts of Parliament; but there are far more who recognise that it is an imperative duty on the nation to try to clean our country from the evils that now pollute it and who rather welcome the prospect of a vigorous effort for securing social progress in these important directions. I thought it significant that a week ago the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, in a House more sparsely attended than it is to-day, most strongly urged that there should be an active movement of the character that I have sketched; and it is significant also that a month ago The Times newspaper, in a very eloquent and forceful leading article, pleaded strongly for a movement in this direction. That, I believe, is significant of the spirit which now prevails in the nation.

I believe that this House, which in by-gone centuries was regarded as a citadel of property and privilege, will in these days, so long as the proposals made are not unjust and confiscatory, rather aid than obstruct a well-considered and vigorous movement to rescue the country from these evils which afflict it. I trust that this House will now place itself in the forefront of a movement which will try to make Britain worthy of a great generation of a great people, and worthy to be the centre of our Commonwealth, so that all our Dominions and Colonies may take pride in the Mother Country; worthy also of the world-wide moral leadership which the sacrifices of her people have so nobly won. I beg to move for Papers.

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I think that the House and the country are indebted to the noble Viscount for bringing forward this Motion to-day. I remember that when the noble Lord, the Minister of Works and Buildings, spoke to us some time ago, and referred to the appointment of the Committee which the noble Viscount has mentioned, he said that he hoped before long to be able to make a statement with regard to future policy. I hope that this occasion is not too early for us to receive at least a substantial instalment of that statement. Few Ministers, apart from the war emergency, have a greater opportunity than the noble Lord, but none are confronted with greater difficulties.

I have a very lively and indeed most painful recollection of what happened after the last war. During that war the mood of the country had been that we should take courageous steps in the future to deal with this and kindred matters; but, in the reaction which rapidly supervened after the war, many of these projects were buried completely or forgotten or destroyed. That emphasizes the major importance of the plea which the noble Viscount has addressed to us, that there is no time to lose, that it is essential that this matter should be tackled and so far as possible clarified and brought into a positive form as soon as may be, because it is quite evident that, if matters of this kind are left until the end of the war, then in the confusion and difficulties which will inevitably arise nothing effective can be done. I am quite sure that the noble Lord will find himself confronted, if he has not done so already, with a whole network of what may be termed vested, Departmental and other interests in his way; and it is, I am sure, necessary that we should all do everything we can to support him.

I should like in the first place to support the vital plea put forward by the noble Viscount, that it is high time that these things were brought under the control of one Minister. I should be interested to find out whether the noble Lord has made any progress in that direction. There are two aspects of the case, and two only, to which I should like to refer. We see before us now up and down the country various activities connected with War Departments—the building of factories and other works. With regard to the provision of war factories, we are suffering now, and soon shall suffer much more, from the absence of the single controlling authority over planning for which the noble Viscount has pleaded. I could mention, as probably all of us could, large factories which have been built under great pressure and no doubt very efficiently, but apparently without taking account of the fact that after they are built they will have to be peopled by workers who must have somewhere to live, and that the place where they live must be within reasonable distance of the factory itself.

I know that more than one war factory planned, apparently, without due regard for these other considerations, is now very ill supplied with the workers that it ought to have; and I am afraid that, despite the best efforts of the Ministry of Labour, that position will continue for some time to come. I remember in the last war a very important contractor saying to me, "I can build you a factory in fifteen months, but it will take three years to provide the town, with its water supply, electricity, drainage and schools, for the people to live in who will work in the factory." That is true to-day, and it emphasizes the importance of not doing these things in separate Departments, with one Department planning the factory and some other authority learning about it later, and with the duty of providing housing and other accommodation devolving, perhaps, on half a dozen different local authorities.

What applies with regard to the need for concentration of authority in connection with planning in respect of war factories applies even more to the restoration, if there is to be restoration, of war damage. Unless that is associated with a bolder planning policy than we have had hitherto, we may be committed to rebuilding or patching up thousands of damaged buildings which would be much better out of the way altogether. There again all manner of quite proper personal interests, and particularly local authority interests, stand in the way of the making of a rational plan.

