Lords Sitting of 7 October 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Rockley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MARRIAGE (MEMBERS OF HIS MAJESTY'S FORCES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Alteration of place of marriage.
1.—(1) Where the parties to an intended marriage have duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling them to be married in a building in England, then, if either of the parties, being a member of His Majesty's Forces, has obtained from the appropriate authority a certificate that owing to the exigencies of His Majesty's service he or she cannot go to that building, the marriage may, during the war period—

(a) be lawfully solemnized in any other building in England in which marriages may be lawfully solemnized, as if the parties had duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling them to be married in that building or

(b) be lawfully celebrated by a minister in Scotland, or contracted in the office of an authorised registrar in Scotland, as if the parties had duly fulfilled all the conditions required by law for enabling the marriage to be so celebrated or contracted.

LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "that," where that word first occurs, to insert "the party under his authority is not to the best of his belief already married and that." The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment. Under this Bill the venue of a prospective marriage can be changed on account of Service requirements which have necessitated the prospective husband being moved, often at the last moment, from where he was
158
serving, possibly to the other end of the country. Where it is thought desirable that marriage should take place—as is unfortunately sometimes too often the case—there is nothing to be said against the Bill whatever, but it does remove a certain check on improvident marriages which would have existed otherwise. It must be obvious to all your Lordships that a girl, ordinarily speaking, marries in an atmosphere of her own people and her own relations, in her own countryside or her own street or suburb, where not only parental caution but the general opinion of the neighbourhood accounts for a great deal. Under this Bill that very useful piece of social security may be removed at the last moment because the marriage can, with the assent of the prospective bridegroom's Commanding Officer, be removed to quite a different part of England.
It is unfortunately the case that in the last war a number of soldiers overseas serving in this country contracted bigamous marriages with girls who were in no position to know the status of the husband in his own country. Therefore my Amendment provides that the Commanding Officer of the unit in which the man is serving must state that, so far as his knowledge goes, there is no objection to the marriage taking place. It may be asked, why lay this on the Commanding Officer? In the first place the Commanding Officer has to issue the certificate which makes it possible to change the venue of the marriage; and in the second place he is in a position to judge from the separation allowances in most cases whether the man is making an allowance to a relation, say, in one of the Dominions, and may know, and generally does know, whether the man is married and whether the wife is still alive. I suggest that there can be no doubt that there would be a very considerable protection to the girl if the affidavit of the Commanding Officer is required that—only so far as he knows—there is no objection to the marriage taking place. For these reasons I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, after (" that ") insert (" the party under his authority is not to the best of his belief already married and that ").—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment of

159
my noble friend for the following reasons. First, the Amendment has been discussed with Parliamentary Counsel who has been in touch with the Lord Advocate and the Registrar-General, both of whom are strongly opposed to the Amendment. As drafted it applies only to England, but it is clear that if it were accepted it would have to be applied to Scotland as well and a corresponding Amendment made to the Bill. That no doubt could be done. But what the Government feel is that obstacles in the way of marriage have already been overcome before the certificate in question is given, except so far as change of the place at which the marriage is to take place is concerned. Any additional obstacle therefore seems either unnecessary or to imply that the existing safeguards are inadequate, a view for which there does not appear to be any justification. I may say that not only the Admiralty but the War Office and the Air Ministry concur with the view that the Amendment should be opposed. I am very much afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept it, and I hope that after what I have said the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw it.
