Lords Sitting of 11 June 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD LEATHERS.
Frederick James Leathers, Esquire, having been created Baron Leathers of Purfleet in the County of Essex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE.
Petition for a Bill, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto, read, and referred to two Judges of the High Court of Justice in England.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

TRUSTEE (WAR DAMAGE INSURANCE) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to remove doubts as to, and to supplement, the powers of trustees in relation to insurance against war damage. As it is desirable to make it publicly known at once that the Government are introducing this Bill, I would ask leave of the House to depart from the usual procedure on a First Reading and say a few words. It has been brought to my attention that in certain quarters doubts have been felt as to whether trustees have power to insure against war damage chattels included in the trust. Your Lordships will agree that trustees ought to have the same power thus to protect chattels under their trust as has everybody else. Accordingly, the Government are at once introducing this Bill to establish that trustees do have this power. The provision will be retrospective, so as to cover the action which some trustees have already taken. I move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, I suppose that there is no compulsion in this Bill to force trustees to insure chattels?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, the noble Earl is quite right. The scheme of insurance for chattels, as the noble Earl is aware, is one which permits owners of chattels to insure them against war risks. This Bill will make it clear that trustees holding chattels in trust have the same powers as the rest of us, but there will be no element of compulsion.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I should like to put a question to the noble and learned Viscount. If trustees were to insure heirlooms out of the trust funds, would the money so expended be counted as part of the beneficiary's income for Income Tax purposes, or would it be deducted before the income was arrived at, since it would not be paid to the beneficiary?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord will perhaps remember that a section of the War Damage Act—I think that it is Section 82—provides that the premiums which are paid to insure chattels against war damage are to be regarded as an expenditure of capital. I presume that one reason at least is that we hope that this will not be something which will go on for very long. There will be no question, therefore, of any deduction for purposes of Income Tax, because, as the noble Lord is aware, deduction of payments of premiums for Income Tax purposes is possible only if the expenditure is in the nature of income expenditure.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like to ask a further question. I assume that a man who is a trustee for property must insure against fire; if he does not, and the property is destroyed by fire, those who are to benefit would have a grievance against the trustee for not so insuring it. In the case of war damage, would there be the slightest excuse for a beneficiary to bring a complaint against the trustee who did not insure chattels under this Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may make the suggestion not only to the noble Lord but to the House as a whole, that it would be as well to discuss these matters on the Second
380
Reading of the Bill, which will take place at the earliest possible moment. I should be unwilling to turn my rather unusual practice into the initiation of a discussion at this stage, although I quite appreciate the point which the noble Lord makes.
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

SECRET SESSION.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, there is a matter which I should state to the House in Secret Session. It will not take more than a few minutes, but it should be dealt with before we come to the question standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. We shall proceed in public Session to debate that matter; but I now move that the House do sit in Secret Session.
Moved, That the House do now sit in secret.—(Lord Moyne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House resumed in Open Session.

CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they have considered the need for a reorganisation of the system of departmental control of the various Civil Defence Services, so as to secure a more unified direction and more effective action. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I first of all say that this Notice, put down with the concurrence of Lord Addison, will have to be debated in his absence because I regret to inform your Lordships, as indeed you have already heard, that my noble friend is laid up with influenza. Otherwise he would have been here to support me, and he has asked me to apologise for his absence.
In raising this matter, I do not wish your Lordships for one moment to suppose that I am not fully conscious of the tremendously fine work done by Civil Defence workers both before the war broke out and during the war. No tribute can be too high to the self-sacrifice and courage of the Civil Defence personnel of