I was very glad to hear what the noble Viscount said with regard to dealing with claims, real or imaginary, for compensation in the future. Although I cannot expect it to-day, I hope that the noble Lord will produce some coherent and workable proposal for dealing with that very thorny and difficult side of the case. It is the prospective demands for compensation, for instance, which have made the Ribbon Development Act completely a dead letter. No county council will face up to doing what they can do under that Act with regard to safeguarding the country unless they know fairly clearly what the ratepayers of the county will have to be charged with later on for possible claims for compensation from people who would have developed the land and made certain profits out of what is called development. In fear of these things the county councils—and I am not blaming them a bit—have not faced up to the position.

I had a case brought to me only last week of the straightening of a big stream which has a serpentine course through half a mile or a mile of fields, and the fields on either side belong to many different people. As a matter of fact, if that stream, as is wished, were straightened along the whole little valley it would take the water away much more easily, and would add to the value of the land of everybody on each side of it. But as the law stands, every one of the different owners, although you may take only a few square yards of his field in straightening out the stream, has to be consulted and dealt with. It is an impossible busi- ness at present, and it is difficult to get on. From my point of view there is no reason in equity for any of those persons in a case like that to receive any compensation at all. The improvement would benefit every one of them by reason of the fact (hat the water would be drained away from their land more efficiently than it is now being drained away, and there is no earthly reason why the community should have to pay for doing a necessary thing.

However, I will not let myself go on this very thorny and difficult subject, but I will refer to one other hope which I have. The noble Lord may find himself, if my memory and experience do not play me false, confronted with the demand that this should be inquired into, the that should be inquired into, that we must have a report on this and a report on that before the vital necessary steps can be taken. Well, I hope he will master that difficulty somehow. The vital thing, I am quite sure, is a central planning authority with powers. The noble Viscount stated it with great detail and with convincing force, but—and I hope the noble Lord will insist on this—we cannot wait for the: constitution of such an authority until every imaginable difficulty has been the subject of a separate inquiry and report. If you once commit yourself to that procedure you will never get anything done at all, and we all have, I am sure, abundant and painful experience of that sort of procedure. I do not know at all how the noble Lord is getting on, I am extremely anxious to hear; but all I can say is that so far as I and my friends arc concerned, if he wants any support in getting on with the central vital thing, without being held up by innumerable details, he will get the most hearty backing from those with whom I am associated, as I am sure he will from everyone who has a real inside knowledge of this matter.

The same applies to the necessity for the establishment under a central planning authority of adequate regional authorities. I think every one of us is acquainted with the long and futile struggles which have been going on, for instance, in the Lake District for years and years; they are not much further on now than they were when I myself was Chairman of the National Parks Committee in 1929. The real reason is that you have to set about placating everybody, and you cannot make a coherent plan of a great subject like that if you have to try and placate everybody before you start doing it. That does not mean that we should not want to be fair; of course everyone wants to be fair and to do the right thing; but there is a multiplicity of smaller and larger authorities with various powers, each of which has to be placated under various Acts before any effective plan can be made. In that particular case—and that is only one, I could give several others—it has stultified all effort for many years past. Well, as I said at the beginning of my observations, one is conscious that the noble Lord is confronted with immense and tangled difficulties, and I hope that he will be able to give us a good progress report as a start.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount opposite for bringing forward this subject, for it is, I think, significant that we are discussing planning before we are discussing housing. I think the mistake which a large number of housing reformers made in the past was to concentrate almost exclusively on the housing and neglect the wider question of planning. That, of course, was not true of all reformers, but it was true of a large number. I know that I myself was much more interested in the abolition of slums and the moving away of the people into areas which were more sanitary than in the wider question of national or regional planning. The result was that during the last years there have come into existence a number of housing estates, which are quite admirable in their way, but which were built without any kind of relationship to the industries in which the people were working. You have therefore crowds of people going backwards and forwards to and from their places of work.

But I think that even those who have realised the importance of planning on a large scale found themselves, as both noble Lords have mentioned, thwarted by the large number of authorities which have to be consulted in the matter. In Greater London alone there are seventy-seven planning authorities, and in the region covered by the London Transport Board the number is not less than 133. It is not surprising that progress has been very difficult—impossible indeed—without any large scheme of national planning. That most valuable Report of the Commission presided over by Sir Montague Barlow was unanimous as to the necessity of some central authority. Without a central authority you cannot have anything like national planning; without a central authority you are bound to have chaos and confusion between various competing authorities, each anxious to carry out its own plan for its own people. Therefore I am thankful that the Government have created this new Ministry, and I hope that from this new Ministry there will come a very powerful controlling Central Planning Board. May I add in his presence how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, is the Minister who at the moment is responsible for this, for he has shown not only that he has great administrative powers, but also that he has the vision which enabled him to transform broadcasting from a toy into one of the most powerful educational agencies in the world? The same kind of vision will be required for this great task of planning.