LORD ADDISON: May I appeal to the noble Lord to give this matter consideration at all events on the Report stage? The principles surely which underlie this Amendment are quite reasonable, and the mere fact that the method of achieving the object which Lord Phillimore has outlined does not meet with the Government approval, is not a reason against the Amendment from the point of view of justice and common sense.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say this? There is no doubt that the grievance or harm which the noble Lord who has proposed this Amendment has emphasized is a very serious one. It is terrible that a poor English girl should find that she has contracted a marriage which is void as being bigamous and that no steps should be taken to prevent such a thing happening. If the Amendment in its present form cannot be passed, at least this might be done: there should be an order from the War Office, the Admiralty and so on to the proper persons, that before granting the certificate which is pointed at in Clause 1, subsection (1) of the present Bill, they should take steps to satisfy themselves that the soldier or
160
other person who has been asking for the certificate is not, at the same time, a person who has given the requisite notice that a part of his pay is to be deflected to somebody as being his wife. That at any rate might be done. It seems to me most unsatisfactory to leave the matter just as it is, with officers simply being told that John Smith wants to marry but cannot get to the particular place and thereupon, as a matter of form, a certificate is issued that he cannot conveniently go to the church. That is not the only matter to be considered. The matter to be considered is whether there is some reason why he should not go to the church. I cannot see why something should not be done to meet this problem.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: I should like to join in asking my noble friend to give this careful consideration before the Report stage is reached. I had not seen the Amendment before I got to this House, so I am not able to express any opinion on its construction. I do know, though, that there-is very considerable anxiety about increases in the number of cases of bigamy, and if this Amendment or some similar one will in any way check this evil, I think that it ought to be very carefully considered. I hope that the noble Lord will find it possible to see that it receives further consideration.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: It is impossible to withstand the appeals which have been made by the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment, by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Addison, by Lord Maugham and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. What I suggest, therefore, is this. If my noble friend Lord Phillimore would withdraw his Amendment, I would see that a Government Amendment might be brought forward for the next stage of the Bill which could be submitted to the noble Lord to see if he agrees before it is put on the Paper. There is one point that I should like to make clear. The right reverend Prelate spoke of the Report stage. If this Amendment is withdrawn there will not be a Report stage; but there will of course be a Third Reading, and if my noble friend Lord Phillimore will accept my assurances and withdraw the Amendment, I shall be glad to do what I can to meet his wishes.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I understand from what the noble Lord has said, that

161
the Government will introduce an Amendment to meet the difficulties which I have in view. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to say when the legislation on town and country planning, proposed in the statement of the Minister of Works and Buildings on July 17, will be presented to Parliament; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, many of your Lordships will remember that during last July there was a discussion in this House on a Motion by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester, dealing with the question of prospective legislation on town and country planning. On that occasion the noble Lord the Minister of Works and Buildings made an important announcement of various proposals which the Government had decided to carry out at a later date. He also stated that they were not at present contemplating the creation of any central planning authority.
It will be remembered that the expert Committee, the Uthwatt Committee, used this language, which was quoted in that debate by the right reverend Prelate, in relation to this particular matter: that the Committee had
" at an early stage in our inquiry become firmly convinced that a central planning authority with a positive policy for such matters as town and country planning, agriculture, industrial development and transport is essential to an effective physical reconstruction of this country after the war.… Our recommendations in this Report are based on the assumptions that a central planning authority will be established without delay and will proceed with the working out of a national plan."
However, the Government in July announced that they were not proposing to proceed without delay to the establishment of any such authority, and, having rejected that expression of opinion by the Uthwatt Committee, they, however, somewhat softened the effect of the rejection by saying that a Council of three Ministers was to be appointed in lieu of a central
162
planning authority. The noble Lord, Lord Reith, described this Council as the embryo of a central planning authority. Since then, however, there has been no indication that this embryo is in process of growth or is likely to mature, and there is every indication that, at the present time, forces within the Government are blocking progress in that direction. I ventured to say in that debate that the decision of the Government in this vital matter would be received in the country with disappointment; and it so proved. That disappointment has been voiced in all the organs of the Press specially concerned with these subjects, and in the greater part of the national Press as well.