381
the various. Services, and I particularly include the police, undoubtedly it needs courage of a peculiarly high order to withstand the attack of the enemy without any possibility of hitting back oneself. The soldier with a rifle or machine gun with which he can reply has not such calls on his physical courage as the man who has to go about his work as warden or firefighter under heavy air bombardment and is in no position to make an active reply. This great test has been met in a miraculous manner by our people. Nor do I wish the impression to be created in your Lordships' minds that I am attacking the local authorities. Many local authorities have done well in their organisations and all have done their best. I must say at once that many of my friends have grave doubts as to the wisdom of superseding local authorities unless that is proved absolutely necessary in special cases. At the same time where there is obvious inefficiency in local government that must be rooted out.
After nearly nine months' experience of air raiding it will be agreed that the organisation of Civil Defence is capable of still further improvement. One obvious defect has exposed itself. Local government boundaries in many cases, while suitable to peace-time conditions, are unsuitable to war conditions. They are too artificially circumscribed and that has led to a great deal of inconvenience. In one area of London, after a heavy attack recently, people on one side of a badly damaged street were evacuated, but because the people on the other side of the street were under another authority they were left where they were. In another district some people were fed and succoured by the mobile canteens, but people on the other side of the street were left hungry. This sort of inconvenience has been exposed and should be done away with, if possible. Therefore it appears quite obvious that in a good many case? the authorities in the large cities, in what I may call "target areas," need far wider control and powers to decide their normal boundaries for such purposes as billeting, evacuation, transport, and the like.
With regard to greater unification, there has been a general welcome for the unified control of the fire brigades. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that if that principle is right with regard to fire brigades, it should apply to other
382
Services as well. From all the information I have obtained, and from my own observation, there is still a good deal of overlapping and delay between the different Departments and authorities and the departments within the Departments—this despite the liaison duties of the Regional Commissioners. At present, many Government Departments are concerned with one or other aspect of Civil Defence. For example, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Health (dealing with the whole problem of billeting), the Board of Education, the Ministry of Food, and the Ministry of Agriculture are concerned, and the various duties include fire-fighting, first aid, etc. A these duties are divided amongst different authorities or different departments within Departments, and there has been delay and inefficiency as a result. There certainly seems to be a case for pooling immediately three more Civil Defence Services—for their complete amalgamation—namely, rescue, decontamination, and first aid. I read, as all your Lordships have read, the recent Report issued by the Committee of another place on expenditure, the fourteenth Report, and certain very important suggestions which are made in it. One of these I respectfully desire to support—namely, the need for one supreme authority for the whole of Civil Defence.
I understood from the Leader of the House that my noble friend Lord Beaverbrook is going to reply to the remarks that any noble Lord may offer. I have been very anxious to hear what are the very important duties which the noble Lord has, as Minister of State. Shall I hear them? When I heard the noble Lord who leads your Lordships' House say he was replying I was wondering if he was going to be a sort of Minister of Defence on the home front. I would welcome such an appointment on personal and political grounds, and on questions of policy as well as personality. We do need a supreme organising authority on the home front, and if the Minister of State is to undertake this duty I believe he will do very wonderful and useful and badly needed work there. In the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure the suggestion is definitely made that the functions of Civil Defence as a whole should be amalgamated under one Minister.
On the other hand, other proposals are made from which I should respectfully dissent. One is that the number of whole time personnel in the A.R.P. and other services should be reduced and their numbers made up by part-time volunteers. I think that would be a retrograde step and imprudent. In Glasgow, after there was a long period of lull from air attack on this country, the Home Office in London forced the Corporation of Glasgow to get rid of a very large number of men from the building trades in that part of Scotland. These men had been specially trained in rescue and demolition work. They were a very fine body of men indeed, and they numbered 900. Some months ago the Home Office insisted on their being dismissed, and then they could not get any volunteers because the building trade had come to an end. These men were dismissed, and became unemployed, and the men who were asked to volunteer as part-time employees in this demolition work said: "Nothing of the sort, you got rid of the men who were trained for the job, and were being paid at full-time rates, and we are not going to take their place." Those who know the West of Scotland will recognise that as a very typical attitude. Then Glasgow was heavily attacked, and I dare say these men would have been very useful, but they had probably gone into other employment or into the Army or elsewhere.
I am going to suggest that, quite Con-try to this proposal, we should budget in the future for more frequent heavy and widespread air raids. I hope—I am sure—the Government are not, and the public will not be deceived by the recent lull in the very heavy concentrated attacks. In view of the possibility of even heavier attacks, I suggest that there is at any rate a case for concentrating the administration of Civil Defence functions in a single Ministry. We have a good precedent for that in the Ministry presided over by the noble Lord who has just taken his seat in your Lordships' House, Lord Leathers, in the amalgamation of shipping and transport into one Department. If that is a sound principle—and I have not heard any criticisms of it once a decision was taken—surely the same principle applies to other Departments in a similar position.
With regard to Regional Commissioners, may I ask my noble friend Lord
384
Beaverbrook if he will find it convenient to reply to this? He will not reply in so many words, but may I put it this way? If the Government are not satisfied that all the Regional Commissioners are suitable and competent for their jobs, will they replace them? Public-spirited men of great eminence and past services have undertaken in a fine spirit the work of Regional Commissioners. If, for one reason or another, they have proved unsuitable, they should quite ruthlessly be changed. Their work can be of the most vital importance in certain circumstances, and it is indeed vitally important now. The position at present is this. When the Regional Commissioner is a man of strong character and a good leader he can pretty well get done what he has asked for, but theoretically his powers do not begin in full until there is an invasion. You have this curious situation. If, for example, five aeroplanes fly to the County of Lanark and drop one hundred parachute soldiers, the Regional Commissioner in that part of Scotland has complete power over persons and property in his area. But if five hundred aeroplanes dropped thousands of bombs in that same area, that is not invasion. In such a case the Commissioners remain, as they are now, very largely dependent on their own personality. I suggest that that matter should be looked into.
With regard to the future I have been very much impressed by some figures published recently in America of the latest American expert estimate of the production of aeroplanes in the enemy countries. It is a very high figure. I do not know how accurate it is, but if it is true that this very great production is going on, then, while not overlooking the geographical and technical elements in the employment of more than a certain number of aeroplanes in a major attack—and I do not overlook those limits, nor do I overlook possible Nazi difficulties with pilots nor our own counter-measures—I suggest that it would be prudent to allow for an increased weight of attack. That is the reason why I suggest that the Government should be considering, as I am sure they are, a better organisation of the whole system of Civil Defence.
The last reason I will give for this is that, if there is an attempted invasion of this country, I presume it would be accompanied or preceded by a very severe air attack. That is the modern technique