In this planning there are three main objects we ought to have in front of us. I shall detain the House for a moment or two only, and therefore I shall summarise these three objects. First, there must be an attempt to discourage and reduce the size of vast towns. Here again the Committee to which I have referred was unanimous that these vast towns become a difficulty and hindrance. And, in addition to the reasons which they gave in favour of smaller towns, I would add another reason: the larger the town, the more men and women in it are absorbed in the mass and lose their personality. There is a very great contrast between life in a provincial town and life in a great city like London. In a provincial town everyone counts for something. In a provincial town people know who are representing them on the local councils. In London the great mass of the people are not even known to one another in their own streets, and are generally completely ignorant as to who their representatives are on the borough council, the county council, or even in Parliament.

Secondly, I hope we shall aim at the planning of communities rather than dormitories. Most of these new estates are excellent dormitories. People sleep there at nights, but spend all their days working elsewhere. In these great new estates there is no common centre. In all the villages and cities in the past there was some central point—usually the church, the guildhall, or the market place—but in these new housing estates the houses have come long before any kind of community centre has been established. In planning these new housing estates I hope very great care will be taken to see that they are built in connection with industries so that the people who are sleeping and living there have the industry at which they are working close by, and also that various central buildings, ecclesiastical, civic, educational, and others are established so that a civic life may be built up in these communities.

The third aim which I hope we shall keep in front of us in planning is the preservation of the countryside so that the country may be used for what it is really intended, not merely as a playground for leisured people—though I should like to see great national parks—but as the place in which farming and agriculture are carried on. After the last war a very large amount of valuable agricultural land was simply flooded by housing estates. I know many areas on the slopes of the Downs and elsewhere south of London which, in 1920, were beautiful places, some of them used for agriculture, but now they are crowded with houses, trees, fields, everything having been swept away. In Essex literally thousands of acres of valuable land for market gardening have been rendered useless through the building of houses. I hope, therefore, the preservation of the countryside will be kept well in view. There must, of course, be building in the country but let that building be mainly for those who propose to live and work on the land, not for those who pay only occasional visits to it.

There is one other observation I should like to make. Though I am quite convinced, as are noble Lords who have spoken, that there must be some simple organisation—not merely one that is advisory, but one that has the power of acting—I am also sure it must act with the co-operation of the local authorities. If you leave everything to local authorities you have chaos, but, on the other hand, if you leave everything to a central authority you may have efficiency, but you will have a deadly uniformity. All initiative will be crushed in the localities. You will have the same kind of house, the same kind of school, occupied and used by the same kind of people all over the country. So, side by side with a strong central directing authority, every encouragement must be given to the local authorities. I agree with everything that has been said by noble Lords who have already spoken about the urgency of the matter. Already people are planning, already the necessity has arisen for new houses, for the dispersal of industry. This is not one of the matters that can wait until the end of the war Now is the time for action.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

My Lords, I do not intend to detain you for more than a very few minutes. I rise to support the Motion introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and to express the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, in replying on behalf of the Government, will tell your Lordships' House that not only has a policy been settled, but everything is being done to get along with the planning so that when the war does come to an end we shall have a considered scheme for town and country. We hear too often in these days that: it is no good planning for when the war is over, because nobody knows what conditions will be like when that happy time arrives. I submit that that is s great fallacy. It is just as important to plan for peace when you are at war as to plan for war when you are at peace, and it is a good deal easier. The whole essence of planning is that you can sit down and deliberate and consider a question in circumstances which are conducive to a proper investigation. Any plan that is made, whether it is a war plan or a peace plan, to be put into effect in the future, must be kept up to date. You cannot pigeon-hole a war plan and say, "There is a plan for the next war." Such a plan has got to be revised and brought up to date as conditions change. That is precisely what can be done now in this matter of a plan for peace. If the people work on it and keep it up to date, they can bring it along with them when the moment arrives; it will be ready to hand It will be very difficult, when the war ends, if policy is not settled and the plan not ready when the demand for houses will be insistent.