Since I put down the Motion now before the House, an answer has been given in another place to the question of when the promised legislation on certain points would be introduced. The answer given by the Government was that it was hoped—not that it was expected—that it would be introduced before Christmas. It was stated by the Minister in another place that preparations are now far advanced for the introduction of a Bill, which will no doubt include the highly important points which were referred to in this House last July—the recommendations, in particular, of the Uthwatt Committee for fixing maximum values for land required for town and country development, and for ensuring that reconstruction areas should be dealt with as a whole and not merely in obedience to the wishes of owners of particular properties in areas devastated. Further, certain amendments are to be introduced into the Town and Country Planning Acts. It is known that these matters must necessarily be difficult and require very careful drafting when legislation is introduced, and further it is known that some major proposals of the Uthwatt Committee have not yet been presented; the Committee are engaged in drafting their Second Report. These particular matters, however, are not, apparently, dependent upon the terms of that Second Report; and it is with a feeling of great disappointment that I read the answer given in another place, that the Government hoped that the Bill would be introduced before Christmas. That will mean, in view of the debates in both Houses, that it is not likely to pass into law until well on in the year 1942.
I would draw attention to the timetable of this question so far as it has yet gone. It was in October, 1940, that the Government, alive to the importance of the question of post-war planning and reconstruction, appointed a new Minister, the Minister of Works and Buildings, and nominated the noble Lord who, to the gratification of all of us, was appointed to that office. He at once nominated the Uthwatt Committee. In February, 1941, he made an announcement in this House on behalf of the Government that the principle of planning had been accepted as national policy, and that the Government recognized that some central planning authority would be required. In April, with the minimum of delay, the Uthwatt Committee presented their First Report. There was then an interval of three months, during which nothing happened. In July the noble Lord announced the appointment of the Committee of Three in lieu of a central planning authority, and said that legislation would be introduced in due course. We are now in October, 1941, one year having elapsed since the noble Lord took office, and all that we are told now is that it is hoped that some legislation—and that only partial and preliminary legislation—will be introduced before Christmas, and therefore that no legislation will be passed until probably the spring of 1942 at the earliest.
I think it is necessary on this occasion, therefore, that a protest should be made against the way in which the Government are gently ambling along in these matters, with no sense of the urgency of the issue. The war, of course, takes the first place in our thoughts, and, if the war continues for another two years—and it is idle to deny that at present, at all events, the prospects are that it may—the Government may be ready at the end of the war with their legislation and the local authorities with their plans; but surprising events have happened already in this war, and those anticipations may be contradicted by the facts. I remember that about the beginning of 1918, when I was Chairman of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on National Expenditure, we had before us a proposal from one of the Departments for a very large capital expenditure. I asked the representative of that Department before the Committee
164
whether the Department felt sure that at that stage of the war so large a capital expenditure was really justifiable, and the answer was that it certainly would be justified "if the war lasts a reasonable time." If the present war lasts "a reasonable time" then perhaps there may be no disadvantages from the tortoise pace at which the Government are at present advancing; but if, on the other hand, it comes to an earlier end, and the country is caught in a state of unpreparedness, then the situation will be extremely grave because, as was stated in the debate last July, and as everyone is aware, the moment the war ends there will bean exceedingly grave problem of employment.
When the war ends millions of men will be demobilized from the Army, and millions of people from munitions. It will not be possible to hold the men in the Army until work is ready for them, and discharge them gradually; that was attempted at the end of the last war, and the men would not submit to it, but insisted on being demobilized at once. Nor will they be content to wait for months unemployed, receiving a dole at the expense of the taxpayer. At the same time, our towns which have been devastated will be eager to proceed with reconstruction at once, and families who have been bombed out of their homes and who are now scattered will urgently desire to reunite in new houses. Furthermore, everyone will be asking "When is a beginning to be made with the better Britain which we have been promised? Similar conditions will prevail in other countries; in Germany, the United States and elsewhere millions will be demobilized from the Army and from munitions, and there will be a fearful scramble among the different countries for international trade. All this will create a most grave problem of unemployment. Obviously the industry which is likely to give the greatest opportunities for employment will be the building trade and construction in general; and if at that time the Government legislation has not been passed, and local authorities have not been able to proceed with their plans, there will be an outburst of national indignation and the Ministers responsible for the delay will be swept out of office; nevertheless, the mischief will have been done.