385
of invasion. In that case smooth working between the Civil Defence authorities and the Military Command will be necessary, and the fewer independent Departments concerned with Civil Defence the better; the best obviously will be one. By the late autumn of this year, if the war lasts as long—if there is no collapse of the enemy, which I hope for—then the island of Great Britain will become a vast aerodrome for British, Canadian and American war planes to carry out a greater and greater offensive against Germany. That is the strategy of the air war. In this vast aerodrome there are also 40,000,000 inhabitants. We must do all we can to protect those inhabitants and allow them to go about their necessary work of importance to the nation.
I presume that His Majesty's Government have taken all these facts and probabilities into account, and taken the necessary measures and precautions where they find reorganisation to be necessary. I hope they are not hesitating to put into effect the object my noble friend Lord Addison and I had in view in bringing this matter forward so that the more the public know in advance of what the Government have in mind the better. Legislation has to be introduced and must be subject to public debate and examination by the thinking part of the population. With that object therefore I put down this Notice and I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced a subject which I think is both opportune and important. In the question which he puts to His Majesty's Government he indicates the desirability in his opinion of having more unified control of various services in order to have more effective action. I think anybody who has had anything to do with recent heavy raids will realise that there has been up to date a certain failure in quick decision and in effective and immediate action after a. decision has been taken. Anybody, too, who has had the opportunity of watching our civilian population must have been impressed by the wonderful spirit, fortitude and morale of men, women and children, but the fact that we have that indicates the need of not imposing too much upon their fortitude. Anything which we can do to improve their welfare after a raid, to reduce the suffering to which they are
386
subjected, ought to be done by the Government, because on the efficiency and adequacy of the Civil Defence organisation undoubtedly depends, to a great extent, industrial efficiency and productivity. The happier people feel, the more they are looked after, the more they are protected, the better will you maintain industrial efficiency.
This is what might be called a "Mesopotamia" debate, in the sense that we talk of co-ordination and correlation and that sort of thing, but I think what the noble Lord has in mind is simplification. In order to understand the nature of the problem at the centre one has to see, as the noble Lord very rightly pointed out, the nature of the services and the nature of the bodies which are trying to perform those services. I have been associated with a large county borough which has been subjected to a considerable number of small air attacks and more recently has had more serious air attacks. One experience which has been borne in upon me is the fact that there has been inadequate contact, inadequate co-operation between large centres of population and the adjacent reception areas which immediately become one unit when an attack occurs. The noble Lord has indicated very rightly that he is not making any attack upon local authorities, but anybody who has had any experience of public work—and most of your Lordships have that experience—must realise that our system of local government has gradually grown up and that a system which might be perfectly suitable for peace-time—a system of committee control by small authorities—may prove quite inadequate for dealing with sufficient rapidity with the situation when it is confronted by the great human social problems of housing, of feeding, of transport, of health, which inevitably follow a serious air attack.
Let me remind your Lordships of the present organisation that is trying to tackle this problem. Take first the question of evacuated children. The local education authority deals with their education, but a different authority, the billeting authority, is responsible for their welfare out of school. The local education authority feeds evacuated children as well as local children, but it is the smaller local authorities, the urban and rural district councils, which provide communal feeding when that is necessary. I

387
think communal feeding is a development which is going to be inevitable in the countryside as well as in the cities. One of our great difficulties now in billeting people—permanently or temporarily homeless city people—is the difficulty of persuading the owner, not of a large empty country mansion but of a relatively small villa who has one or two spare beds, to accept a billetee, because of the difficulties that arise in the kitchen when two households are trying to cook. It is because of that that we have to visualise the development of some sort of communal feeding in the urban and rural districts. So again you have one body responsible for the children and a different authority in the same parish responsible for the provision of British restaurants, or whatever may be the rural adaptation of those places.
Then, in the matter of health, the county councils are responsible for hospitals and for clinics for minor ailments, while the smaller authorities, the urban and rural district councils, are responsible for sick bays associated with hostels. Again, in the matter of housing, the Public Assistance Committee, which is a county organisation, is responsible for housing the homeless, whereas the police are responsible for billeting the military, and the smaller local authorities are responsible for finding billets for the homeless. There also you have an overlapping of local authorities in the same area which are terribly apt never to meet. I had the opportunity recently of talking to a lady who is concerned with establishing residential hostels for children under the age of five. Her description of having to meander round a county, talking to one parish authority after another, talking to the clerk of one rural district council after another and persuading them that hostels ought to be established and getting them so to persuade their governing bodies, was simply heartbreaking. One realised that it was sheer waste of time.
Therefore what I would like to suggest is that for the duration of the war the Government should, quite definitely, utilise the county council as the responsible authority and empower the county council, if they think it desirable, to use the minor authorities in the county area. The county councils, taking them as a whole, because they are in a position to pay higher salaries, have a better average
388
of efficiency in their officers than some of the smaller local authorities. On this question of officers, I hope that the Government will realise the strain that has been imposed upon the officers of these elected authorities. They have still their normal duties to perform and on top of that there has been imposed on them all the responsibility of working Civil Defence, both in the sense of defence and in the equally important sense of welfare. It is only recently, I think, that one has realised the enormous importance of welfare quite apart from the question of defence. Hitherto, people had thought of this matter too much in terms of defence. The clerks of the smaller district councils—I am not referring to the West Country, naturally, where they are all perfect, but to other parts of the country—are very often hampered and limited by the fact that they must bear in mind local politics and local vested interests. That prevents them dealing with billeting and other problems with the efficiency and courage which the situation requires. I hope the noble Lord who will reply to this debate will be able to indicate that the Government do not intend to call up any more of the important officers of the local authorities. If they do, the efficiency of the machine at the periphery will not only get clogged but may break down. It is frequently on the younger men that the chief officer depends in order to deal with the problems imposed upon him.
I know that when one suggests that the Government should use the organisation of the county councils and their officers, there may be an outcry, a protest, made on behalf of the smaller authorities within the country area. But I think that if one explains to them the necessity for speed in action and the practical difficulty of operating swiftly enough when each has to be persuaded, they will recognise that an organisation which is perfectly suitable "for peace time, when time is not so important, is absolutely un-suited for the problems which we have to face now. I am perfectly certain that public opinion will support the Government if they decide to use as their instruments the officers and the machinery of the county councils. I am equally convinced that they will get the wholehearted support of those numerous voluntary workers who now find their