I do not propose to go into the larger questions that have been raised by those far more able than I am, but there is a growing movement all over the country to see that when the war is over the people are properly housed. They cannot be housed properly unless there is a plan ready to be put into instant execution. If building gets into the wrong hands it is obvious what will happen. We shall rebuild on the old sites, with the same tortuous streets and alleys that existed in bygone days, whereas what is wanted is to sweep all these things away. It is an ill wind that blows nobody good, and Hitler with his bombing has given us a wonderful chance to get rid of slums and overcrowding everywhere and to get ready to act when the moment arrives. It is much easier to plan on these lines when you know what you want, if the policy is settled, than it is when policy is in the air.

There is no question about it that right up to the beginning of the war conditions in many of our large towns and cities were almost intolerable. You had this awful squalor, poverty, ill-health, no sanitation, overcrowding, everything to make life miserable, no amenities of any sort. All that has got to be reversed, and we have got to have a properly considered scheme. Areas will have to be cleared, boundaries altered as necessary, and you have got then to build these houses which will provide decent living quarters for respectable people, with modern sanitation and modern labour-saving appliances. They must be situated not in congested areas but with broad spaces of land about them. The houses must be near parks, playgrounds, hospitals and schools; they must be sited where those amenities will be at the disposal of the people who want them so that they shall not have to make a wearisome journey to get to them. Some amenities must be provided, but I will name only one which would be easy to provide and would be tremendously appreciated. There should be running hot water in every house supplied by a municipality. That would not only make for cleanliness, personal and general, but would warm the houses of occupants who are not able to afford fuel. The broad issues and the smaller ones will require a great deal of planning by men of many professions, many trades and many interests, and I suggest that the sooner they get on with their planning, the sooner the policy is settled and they can know what to plan to, the sooner can we get off the mark when victory comes and provide for the housing of the people who so gallantly defended this country.

LORD HARMSWORTH

My Lords, it has been very pleasant to observe the consensus of opinion on the part of noble Lords who have addressed us that it is a good thing that this House and Parliament should consider in good time the situation that is to arise after the war. I think every noble Lord who has spoken has stressed that point, and notably the noble and gallant Earl opposite. It is of the first importance that when peace comes it should not find us utterly unprepared with solutions for the immense problems that confront us. I am not myself going to range over a wide area, but I think there has been a consensus of opinion that the whole of this matter should be in charge of a Minister with what I may, for purposes of brevity, call all-embracing power, and I trust that my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us either that he possesses the necessary powers for the carrying out of his herculean task or that he is about to acquire them. I am sure that this House and the country would rejoice abundantly if this immense problem were in charge of the present Minister with the all-embracing powers that he will require.

I rise for one moment only to touch upon a favourite topic of mine. I hope that my noble friend when he is considering his plans will not overlook the claims of what are called the garden cities or satellite towns. It was the garden city ideal as set forth by the late Ebenezer Howard that first attracted me to this question of town planning, and I think the same is true of other members of your Lordships' House, as I know it to be true of a very large number of other people. Latterly the name garden city has been thought to be something of a deterrent. In many well-informed minds the garden city idea is regarded as something of a fantastic or fanciful and unpractical ideal. There used to be a belief that the garden cities of Letchworth and Welwyn were inhabited almost exclusively by long-haired enthusiasts, in sandals, of extreme political views. I am very familiar with both garden cities I have just named, and I personally have never seen one of those strange aborigines in either; in point of fact I think that both Letchworth and Welwyn, and in a lesser degree Wythern-shawe, represent in this country the very acme of town planning as it ought to be carried out on a very large scale.

I have long wished that one Government or another before our present complications would have taken upon themselves to establish a garden city. Had any Government done so I think it would have redounded very greatly to their credit. It would have made it so much easier for any Government, or indeed for a large municipality, to establish a satellite town than it was for the pioneers of Letchworth and Welwyn, who had to collect all the money at the initial stages of those undertakings. But I cannot doubt that the Minister is familiar with these garden cities. If he is not and can spare the time it would give me the greatest possible pleasure to take him to them and show him what town planning means when it is carried out by men of vision and of faith, and how it has resulted in what I believe to be the two happiest little communities in this country at the present time.

I was very glad indeed to hear the right reverend Prelate speak upon this very question, although he did not definitely refer to these two most notable examples that we have in Hertfordshire which are the admiration of town-planners all over the world, and which, in times of peace, have been visited by town-planners from all parts of the world. I do not, of course, ask my noble friend to disclose any intentions he may have in respect of satellite towns or garden cities, but I would plead with him to bear that solution of a part of the problem carefully in his very busy mind. From an intimate knowledge of and acquaintanceship with most of the town-planners in this country, I may say that he will find in them very good friends. Everybody interested in this matter will seek to aid and help him in every way possible and to put at his disposal the accumulated knowledge that is possessed by such people and the societies they represent. I am sure it may be said there is no country in the world where more is known about town-planning than in this country, and there certainly is no country in the world where there are two such fine examples as those I have ventured to bring to the memory of your Lordships.