I regret to have to speak in the tone of a Cassandra on these matters, a tone which is unusual with me. Although it would be a great evil if the war were to last for such a length of time that these forebodings would not be realized, we must realize that that may happen. On the other hand, unexpected events may occur, and the war may end within a few months; and then precisely that situation which I have been portraying will arise. I think that the House and the country should be aware of that danger. We are deeply concerned at the dilatoriness which has been shown by the Government in these matters—dilatoriness in not grasping firmly the larger issues involved. How far the noble Lord may be in a position to reply on these larger issues I cannot say. I shall not be surprised or complain if he states that the position is as it was in July and that he has not been authorized by the Government to give any further reply. But in another place the Minister without Portfolio answered that he hoped to be in a position before long to make some statement on this vital matter of the central planning authority, and it may be that the noble Lord will be able to say a few words on that subject. But if not, certainly I shall not accuse him of discourtesy or raise any complaint. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like very heartily to associate myself with what the noble Viscount has said. I want to know how the embryo is getting on—this embryo of three Ministers. We are entitled to know what they are doing, because they were brought into being as a substitute for the appointment of a national planning authority, as recommended by the Uthwatt Committee. I remember that when the Minister for Works and Buildings made the announcement to the House he did not make it in any enthusiastic terms. He did not seem to me to be possessed with sanguine anticipation as to the activities of this embryo, as he called it—a very appropriate name, I think. As a matter of fact, this Council of Ministers was the outcome of departmental obstruction—that is the plain English of it. The innumerable wrangles which always arise, as I know too well, whenever the subject of planning is brought up, of course immediately
166
cropped up. It is quite certain that if the noble Lord the Minister for Works and Buildings allows himself to be cluttered up with the consideration of all the appeals and notices which have gradually been invented as applied to planning by authorities of many kinds, he will achieve nothing. And the merit of the Uthwatt Report was that it cut through this tangle, and suggested that there should be a competent authority with certain reasonable defined powers to deal with the question.
I think that the urgency of it, as portrayed by the noble Viscount, cannot be exaggerated. Anyone who goes about the City of London, for instance, and sees the desolation everywhere—and the same of course is true of many of our cities and towns—and who knows at the same time that whenever the war ends there will be a thousand difficulties, a thousand problems of construction, to be dealt with, apart entirely from the innumerable personal issues which the noble Viscount indicated, must realize that unless we arc equipped beforehand, and a long time beforehand, with power to deal with these things we shall find ourselves in a most discreditable and disastrous muddle. I am quite sure that the noble Lord the Minister of Works and Buildings in his heart agrees with every word the noble Viscount said. Of course I cannot expect him to do so from that Bench, but I am sure that he does, because he understands this issue, and everyone who understands it, as far as I have met people, has the same view.
After all, the central issue and the one which we have to face is: What are we going to do about land? I think that there is not one of us who is not prepared to sink prejudices and modify, if need be, in the interests of the nation pre-conceived ideas if some effective plan can be produced. I see it has been suggested that we might have power to control land or its use, either in respect to the location of industry or the designing of roads, the building of houses, to safeguard land which should be used for food cultivation, and to safeguard it from spoliation. All these are necessary and may conceivably be done by some machinery of control, akin perhaps to that now adopted in agriculture. Then I see another suggestion, that the State might acquire developmental rights, whatever that expression may mean. But whatever method is adopted,

167
we shall have to arrange beforehand who are going to work it, and how they are going to work it. I see that another suggestion, which has been made in very responsible quarters, is that all the land might be vested in the State, with long leases to present owners. Noble Lords will be well aware of the view which I myself entertain, which I am not going to expound now, but I think there is no way out of it in the end except the acquisition of land with all kinds of generous exceptions on fair and exquitable terms.