389
efforts very much hampered by the multiplicity of authorities which I have indicated. If the Government were to do what I have suggested they would find that they were dealing with something like 130 authorities instead of something like a thousand. One has merely to state that to see that one would get a much more efficient machine. I do not suggest that the smaller authorities should be scrapped; they should be used, but it should be possible for the Government to deal with a small number of elected authorities without having to deal with ten times as many, as they have to do now.
The noble Lord has spoken of the Regional Commissioners. I have been fortunate so far as my own experience has been concerned, but I recognise the difficulty which the noble Lord who introduced the question pointed out. I was not, however, quite certain what he had in mind. He began by saying that he wanted to preserve the independence of local authorities, and, at the same time, as I understood him, he wanted to increase the power of the Regional Commissioners. I agree with him that the effectiveness of a Regional Commissioner depends very largely upon his personality and upon his tact. Given the right Commissioner, I believe that it is possible to get adequate co-operation from the local authorities provided that there are not too many of them. If there are too many, he has not the time to establish that personal contact which is necessary in order to get a quick response.
I do not know if the noble Lord who is going to respond can tell us if the Government, since the inception of the war, have had regular meetings of Regional Commissioners. I have an uncomfortable suspicion that there have not been these regular conferences in London between Ministers and Regional Commissioners, and I have a further uncomfortable suspicion that there has been due to the fact that the Regional Commissioners asked uncornfortable questions which the Government were not in a position to answer, and an easy way out was not to summon these conferences. When dealing with a new organisation and a new problem it seems to me that the first step which ought to have been taken, especially after the heavy raids, was to bring the Commissioners together so that they
390
could pool experiences. If, after one of the early raids, there had been, in London, or elsewhere, any breakdown, any proof of inefficiency and the Government had held a post-mortem and had afterwards published the report of that post-mortem or circulated it among the other areas, this would have had a far more stimulating effect upon the areas which had not been "blitzed" than merely sending an officer to visit them or sending a circular.
The noble Lord, as I understand him, supports the recommendation made by a Committee that there should be a single Minister to deal with a matter such as this, where the welfare and the. happiness and the industrial efficiency of so many people are involved. If there could be one Minister who would devote the whole of his time and thought to these problems, it seems to me that we should get quicker decisions, more foresight and more effective action. I have a great respect for the Home Secretary, or the Minister of Home Security as I believe he is now called. The war has created many new problems for him connected with aliens and other matters, but it seems quite obvious—and I am sure the noble Lord would not have suggested it—that a single Minister, if the Government decided to appoint one, should not have to deal with the duties o' the six or seven Departments that come into the picture. I imagine that the noble Lord has in mind that this Minister should deal with the duties of two or three of the main Departments. I do not know whether that is the solution because, as I have indicated—and I have seen it at the periphery as well as in Whitehall—you have got such masses of vested interest, such an enormous quantity of inertia to overcome, that I am not sure that even a single Minister with full authority could deal with the problems with sufficient rapidity.
I cannot help thinking that some organisation more on the lines of the one which existed in the last war—and with which Lord Beaverbrook was familiar, for he had even closer contact with this organisation than I had—is wanted. In that way one would get quicker decision and a readier response. I remember that one of the great difficulties in the past—and the noble Lord when he was head of a Department would, I feel certain, have encountered it—was the difficulty which