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, not having been able to come to your Lordships' House for over a year owing to illness, several months of which I spent in bed, I feel rather like a new member of your Lordships' House making his maiden speech. That is a very good reason why I will confine my remarks to one or two points. I happen, unfortunately, to be chairman of a landowners' organisation called the Land Union, which fought the land taxes brought in by Mr. Lloyd George before the last Great War, and as chairman of that organisation I would like to say how much I welcome the speeches that have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, because I feel that landowners and their organisations can contribute a good deal in a non-party spirit to the solution of the problems which lie before us. But of course that also envisages another aspect, that nothing very desperate or predatory will be brought forward by a Government after the war. It may be almost impossible for the noble Lord, Lord Reith, to express an opinion of this kind at the moment, but I sincerely hope that a form of Government like the present will continue for some years after the war is over in order to carry out the schemes to the best of the ability of all the parties concerned.

There are just one or two points which I would like to make. The first is on the question of compensation. I happen to be a member of the town planning committee of the Hertfordshire County Council and a member of the executive of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. In the past a great many good ideas have been held up for lack of a proper fund to provide compensation. Ribbon development, instead of being along the edge of a by-pass road, has been put back with a small by-road. That is not what we want in the future. We do not want planning of "so many houses to the acre." I have had a share in town planning, not only in regard to the County of Hertfordshire, but also in regard to my own property. When I succeeded to the property I found an area of about 3,000 or 4,000 acres planned for one house to the acre. That is a ridiculous form of planning. I would like to see town planning providing for either a reasonable density of housing or leaving the country completely unspoiled. When I succeeded to my property I took great pains in planning, so that around the villages there might be a reasonable density of houses and beyond that large stretches of agricultural property which shall be agricultural for ever. I am not saying this in any way to blow my own trumpet, but I may add that on this property there is the site of an old British earthworks. There I made arrangements with the National Trust and the Hertfordshire County Council that about one hundred acres should be preserved for ever against any form of development.

I do not intend to stand between your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Reith, for more than another moment or two, but I do want to express the hope that agriculture will also be the subject of what I may call permanent non-party policy. I have read some of the articles written by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in the Field and I agree with a great proportion of them, but of course I come up against him on the subject of land nationalisation. It may be, and I think it is, right that in the future there will have to be some form of corporation to buy up land in certain parts of the country, especially in and about the big towns, and I would go some way with the noble Lord on that, but I cannot say that I think wholesale land nationalisation—I speak quite sincerely—would be for the good of agriculture or of the countryside. Therefore, if I may return to my original point, I would say that I hope both town planning and agriculture will be the subject of a permanent and, as far as possible, non-partisan policy, not only during this war but for many years afterwards.

THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (LORD REITH)

My Lords, may I say at the outset how much I have appreciated, and how much encouragement I have drawn from, the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate? In the debate on November 13 I said I had been charged, as has been mentioned today, to consult with others concerned and to report to the Cabinet "the appropriate methods and machinery for dealing with the issues involved" in the reconstruction of town and country after the war. I said I would do it quickly, and in fact I did. I am now able to make the first statement, the first progress report, on duties assigned to me, on preliminary organisation and generally on the approach to this work. Within the framework of the study of post-war problems to be undertaken by the Minister without Portfolio, I have been charged with a special responsibility for seeing that all practical steps, all practicable preparations, are made now for the physical reconstruction of town and country. "Physical reconstruction" is therefore a definite and distinct section of post-war problems, and I think in that expression I answer, to some extent at any rate, a question put by the noble Viscount who spoke first in this debate.

Many of the matters to be taken into account concern Departments other than mine. My particular responsibility—and this is an important statement—is to exercise the functions of central planning and co-ordination, to initiate the work and to give general guidance and supervision to it. By arrangement with colleagues I propose to utilise the resources of other Departments and to ask for the collaboration of professional and technical associations. I am now selecting a small staff with the necessary knowledge to work with me at the centre. Further, I am inviting a dozen or twenty individuals who have special experience in this field to assist me and to be associated with this work from the beginning in a consultative capacity. To the establishment of that panel I attach great importance. I hope it will be obvious that we are set upon making a thorough examination of various points of view and of profiting from the past. In due course we shall need, and we shall have, policy decisions on such questions, which have been referred to in the debate, as the place of agriculture in the national economy, the distribution of industry and the organisation of transport. These decisions will be applied by planning.