Whatever method is adopted—and I speak, I know, for many of my friends—we are not disposed to let preconceived opinion stand in the way of any effective proposal—provided it is effective. But assuming that some effective proposal for securing the control of development on rational lines is accepted—and the Government accepted it in February last—it surely is obvious that there is no time to spare in getting it framed, because the problems to be faced are so complex and so numerous that the work should be undertaken long before the end of the war, and we should be equipped as soon as may be with our responsible authorities instructed to proceed on certain acceptable lines. Because not only do I believe that the alternative would be the scramble to which the noble Viscount referred, but we may well find ourselves confronted with a number of obstacles which did not even exist at the beginning of the war. I know as a matter of fact that now in many parts of the country there is considerable speculative buying going on in land by people, some of whom have no affection for agriculture, and who are simply investing money in the hope that it will yield a good return; and we are having created around us to-day a great additional number of obstacles to efficient fair-minded planning after the war, and the longer the delay the greater the obstacles will be.
I fear, too, another thing, which the noble Viscount did not mention, but which, as he knows, and many of us know who were intimately acquainted with affairs in the last war: I fear a very serious social reaction unless we are equipped to deal with the emergencies the noble Viscount has mentioned. There was, for a time, a serious and dangerous social reaction at the end of the last war.
168
If we find ourselves at the end of this war confronted with the widespread desolation the war has caused and the immense dislocation of industry and employment, with no coherent or workable plan to deal with it—which we have not got yet—I fear we may well provide an excuse for all kinds of violent reactions which may be most destructive of our institutions. For these reasons I am only too anxious to associate myself heartily with the protest the noble Viscount has made.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on this occasion I should like to associate myself whole-heartedly with what has fallen from the two noble Lords on the other side. On the last occasion when this matter was under discussion, I thought the two noble Lords were, in some respects, not quite fair to the Government or to the noble Lord (Lord Reith). On this occasion they have been quite explicit in what they have had to say, and I should like to say that I find myself in entire agreement. I should also like to say that I am perfectly certain there is a tremendous weight of public opinion behind this demand for the speedy setting-up of the central planning authority. One word of caution, my Lords. The noble Viscount who put the question has made it clear that he does not expect any epoch-making pronouncement to be made by the noble Lord (Lord Reith) to-day. If my noble friend is unable to reply with some new pronouncement on Government policy, let it not be imputed that he is unwilling to show support of the policy which noble Lords opposite are demanding. It may well be that the noble Lord will not be able to do more than repeat, more or less, what a Minister in another place has said, but I for one am quite convinced of the noble Lord's desire to get on with this important matter, and I am quite confident he is using the full force of all the arguments at his command with the Government in order to hasten the day when he will be able to make a more satisfactory announcement.
LORD HARMSWORTH: My Lords, I wish I were in a position to take a somewhat different line from that taken by the three noble Lords who have preceded me. I should like to be in a position to say that I was entirely satisfied with everything that has been done, or omitted to be done, by the Department of my noble

169
friend, but I am compelled to join my voice to the voices of other noble Lords in deploring the setting up of a Council of Ministers instead of a separate Department with full powers and, as I should like to see it, under the individual and sole charge of my noble friend below me (Lord Reith). My noble friend on the previous occasion described the Council of Ministers as "embryo." I should prefer to regard it as a stumbling-block. That form of Department occupies the ground and stands in the way of the ideal to which all planners look, and have looked for years. It will net be forgotten by your Lordships that the appointment of a separate responsible Department—call it by what name you like—has been advocated by virtually all Commissions, all Committees, and all planning authorities in this country. This expression of opinion culminated in the very remarkable Report, to which several references have been made—namely, that of the Uthwatt Committee. They not only declared for a central planning authority, but they stated that their recommendations, as they appear in the first part of their Report, were based on the assumption that such an authority was about to be set up. I do not know what the recommendations of the Uthwatt Committee might have been if they had not been so confident that such an authority was about, immediately, to be set up.