391
occurred when the head of one Department had a controversy with the head of another Department. I have no doubt that, even though the noble Lord is a man of peace, that occurred during his tenure of office. The great difficulty is to get a decision when each Department is quite honestly convinced that it is in the right. I remember on one occasion in the last war when there was a difference of opinion between two Departments—the Ministry of Shipping and the Admiralty. Now the Admiralty is a very formidable Department when any other Department wishes to reduce its power. My recollection is that not only was the decision, which, as I remember, went in favour of the Ministry of Shipping, facilitated, but the execution of the decision was facilitated by the fact that the contending parties had appeared before a tribunal presided over by the Prime Minister, and when the decision was given it had the prestige and the authority of the Prime Minister behind it. In that way one got very much quicker execution.
We know that there is a Committee of Imperial Defence presided over by the Prime Minister. It seems to me that what we need in addition is a Committee of Civil Defence, also presided over by the Prime Minister. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, has some of these questions referred to him, and I have no doubt that he is quick in his decision and that his decision is effective; but do not let him underestimate the amount of inert opposition which has to be overcome in order to give effect to that decision. It is on that account that I think that even more important than having one Minister to deal with this problem, is to have something like a Committee of Civil Defence, or a small War Cabinet on the lines which proved so successful in the last war. I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for bringing forward this matter, because undoubtedly we are going to have more raids and more "blitzes" to endure, and anything which we can do to make the lot of the men, women and children who have to suffer them easier, and to promote their welfare and maintain their wonderful morale, must be a desirable step to take in the successful prosecution of the war.
THE MINISTER OF STATE (LORD BEAVERBROOK): My Lords, I must thank my noble friend Lord Strabolgi for the tribute which he paid to the Services concerned in Civil Defence, a tribute which I think is very well deserved. My noble friend said that improvement was needed, and of that there can be no doubt; there is much room for improvement, but I am glad to say that I find myself here to-day explaining a Service which I think gives the country a considerable amount of satisfaction—the Civil Defence Service, under the direction of the Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security. I think that the Minister of Home Security is greatly to be praised for the Service which he has built up, for the effective way in which he had administered it, and generally for the satisfaction which he has given to the people of this country. When he took over his office there was a considerable agitation going on with regard to shelters, but now we hear no criticisms on that subject at all; the public seem to be well pleased and well satisfied with the way in which the shelters are being administered. There was also at that time a good deal of agitation about aliens, but when my right honourable friend came into office that matter was also disposed of to the satisfaction of the country, and we no longer hear complaints that the treatment of aliens is either too favourable or otherwise.
The task which Mr. Morrison has had to discharge has been a very heavy one indeed. In a sense it has been a battle, a civil battle, which he has fought. He is like a general in command of an army; he commands a civil army of firemen and fire fighters, and I think he is a general who can be regarded as having successfully carried out a campaign for which he deserves a considerable amount of credit. I do not fail to take note of the criticisms which have been made to-day, and I see perfectly well that some of them, when conveyed to my right honourable friend, will perhaps result in further improvements.
The first proposition of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi related to consolidating the various Defence Services under a single Minister. That is the proposal put forward by the Committee. I do not think that that plan would work; there are altogether too many functions discharged by the various Ministries to permit of any

393
amalgamation at all with advantage to the country. There is the service of education, for which the need arises at times, because of the necessity for evacuating a population or on account of the destruction of school buildings. It would be quite inconceivable that a portion of the educational service should be transferred to the Minister of Home Security and a portion of it remain with the Board of Education. The same principle applies in the case of electricity, gas and innumerable other services; if an attempt is made to divide up these services and to say that at one moment the Minister of Home Security should step in and that at another moment the Minister at present in charge should continue to carry out his functions, you will get into a state of confusion which it seems to me will make the situation utterly impossible. All the same, I can see advantages in co-ordinating more closely good relations between the various Departments and building up something in the nature of a stronger central authority. That is the responsibility of the Minister of Home Security, and, if I may say so, I think that he is discharging it with increasing capacity.
My noble friend Lord Astor has discussed the difficulties and trials of the civil population when an enemy attack takes place, but the problem is not confined to the civil population; there are vast questions of production which have also to be considered, and it would be quite impossible to ignore these Questions of production and to ignore the effect of a "blitz" upon production, which is sometimes more important than the issues which concern the civil population. The first care of the Ministry must be to continue production as far as possible under all conditions and in all circumstances, but it is inconceivable that the Minister of Home Security should take over all questions which concern production; they must be left in the hands of the Ministers responsible for production, with such co-ordination as may be necessary to get the greatest possible advantage out of the distressing situation which confronts the country from time to time.
My noble friend Lord Astor also raised the question of communal feeding. I quite see that these are questions which must be discussed by the Minister as a result of this debate, and that is probably one of the advantages which flow from it.
394
The Minister has certainly given attention to the system of communal food supply; I have heard him discussing it in the past. My noble friend also spoke of military billeting and civil billeting being sometimes in conflict. I think that that is something to which we must submit in the unfortunate circumstances in which we live. The military would not be willing, and should not be asked, to co-operate with civilians in carrying our billeting systems. The billeting of the military must be given first consideration, and I fear that the billeting of civilians must to some extent depend upon military convenience. I cannot see how it can be otherwise in the circumstances which now confront us. The billeting of the military must naturally have relation to the defence of the country against invasion, which might come upon as at any time. Such exigencies necessitate making the path easy for the military in every circumstance and under all conditions; it can not possibly be otherwise.
My noble friend suggests that the county should be the area in which these questions are disposed of, but I fear that if the county council were given the authority to deal with them there would be the same amount of complaint which now exists, or perhaps even more. I have had an opportunity of seeing something of the distress that attends enemy attacks on industry, and I can assure my noble friend that the people of Coventry, for instance, would not be content to hand over their responsibilities to the county authorities, nor would their functions be as well discharged by the county authorities as they were by Coventry itself, where there is a local feeling of confidence and resolution and an intention to rebuild and to bring industries into production again as quickly as possible. Such responsibilities are best left with the Mayor of the town, the town clerk and others.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I was referring to the small rural districts around.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: I am much obliged for the interruption. I can see the point, but my argument will suffice to show the advantages of the present system where the control of the organisation is in the hands of the Minister, where the Minister makes use of the local