There are other decisions which Government and Parliament may ultimately take, but in the meantime and now I am authorised in the preparatory work to proceed on certain assumptions: (1) That the principle of planning will be accepted as national policy and that some central planning authority will be required; (2) that this authority will proceed on a positive policy for such matters as agriculture, industrial development and transport; (3) that some services will require treatment on a national basis, some regionally and some locally. Here there are issues of devolution of central responsibilities and of co-ordination of local ones. The importance of maintaining the character and independence of local authorities is recognised, but it will probably be found necessary to readjust their present functions to enable certain of their powers to be exercised on a wider basis. We must consider impartially the whole administrative machinery.

Immediate work falls into three groups. First, the measures necessary to prevent action during the war which would prejudice the work of reconstruction thereafter. I announced on January 29 the establishment of an expert Committee under Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Chairmanship. Their main reference, as your Lordships will remember, was to examine the subject of compensation and betterment, which is fundamental to planning. I regard this examination as of first-rate importance, and it is proceeding apace. The Committee have also, as your Lord-ships may remember, the urgent reference about speculation in land values. Another immediate step was to start an examination of actual conditions in what might be regarded as test areas. Three heavily damaged areas were chosen in order that the difficulties, legislative and administrative, standing in the way of redevelopment might be shown. The local authorities concerned are visualising their cities as they might be, though they obviously cannot make final plans until all enemy menace has passed. Broad conceptions are being taken as the basis of this inquiry in Birmingham, Coventry and Bristol. The Minister of Health and I have sent specially qualified officers to consult with the local authorities, for whose co-operation we are very grateful. I will not, indeed I cannot, anticipate the results of these surveys, but among the problems which have already emerged from discussions I have had in London and elsewhere, there is the prevention of building which would conflict with planned, sound and comprehensive redevelopment, a point which has been mentioned in this debate by several noble Lords. Other points concern powers of land acquisition, powers which local authorities will themselves need in redevelopment—the normal procedure of separate Bills for each area being obviously inappropriate.

The second group is research and information. We need a sure foundation of knowledge for national planning: that is, for any central planning authority in discharge of its duty to secure the best use of land in the national interest. Much independent research has been done and is available; and valuable investigation is proceeding now. We shall take full advantage of it and we shall seek to collaborate in its extension. Our initial programme is now being drawn up; but I can indicate what is in mind. We need, as the basic information of a planning authority, a survey of resources extending into regions and local areas and showing particulars of industries and population. Akin to that is the examination of what are suitable regional units for planning, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, mentioned. I should have been glad had he been able to suggest the new name which he indicated as being desirable so that certain regions should not be confused with existing Civil Defence Regions and should have a particular connotation. We shall investigate particular problems such as the possibilities, including the economics, of urban redevelopment and of urban revival. As another illustration, the cost of different types of urban development, expansion and settlement—the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, referred to some of them—and the conditions in which each is suitable, will come under review.

In the second group I include technological research into building methods and building materials. There is one particular matter which falls between the two groups. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, has referred to the uneasiness that is felt about the future of areas which have not been previously industrialised but into which industries have been, and are being, injected during the war. My use of the term "injected" will, I hope, indicate to the noble Lord that I fully understood what it was to which he was referring. However decisive war considerations may be for location, the implication of such developments and their relation to regional and local schemes of reconstruction must be considered. We need to determine how industrialisation fits into the conditions of the areas, and, during the war, to exercise such foresight as is possible on housing and public services.

Finally, the third group of things to be done concerns what might be called the system of planning—the examination of defects in the existing system, of the administrative machinery, central and local, and of the legislation required for the operation of planning on a national and regional basis. There is a great deal of critical investigation to be done—taking stock of the past, framing improvements and adapting the system to any extent, so that it may deal adequately with all that will be demanded of it, and with all the opportunities, to which many noble Lords have referred, all the glorious opportunities of reconstruction. Much valuable criticism and information are set out in the Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population and in other papers. Planning has been essentially local—and deliberately so to date. The unordered growth of huge towns has produced too high a central density and traffic congestion Buildings have sprawled indiscriminately over the countryside; good agricultural land as well as much of the heritage of beauty, as several noble Lords have said, has been lost for ever. There are detailed criticisms also of the existing system on the grounds of slow and cumbrous operation and of the varying exercise of powers by local authorities. It is probable that legislation will, in fact, be required to give effect to some of the agreed conclusions which will emerge from all this work, and if so it will be promoted.