What have we? A Council of Three—my noble friend and two other Ministers of State, both the others in charge of what I may call full-time Departments. They could not, n any circumstances, give more than the fag-end of their attention and time to the Ministry of Reconstruction. It is to be observed that the personnel of this Committee of Ministers may change. Other Ministers may be appointed to other Departments, in which case all their accumulated knowledge—at any rate, such knowledge as they would have been able to accumulate in the midst of their other duties—would be wasted so far as this authority is concerned. There is, of course, all the time, the danger of divided counsels and divided responsibility. Admittedly, it is no light proposition to suggest the setting up in this country of a great new Department with plenary powers. In normal times I can imagine that such a proposal would excite controversy among political Parties, and it might become a Party question. But we
170
have one great advantage at the present time. We have a Coalition Government, a National Government, working in the fullest harmony, so far as I can observe, on all questions of national policy. Such a Government—and we might not have it after the war—is in a position to pledge all the political Parties in the State to a policy agreed, settled, and continuous. I consider that an advantage of the greatest possible importance.
I join with other noble Lords in expressing alarm and consternation at the possibility of this great question being left for settlement to the conclusion of the war. My noble friend the Minister claimed in his speech on July 17 that the foundations of reconstruction had been laid. He, as we all know, has done everything that mortal man can do within the limitations of his power to achieve results. Nobody could possibly over-estimate, if I may say so in his presence, the capacity, zeal, devotion, and wide understanding he brings to his herculean task. I would say that among his achievements were, first of all, the prompt appointment of the Uthwatt Committee, with its declaration regarding the basis of valuation, and I would add his appointment of an advisory panel consisting, as it does, of some twenty of those in this country best qualified, by experience and knowledge, to advise him on matters of planning. Some people believe—I think only a few—that the Government, Lord Reith, and planners generally are in too much of a hurry. My noble friends Lord Samuel and Lord Addison have completely disposed of any contention of that sort; and I should like to emphasize that there is no time to be lost.
I agree with noble Lords who preceded me in saying that if peace should come—and no human being knows when peace will come—there will be the bitterest and widest resentment and disappointment in this country should there not be in existence, established and in working order a department of reconstruction, call it what you will. I also think the disappointment would be very great if that department were not in charge of my noble friend the present Minister. All who know this subject or have studied it extend to him not alone their sympathies but their desire to be of every possible assistance to him. With them he has earned a very great reputation for his luminous mind,

171
his accessibility to ideas, and his willingness to hear the voice of experience. I venture to say that every town planner in every part of this country will rejoice when he is in individual control of the Department of State for which he is so eminently fitted to be the head.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if it should please God to give us peace within the two years mentioned by the noble Viscount I do not think that even two years are enough to prepare the building plans. We who had some experience of getting men back to work after the last war know the terrors and perils which arise from the feelings of men who come back from fighting our battles and find no work for them to do. Of all the occupations that you can discover which are most suitable to provide such men with work, the first place should be given to the building industry, including the preparation of materials and the erecting of the buildings themselves. I do not want to elaborate the two points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Lord, Lord Addison, but I do think that what Lord Samuel said is perfectly true, that these men who have fought for us, if they come back and find no work prepared for them to do, will have, and will give effect to, a grave grievance against their fellow-countrymen. It is for that reason that not a moment should now be lost in putting into operation the requisite thought and initiative so as to be ready from the first moment to find these men work. That alone gives force to the Motion now on the Paper in your Lordships' House. Two years is not enough. Two years pass by very quickly and we now want all the two years in which to get ready.