395
authority, irrespective of whether it happens to be a county authority or otherwise, and gets the best possible advantage from it. In the case of Coventry I saw the Home Secretary at work. He had the advantage of a most excellent Mayor and a splendid town clerk, but, just the same, the spirit that animated the whole reconstruction system of Coventry was the spirit of the Home Secretary. He afforded the leadership; it was his example that carried the people forward to a plan of reconstruction that was as efficiently discharged as anything I have seen in my experience.
Some other points were raised upon which I should like briefly to touch. The question of the Regional Commissioners was mentioned by both speakers. It does require, of course, very careful attention, and there must be a system of evolution in such a situation. The system is quite new, it is just growing up now. There must be changes, there must be developments, there must be mistakes to overcome, there must be advantages to emphasize. The Home Secretary gives a great deal of attention to the Regional Commissioners. He sees them quite often. I myself came into contact with them in the past, and I must say they are very satisfied with their responsibilities, with the authority that devolves upon them—at any rate, those with whom I have come into contact. They get into touch with the Home Secretary quite often, and invariably I hear them speaking of him with confidence and also with the assurance that he will support them in the task that devolves upon them.
It has been pointed out that it is difficult to say where the authority of the Regional Commissioners begins and where it ends. That must necessarily be so. There can be no definition of the authority of Regional Commissioners until we have gone through a longer experience of events and circumstances than we have yet faced; but this can be said in relation to the Regional Commissioners, that it would be a mistake to try and define their duties too closely or to lay down their responsibilities too definitely. It is better to leave them under present conditions, where their authority depends to some extent and in some circumstances on the nature, capacity, and character of the Regional Commissioners themselves. Many of these Regional Commissioners are well known; some of them are members
396
of this House. Rest assured that the Home Secretary can be relied upon to bring to the notice of the Government any weakness on the part of any Regional Commissioner. Some changes, I think, have taken place for one reason or another already. I can assure the House that the Regional Commissioners are doing excellent work in collaboration with the Home Secretary, and the system is going through changes which will result in something better, something more substantial, than we have got at present.
My noble friend spoke of the disputes that arise. There is in this Government, as in the last, a system for resolving disputes. I need not deny that disputes frequently take place. I have been a victim of them myself. Of course I have always given way, but I have known the pain and sorrow of a decision that has gone against me on occasion. But there is the machinery, and it does make a perfectly satisfactory tribunal which frequently disposes of disputes of an acrimonious character to the satisfaction and advantage of one side, at any rate. I have covered many of the points raised, but if I have ignored any of the issues that have been mentioned, perhaps I shall attend to them when I come to deal with the conclusions I want to present to your Lordships.
My noble friend Lord Strabolgi spoke of increased bombing attack. We have every right to expect increased bombing attack, and I hope we shall prepare for it, but it is only right to say that there is also improved defence. While that improved defence must not be emphasized too much, nevertheless it would be a mistake to decry it. There is also a very much strengthened Air Force in Britain, and here let me say I congratulate my successor on a magnificent production in the month of May which I am sure your Lordships will be glad to hear—a record production of engines, which naturally form a very important part of aircraft production. Of course we must prepare for more bombing attacks. We must prepare for wider and more generous arrangements in relation to this problem of Civil Defence. We must be prepared to give wider powers, perhaps, to the local authorities, particularly in relation to the question raised by Lord Astor—the power of local authorities over the surrounding countryside. The Ministry of Home Security can, if it likes, extend the area