The noble Viscount spoke with great authority and experience. He put forward an earnest and cogent plea that we should look ahead and realise what might be done, and so to plan. I hope that I have shown him that an attempt is being made to that end, that there is some looking forward, some realisation of the opportunities, and that here we are setting ourselves to plan. I will try to answer his particular questions. The relationship between myself and the Minister without Portfolio I have perhaps covered in saying that, within the general range of the problems committed to him, that is, the study of post-war problems generally, physical reconstruction is a definite and distinct section. There will be, I think, none of the evils and misadventures to which the noble Lord referred—neither overlapping, nor working apart, and no pulling in different ways. On the contrary, from everything that I have seen and from the discussions that I have had with the Minister without Portfolio, I think that there will be harmonious, satisfactory and efficient collaboration between us.

The noble Viscount next asked what organisation was contemplated at the centre, and he strongly urged that there should be one Ministry, with the absorption of a good many of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health. He was good enough to say that perhaps it would be premature for me to give him an answer. In fact the Government cannot commit themselves to a particular form of central authority at this stage, pending the investigation to which I have referred and pending the formulation of Government policy on the location of industry and other matters. Moreover, the planning machinery must depend on the post-war machinery of government as a whole. Reports in the past have shown wide differences of view on the status and powers of a central authority among those who wanted more positive planning, not only in relation to other Departments—although admittedly that is not easy—but as to the nature of control and the best machinery for securing it. In a democratic country, however, such differences during the evolution of a planning system are natural. I shall study the subject afresh in the light of past experience and of the changed conditions to be met in the future.

The noble Viscount's third question concerned local authorities. Personally, I accept a great deal of what he says. I intend to investigate the machinery, and I have indicated that this investigation will be impartial. I have been so long away from the B.B.C. that I cannot remember whether it is "indisputable" or "indisputable," but it is one or the other that small local areas should not be planned in isolation from their neighbours. Co-operation in joint committees, with one of which the noble Viscount is intimately associated, and of which he is I believe in charge, has been growing, but larger proposals have been weakened in execution by fears of expense and the individual susceptibilities of authorities as to rateable values and so forth. The matter is fully appreciated and will be dealt with.

His fourth question concerned land control and finance. I mentioned the Uthwatt Committee a few moments ago, and I do not think that I can say any more on that. The appointment of that Committee is to be taken seriously; I should be sorry if there were any sort of misapprehension or dubiety about that; and it shows, I submit, that I recognise that compensation and betterment have been the main obstacle in planning which must be removed, and removed equitably. We wanted a thorough examination of all courses; but, pending the presentation of the Committee's Report, I cannot talk further about it. I certainly cannot at the moment say anything about all the policy implications and the very interesting and exciting discussions which will undoubtedly follow some announcement about them.

The noble Lord, Lord Addison, also spoke with knowledge and with sympathy. I appreciate the recognition by all speakers of the difficulties confronting us, and we of course realise the magnitude of the opportunity; let there be no doubt about that. He recommended one Ministry, and recommended it very strongly. I have already referred to his point about war factories, and to the fear of patchy rebuilding, as well as to the question of compensation and betterment. I have tried to give the sort of progress report for which he asked. He said that we should not have too many blanketing inquiries, although I do not think he used that expression. No, my Lords, I think that we will not.

With regard to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, I am sure we shall all agree with what he said about too much concentration on houses and too little on planning. He also strongly advocated one central authority. For the present I can say no more; I have said all that I am entitled to say, all that the Government have made up their mind about so far, on this particular issue. I hope that what I have said on this issue is to some extent satisfactory—that is, that the principle of planning will be accepted as a national policy, that some central authority will be required, and that this central authority will proceed on a positive policy. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his kindly commentson my previous activities. I certainly agree that in this particular task we shall not get very far without vision. There are those all round us who have the vision and, if I failed of it: before I came here to-day, I am sure that the speeches which noble Lords have made have been to me both an inspiration and an encouragement. I have noted the four points which were mentioned, and I have tried to show that they are recognised. I mentioned the question of the size of towns; the importance of the planning of communities, not dormitories, no one can minimise; then there is the preservation of the countryside and the incentive to local authorities to get on with positive planning.

The noble and gallant Earl asked for planning for peace now, just as in peace we plan, or should have planned, for war. I hope he will feel that at any rate to some extent that is being done. The remainder of his remarks—all of them pertinent and all of them interesting—were concerned with details of planning, which will be the subject of discussion later. The noble Lord, Lord Harms-worth, made an urgent plea for one Ministry, with one Minister possessing plenary and comprehensive powers. The advocacy by so many noble Lords of this one Ministry with real authority cannot fail to be noted by, and to impress the Government. As to what was said about garden cities, I have been to one, and I hope to take advantage of the noble Lord's kind offer to go with him to the other which he mentioned. I should like to say that the Garden Cities Association has been extraordinarily helpful and has given me a great deal of information. The general good will of the noble Lord who spoke last I also appreciate. He will agree, I think, that the rest of his comments referred more to detailed planning, with which we shall have to deal later.

I finish, my Lords, by taking up one of the remarks which came from the noble Viscount who spoke first. He said, "Do not let it be thought that there is here anything which will divert Government or Ministry or people from the maximum war effort." On the contrary, and in full agreement with him, I am sure that the idea of a planned and ordered reconstruction is an incentive to and encouragement of war effort, and in fact a high and worthy war purpose itself.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I feel sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for his full and considered statement, which will also be read with the greatest interest by the country at large. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make one or two brief observations with regard to that statement. I was very glad, as I am sure we all were, to hear that there is close and harmonious co-operation between the noble Lord and the Cabinet Committee which is engaged in pursuing the wider issues. With respect to the future central authority, I did not expect that he would to-day be able to make a specific satement, but I only hope that in the interval the present Departments concerned will not dig themselves in and make claims on the ground of vested interests. In his statement not least important was the declaration of principles. That was of great moment, and will be very widely welcomed. They seemed to me to be admirably comprehensive. The appointment of a consultative panel is also an excellent course, provided that it will consist, as I have no doubt it will, of just the right people. It is also a wise course to examine on the field the condition of three of the towns that have suffered most severely from bombing, and that experience will be of invaluable guidance.

I was a little bit concerned to hear the emphasis laid upon further research, although research no doubt is desirable. I hope that the Minister will be on his guard—I am sure he will—against the danger of delay, because these demographic surveys, and so forth, necessary as they may be, may take a very great deal of time, and if at one point after another the Minister finds that he is advised that he cannot proceed with this or that because the surveys have not yet been completed, I hope that he will dispense with further investigation and be content with the many surveys that have been made in recent years—I believe on Merseyside, to some extent in the Tyne area, and in Oxford and the surrounding region—which already give very valuable and typical information. Let me add that the noble Lord was good enough to refer to inquiries in which I am now engaged. They do not involve any executive authority. I am not in any way in charge of the planning work in the Oxford district, it is merely a committee that has been appointed by a representative body there; it is only to consider certain recommendations and to make specific suggestions.

The noble Lord noted that I do not at present suggest an alternative name for the larger areas. Some may have thought that they could be called provinces, and, if that were thought too august a title, perhaps divisions would be a good name. I do not think it would lead to confusion with the Parliamentary constituencies, as of course the areas are so very different. The country having to be divided into twelve large areas, the Southern Division or Western Division—whatever it may be—would seem to be a not unsuitable term. The word "region" could then be used, as it has been used for many years past, to indicate a kind of joint authority made up by one or two boroughs with surrounding county or other areas.

The noble Lord said towards the conclusion of his statement that he thought that legislation would be probable. But is it not certain that much legislation will be needed, if only to constitute the central authority, apart from the fresh powers that have to be conferred upon the already constituted local authorities? The question will arise, When is this legislation likely to be ready? On that point there will be much anxiety, and I trust that after another interval the noble Lord will be able to indicate some possible date for the presentation of this comprehensive legislation to Parliament. Meanwhile I feel sure that we shall all be most grateful for the noble Lord's statement which shows that he has made good use of the three or four months in which he has been in his present office. It is necessarily only an interim statement, but I feel sure that it will be regarded by the House and by the country as satisfactory, as showing that the Minister has a real grip of the vitally important problems with which he is charged to deal. I ask leave to withdraw the. Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.