I do not desire to pursue what my noble friend Lord Addison said about land, the socialisation of land and the State ownership of land, but this I will say. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor may be thinking out a legislative plan, if he has not already done so, to make it clear to those who speculate in devastated land that if they hold titles of land bought for speculative purposes since the war broke out in those districts where there has been great devastation of property, those titles shall not be held to be valid if the State or the municipalities wish to take over properties for the purpose of re-developing
172
those areas. In connection with the new building arrangements it should be made perfectly clear that people who speculate in land in the devastated areas are not going to be allowed to make money out of our misfortunes. I am the last man in the world to support Socialism, but it is pure justice and pure reason that people should not be allowed to make money out of what has occurred. My noble friend Lord Reith is somewhat new to Governmental methods. I am an old hand at departmental work. Before I was a Member of Parliament I worked with the noble Lord, Lord Addison, in the Munitions Ministry, and my view about Ministerial Departments is this. I have no doubt about the devotion of the men, but what I do say is that the motto of most Ministerial Departments in the State is to try and find a reason why not to act and not to try to find reasons why they should act. The result is that Departments will always be in a hurry to do, and at the last moment, what they have to do, and that they will not do what is required until they have been stampeded by public opinion. The noble Lord must bear in mind this, that leading men in his Department will pass forward quickly, that the men now being consulted will have gone, that things will be forgotten and will not be known by the men who come along to replace those who have gone. There will not be a personal sequence of thought in the Department which will help him if he is there two years hence in carrying out the reconstruction schemes which we have in mind.
I have three specific things to say about the preparations, and the first thing I wish to say is this: they will take at least two years to prepare. It will not be done in six months. Any committee which is appointed now will be very little forward six months hence. Then I would ask what forward arrangements have been made by contract for the importation of timber? It cannot be imported now owing to shipping difficulties. Has anything been done to search out whether requisite timber can be obtained in the British Dominions beyond the seas, and from existing sources at home, all of which we shall require? Take the three counties of Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire. I have been over them lately and it has amazed me to see the amount of oak which is available in the hedgerows.

173
In my own county of Norfolk they say that these oaks cannot be advantageously used because the iron nails in them break the saws. I say, very well, break the saws but make use of this timber. There is plenty of forest timber in England of use to us in the building schemes which will be prepared. Nothing has been done about preparing such timber. Or has anything been done? There is no reason why at this moment you should not get lumberjacks from Portugal and from Nova Scotia to cut the home-grown hard woods so that they can be seasoned and got ready lor use when required. It takes time to do all this, and it will not be done in two years. That timber to which I am referring will be greatly needed, and if we do not get British timber we shall have to import timber. I would ask, what overseas or home contracts have been made? I do not believe that much has been done.
I would like to say this further. We do not know how to plan building. Why not go to New York and see how they plan to build there, how they think out their plans? What plans have been made here? Has any initiative been taken in going to builders and manufacturers and asking them what bricks, girders, drain pipes, tiles, doors, window frames, stoves, boilers, they can send us, what they can let us have after the war? Having found out who can provide these materials, the next question is what delivery time-tables have been made. I ask my noble friend Lord Reith to have a time-table made out, to have a time plotting completed, and a system made out whereby he shall know what materials are available at a given date and what materials will be placed by a certain date upon a certain site. All this should be done in advance so that men do not have to wait upon a site for delivery of the materials. I do not believe that any site delivery system is yet available for our purposes, yet that is the system by which buildings are planned and put up, without waiting for deliveries, in New York.
Finally, I have to say this. I think Lord Reith would be well advised to tell his Department that we do not intend to allow Government Departments to do things at the last moment in a hurry, that they must make plans in advance, that they must by forethought make arrangements to get the timber and other
174
materials which will be required. I would ask him to get information as to how they put up buildings in New York, the methods by which they work under a delivery time-table, how they arrange for the materials to be on the site at the requisite moment, how the materials are brought day by day from the manufacturers, and how the process is carried out punctually from first to last. I would also ask the noble Lord to say that he will be prepared six months hence, when we shall ask him so to do, to lay on the Table a statement of what he has done, after having heard the views of noble Lords in this House to-day, and not a statement of what is going to be done.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (LORD REITH): My Lords, in the first place may I make it clear that I will see that the Government realize what is the opinion of your Lordships on this matter? It will be both my duty and pleasure to report what has fallen from the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I was particularly grateful to the noble Viscount who initiated this debate for the remarks he made about his expectation as to what I should be able to say. He said that he did not think I should be able to say a great deal and that he would not feel that I was in any way discourteous if in fact I did not do so. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, felt sure that I would agree with everything the noble Viscount had said. However that may be, let me express gratitude for the kindly observations which have fallen from noble Lords—and in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth—which cannot fail to be an encouragement to me in days when encouragement is welcome.
The question was asked, what is the embryo doing? Well, it has in fact done a considerable amount. I wish to tell noble Lords that they are less than fair to my colleagues on that Council and, I think, the Government generally, in some of the observations that were made about an alleged lack of appreciation of the need, the urgency and the dangers. The embryo has produced a Bill which will be introduced. I can assure the noble Viscount that the Bill is in an advanced stage. There have been several discussions on it with the Ministry of Health, and the Council of Ministers has had the

175
Bill before it on several occasions. In answer to the specific question put by the noble Viscount I may say that it in fact covers the points which he mentioned and which were referred to in the First Uthwatt Report. I am glad that the noble Viscount realizes how complex and controversial many of the points are. I hope it may be possible to introduce the Bill sooner rather than later than the Minister without Portfolio suggested in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, said, quite truly, the more delay, the more obstacles. With that I agree, but after all we can deal with obstacles and we shall deal with them. There is also the saying, the more haste the less speed. Progress may be difficult, but when the Bill is laid on the Table I think your Lordships will be tolerably satisfied with it. I should have been delighted if it had been possible for me to introduce it first in your Lordships' House, but as it is likely to contain financial clauses that, I am sorry to say, will not be possible.
I can tell your Lordships of something else that has happened. I have mentioned that there is an Inter-Departmental Committee associated with me in work on reconstruction problems. That Committee has produced some quite excellent reports which are being acted upon. One thing that I may specifically mention is that arising out of one of those reports the Ministry of Health is proceeding to the appointment of regional planning officers in the regions who will deal with the problems which are already arising, and I am proposing to appoint regional representatives for propaganda purposes and to encourage local authorities to establish joint committees where they do not already exist. Between the regional representatives of my group and the regional planning officers of the Ministry of Health, things will shortly be moving in the regions.
May I deal specifically with some of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft? Speculation, as I thought I had made clear to your Lordships in July, has been dealt with. There will be no chance for people to cash in on war speculation in site values in bombed areas. I mentioned in July that March, 1939, prices will be taken as the maxima, so I do not think there will be anything by
176
way of profit in that direction. As to the preparation of designs, supplies of materials for post-war use, standardization, economy in design, use of alternative materials and other matters of that sort, a great deal is being done, not by my reconstruction staff but in the Ministry of Works, and at some later date perhaps I may be allowed an opportunity of giving an account of that work. It is both interesting and important, though it is work for which we have not yet sought publicity. I merely allude to it now to show that the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, are being dealt with.
May I ask in particular the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Addison, whether, when they were members of Government—and I imagine that they were members of Government for as many years as I have been months—they were always, as individuals, satisfied with the progress of their own individual schemes, whether they had not to work with their colleagues, so long as they were satisfied that they were doing all they could to make progress in the matters particularly within their concern and competence, realizing that there were other points of view and difficulties which prevented progress being quicker? I think there must have been many occasions when, despite their individual dissatisfaction, they must have felt, not only that they had done all they could in the circumstances, but that their colleagues, in view of their circumstances, had done all that they could do also. The time-table which the noble Viscount read out is harrowing not only to him but to me, but I can assure your Lordships that we are not going to be caught by the peace. I think I made it clear enough in July that I for one think the problems of peace may be more serious than those of war. I said that the Government realized the urgency of the need. My colleagues and I are in fact doing better than we have been able to make public yet, and I hope that shortly I may be able to give your Lordships more definite news than I have been able to give to-day.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for his statement. The last thing that I or any of your Lordships would wish to do would be to cause discouragement or embarrassment to him. We

177
are only anxious to strengthen his hands in the activities in which he is engaged. I was a little concerned to hear from him that both his Department and the Ministry of Health are appointing regional officers. I hope the activities of those officers will not overlap and will not cause confusion in the minds of local authorities. That is the
178
only comment that I would wish to make upon the noble Lord's speech. I thank him for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.