397
over which a local authority operates, and no doubt if the necessity arises, as it has arisen in the past, that power will be exercised and made use of. The Minister of Home Security invariably tries to exercise persuasion rather than coercion. That is one of the principle; on which he has built up his excellent organisation, and of course it is a principle that is most valuable and most useful in the conduct of public business, as I found from experience.
I am glad there was no criticism today of the fire-fighting arrangements of the Minister. Our fire-fighting arrangements, it seems to me, are very fine. The Minister deserves a great deal of credit for the manner in which he has built up the fire-fighting services. It is quite true that he has on y recently brought about coordination of the various fire services in the country, but it will be within the recollection of the House that as recently as 1938 a Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament providing for separate fire services under which all the brigades retained their separate existence. Now that they have been grouped into one unit under the Minister of Home Security, there will no doubt be benefit on that account. There is an immense voluntary effort in fire fighting, as your Lordships all know, and that voluntary effort on the part of the auxiliary services deserves very high praise. Many of the workers give their services without remuneration at all, many of them en a part-time basis—and here let me say that where the destruction of property occurs, it is as the result, very often, of failure to prevent a fire in the first instance, and not on account of any failure in fighting the fire.
The Minister of Home Security has built up an immense organisation for preventing fire. He has a civil army 2,500,000 strong made up of men and women, all enrolled. They have had remarkable achievements, for this voluntary system has been most successfully operated, and probably it could not have been conducted on any other basis than that of a voluntary system. If it had been put upon any other foundation in all probability it would have made demands upon industry which industry would not be prepared to recognise. It is imperative that there should not now be any competition with industry anywhere. To the furthest extent industry must be given the advantage of all the man-power the
398
country can provide. It would be most undesirable that any of the Civil Defence Services should compete with that necessity unless, of course, there was something of a very compelling nature in the situation that required some draft to be made upon the labour resources of the industry of the country.
Evacuation has been dealt with, and that, of course, is a Ministry of Health task, but I must say that I think evacuation seems to have been carried out under difficult circumstances with considerable success. I cannot see that there is a great deal to complain about in the existing system of evacuation. It is true that sometimes we are disappointed because, perhaps, we have evacuated into the wrong districts, or have not evacuated quite as fully as one would have liked to see from areas that have been attacked. But the problem of evacuation has been faced and dealt with. The problems of clothing and food and rest have been faced too. The replacement of furniture has also been dealt with. All these issues have been disposed of with more or less satisfaction, and more or less success. I admit many shortcomings and much disappointment, but, none the less, this administration under Mr. Morrison's direction has been remarkably satisfactory, having brought about a rough-and-ready solution, yet, none the less, a solution, of the difficulties that confronted us. He has this great army of workers to help him in his tasks, and of his personnel too much praise cannot be spoken. They go out into the storm, many of them middle-aged, or even more than middle-aged, men and women who might expect to find repose in the hour of danger. They go out into the streets and fulfil their duties and carry out their tasks faithful to their conception of patriotic duty. It is a splendid army that Mr. Morrison commands, an army for which he must have immense credit and much praise, an army that, from its conduct and its courage and sacrifice in the face of danger, must inspire him with courage and determination.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say one word, and in the first place to express our thanks to the noble Lord who has just sat down for his very interesting speech. We are very glad to find that in many directions we have

399
every reason to be satisfied, after hearing the noble Lord, with the great improvements that are taking place. I thought that perhaps he a little overstressed the satisfaction and the success of the various Departments. It is quite true that the Ministry of Home Security has done very well, and we are very grateful to Mr. Morrison, but although, under the administration of my right honourable friend Mr. Brown, I believe considerable improvements are taking place in the Ministry of Health, I yet cannot say that that Ministry has in recent months given universal satisfaction. As the noble Lord himself said, mistakes have been made and they have to be avoided and improvements brought about.
He spoke of the evolution of Civil De-fence. There is no doubt that there ought to be evolution and that things ought to get better. Still, we have been at war for twenty-one months and most of us think that by this time the evolution ought to have been greater than it is, and there ought to have been a higher measure of success. I was glad to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook. I have acquired, I am sure quite justly, a great opinion of his power of drive and strength of character, and I think that your Lordships will hope that under his influence the evolution will take place even more rapidly than it has done hitherto. I think we have every reason to hope that the strength of the noble Lord's character will assert itself.
I rose to speak principally because of certain observations which fell from my noble friend opposite, Lord Astor, with which I most heartily agree, and which I do not think were taken up by Lord Beaverbrook with the fulness which they deserved. My noble friend Lord Astor dwelt upon the great importance of the position of the Regional Commissioners. I believe that the whole success of Civil Defence turns upon the Regional Commissioners, and I think the noble Lord on the Front Bench is justified in saying that on the whole we ought not to criticise the personnel of the Regional Commissioners. Some of them are very good, some of them are not quite so good. I dare say one or two of them are not good at all; but however that may be, I think there is an absolute obligation on the Government to see that there are only
400
first-rate Regional Commissioners. Everything turns upon the Regional Commissioners. The noble Lord said that we did not want to give the Regional Commissioners coercive authority, but a Regional Commissioner has enormous influence, and I think myself he might even be given definite authority.
Just think for a moment, if your Lordships will, what happens where a Regional Commissioner is thoroughly efficient and does his work. He has under his jurisdiction in the area where he exerts authority a number of what I think the noble Lord opposite (Lord Astor) called "targets." There are large urban areas exposed to the attacks of German raiders. If the Regional Commissioner does his work thoroughly he is acquainted with all the personnel of all these targets; he knows the efficiency of the Chairman of the Emergency Committee, of the chief constable, of the head of the fire brigade, of the city surveyor and so forth. He knows their efficiency, and if he does his work properly he sees that they are all good men in these key positions. The question I should like to ask is, are the Government satisfied that every Regional Commissioner knows from A to Z all the personnel who are working under him?
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that he valued a system which used to exist, I think, under which from time to time the Regional Commissioners met together and pooled their experience. I am not quite sure whether it ever existed, but whether it ever existed or not it ought to exist. It is just the thing which ought to be. All the experience of the Regional Commissioners, and indeed all the experience of local government in each area, ought to be pooled. I should have been very much happier if the noble Lord had been able to tell us just now that all that experience was pooled. What ought to happen is that immediately after a "blitz" there should be an inquiry and the Regional Commissioner should go down to the area the very next morning. He should have around him the various heads of departments of the local authorities and everything should be gone through. If any blemish is discovered then it should be set right. If it turns out that any head of a department is not equal to his work then the proper steps should be taken to have him removed and somebody better

401
put in his pace. That is what a first-rate Regional Commissioner ought to do.
He ought also to make, as I imagine he does make, a report to the Ministry of Home Security as to exactly what happened during the raid and where blemishes were found in the administration. This experience ought to be pooled and all the other potential targets, if I may use that expression, up and down the country ought to be furnished with a full account of this experience so that they may know what to do and what to avoid. I have tried to describe, rather imperfectly I am afraid, what are the functions of a Regional Commissioner, and I think all your Lordships will agree that it is vital that that work should be properly done. Therefore I will reiterate the plea of the noble Lord who was responsible for introducing this subject, Lord Strabolgi, that if there are any Regional Commissioners who are not equal to their work an improvement should be made. I would venture also to support the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that there should be meetings if possible, or at any rate some machinery, by which all the experience which comes to the Regional Commissioners, or to any authority in a raid area, should be put at the service of all other potential targets. I hope the noble Lord will not think I am criticising his speech—there was much in it which was most satisfactory—but I earnestly hope that he will use his great powers to see that improvements are carried through as quickly as possible and so avoid in future criticisms such as have been legitimately made.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess that it is highly desirable that Regional Commissioners should meet, and I believe there is some such arrangement, but it should be carried further. It is co-ordination that is wanted, and if the Minister of State will ensure that the different Departments work together we shall solve the difficulty.
LORD BEAVERBROOK: My Lords, with your permission I should like to say that frequent meetings of the Regional Commissioners are held. I was not aware of that at the time I spoke but I am now informed that those meetings are held. I have had the opportunity of observing the Regional Commissioners at work and
402
I can claim to be in a position to tell your Lordships that the whole secret of the success of a Regional Commissioner is nothing more or less than leadership. If he gives that it is all that can be expected of him and it is everything the situation requires. I have had the opportunity of seeing two members of your Lordships' House at work—one of them Lord Dudley and the other the Earl of Rosebery. So long as we have Regional Commissioners of that type and that character we are perfectly sound in the present organisation. I have been asked also to say on behalf of the Ministry of Home Security that after every "blitz" all the lessons are very carefully studied. The Regional Commissioners are consulted, their plans are reviewed and new dispositions are developed. Lastly I would like to say that it is not my duty to co-ordinate these Services. Responsibility for coordinating them is in charge of a much better man, the Minister of Home Security. He is responsible for coordinating all the Departments concerned with Civil Defence Services.

RATING (WAR DAMAGE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I shall have to encroach on your Lordships' time for a very few minutes only in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a short and simple war-time measure which requires no eloquence and little argument in order to commend it to your Lordships' House. The Bill had a friendly reception in another place and it encountered no opposition there. I can say also that it has the assent of the three local authority associations in Scotland whose representatives were consulted with regard to its provisions. The Bill has only one operative clause, the purpose of which is to enable rating authorities in Scotland to grant such relief from rates as they think just and equitable where the property of an individual has been rendered wholly, or to a substantial extent, uninhabitable by enemy action. That is the purpose of the Bill, which I hope your Lordships will think is a just and reasonable purpose.
I wish to add only a word or two with regard to four features of the Bill. The first is that the intention and effect of the

403
Bill is to bring the law of Scotland in this matter into conformity with the law of England as I understand it. In Scotland to-day a rating authority has no power to remit rates unless on the ground of poverty or inability to pay. Now that means that unless a man can declare and prove that he is without resources, then, although his premises may have been completely destroyed or substantially damaged, he has no right to claim relief. That is different according to the law of England, and it discloses an inequity in our system in Scotland which it is the design of this Bill to remedy. That is the first feature of this measure to which I desire to draw your Lordships' attention.
The second feature is that the Bill is retrospective in its provisions. It provides that where bombing damage has been done to property in Scotland, relief from rates may be given notwithstanding that that damage has taken place before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. I hope and believe that your Lordships will regard that as a just and proper provision. The third feature to which I desire to allude is that the Bill provides in terms that relief which may be given may be given by repayment of rates which have been already paid, or by reduced assessments
404
in the future. That introduces a measure of elasticity, of flexibility to the task of the local authority in the discharge of the discretionary power conferred upon it by this Bill. It appears to me that this is desirable.
The last feature which I wish to emphasize is that this is a rates Bill and not a rent Bill. I quite recognise that, though upon the fringe of this subject lie a number of difficult questions relating to rent; nevertheless, having regard to the title of the Bill, it would not have been competent to include provisions dealing with them in this measure. They must await legislation of a separate and relevant character, and I am assured that the subject of rent and any improvement in the law relating to it has engaged the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will deal with it at an appropriate time and in an appropriate way. With these observations I leave the Bill in your Lordships' hands and I hope that you will give it now a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned.