Lords Sitting of 8 December 1943

Preamble
The House met, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.

ALLOWANCES FOR OFFICERS' CHILDREN.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, the Resolution which I am going to move reads as follows:
"That, in the opinion of this House, the rate of allowances for children of officers killed on service is too low, and should be raised."
I make no apology for again bringing this subject to the notice of your Lordships, although I did so as recently as June 30 last. On the contrary, I believe that when your Lordships have heard the facts you will consider that I am fully justified in taking this action to-day. I submit that this is one of those matters which it is singularly fitting for the House of Lords to take up, for it deals with a section of the population relatively few in number, inarticulate, unorganized and scattered up and down the length and breadth of the British Isles. I refer to the widows and orphans of those who have been killed in our defence.
On the last occasion when this matter was before your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Clifden, who replied for the Government, and who, I understand, is going to reply again to-day, used these words:
"The question of rates and other kindred matters affecting war pensions and allowances is at this moment under review."
That being the case he was not able to make a statement on the subject, and I was unable to press the point. The result of that review was published in a White Paper in July last, and it was so disappointing that I felt bound to put down this Motion, and again appeal to your Lordships on behalf of these people. When I last addressed the House on this subject I submitted that what was required was a substantial increase in the basic rate of the pensions and allowances, and that small increments to meet the rise in the cost of living must be inadequate. Well, the recent increases were based on the rise in the cost of living, and that was generously interpreted inasmuch as the
144
cost of living was taken as being what it was at the end of the last war, although it has not yet risen so high as that. But, in any case, the result was inadequate. Before I proceed any further I wish to emphasize the point that I am appealing on behalf of the widows and orphans of officers of the three Services who have been killed. I do not wish to be taken as a sailor speaking only for the Navy. I am speaking for all the Services.
Equivalent ranks receive equivalent pensions and I would remind the House that the equivalent ranks are: a Captain in the Navy, a full Colonel in the Army and a Group Captain in the Royal Air Force; a Commander in the Navy, a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army and a Wing Commander in the Royal Air Force; a Lieutenant-Commander, a Major and a Squadron Leader; and a Lieutenant, a Captain and a Flying Officer or Flight-Lieutenant. I am going to refer to the naval ranks as they come more readily to my tongue and I shall not mention more than those I have just alluded to. I take the ranks of Captain, Commander, Lieutenant-Commander and Lieutenant because they cover those years in a man's life, twenty-five to fifty, in which we hope, for the sake of the nation, that he has married and had children and therefore been faced with the educational problem. Roughly speaking, the children of the Lieutenant and Lieutenant-Commander may be taken to be of the infant age, those of the Commanders of the private school age, and those of the Captain of the age when they are finishing at the private school and entering the university. The educational problems that confront them, their hopes and their fears for their children, the choice of the school and all the other details will undoubtedly have been the subject of much discussion between the parents, and when the father is killed we may be quite sure that the widow, remembering the decisions that were taken, will make a brave fight to carry out her dead husband's wishes concerning the children, particularly the boys.
Obviously, before I ask your Lordships to say the children's allowances are not sufficiently high, I must acquaint you with the rate which the widows receive—the two are interlocked. In 1942 the pension for a Captain's widow was fixed at £215 a year, for a Commander's widow at £195,

145
for a lieutenant-Commander's widow at £155 and for the widow of a Lieutenant at £115. You will remember that in the spring of this year there was an agitation about these rates of pensions and allowances, and they were gone into, and in July we had the announcement of the rises. Well, the rise in these pensions for widows of Captains, Commanders, and Lieutenant-Commanders was £15 a year— 25s. a month—and now the Captain's widow receives £230, the Commander's widow £210, the Lieutenant-Commander's widow £170, and the Lieutenant's £150. It is against that background that I ask you to consider whether the children's allowances are sufficiently high. What are these allowances? There are two which must be considered. The first is a maintenance allowance payable to the widow for each child under the age of eighteen, as long as it is maintained by her. The rate in 1939 was fixed at £24 per annum but that has been gradually increased. I think in 1942 it was £33, and in 1943 this long-advertised rise went as high as £36, at which it new stands. The second is an education allowance, but to that I will refer later.
As an illustration to make my point, I shall only quote one rank, that of Commander, Lieutenant-Colonel or Wing Commander. I take that rank for two reasons—partly because those officers are in the intermediary stage, both in regard to educating their children and in their standing in their own Services, and partly because they are to a great extent the leaders of the men in the fighting line. Commanders at sea command divisions of destroyers, the smaller ships, flotillas of light craft, flotillas of submarines, etc.; Lieutenant-Colonels are in the field with their battalions; their artillery and so on, and Wing Commanders command formations in the air. These officers occupy positions of great responsibility, and upon their judgment may depend victory or defeat, and certainly many men's lives. These officers all have prospects of further promotion. They have been selected once; they will have been reported upon as likely to do well in the higher ranks of the Service. They have everything before them, and even for those who do not obtain further promotion—and there must be some—there are appointments for which they are eligible and which they can hold until the age of fifty, or they can retire on a smaller pension at an age when
146
they may hope to obtain civil employment.
The pay of a Commander of a ship, together with his allowances, is something like £1,000 a year and he enjoys some substantial amenities. If he is killed on active service his widow receives a pension of £210, and for each child she gets £36; so that if he leaves three children—and that, we are told, is the minimum number that a family ought to have—she has to Keep four people upon £318 a year. A financial crisis of extreme gravity faces the family, which may well entail their having to give up their home and take the children away from their schools and send them to cheaper schools. The widow has to pay Income Tax at Service rates. On the other hand, she is able to obtain an education allowance for the actual education of her children between the ages of eight and eighteen.
In the Order in Council regulating war pensions and allowances we read:
"A widow in receipt of a war pension may be granted, at the discretion of the Minister, an education allowance provided that—

(a) the pecuniary circumstances of the family are such as to require it;

(b) the Minister is satisfied as to the type of education in view.. and that the child would have been likely to have had an education of the same type had the father survived."

That is excellent in principle—" of the same type had the father survived." Nothing could be fairer; but when we come to put that principle into practice it is not so good. We read on:
"The amount of the education allowance shall be determined by the Minister and in any one year shall not exceed £50."
I should doubt if many officers of the rank of which I am speaking now foresee limiting the cost of the education of their children to the amount of £50 a year. Recently there appeared in The Times under the heading "Reduced fees for the sons of naval officers" the details of certain scholarships being offered by a wellknown school, commemorating its connexion with the Navy during this war, the building having been taken over for a naval training establishment. This was a very generous offer. It aimed at reducing the statutory fees to successful candidates to £100 a year. That is obviously quite outside the reach of a widow whose gross income is £318 a year. She will only get £50 towards that £100 if this boy does manage to secure a scholarship.

147
I may be told that these pensions and allowances are now what they were in 1919, inferring that if the Services were satisfied then they should be satisfied now. The Services were not satisfied then. In 1919 a committee of naval officers was set up by order of the Government to go into the whole question of naval pay and allowances and submit to the Government a report showing the amended rates considered to be necessary. That report stated that the Committee considered that the pension of a Commander's widow should be at a minimum of £250 a year and at a maximum of £300 a year, with other ranks and ratings in proportion, and that the child allowance for all commissioned officers should be £50 a year. I commend those figures to the consideration of the Government. They were refused in 1919 and we have now got to 1943. Had I produced this Motion thirty years ago it is quite possible I should have been accused of trying to get special consideration for the children of one class of society known in those days as the "officer class." That cannot be said to-day, because now we are drawing officers from the people as a whole, and before the war the number of Commissions given to ranks and ratings in the Service was continually increasing. It is indeed on behalf of the "ranker" officers that in my opinion the strongest argument can be put forward for further consideration of these children's allowances.
It is hardly necessary for me to say in this House that the fact of a sailor, soldier or airman having worked hard for and been granted a Commission means that he has had a clear record for several years and that he has shown qualities far above the average. If he had not done so he would never have been recommended for a Commission. Probably one of the principal incentives for a man to work for a Commission—and it is an uphill task—is that he will be able to give his wife an easier time and to make some provision for her widowhood, and start his children in life on a higher plane than that on which he had to start. But with the pensions and allowances now being handed out you undo a lot of the good work that such a man may have done. It is a poor reward to a man who has given his life for his country. The existing regulations seem to have been framed upon the supposition that all officers have
148
private means. That is a popular delusion that was fostered by novelette writers. It may have been so in the distant past, but I can speak of my own knowledge when I say that it has not been so during the last half century, even if it were true before then. It is at any rate an entirely wrong basis on which to frame your compassionate allowances.
To realize how unjust the present system is it is only necessary to compare the lot of a widow of an officer killed on service with that of the wife of his contemporary who has been fortunate enough to come through unscathed. The one has before her a life which must be a constant struggle to bring up her children while the other has the prospect of increased comfort as the husband rises in his profession until finally he may retire on an assured competence. At a time when we are hearing a great deal of the need for an increase in the birth-rate, surely the begetting of children from such fine stock as are the young men who officer our Fighting Services should receive every possible encouragement. Is it likely that officers will be very keen on having large families when they see the wives and families of their brother officers reduced to this impecunious state? It might be said that it was encouraging these young officers to have children, but in my opinion the reverse is the case.
I will take the cases, if I may, of two widows of, say, Captains in the Army, it may be of the same battalion. They are killed. Each widow gets £150 a year pension. I have nothing to say against that, but one of the widows may be the mother of two small children. She will get £36 for each child, so that her gross income will come to £222 per annum for the three of them. The other widow may be childless. She therefore is free to go out and obtain work, which she would not have much difficulty in doing at £3 a week, and therefore she could double her pension. Thus the woman who has done her best for the country and has produced children is put in a far worse state financially than the woman who has had no children. I think it is quite possible that many a young couple nowadays, looking at life before them, will say: "We will wait till after the war before we decide to have children." Surely child allowances should be based and fixed on such a scale that they would be regarded as some sort of encouragement to have a

149
family. I will quote another case. If a child has no mother the allowance is £60 per annum. That seems reasonable, but if the child has a mother it is put down to £36, so that £24 has got to be found to make up the amount of money which the Government consider necessary for the maintenance of a child. Surely it is not asking too much of this great and powerful nation to do all in its power to soften for a family the great blow which it suffers when father or husband is killed in the service of his country, and to do it not as an act of charity but as paying a debt of honour to the estate of the dead man. Provision for the future should surely be based on what might have been the state of that family had the father survived.
It may be considered by those who are responsible for these matters that to increase widows' pensions by any substantial amount would make too big a charge, and for too long, on the national Exchequer. That cannot be so with regard to the children's allowances because they will be practically wiped out twenty years after hostilities have ceased. Therefore they might be framed on more generous lines. Then if you take the case of the junior officers, the officer; who are in command of our vessels at sea, such as submarines, we had the names of nine Lieutenants the other day who had distinguished themselves. No cue wants reminding of the value of the leadership of the Captains and Subalterns in the Army, and the magnificent work they do or what countless deeds of heroism must have been performed which will never be recorded because no one is left to tell of them. These are such men as those who took part in the Battle of Britain. The Prime Minister, referring to the gallant officers of the Royal Air Force, used those memorable words: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few." How magnificently they have gone on doing such work ever since. How do we reward these young officers and those of the other Services I have mentioned? We do so by awarding their widows £150 or £130 a year and giving their children £3 a month. I do ask your Lordships this afternoon to take action en behalf of a deserving and valuable section of the nation and the children of those who have lost their lives in our defence, and to do so because you consider that these amounts are too low and should be raised. In conclusion may
150
I remind you of a phrase in Arkwright's poem "The Supreme Sacrifice," beginning with the words "O valiant hearts" and ending with this last line: "Their memory hallowed in the land they loved." I suggest that it is a practical way of showing we do hallow their memory for the nation to cherish their children. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, the rate of allowances for children of officers killed on service is too low, and should be raised.—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I am sure that every member of your Lordships' House, and especially those who may have spent many years in the Fighting Services, will be deeply grateful to the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet who has just spoken, and who has so vividly placed before us the great difficulties in which such a large number of very deserving officers of all the Services find themselves on retirement. He has clearly stated the case, and as a matter of fact we realize that this case was discussed in another place only a day or two ago. When that case was brought forward the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has not held his appointment very long, seemed to be surprised to hear the statements made as to some of the pensions which are available to retired officers. I think I am right in saying that he promised to give the most sympathetic consideration to the matter, and to see what could be done by way of improvement. That being the case I shall delay your Lordships only a very short time.
The noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet has placed all the details carefully before the House, and accordingly I shall not go into them, but would repeat, for the benefit of those who do not realize what the regulations are, a very few facts about them. After the last war, in 1919, it was realized in what an abject state of penury a very large number of our retired officers were then living. It really was absolute poverty they were living in. They are not a class of professional grumblers, or grumblers at all, but men who have the direst objection to airing their grievances about pensions or their way of living. Among these officers are a great many who have our deepest sym-

151
pathy—men who have devoted their lives to the various Services, in many cases men who obtained their Commissions from the ranks, possibly after a great many years' service, at an age very much in excess of those who joined from the ordinary military colleges. Very often they found themselves compulsorily retired under the age rule before they had been able to earn anything like a high pension.
I know from personal experience how strong the feeling has been on the subject of these pensions. I speak of the time when I was Commander-in-Chief in India and had the opportunity of seeing, and did see, a lot of non-commissioned officers and men; and later, even up to the present, I have seen a great deal of a large number of non-commissioned officers and men as well as officers. I have come across many cases of excellent warrant officers and non-commissioned officers who say that they refuse to accept Commissions, and when you ask them why, they reply: "Why should I accept a commission? As a warrant officer or noncommissioned officer I am very well off. Very little is expected of me in the way of expense, and I can carry on comfortably on my pay. I get free rations, free uniform, free quarters. As an officer I should be given a certain allowance— a very small one—to obtain my first uniform, and after that I should be entirely dependent on myself. If I have no private means, I cannot see how I can carry on as an officer, whereas I am perfectly comfortable as a warrant officer or non-commissioned officer." Surely that must be absolutely wrong. It is a case of noblesse oblige. The Army are the last people who want to call upon their officers to do more than they are able. It is the general public who demand that officers should do more. The general public expect officers to do much more than the rank and file. Remember, too, that men like these, who got their Commissions after years in the ranks, are very often not qualified to take up another appointment. Their lives have been spent in barracks, and they have had no opportunity of qualifying themselves to increase their small pensions. In addition to the ordinary expenses, every one of these men, like every member of your Lordships' House, has the inestimable privilege of paying 50 per cent. of his income in taxation—double what it was in 1935.
152
The noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet quoted figures, but these figures were gross, and in every case 50 per cent. is deducted before the men receive it. Certainly that is the case in the Army. In 1919 it was recognized that these pensions were too low, and a new rate was brought in which, in addition to the actual pension, gave a definite sum dependent on the cost of living. That was very much appreciated and it went on until 1935 when the rate was stabilized; but curiously enough it was stabilized at 9½ per cent. below the actual cost of living at that time. Why, I cannot tell, but that is the case. The Royal Warrant on the subject reads as follows:
"The rate will be subject to revisions either upwards or downwards to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent. as the cost of living rises or falls."
In spite of that, the figure was stabilized at 9½ per cent. below the then cost of living, and I can assure your Lordships that that was definitely regarded as a real breach of faith by the men concerned. They have in consequence been subject to the very greatest hardship in carrying on at all. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that the present basic rate figure is £200, and still no addition has been made to that 9½ per cent.
I am not proposing that there should be an actual increase in the rate of pensions, as the noble and gallant Admiral has suggested. That is absolutely desirable, but I see very little prospect of getting it. Therefore I strongly urge that the Government should agree to add 20 per cent. to the existing pensions, and thereby remove a great and legitimate grievance which is felt by these gallant officers who have retired. If that is done, a great many men will be able to say that they no longer feel that they have had a raw deal. The expression one hears time after time when going around is, "I have not had a square deal?" If your Lordships will ensure that our officers who have devoted the whole of their lives to the Services are given a fair deal, I am sure the Services will be deeply grateful.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I should like to support very briefly the Motion which has been moved by my noble and gallant friend, that the rate of allowances for the children of officers killed in action is too low. It may seem to many of you that it should not be

153
necessary for one of your Lordship to rise in this House and ask the Government to give a fairer deal to those who suffer through their husbands or fathers being killed in action. With regard to that I would remind your Lordships that all the big improvements of conditions of service as regards pay, which have been achieved in our time, have only been effected by pressure from outside Whitehall. It was so at the end of the last war when the state of affairs as regards the pay of the officers and men of the Services had reached what has been justly called a scandal compared with the conditions existing elsewhere in these islands. Due to that pressure, the conditions of pay were entirely reconstructed and greatly improved. The same thing occurred as regards the marriage allowances for naval officers in the peace years; there, again, nothing but continued pressure from outside enabled that injustice to be put right. I am afraid that it is only by pressure from outside the councils of Whitehall, such as by your Lordships, that we shall get the conditions under which Service widows and their children are living at the present time put on a proper footing.
When, for example, a naval officer— though like my noble and gallant friend I do not speak for the Navy alone on this matter—has done ten or fifteen years in the Service and has perhaps done his duty so well that he sees a prospect of promotion and of steady advancement, he begins to wonder whether he shall launch the matrimonial ship. When he considers that he has two things in mind. The first is that if he continues to serve the State and is fortunate and does not run his ship ashore or suffer from the many hazards that occur in military, air and naval life, he will, when he retires, get what may be called a very good pension. He also may consider that he is a healthy man—he would not be in the Service if he were not—and if he manages to survive the dangers to health that a man suffers, say, at sea at the danger in the air, he will live a long time. He will be able to give his family a comfortable home on his pension and educate his children. But he always will have an anxiety, because if on the day that he takes his pension he is run over by an omnibus that pension, which seemed to him and his wife so attractive, in consideration of which they had bought their house and put their children to school, will be cancelled by the State, and
154
an entirely new rate of pension will be the lot of those he leaves behind, a rate of pension which is only perhaps one-third of the amount that had been expected. It may be said that actually the State has a fair chance and so has the widow. The husband may live until he is ninety (or eighty, shall we say?) and in that case actuarially the State is the loser. If, on the contrary, the officer dies soon after he has retired then the widow is the loser and the State is the gainer. But there is this to be remembered, that the State can afford to be the loser and the widow cannot.
That has been the anxiety which has always obsessed the minds of officers of the Services and also of those who administer them in the State Departments. So much was that the case that in 1927, when I was at the Admiralty, we endeavoured to bring in a compulsory insurance scheme for naval officers, because we knew that the pensions for widows and children were inadequate and we could not get them increased. Unfortunately, that compulsory scheme which was largely supported by the officers of the Service, was found to be unpractical and instead, a good many years later, in 1937, a voluntary insurance scheme for officers was introduced to augment the pensions for widows and children which we at the Admiralty knew were entirely inadequate. That, I think, will show your Lordships that it is not merely the idea of the noble and gallant Earl who moved this Motion and myself and Lord Birdwood that the pensions are inadequate. They have been accepted by the administrative Departments as being inadequate in peace-time, even though in peace-time the number of officers who die soon after they retire is fortunately very small and so the widow's pension does not come into operation.
In the country at the present time I think it is right to say the financial lot of the mass of the population has been improved. After all, £12,000,000 a week in small savings means that even the poorer families are putting money into the national bank. But I wonder how much of that £12,000,000 a week comes from officers in the Services, and still more do I wonder how much can come from their widows. Obviously they are unable in the vast majority of cases to save money in that way because their emoluments are

155
insufficient. If that is so, my Lords, let us consider one fact. I will not take you through the figures which my noble and gallant friend has already given you, but I should like to mention one fact in relation to these rates of pensions and allowances before the war and at the present moment. They have been increased. The peace-time pension, for instance, for the widow of a Captain in His Majesty's Navy, an officer of vast responsibility, was £200, and £200 is not very much for an officer's widow. When the war came that pension was increased to £230 and the children's allowance from £24 a year to £36. That is roughly an increase of something like 45 per cent. on the average. But that 45 per cent. is not really an increase, because it is entirely taken up by the higher costs of living for the widow and her children.
If you consider the case of the war entry to which my noble and gallant friend has referred, you will find that the lot of the officers who have joined the Navy during the war is exceedingly hard. It is quite true that there will be exactly the same pension for their widows and the same children's allowances as are given in the case of widows whose pensions are given partly on account of past years of service by their husbands, but you must remember that a Sub-Lieutenant or a Lieutenant in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve who joined during the war is a man of considerable years. He has given up everything, he has perhaps lost his business, and if a man like that, perhaps thirty-five years of age, is killed in a motor torpedo boat in the Channel his widow is left with something like £200 a year with which to look after herself and her children. These officers who know that either in their ships, or in their regiments, or in their aircraft they may at any moment have to give their lives for their country, must have in their minds the feeling that the more brave they are the worse the prospects for those they are leaving behind. It must affect their mentality.
It cannot be right that a man who is receiving, say, £800 a year, as Captain of a big ship should know that if he is killed immediately his children are going to lose 60 per cent. or more of their income. I do not think that your Lordships can think that that is fair, and I hope you
156
will impress your view upon the noble Viscount who is going to reply for the Government. We know that he has not come here ready to surrender the fort. He has his instructions. Obviously, he cannot say: "After what I have heard I will put things right." But he can at least convey to His Majesty's Government the strength of the feeling which I am sure must animate your Lordships that the situation at the present time of the widows and children of officers killed in action is not fair and is not creditable to a country so rich as ours.
LORD KEYES: My Lords, my noble and gallant friend the Earl of Cork made a most moving appeal for generous treatment for the children of officers killed in action. The noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Birdwood and Lord Chatfield appealed generally for improvement in pensions. I want to make a plea for more generous treatment for the dependants of Convoy Commodores. Nearly all of these officers have held Flag rank and enjoyed the amenities accompanying it. All have commanded either battleships or, in the case of some R.N.R. officers, great liners. They were all in retirement after long years of service, and with every prospect of several more years of life in which to start their children in the world and educate them. On the outbreak of war they gave up everything in order to come forward so that their great experience might be put at the disposal of the Naval Service. In nearly all cases they went through great hardships and discomforts in small tramp steamers and other merchant vessels, and a very large proportion of them have lost their lives.
In the last war the widow of a Convoy Commodore received a pension of from £300 to £310 a year. At the commencement of this war if a Rear-Admiral was killed when in command of a convoy as a Commodore his widow received £240 a year. A good deal of resentment was felt and the matter was raised in another place. In order to bring the pensions of a Commodore's dependants into line with those of dependants of Civil Defence personnel—and some credit was taken for this increase—the pension of a Commodore's widow was raised from £240 to £260. This figure was still £40 or £50 less than the rate of pension granted in the last war. Recently the matter was raised

157
again, as Lord Cork has reminded your Lordships, and it is satisfactory to know that the pension has been raised by another £30, so that the Commodore's widow has got up to as much as £290 a year.
But I do feel that these splendid officers, who have shown such an example of patriotism and service, might at least be treated more generously. Why should not these pensions be given in accordance with the rank which in many cases these officers had reached after serving the country for perhaps thirty or forty years? Why, because they have accepted this hazardous and arduous service, and have agreed to degrade themselves two or three steps in rank, should their widows receive only the pension commensurate with the rank held at the time of death? I think that without straining any point at all that at least might be granted. I wish most whole-heartedly to support the appeal of my noble and gallant friend the Earl of Cork, I know that it is only by continual pressure like this that in the end you will bring about what I am sure your Lordships all desire —namely, more generous treatment for the widows and children of those gallant men who have given their lives in the service of their country.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission may I make a very slight alteration in regard to a statement which I made a few minutes ago? I then stated that in the case of warrant officers and others to whom I am referring 50 per cent. Income Tax was deducted from their pay. That is correct, but I wish to add that they are entitled to a certain amount of rebate on certain portions of the pensions. I should like to make that quite clear because it might be thought that actually 50 per cent. was deducted from the whole of their pay, which is not quite the case.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: My Lords, it is difficult, if not impossible, to consider any single item in the War Pensions Code by itself and without reference to the Code as a whole and to its actual history, at any rate since the war of 1914–18. The Select Committee of 1919 which investigated the whole system of war pensions fixed a central point of 40s. weekly for a totally disabled private soldier or his equivalent in the other Services. To this
158
central point was linked the disablement scales for the non-commissioned and commissioned officer, and, in turn, the rate for widow's pensions was fixed at two-thirds of the rate for a totally disabled man or officer according to rank, with children's allowances in proportion. The key figure of 40s. for the totally disabled private soldier was related to the then cost-of-living index figure. This is, roughly, the structure around which our present Code is built.
It is rather difficult, of course, at the present time, to throw one's mind back to the figures of twenty years ago, and to make an accurate picture of the position which then existed. People, I think, are more inclined to think only of the cost-of-living figures in the years immediately before the present war and rather to forget the very great fall in these figures which took place in the years intervening between the two wars. The true position is that the cost-of-living figure of to-day is some 7½ per cent. below that of 1919, and as the rates of war pensions set out in the recent Command Paper, which has been referred to by the noble and gallant Earl, are broadly the same as those fixed in 1919, it is, I think, clear that the Code as a whole is more favourable now than the Royal Warrant of 1919 was at that time. In particular the officer's children's allowances to which the noble and gallant Earl's Motion specially refers have been increased, as he has told your Lordships, from £33 to £36 a year, which was the rate fixed in 1919. The previous rate of £33 a year was as nearly as possible the equivalent, on the present cost-of-living basis, to the rate of £36 a year in 1919. Thus the children of this war are getting the full benefit of the decision taken by the Government in 1928 not to apply the Warrant provision that pension rates should be reduced as the cost of living fell. They are, in fact, not reduced. It was also decided that they should never fall below the figure in operation at that date.
The Government can therefore only feel that while everyone—including, I know, all your Lordships—would wish to act as liberally as possible to all victims of the war, the present rates cannot be regarded as being ungenerous in relation to the provision which has been generally accepted as satisfactory ever since 1919. It must be further borne in mind, as the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, has

159
reminded your Lordships, that the allowance for each child can be supplemented where necessary by a special grant up to £50 a year towards education expenses, that is, up to a total of £86 a year for each child receiving education. I may add that if that £86 is not adequate for the proper education of the child, help can be obtained from other sources, not from the Treasury but from certain organizations which provide help.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: The noble Viscount will remember that that education allowance is not payable until the child is eight years old. There are therefore eight years before the widow can obtain that education allowance.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: Well, I can only promise to point that out to the Minister. I was not aware of that fact. With regard to the observations of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Birdwood, I think he was perhaps confusing Service pensions with disability pensions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply to which he referred only dealt with pensions for service of retired Army officers and civil servants, etc., and that, of course, has no connexion with pensions for death and disability. The question of Income Tax applies to all widows, including other ranks, and that is a Government decision. But the lower rates of pension are not subject to Income Tax. With regard to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chatfield, I think here again there is some slight misunderstanding about the Motion. We are concerned to-day only with allowances in the case of death or disablement arising from war service. Some of the arguments put forward by your Lordships to-day are mainly concerned with Service pay and allowances, which are, of course, a separate matter. Lord Chatfield's point does not really concern us this afternoon. If a retired officer dies under ordinary civil conditions the matter is not one for the Ministry of Pensions, who can only deal with the cases of death or disablement arising from war service and its effects.
LORD CHATFIELD: I do not think it is quite right to say that my reference to the circumstances of peace are irrelevant to the debate this afternoon. When these rates of allowances for the widows and children were fixed, it was in 1919,
160
in peace time after the last war, and those rates were established as suitable for peace conditions. The rates of the present day are based on those peace rates entirely, plus what is called an allowance for cost of living of some 45 to 50 per cent. increase. But the basis of the war allowance is the peace allowance established in 1919, and therefore I think my remarks were relevant to the debate.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: Here again I will certainly make it my business to draw the attention of the Minister to what the noble and gallant Lord has said. With regard to the case put forward by the noble and gallant Admiral, Lord Keyes, the case of Admirals and Commodores, I think I may say that the Ministry of Pensions view these cases with great sympathy, and have made special efforts to satisfy the cases which are no doubt in the mind of the noble and gallant Lord. I will certainly not fail to bring to the notice of the Minister the observations put forward by the noble and gallant Earl and other Lords who have spoken this afternoon.
LORD BIRDWOOD: Is it the intention to implement the promise made in the Royal Warrant of 1919 to increase the pension by 20 per cent., according to the cost of living?
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: I understand that the pensions will not be reduced if the cost of living falls.
LORD BIRDWOOD: But when the cost of living rises? What we want to know is if they can count on receiving that 20 per cent. increase which the Royal Warrant definitely promises if the cost of living justifies it.
VISCOUNT CLIFDEN: If it is promised no doubt it will be performed.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, your Lordships are no doubt well aware of the difficulties under which the noble Viscount labours in giving an answer for the Government. The Department for which he speaks has not heard the eloquent speeches which were made by my noble friends on these Benches, and the noble Viscount had no alternative but to give the official reply. But I think your Lordships will agree

161
that the official reply was hardly a sympathetic one and by no means encouraging. The noble Lords who have spoken have not only made a very eloquent appeal on those matters of justice which are uppermost in all our minds especially at the present time, but they have touched on a much wider subject than that, and that is the subject of the rising generation, and the enormous number of children who will suffer by these very meagre provisions which are made for them as a sort of reward for the gallant services rendered by their fathers. I think that we have every cause to regret the reply which we have received to-day, and I hope that the noble and gallant Earl will go to a Division, because I feel that it should go out to the country that your Lordships do not think the reply is in any sense satisfactory and that we protest against the manner in which the services of these gallant men are being requited.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, out I do not think it gives any satisfaction at all. To say that the terms are generous according to the present Code is in contradiction of what I ask the House to say by my Motion. I do not withdraw, I am going to divide on my Motion
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I hope the noble and gallant Earl will feel that his purpose has been attained if the remarks that he and others have made are conveyed to the proper authorities, and that consideration will be given to the whole question. It is a matter in which all of us feel interested, and I think it would be a pity to divide the House on such a matter. I hope the noble and gallant Earl will be willing not to do so.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot agree to the request of my noble friend. I feel very deeply on this subject, and nothing could be more exhilarating for these people than to know that the House of Lords is at their back and wishes to see this injustice remedied.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.

RECONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON had the following Notice on the Paper: To move to resolve, That this House welcomes the appointment of a Minister of Reconstruction with War Cabinet rank, and the announcement of the Prime Minister that preparations are being made to secure work, food, and homes for the people after the war, and in view of the nature of some of the problems involved, urges the importance of the early announcement of decisions on the matters of policy affected, and the presentation of such plans and legislation as may be necessary to give effect to them without avoidable delay at the termination of hostilities.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think we all recognize that this House has expressed its feelings without regard to Parties on a very humanitarian subject with remarkable emphasis, and I am glad that the result of the Motion which we have just been discussing was what it was. Although it deals with more intricate matters, the Motion that I now bring before your Lordships is of profound national importance. I think we all welcome the appointment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Woolton) and I myself, as an old Minister and as the possessor of quite a considerable collection of Departmental boxes, admire the handsome box with which he appears to have been provided. We all, I am sure, will express our deep appreciation of Lord Woolton's courage and high-minded public spirit in accepting the immense responsibilities which this office must bring.
This is a very complicated subject. I myself propose only to take certain topics, and some of my noble friends will do the same. I propose to say something about the office itself and then to refer to matters affecting agriculture, food production, and houses. The Prime Minister in his declaration, as your Lordships will remember, referred to food, homes and work, and those subjects will in one way or another no doubt form the chief subjects of your Lordships' debate. I take it that the Minister of Reconstruction will assume general direction of the efforts of the Departments in preparing schemes of reconstruction, and I hope he will select the major issues and concentrate his attention upon them so as to get decisions upon the big matters. I have a lively

163
recollection of being in a position more than twenty years ago where one's postbox, if one Had time to look at it, contained a variety of prescriptions from well meaning persons which would have taken any Minister the whole of his time to study, apart from anything else, and I have no doubt that the present Minister of Reconstruction has already begun to receive a similar collection of missives. But that is by the way. I hope he will be able to assure us that he intends to concentrate upon the major issues, and that he will decide some form of priority amongst them and get decisions. Some of us were rather disappointed—I was— by the statement made in another place by the Minister Without Portfolio yesterday. It seemed to me very vague. He almost appeared to take a pride in the large number of White Papers that filled his pigeon-holes. I would respectfully suggest that what the country wants nowadays is more decisions and not quite so many White Papers.
The Minister, I take it, will not attempt to do the work of the Department himself, but will work through it and get other Departments to work for him. I hope he will be successful in that endeavour, but there will be occasions, I am quite sure, on which the Minister will require information himself. He will require memoranda or advice apart from that provided by any particular Department. Many things with which he will be concerned will relate to two or three Departments and he may not be quite satisfied that he is getting on as he would like. I should be glad if he can tell us how he proposes to work in this regard. I am sure he will often have to be provided directly with material, and on that matter I want to ask him what he is doing with regard to the staff of his office. We all know—and those of us who have been in such a position have no doubt been guilty in our time—that if a Minister has a very competent staff he sticks to it and no one can blame him for that. A newcomer, therefore, may find himself rather left out and discover that it is difficult to obtain the high qualities in the staff which his office requires. In my judgment the office of Minister of Reconstruction at the present time should receive the very best staff that the Civil Service can provide. It should be absolutely number one in
164
relation to the kind of problems with which it is concerned. I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that he is able, or will be able, to get the high quality of staff that he really must have.
He will observe that behind all I am saying is an endeavour to fortify his position. He will no doubt have a lot of good will at his disposal. I feel sure he will have the good will and support of his colleagues in the War Cabinet, but perhaps he will be able to tell us whether he is going to rely on more than good will. Sometimes that is an evanescent thing, not always to be relied on, especially if you take an opposite point of view yourself. However much good will there is (and there will be good will), and however artful and persuasive the Minister is (and we know he is that), it will not be enough, and I hope he will not hesitate, if he so thinks fit, to come to Parliament for the conferment upon him of any necessary powers.
I leave it for the moment at that, and will deal with the first of the two topics that I have decided to say something about. I mean our home policy with regard to food production and the reclamation of our countryside. I call it "reclamation" because our countryside does need reclamation. Many parts of it are in a most derelict and discreditable condition and the opportunity for improvement is immeasurable. We have been subject in this matter to very long and repeated delays in coming to decisions. I should say that, if we were to assemble the records, they would parallel the records relating to the Uthwatt Report, if not make even a worse picture. I can say quite truly—and I know everyone here who understands the problems of the countryside will agree with me— that the delays in coming to decisions over agriculture and country policy are having most harmful effects. Decisions should be come to without delay. It is quite inevitable, and no one can complain of it, that the agricultural community recalls 1922. It is not human for them to forget that bitter experience. The memory of it, and the apprehensions which naturally arise out of it, cause hesitations and delays which are having a very harmful effect. I shall give one illustration only. We all know—and the noble Lord, when he was Minister of Food, to his eternal credit, brought it to

165
the knowledge and conscience of the people—that we require much more milk. We know that there is a considerable programme before us, but the biggest obstacle to the provision of increased supplies of milk under healthy and cleaner conditions is a much better provision of water supply and of buildings for the animals It is impossible to make progress in this matter unless these two essentials are provided.
Much can be done, no doubt, provided farmers have confidence in the future, but it is the lack of that confidence, owing to the absence of Government decisions, which is having a very restraining effect. That is certainly true. Some time ago we had a very interesting debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, on the dilapidations which exist in the countryside. He said in one place, with reference to the impossibility of getting dilapidations made good—new buildings and so on, the difficulty of providing which, in war-time, we were all perfectly aware of, and did not complain about—that under our system of taxation no provision is allowed to be made; for this kind of improvement unless the expenditure has been incurred At present the expenditure cannot be incurred; and at that time some of us put in a plea that, whatever may be the system of ownership, it is clearly good sense that you should be able to put money on one side to provide for capital improvements and repair and maintenance. That is common sense, whether the land belongs to the State or to private individuals. That was brought out very forcibly during that debate, and I hope the Minister will give some attention to it.
Some considerable time ago there was a Committee, of Peers under the Chairmanship of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, of which I had the honour to be a member. That Committee came to two very important conclusions, and the only reason I mention them is that there happens to be a remarkable unanimity of opinion among all the political Parties with regard to these two principles. I would remind your Lordships what they are:
"We are of opinion that the system of agricultural land ownership by individuals or corporations, public or private, shall be limited by the acceptance of the principle that such land must be used to the best advantage.
"To be used to the best advantage the land must be properly equipped. It is the duty of whoever owns the land to provide the buildings and the fixed capital equipment."
166
These are two very important principles, and what is so remarkable is that they have been accepted—to apply, mind you, in different ways—by the Labour Party on the one hand and the Land Union on the other. That is a very remarkable phenomenon. Those who belong to my Party take a certain view of how we can apply those principles, and others do not agree with them, but I am not proposing to argue that case now. What I am arguing is that the time has come for the Government to come to some decision about this matter. We have put before the Government our view, and others have done the same, and we must have as soon as possible a decision from the Government who accept these principles and embody them in the statements of the Minister of Agriculture himself, as to how they propose to give effect to them in order to remove the uncertainties of which I am complaining. I am not, as I say, proposing to argue that case to-day. I am pressing on the Minister what I believe is a very urgent duty before himself.
Alongside decisions about land ownership and land equipment it is very important, equally, that there should be a decision with regard to prices. Here, again, you have a very unusual amount of agreement between the different Parties. I would read to your Lordship some very short sentences from the latest publication of the Party to which I belong on this subject. I do not think anybody will disagree with them:—
"It is absolutely essential for the successful development of agriculture to adopt a policy of preventing undue fluctuations in the prices of particular commodities."
I am sure we all agree with that.
"So long as the farmer has no knowledge of the price he is likely to receive for his produce it is very difficult indeed to work on business lines."
I do not think there will be much disagreement about that.
"If prices were sufficiently stabilized, so that when he planned his production the farmer knew the appropriate price he would receive when he sold his produce, he could plan his operations more efficiently."
I do not think anybody will question that.
"Prices should be fixed at the level necessary to bring forward the required national supply from farms worked at a fair level of efficiency."
No one will disagree with that. And we say finally:

167
"It is impossible otherwise to have an industry that can provide good wages and attractive working conditions for those employed in it and be alert and progressive."
I do not think there will be much disagreement with these principles anywhere.
This question of price—here is where I address myself particularly to the noble Lord, the Minister of Reconstruction—is, we all know, inseparably bound up with international matters. Nobody has a richer or more intimate experience of that kind of thing than the noble Lord himself. I hope we shall find that he applies his direction to it. In this respect I should like to draw attention to two decisions reached at the recent Conference at Hot Springs. They were: "There has never been enough food for the health of all the people," and "The first cause of hunger and malnutrition is poverty." That is true enough, and where it comes home to us is when you apply it, because the League of Nations, I see, tells us in its publication that the population of the world is round about 2,000,000,000 and that 1,500,000,000 of them are primary producers in one form or another, getting their living from the land somehow or other. They go on to say that the great majority of the primary producers of the world are in chronic penury; and that is true, too. I suggest that the vision of the noble Lord with regard to price stabilization must take account of the policy we are going to pursue in our international commitments. I do not believe that there is any hope for the basis that Sir William Beveridge wants of regular employment so long as three-quarters of the population of the world are living in chronic penury, because while they are in that state they cannot buy our goods. Neither I nor the members of my Party, when we commit ourselves to these undertakings with regard to the stabilization of prices, have any desire to buy our food at the expense of the lives of those who produce it. That should apply all the world over, and I hope the Minister will urge his colleagues to act upon that principle.
In this connexion there are two other matters which I think the noble Lord should bear in mind. I have spoken of the necessity of decision in the matter of agriculture in order to get proper equipment and the necessity for decision on the matters of prices, but it must be recognized quite frankly that, if the Govern-
168
ment in the name of the people fortify this industry by giving it stabilization of prices, they are entitled to expect a proper use of the land in return. We should encourage the Minister to attack that exceedingly difficult set of problems which cluster round the word "distribution." I am quite sure that in the development of our own countryside which must follow, and can only follow, a reliable agricultural policy, we shall not retain the support of the town population unless excessive charges of distribution are dealt with. The fact is that the public pays rather more than twice as much for what it takes into the household as the producer receives. That is a problem which cannot be escaped.
There is another matter on which what I say may not be so pleasant to some of your Lordships, but it must be faced. We must take suitable measures for safeguarding against unfair rents. I have here a series of papers which came to me only yesterday from the chairman of the branch of the National Farmers' Union in the county in which I live. I had questioned a statement which he made and these papers were sent in support of the accuracy of his statement. A fanner received notice to quit accompanied by a letter, which I have here, saying that there was no desire to terminate his tenancy provided he was willing to pay so much more rent, the figure being stated. He demurred, but that is the position at the moment. Unless this man is willing to pay a rent about 50 per cent, more than he is now paying, he cannot stay on his farm and will get a year's notice.
That is a very unfortunate thing. An owner is entitled to be properly paid for the improvements he makes, and so long as private ownership continues he is entitled to receive a rent which will enable him to make improvements and repay the cost of them, in a proper businesslike way. That is only fair; but I think it is necessary that we should not allow the case to be prejudiced by action such as I have just described. It may be that in this case the rent was too low—I do not know. All I am saying is that I think, it is fair, and that it is in the interests of owners, that some machinery should be set up which will deal fairly with cases of that kind so that the public may be satisfied that the security which is given to this

169
industry is not wasted either in excessive distribution charges or in unnecessarily increased rents, but does in fact go to those who do the work. These things may not be palatable to some of your Lordships, but I think they ought to be said and I am sure that those landowners—I know many—who are wise and public spirited, do recognize the necessity of security against this kind of thing. I put it no higher than that.
Next I come to the topic of housing, which is very difficult, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Portal, is present to hear what is said about it. I hope we shall not have any more advertisements about the provision of three thousand houses. That really was a farcical approach to this matter. There is no other word for it. What will the position be at the end of this war? Thousands and thousands of houses, of course, have been destroyed. People are scattered all over the country and at the end of the war they will want homes. In addition to that, vast numbers of business premises have also been destroyed and will need to be rebuilt, and we are told that the shortage of houses will be no less than 4,000,000. It is clear that the country is confronted with a prodigious undertaking. The public do not expect the impossible They know very well that we cannot provide lots of houses in a very short time. But I think we are entitled to expect the problem to be tackled by the adoption of energetic measures. It will have to be dealt with on much bolder lines than hitherto; otherwise when men come back from the war and find nothing effective done, we may be confronted with a very resentful people and perhaps a very dangerous situation, because the need for a home of some kind will be terribly urgent in millions of cases.
I suggest that we shall have to adopt new measures. I have looked at figures as to houses built by rural district councils over the whole country from the Armistice after the last war to July, 1939. In that twenty years there was a total number of 141,886 houses. I suggest that there must be a new approach to two matters —firstly, cost, and secondly, rapidity of provision. With regard to cost may I recall our past experience? In 1922 the housing efforts of the then Government were put a stop to on account of what was called an economy crusade, because the cost of houses had then reached the
170
fabulous figure of £1,000 each or thereabouts. I myself was a victim, as your Lordships know, but never mind that. I well remember one particular protagonist who figured very prominently in the Press, who suggested that young fellows and girls who wanted to get married should be told that young people ought to be satisfied with one room. That was in 1922. And I took the trouble to look up the records relating to the conduct of that particular protagonist three years previously. At that particular time, nobody was more boisterous in shouting for homes for heroes than he was. That is what actually happened in 1922. Well, we cannot have a shameful repetition of that. I hope that the noble Lord will see to it that we do not; he can.
But we are beginning now at £1,000 a house, more or less, according to the figures of the cost of the three thousand. We are where disaster set in in 1922. That is where we are beginning. It fills me with dread as to what is going to happen unless something very different from that is done in two or three years after the war, or immediately after the war. If that is where we are going to start from—but I am very glad to see that Lord Portal shakes his head. I know, and he knows, that houses could be built for less than £1,000, but what I am seeking to do is to exhort the Government to see to it that they are, and to take care that the whole great enterprise is not ruined by permitting those fictitious and unnecessary increases of cost which ruined it last time. In order to prevent that I think it will be necessary for the Government to exercise, and to continue to exercise, strict control over the whole question of materials and supply—especially where materials are concerned—and to watch carefully their priorities and allocations.
I hope that the Government will decide to tackle this problem not by leaving it to the good will—although they are anxious to help of large numbers of authorities up and down the country. A beginning should be made by the Government contemplating the mobilization of the whole building industry to tackle these immense tasks exactly as we have mobilized for war work. What with the rebuilding of our towns, factories, business premises, houses and so on, the task before the building industry is a task such as it has never had

171
in front of it before. There is no doubt about that. Therefore, bold and novel methods will be needed. I am very glad that Lord Portal is here because, if I may say so without flattering him, I think he is just the man to mobilize the units of the building industry, large and small. We shall want all the work that they can do for a very long time. But it will need directing, otherwise we shall have a most unholy inflation of prices and a dreadful scramble, and the work will be discredited.
We have heard some talk of pre-fabrication. I express no opinion, not being a technical expert, but as a mere outsider, it seems to me that if you can pre-fabricate a ship there is no reason why it should not be possible to pre-fabricate a house. Those ingenious people who do this kind of thing would, I have no doubt, be equal to the task. It would be a mistake, in my view, to prejudice any new method. We should encourage it, if it is a good one, but if we do have pre-fabrication I hope that the noble Lord will insist upon strict control, firstly, over design, secondly, over the quality of the material that is prefabricated, and thirdly, over its price. I shudder to think what would happen if you turned the jerry-builder loose on pre-fabrication. Whatever may be its merits, it should be kept in hand.
In my view there is no doubt about it that this side of our post-war work will immediately provide perhaps the greatest opportunities for employment of any side. It will provide, if properly directed, and having the good will and co-operation of local authorities and firms large and small as well as the Central Department, an amount of employment which will go far to absorb the unemployment which might otherwise arise after the end of the war. I hope the noble Lord and his colleague who is now sitting beside him, in acting in this matter, will not hesitate to be novel and courageous—I am sure they will be courageous—and will not be held back by vested interests or prejudice. Indeed, I may say that I do not think that they will be so held back. But I am quite sure that they will need, and the Minister will need increasingly as he goes on, the support of his colleagues in the Cabinet. Most of all he will depend on that, and I felt considerable gratification at the announcement of the Prime Minister putting food and housing in the foremost part of the
172
new Minister's programme. As I say, I am quite sure that this support will be needed, and if the Minister of Reconstruction can rely throughout on the vigorous, high-minded support of the Prime Minister, he will find it of incalculable worth. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House welcomes the appointment of a Minister of Reconstruction with War Cabinet rank, and the announcement of the Prime Minister that preparations are being made to secure work, food, and homes for the people after the war, and in view of the nature of some of the problems involved, urges the importance of the early announcement of decisions on the matters of policy affected, and the presentation of such plans and legislation as may be necessary to give effect to them without avoidable delay at the termination of hostilities. —[Lord Addison.]
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, owing to the absence through illness of my noble friend the Marquess of Crewe and my noble friend Viscount Samuel, and the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, it has fallen on me, at the shortest possible notice, to address your Lordships on this matter. This is a subject which requires prolonged study and profound thought. In spite of the generous way in which your Lordships have received me, I should not be dealing fairly by you were I to attempt to do justice to this matter. It would not be right for me to try to do so.
If I say little about the Ministry of Reconstruction and its policy, perhaps I may be permitted to say something about the man. Few figures in political life, within my memory, have, if I may say so, been so outstanding as that of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. I am all the more happy to say that because I have not always agreed with him. His task has not been easy. Its importance cannot be exaggerated. One serious slip on his part and all the sacrifice of our fighting men might well have been in vain. He has fed us, he has kept us in health, and he has taught us the virtues of a simple life. How far we shall practise these without his kindly guidance when we are no longer compelled to do so, I cannot say, but that they are virtues none can doubt. I think we may look forward to the future with confidence, feeling sure as I do that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, will not be

173
anxious to stifle the initiative and the enterprise of the individual man—things which I believe to be part of the very fabric of our national life. I would like personally, if I may, and on behalf of the noble Lords who sit on these Benches, to support the terms of this Motion most warmly and to wish the noble Lord and his staff all possible success in the task that lies before them.
THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I thought perhaps that it might be convenient to the House if I were to intervene at this stage in the debate in order to make a few observations of a general nature. Those noble Lords who have been good enough to acquaint me with the views that they proposed to express have indicated that this debate would cover a very wide field. I discussed this matter with the Leader of the House, and it would obviously be grossly unfair to ask any other Minister, who may know even less about the subject than I do, to reply to the questions; and therefore, if it would be the wish of your Lordships, I should propose to wind up the debate tomorrow; but I cannot do that unless I have the consent of the House.
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD WOOLTON: Thank you, my Lords. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addison, for having introduced this Mot on and for the kind things that the has been good enough to say about me. I should regret to return that kind-ness by any adverse criticism, but my noble friend Lord Portal has pointed out to me that the elegant dispatch boxes that are in the possession of Ministers are only their possessions during such times as they are in office. My noble friend suggested that if Lord Addison had a large collection of them then perhaps he would be good enough to return them to him. After the very kindly welcome that he has given to me I am indeed grateful. When Lord Addison talks about the duties of a Minister of Reconstruction he does indeed know what he is talking about. I am very conscious of the magnitude of the task. If your Lordships will allow me for one moment to make a personal observation I would like to add—and I do it, believe me, without affectation— that the responsibility of this office is one that I would very willingly have seen on
174
other shoulders than mine. But the Prime Minister decided otherwise, and in those circumstances I think my duty was obvious: it was to do as I was told.
I have been both encouraged and fortified by the unhesitating assurance that has been given to me of the unqualified support of all my colleagues and of all the several Parties that constitute this National Government. I realize the limitations of my personal capacity and knowledge, and I can only assure your Lordships that I will devote such capacity as I have to this task without stint. But there is one thing I will not do. Whatever may be the pressure of Parliament or of the country for us to get on quickly, I am not going to make any promises until I know that they can be fulfilled. I am not going to arouse hopes that are doomed to be dissipated in disappointment, however eloquent the phrase that trips off the tongue and encourages one to make those promises. And I hope that this war will not produce the lineal descendant of "Homes for heroes to dwell in"; at least it will not be produced until such time as those responsible Ministers who make the promises can be absolutely certain that the homes will be there for the heroes to live in.
Your Lordships perhaps will be good enough to allow me to remind you that we had one unbreakable rule at the Ministry of Food, and that was that no speeches should be founded on hope. Until we had the goods in the shops for the people to go and test our promises no one was allowed to make any. I shall adhere to that same principle as Minister of Reconstruction. It is inevitable that in the course of this debate noble Lords will regret that His Majesty's Government have not promised legislation on large numbers of subjects which appear to them to be vital to the reconstitution of Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, referred to his post-bag. I have got one too, and during the course of the last fourteen days since I came into this office I have had many letters from people who have been good enough to express great confidence that the appointment of a Minister of Reconstruction would make all sorts of things happen very quickly—each selecting according to his taste. There have been some who reminded me that in my early youth I was courageous enough— brazen enough—to assume that I could

175
find a cure for poverty, and therefore they think that I might now be able to do it. There are others who take a less favourable view of me and have regarded me as one of those hard-boiled business men, and so they are quite sure that in these circumstances I shall be able to deal with all the speculators and the rest. And there are even some who have reminded me of my hobbies, and have said that now that we have got a Governor of the Royal College of Art as Minister of Reconstruction we are quite sure to have our new England built on the basis of beauty.
Well, it is difficult to live up to all these things and to live up to them all at once. The Government have throughout the war sought well in advance to inform themselves on matters of fact and opinion, and so, as your Lordships know, many Commissions have sat and Reports have been presented. There now is a mass of information in front of us—Uthwatt, Barlow, Scott, Beveridge; and to all these gentlemen and to those who sat with them I think the country is greatly obligated. These Reports have been very detailed and some of them have been very persuasive. But the Government cannot contract out of their responsibilities by appointing Commissions. It is the duty of Commission to collect evidence and to present the facts, but however erudite the Commissioners may be, they can but present the facts within the restricted orbit of their terms of reference.
The Government would be failing in their duty if they merely swallowed these Reports whole. I make no apology for the fact that the Government have not decided, at the present time, on legislation on all these various Reports. If I may take the most highly publicized of these Reports—that which is associated with the name of Sir William Beveridge —your Lordships will remember that he, in his wisdom, stated that the proposals he made were dependent upon full employment. Sir William undertook the task that Mr. Greenwood gave to him and defined for him. He was not asked to report on full employment and, being as he is, a very sound economist, he presented us with his observations on what could be done towards social security if we had full employment.
At this stage I make no observations on the various provisions that he has com-
176
mended for social security. I have referred to his Report merely in order that I might illustrate my fundamental attitude to all these questions of reform. We must put first things first, and the things that the people of this country want most urgently were quite clearly expressed by the Prime Minister when he spoke of work, homes and food. Sir William Beveridge is right in saying that full employment is the foundation of social security. To ensure work for the nation —that is where reconstruction starts. We must work to live and if this country is to rebuild its commercial life and be able to give social security to its people, it will need to work very hard. British people, fortunately, have plenty of common sense, and we shall plan more surely for the future if we place before them the whole of the facts—the obligations as well as the rewards. If we do that I am quite certain we shall earn their co-operation. During this war the Government have had to take control of our lives and most of our material resources, but do not let us assume that during the transition period between war and peace, all initiative and all action are going to depend on what the Government are going to do. It is not the Government's "new world" that we are going to build; it is the people's world. They will build it; they are the people who are going to work for it and benefit from it. Government can direct, they can advise, they can encourage, they can control where necessary in the general public interest, and they can provide from public funds such help as Parliament, representing the public, approves. But the enterprise and the scientific and industrial capacity of the whole nation will need to be harnessed, and not only harnessed, but indeed enthused to the task of reconstructing our country.
At the outset, therefore, I appeal to the practical common sense and the united effort of the whole nation, so that we may all work together in industrial harmony in this task of moving, when the time is ripe, from war to peace, from the destruction of our enemies to the construction of our domestic life and our international trade. Plans must be prepared, but action will have to wait on events. Let us keep our eyes firmly fixed on the war, however hopeful we may be about the way things are moving in our favour. Not one item of production that

177
is needed for war must be sacrificed in order to ease the movement of industry from war to peace. We are committed to finish this war in the East as well as in the West, and in all our thinking and in all cur deeds that must remain the predominant consideration, until it is finished as we want it to be finished.
I have had to say that, but it does not mean that we must not be making our plans ahead. There is nothing new about planning. The phrase has come into popular use, but every wise business man makes his plans two, three, four or five years ahead of his current practice. It is part of ordinary business and I hope that the industrialists of this country are doing it now. I hope that they are going to say what they need from Government during this transition period. I hope they will make very carefully considered proposals as to what controls should go and what controls should stay during this period of transition, when there will be great shortage of labour and even greater shortage of material. If we are to have work for all our people we shall want great enterprise among the industrialists and tracers and a willingness to take risks once again among our commercial men in a spirit of co-operation and fair dealing as between employer and employee.
Because I have had such a long association with them in the days before the war, I am going to venture in the first speech I make as Minister of Reconstruction to appeal to the industrialists and to the workpeople of this country to bring to the period of reconstruction that same sense of national devotion and subjugation of self-interest that they have shown so magnificently in the period when the country was in danger. The country is still in danger. The danger to its physical life has not passed, unfortunately, and its commercial life will remain in danger for some years to come. We shall need all the commercial wisdom and foresight in the immediate post-war years if we are to rebuild our national prosperity. From the commercial danger of the nation, let there be no mistake about it, there follows the danger to all those hopes for a better world that depend on the solvency of our national finance.
May I remind your Lordships that we have vastly increased our internal debt on which interest must be paid? In
178
carrying out this war we have sold or pledged much of our investment overseas, on the interest of which we depended so much for our imports. Our wealth has been destroyed, our ships have been sunk, our towns have been burnt and broken, and for some years to come we shall be a nation poor in wealth, though we shall be rich beyond any dreams of the past in reputation. But however strained our Exchequer may be, there yet remains, undiminished in the minds of our people, the faith that we can rebuild our enterprise, replan—and indeed beautify—our cities, provide adequate homes for our people, and by the proper use of our land at home and by the development of our export trade abroad, purchase the food that is necessary to keep our people at least as well fed in the days of peace as they have been in the days of war. I believe that this great faith is justified. It is, my Lords, a great commitment, but during these last four years we have demonstrated our national capacity for greatness, and this task that lies before us is not beyond us.
I have occupied your Lordships' time to-day because I thought it probably would be your will that I might indicate to you the approach that I make to this new office with which I am entrusted. The fire of idealism will brighten our minds and warm our hearts. The task which faces us, however, is not that of formulating phrases or making speeches, but of hard constructive work dealing first with the fundamental requirements of the people of this country—dealing with them in their proper order of importance, and having strict regard to the cost of the proposals that commend themselves to our rising hopes.
So much for the general aspect. Now let us look at the steps we must take. Firstly—but only firstly in point of time— there will be the remobilization of our civilian forces and the switching over of industry from war to peace. Let us frankly face the fact that this cannot be done without interruption of employment. You cannot take a factory that has been making tanks and, because hostilities have ceased—however carefully you may plan—you cannot the next day, or the next week, be ready to go over to employing all these people on civilian production. It is bound to be a gradual process. The Ministers of Production and Labour are

179
already devoting their attention to the means to be adopted in reducing the volume of munitions production so that, industry by industry, factory by factory, and locality by locality, this may be done as the demands for the production of the Services decline. In doing this they will take into account the situation as regards the resumption of civilian production, and in each locality as regards the need for the diversity of industry—a matter which the Barlow Report very properly emphasized. The House may rest assured that by administrative action we shall pay full regard to this factor of the diversity of industry in the country. My noble friend Lord Portal and I spent many years before this war trying to remedy, in the depressed areas of this country, some of the doleful results of the lack of this diversity of industry in places that were unhappily dependent primarily on coal mining and ship building.
The plans for the demobilization of the Forces have been the concern of a Committee of His Majesty's Government for some months. I have seen these plans. One thing I can assure the House is that there will be no favour for anyone. Demobilization will generally be ordered, above all else, so that it will be fair all round. The Minister of Labour is responsible for putting people back into industry, and he can be relied upon to do it with the same orderly fairness that he has shown in taking them out of industry and putting them into the Army.
Next to work comes food. We have made plans which will secure our major supplies of food for some time to come. We shall continue this policy and, with it, I hope we shall retain much of the care and provision that we have exercised for the health of children and their mothers during the past at a cost to the nation that has really been very small compared with the national benefit that we have received from it. In the stress of war we have established in this country a national concern for nutrition. We have used the knowledge of the science of food to preserve national health—indeed to promote national health—and on that, after all, depends our capacity for hard work as well as our personal happiness.
Then comes housing. A programme of four million houses, as Lord Addison said, has already been mentioned as an objective
180
—indeed, as the requirement of the country. I am not promising four million houses, but I can tell you that we are planning to expand the building industry so as to try to cope with a programme of this quite colossal magnitude. This means a labour force of 1,250,000 men from an industry that has had to make a very heavy contribution towards the provision of our war needs, and it is bound to be some time before the industry can be expanded sufficiently to meet all the claims for building in the post-war years. Our immediate objective will be to see that the resources of this industry, as they expand, are applied to the most urgent needs, among which, clearly, housing takes the foremost place. For this rehousing of the people, it is platitudinous to say, we shall need labour and materials and a suitable level of building costs. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, can be quite sure that my most excellent business colleague, Lord Portal, who has spent the greater part of his life looking at costs of one kind or another, is not going to be unmindful of the question of building costs. A great deal of preparatory work has already been done. Local authorities, on whom must fall a substantial part of the housing work in the early years after the war, already hold enough land for over 100,000 houses, and sites for as many again are in process of being acquired. The next step is to advise local authorities what kind of houses they should build so that they can get further ahead with their detailed plans. I can promise local authorities that they will have the best advice on this matter that the Central Government are able to give them, and they will have that very quickly.
LORD LATHAM: And the powers?
LORD WOOLTON: I shall deal with that later. Meanwhile, my noble friend the Minister of Works is arranging to erect a number of experimental houses built with various sorts of materials, which will be available as a demonstration to local authorities and to the public of what can be done and at what cost it can be done. The needs of the war will determine when house-building can start. In the meantime, we are seeing that all the preparations are made so that we can get off to a flying start as soon as possible.
I know that many of your Lordships, as the interruption of my noble friend Lord Latham indicated, will want to know when the plans of the Minister of

181
Town and Country Planning are going to be produced. I can tell you this, that he was the first Minister with whom I had consultations regarding reconstruction, for we must settle land policy without any delay at all. The Minister has done an immense amount of work already towards clarifying this matter, on which, as your Lordships know, there are widely differing opinions and, in fact, it is a matter hat for many peaceful years has been the subject of the most violent political controversy. In the temper of today, when all Parties in the State are determined, on this matter at any rate, to put he State before Party, we have very high hopes of a permanent settlement that will be fair to everyone, even although it may fail completely to meet the ideals of the old controversialists. Of one thing your Lordships may rest assured. The proper development of the land shall not be prevented or delayed either by motives of personal gain or other selfish reasons. Our proposals on this matter which affect the groundwork of all sound planning will be laid before Parliament at a very early date, so that local authorities—
A NOBLE LORD: This Session?
LORD WOOLTON: After Christmas, so that local authorities can make preparations to meet the responsibility that will fall upon them. I do not want to delay your Lordships too long, but I am trying to cover a somewhat wide field. Quite clearly we are all interested in, and I am sure are looking forward to seeing, the Bill which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Education will very presently introduce. This is really reconstruction in its essence, because here we are going to improve the chances of our young people to prepare themselves for the hard task with which their generation will be confronted. This is a fundamental step towards the reconstruction of the country after the war. Many Ministers and many Departments are concerned with the problem of social insurance and security. My right honourable friend the Minister Without Portfolio, on this and on many of the problems with which we are to-day concerned, has brought to bear the high quality of his mind in clarifying the issues that this problem of social security presents.
May I make this personal observation? It is a thankless task to prepare plans for
182
the future, plans for the re-building of a country when the whole of the country has its mind fixed on war and when nobody will take much notice of those plans. I myself have been guilty in the past of saying that I was not interested in plans, that I was interested only in doing what I could to win the war. My right Honourable friend the Minister Without Portfolio has had a very difficult time. Let me here pay tribute to the vast amount of work that he has done and the great spirit he has shown in welcoming a colleague to share his labours. He has a vast amount of material, classified material that Has passed through the sieve of his very clear and analytical mind and is ready now, when the time has come for action to be taken, to inform those of us in the Government on whom such responsibility rests. I promise, my Lords, that there shall be no delay in informing the country of our specific proposals, particularly on the subject of social insurance.
I think I Have said enough. Perhaps your Lordships may think I have said too much. I have been trying to illustrate the task of reconstruction that is before me. The noble Lord, Lord Addison, was concerned lest I should not have the staff I require. In my last job I had a staff of 52,000 people. I have no ambition to have a large staff. These plans of reconstruction are not going to be carried out by me. They are going to be carried out by a number of Ministers and Government Departments. The primary responsibility for formulating plans, and the responsibility for executing them, must continue to rest with the Departments concerned, working under the direction of their Ministerial chiefs. That is why there is not going to be any Ministry of Reconstruction.
LORD ADDISON: I hope the noble Lord does not mean that literally. I will read it with great care, but if he means that literally why is there a Minister of Reconstruction at all?
LORD WOOLTON: The execution of plans must be the responsibility of the Ministers in charge of the Departments. The preparation of plans, the first preparation, in the language, I believe, of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the primary responsibility for formulating the plans rests with the Ministers

183
in charge of the Departments. You do not want a new Minister coming in taking no notice of everything done in the past. It is in the Departments that knowledge exists of these things. Therefore it is the business of those Ministers to formulate the plans. That is why I say there is going to be no Ministry of Reconstruction with a large staff attached to it. I am not taking over from the Departmental Ministers the responsibility for all their post-war plans. If I did, I should have to bring under one control large expert staffs from all Departments. I certainly should have to get them from the Departments, and as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, says, new Ministries do not tend to get the pick of the staffs. It would clearly not be possible for any single Minister, or any single staff, to take over the whole of this work. Moreover, it would involve waste and friction between the Departments. What I have to try to do is to see the reconstruction plan as a whole, to lay out the various parts which have to be worked out by the Departments, to bring the plans of the various Departments in relation with one another, and to make sure that there are no gaps, no overlapping, no conflict—in a word, to see that the whole range of preparations is brought into one single coherent whole and that work on these plans proceeds apace.
The responsibility therefore of the Minister of Reconstruction is quite clearly defined. It is his business, with his colleagues, to see that all these plans come into one orderly whole, and that nothing is left undone by his colleagues that ought in the opinion of the War Cabinet to be done. In doing so I shall be helped by a very strong Committee of the War Cabinet, over which I shall preside, and I have the assurance of my colleagues of their willing co-operation. I see some noble Lords opposite are not quite clear whether I have got enough powers or not. I am grateful to them for their concern, but I have not in the past been backward in coming forward when I have thought that my powers were being curtailed. I am grateful to their Lordships for their solicitude on this matter, but I ask them to believe me when I say they need have no concern because if I have not sufficient powers to do the job then I shall not attempt to do it. I have the unqualified assurance of the Prime Minister—and I am
184
quite content with that—of his support in this matter. Therefore I say to those of your Lordships who may be a little inclined to think they would feel happier if there were a large building with the word "Reconstruction" on it, and a large staff of people who were guiding me, that I think they would be more of a nuisance than they were worth, and nobody knows it better than the noble Lord, Lord Addison.
I am grateful to your Lordships for having given me this opportunity of, at any rate, adumbrating the general line of the policy that the Minister of Reconstruction proposes to adopt. I shall endeavour when the debate is ended to do my best to satisfy you on the individual questions that you will raise, and I am sure that, in the conclusion, you will be generous with me in not expecting me, in the course of one fortnight, to have acquired too much knowledge of these various subjects.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I first of all must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, on the speech which he has just addressed to us. I am perfectly certain that we all of us felt that it was a bracing speech, a speech which dealt with the actual facts of the situation: and though he said that he, himself, never expressed hopes but always facts, he has certainly given us ground for much hope for the future. I think that hardly anything has given me greater confidence in the new Ministry than the fact that the noble Lord has been appointed to it. He has had a most difficult task during these last few years. He has not only seen to it that we have been supplied with sufficient food, but he has also seen to it that we have been fed with the right kind of food. He has improved our health and improved our figures, and I should like to say that I hope very much indeed that the Ministry of Food will continue in existence for at any rate a considerable period after the war. It will have the task of seeing that food is fairly distributed to all classes of the community, and also, through careful and persistent propaganda, it will persuade us to continue using sufficiently protective foods which are so necessary for health.
I am bound to add that, although I feel perfectly happy about the Minister of Reconstruction, I am a little doubtful about the Ministry, and I hope that later

185
on we shall have some elucidation of the actual powers which this Ministry will have. If the noble Lord were to be a dictator of reconstruction with a very tiny staff behind him, I should be happy. I think I should be happy if the noble Lord had a really active Ministry which could initiate and carry things through. At present I am a little doubtful, but I put my whole trust in the noble Lord, for I believe that he is strong enough to make tin's Ministry really effective whatever the particular form it may take at its outset.
The noble Lord has said so much that is encouraging, and which meets some of the points I was about to raise, that I need not detain the House for any great length of time. Of course anything I say is subject entirely to the two conditions which the noble Lord laid down—firstly, that our primary duty is to win the war, and that no social reconstruction is possible unless the war is won—everything must be subordinate to that—and, secondly, that the country will, materially, be poorer after the war, and that it will be necessary for industrialists and workpeople to put their very best into the task of making this country once again really prosperous, materially as well as morally I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Addison, on his Motion. It is most comprehensive. Sometimes in speaking to a Resolution in this House, I have had a guilty feeling that I am not speaking quite strictly to its terms. But I think the most wayward member of your Lordships' House would find it difficult to stray outside the terms of this very inclusive Resolution.
There are two special points with which I wish to deal. Both have been touched upon already by the noble Lord. First and foremost is the question of employment. As we have already been told, the Beveridge Report and everything else does really depend upon general employment throughout the country. There will be great dangers attendant upon the demobilization of large numbers of men, and there will be a transition period, a period in which we shall be passing from the production of munitions to peace-time production. There will be danger then of unemployment. Private industry by itself cannot possibly, in these days in the modern world, solve the problem of unemployment. It was able to do that in
186
Victorian days when the wealth of the country was increasing by leaps and bounds. But in the last thirty or forty years we have learnt that private industry by itself cannot solve the problem of unemployment. It must be assisted by the State when we are passing through the transition period. I believe that the success of an orderly and regulated private industry will be judged by the way in which, in the next few years, it manages to solve the problem of employment. If once again there is continuous mass unemployment, I am perfectly certain that there will come an irresistible demand, especially from the North and from the Midlands, for a change in the ownership and regulation of the means both of production and distribution.
If industry to-day, helped by the State, is to meet the demand for employment, I think that action will have to be taken by the Government on three lines. It will, in the first place, have to see that labour and capital are turned to those industries which will produce what is most necessary for the country, and which will give the greatest amount of profitable work for the people of the country. I do not think I can do better here than quote from a leading article which appeared in The Times last month:
"The only programme of work for all which can satisfy national demands, and in the long run avert disaster, is one which diverts manpower released from production for war into production for those ends which the nation judges it most desirable and most urgent to attain in peace."
Secondly, it will be necessary, at any rate for a time, for certain industries which produce what we can roughly describe as luxury goods to be curtailed or suspended. Thirdly, it will be necessary to see that industry is so dispersed that it is possible to avoid in any special district mass unemployment.
There is hardly anything which the noble Lord said which gave me greater satisfaction than the way in which he showed himself alive to the importance of the fair and reasonable dispersion of industry. He spoke of it as a really urgent matter. I have had this brought home to me lately when visiting one of the North-Eastern districts in which there was a very large amount of unemployment a short time ago. The whole place is hum-

187
ming with industry now; everyone is employed, and if there were more people there more could be employed. But the people there have bitter memories of the past, and they have the gravest anxieties about the future. If war comes to an end suddenly and no plans are prepared, unemployment once again is quite unavoidable. Therefore, amidst all the claims made by the problems of the war, I hope that plans are being made ready—and I gather that they are being made ready— for some action on the lines of the Barlow Report.
The other matter on which I wished to speak is again one that has been spoken of by the noble Lord, and also by the noble Lord who introduced this Motion— I refer to housing. The noble Lord the Minister of Reconstruction fully recognizes the importance of this problem. We shall be faced with a vaster housing problem than this country has ever had to solve in the past, not only through the large number of houses destroyed by successive "Blitzes"—and it is possible that more houses may be destroyed in the future—but from the fact that a very large number of houses have deteriorated during the war, and I can think of few things which would cause greater bitterness and greater dissatisfaction than men coming home from the front and finding no homes to go to. After the last war I well remember how, in certain parts of South London, the majority of the young people who were married were not able to go- to a home of their own; they had to go and live with some relations or other people. And however delightful fathers-in-law and mothers-in-law may be, they are not as a rule content to have the sons-in-law or the daughters-in-law living with them indefinitely; nor are the sons-in-law and daughters-in-law always quite satisfied with that position. So that, for the sake of our men who may be demobilized, it is essential that we should get on as quickly as possible with plans for building.
And that brings me to the point which I want to stress, and which I understand is very much in the mind of the noble Lord—namely, the urgency of giving the local authorities power to acquire land and to know under what conditions they will be able to acquire this land. I have been speaking lately to a number of people who, in the large cities of the North, are greatly interested in housing, and I have
188
been told—rightly or wrongly, but they are men of responsibility—that their plans are held up because they do not yet know what the Government policy is. It was pressed on me only a few weeks ago by the Lord Mayor of one of the largest and most important of our cities in the North, that everything was being held up through this uncertainty as to what the plans would be for the acquisition of land and for compensation.
Not very long ago there was a remarkable letter in The Times signed by a number of Mayors and Lord Mayors, approaching this subject from a completely non-Party point of view, and they said that the importance of rebuilding and replacement of houses was most urgent. Then they went on to say:
"Yet we are unable to move with certainty, for the provision of new houses and schools, or to take any effective action for recasting our urban lay-outs, or to prepare for the revival of industry and commerce, because the Government have, as yet, failed to give legislative effect to their pledges that public bodies would be given power to acquire, at prices related to pre-war values, such land as is required for development and replanning. Even proposals for slum clearances and rehousing, ready for the demobilization period, must suffer great delays unless fresh legislation enables us to take possession of property much more quickly than the Housing Acts now permit."
I hope that the noble Lord will press upon his colleagues the urgency of that. I recognize that during war-time actual building is most difficult, though here and there it may be possible to build some houses. But let us have everything ready at any rate, so that the moment peace comes work is found for demobilized men in building some of these hundreds of thousands of houses which will be required for the people of this country.
I am afraid I shall not hear the noble Lord replying at the next sitting; to my great regret I have to be elsewhere. I know it may be impossible for him to answer some of these questions; after all, after only a fortnight in his office he can hardly be expected to give detailed replies. But I feel confident that he will do his utmost to press on with this problem of reconstruction, and he may be quite confident that he carries with him our very best wishes, and our hopes that he may be as successful in his new office as he was in his old.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this debate is really a most important occasion. We are welcoming to-day the speech of

189
the Prime Minister on post-war policy and the noble Lord's appointment as Minister of Reconstruction. The country takes this naturally as an announcement that the Government intend henceforward to take seriously the problems of the future. It will be generally agreed that this has come none too soon. It is not necessary to take an over-optimistic view of the course of the war to feel that there is a very real and very great danger that peace, whenever it may come, is going to find us unprepared. I think it is quite clear from a perusal of the debate in another place yesterday that this is a feeling that is not being expressed from one side of the House only; it is expresed most freely from all sides of the House. And indeed in mentioning that point it seems to me that perhaps the most encouraging feature for the future of this country and the most encouraging factor in the difficult prospects ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is this fact of the amazing open-mindedness at the present moment of all Parties and all classes in this country. There has never been a period for generations when Party-political prejudices have been weaker. I know that Party machines are still very strong, but one finds the strangest admixtures of views within each of those machines.
It is very clear from what has been said in the House to-day that this House is quite unanimous in the delight that it has expressed at the appropriateness of the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton. He has been chosen because he is a successful, a tried and a proven Minister. I think, like the noble Lord, Lord Addison, and the most reverend Prelate, that many people would appreciate a little more information as to what exactly his office is. The noble Lord mentioned his staff. There is the question of powers and the question of his relations vis-à-vis other Ministers. The noble Lord gave us a definition that I think distinctly disturbed some of us, but it is a serious matter and it is a matter on which one will want to study Hansard very closely to-morrow. We do want to know whether he is a Minister with responsibility or whether he is just a co-ordinator and a Chairman of Ministerial Committees. The Government machine of this country has been built up for generations on the foundation of Ministerial responsibility.
LORD WOOLTON: And on collective responsibility.
EARL DE LA WARR: On Ministerial responsibility and a collective Cabinet, but quite definitely Ministerial responsibility. Has the noble Lord got responsibility or not? I gathered from what he said that he has no right of interference with Departmental Ministers. He may be a very useful and certainly he will be a very competent Chairman of Ministers, but it is quite clear that is all that his function is. This is a very serious and relevant point. We now have some experience of this type of appointment. Before the war Sir Thomas Inskip, now Lord Caldecote, followed I think by the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, was placed very much in the same position with regard to defence, and lately, as we know, Mr. Arthur Greenwood and Sir William Jowitt have occupied somewhat the same position, though in the case of Sir William Jowitt with variations with regard to post-war policy. Like the most reverend Prelate I am afraid a public engagement will prevent me from hearing the noble Lord's reply, but I do hope for his own sake and for the interest that Parliament and the country take, he will deal with this point in his reply at the end of the debate. The people welcomed his appointment because they thought the noble Lord was to be Minister of Reconstruction and they definitely will visualize him as a Minister with powers and responsibilities.
This question of machinery, however important it is, is subsidiary to what we are all really awaiting, and if the no-bit Lord is able to bring to an issue certain decisions for which this country has been waiting a very long time then indeed his appointment will have been well worth while. It is not a question of machinery only that is necessary in order to make possible the fulfilment of the pledge of the Prime Minister to give us a policy for the provision of food. That is not a question of machinery, it is a question of the power of making a decision, the power of being able to get together several Ministers in order that they may agree sufficiently to enable the Government to announce an agricultural policy. Unless the producers in this country and every other country have sufficient security to enable them to lay their plans ahead, how are they going

191
to be able to produce all the food which we have been told since the meeting at Hot Springs is to be needed for the feeding of the world? Agricultural policy and food policy are one. You cannot solve the one problem without the other. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will realize that if he is to fulfil the pledge of the Prime Minister of a policy for the provision of food he will have to face the necessity of making an early announcement on the Government's agricultural policy, and as this policy was promised us over three years ago the noble Lord must not feel that we are being impatient if we allow him only a comparatively short respite before the offensive on that particular front is resumed in your Lordships' House.
The Prime Minister has pledged this country to a policy for the provision of homes, but unless and until the Government can make up their minds on the powers that they are going to need for the replanning and rebuilding of this country, no homes can be provided. I think the noble Lord to-day gave us a most welcome undertaking that legislation would be produced early in the new year with regard to the powers necessary for town and country planning. I hope I am not stretching his words too far.
LORD WOOLTON: You are repeating them precisely.
EARL DE LA WARR: That is indeed welcome, because everyone who has had any contact whatever with local government could quote cases, such as the most reverend Prelate has quoted, of housing authorities being unable to make any progress whatsoever even with the making of plans, because they had received no decision of the Government. I take it the noble Lord realizes how far he has got to go. The Barlow, the Scott and the Uthwatt Reports have been pigeon-holed for so long now that one has almost to be apologetic for being so old-fashioned as to mention them again. It is true the Government do not have to accept everything recommended in those Reports, but the Government will have to give us their definite and very concrete answers to the recommendations that have been made in regard to the questions that were propounded. It really would be a fraud on the people of this country to promise them homes within a measurable period
192
from the end of this war unless the noble Lord does interpret very faithfully and very exactly the pledge he has given today for legislation with regard to these difficult and controversial questions that have been held up so long.
LORD WOOLTON: Of course I cannot promise legislation. All I can promise is that His Majesty's Government will place their views before the House. Legislation depends upon the House.
EARL DE LA WARR: We will look in Hansard to-morrow at what the noble Lord said, but I did actually write down the words "town planning legislation at an early date."
LORD WOOLTON: It depends upon the House whether they accept it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I understood we were told the Government were going to bring forward legislation early in the year and I think the House will welcome corroboration of that statement. I think those two instances are quite sufficient to make the point that the problem before us to-day, the problem on which we have to satisfy ourselves, is whether this machinery is going to give us the decisions for which we have been waiting. We were all inspired by some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to-day. He spoke about this country's belief in its future. I, too, believe that throughout the country there is a great belief in our future. General Smuts said the other day, and I think the noble Lord said something of the same kind, that we were all going to be a great deal poorer than we were. That may be so, if we think in terms of investments and of the savings of past generations, but we have gained something during the last two years. We have gained a belief in ourselves and in our power to do things, and that is worth a great quantity of the savings of our forefathers. Before the war there was a terrible phrase which was often quoted: "Too late and too little." We have got to see to it that that phrase can never be used again about British Government policy.
Before the war we were so often essentially negative. There were too many people in this country who were ashamed of having an Empire and unwilling to develop it. To-day we are proud of that Empire, and we are determined to de-

193
velop it. We allowed our land to go to rain because it seemed cheaper to do so. We allowed the skill of millions of our workers to go to waste because we thought it cheaper to pay them relief than to allow them to work. Evacuation gave us a glimpse of the human beings we have produced in this country through our neglect to make proper provision for housing and education. Even our defence was neglected. I speak with a full sense of responsibility. Every one of us here who was in any kind of position of power and responsibility in those days must accept his share of the blame; but for all that we have got to recognize, and I am sure from what the noble Lord said in his speech that he most emphatically recognizes, that in days to come the country is not going to accept the kind of leadership we gave it in past years. Certainly not the young men who are away fighting to-day, for whom we are acting as trustees, and whom we hope one day quite soon will come back to ask us what we have done with that trust.
Moreover, for any country claiming to be a great Empire or a great Power, there is in this country too much indecision, too many decisions given which tend to be on the negative side. This applies alike to foreign policy and to home policy. We are fighting this war surely, amongst other things, to ensure that as a country, is an Empire, as a Commonwealth, we may contribute our ideals and ideas to a world that, greatly by our own efforts, we have been able to keep civilized. How are we going to make that contribution unless here at home we pursue a positive, courageous policy with regard to the Home Front, with regard to building up a fine and courageous people? The country is pleased with Lord Woolton's appointment, because it believes that the noble Lord is going to help us to make real these ideals and these ideas on which we have been working and building during the last few years. The country has immense hopes because of his appointment, and it believes that the noble Lord will satisfy these hopes. He will find no lack of support, even if he needs further powers, and we all welcome his assurance that he will ask for further powers if he needs them to deal with any obstruction that arises.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, might I intervene, with the permission of the
194
House, to draw attention to a matter? I apologize to the noble Earl for being impressed with it while he was speaking. There is a very large list still remaining for to-day of important Peers who wish to speak, and a list equally large for tomorrow. I suggest that the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House should consider giving an extra day to the debate, so that all these speakers may have an opportunity of addressing the House at a convenient time. I hope that my appeal will meet with a sympathetic response from the Government so that we may have one more speaker to-day and then the adjournment, and that a third day will be allotted.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the Government will do their very best to meet the wishes of the noble Lord and allot a third day to this discussion. He will forgive me if I do not announce what day it will be across the Table.
LORD ADDISON: Might I suggest that to-morrow, through the usual channels, a discussion may take place as to what the third day should be? It would be a great pity if the important speeches still to be made were crowded out.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to add my humble congratulations and wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, on his appointment to this extremely serious and important post in the Government. With the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and others, I am slightly at sea as to what exactly the noble Lord's appointment consists of, exactly what his powers will be. It seems to me that, in a way, he is planning the planners. The noble Lord in his speech to-day—a very long and interesting speech indeed—said, in effect, that most business men made their plans, very thorough plans, for many years ahead. It seems to me you cannot make plans for reconstruction unless the Government take major decisions in regard to land, compensation, and innumerable other matters for which we have been waiting month after month. If I may use a simile, the Government resemble a pantomime horse, the front legs of which want to go in one direction, and the back legs in another, with the result that the horse stays at one spot. One can pay too high a price for the sight of that diversion.
In reconstruction there are two points of view. There is one which is funda-

195
mental—that of accepting things as they are, and repatching or propping up. There is another point of view which looks around at all the possible means, skill, knowledge, and equipment, uses all these means to try and work out an ideal system, and then, when that has been worked out, tries to build as near that ideal as possible. Our greatest danger is that we may accept the first and be content with a very small tinkering of the machine or modification. To give my idea more concrete form, take as an example an imaginary city—I shall not name one—that needs to be replanned. That city has many aspects which we do not like. Some of its houses are very ugly, others are cracked and falling down, there are slums and overcrowding. There is a large pall of smoke through bad fuel-burning, the sewage arrangements may not be quite so complete as we would wish them to be.
We can say about that city that, after all, it is traditional, it has taken many years to build up, therefore it has become part of the history and life of the people, and we can only alter it in a very mild way, repair some houses, mend something else, alter the sewage system, and do nothing more; or we can take a different point of view and send all our best architects, surveyors and planners to get out an ideal plan for that city, so that each time we rebuild a portion of it we can rebuild according to the new plan. It may take many years before we can have the complete results of that rebuilt city, but eventually we shall have a city worthy of our people.
So I would urge the noble Lord to consider basic replanning in a bigger way than has been suggested by most of those who have talked of reconstruction. People to-day, I think, are not only prepared to accept a fundamental change of their lives, but they are going to demand it, land I should like to call the noble Lord's attention to the possibility offered by new types of houses, both prefabricated houses and houses of a new type of architecture, which will give space, comfort and health to a far larger number of people than our present methods have so far given.
One particular point I should like to urge is that of the medical services. When the Beveridge Report was debated it was a disappointment to us on these Benches
196
that more features of the Report were not accepted by the Government, but at least we were consoled by the idea that Assumption B would be more or less acted upon and that we should have a complete national medical service. It may be that the noble Lord will say that that is outside his province, but it seems to me that the people's health should come within the province of the new Minister. Health cannot be put in a watertight compartment; it affects every aspect of our lives. I am sure the medical profession will agree that our outlook in the future must be, not how to cure disease, but how to promote good health. That must be our aim. For months we have been waiting for a White Paper on the medical service. I think it was promised last July. In August we thought we were going to get it, then it was postponed until November, and I saw a statement in the Press yesterday that it may be issued in the new year. It is very long overdue. In fact an impartial observer who was trying to get decisions might be led to believe that the Government were only a myth invented by the Civil Service, in spite of the illustrious persons we see on the Government Benches here.
I urge that this matter should receive the noble Lord's very early and special attention as it is fundamental to all reconstruction. I know there has been some disagreement in the medical profession, not on the organization of nation-wide medical services, but based on the fear that medical men may be in some ways controlled by local authorities. I would suggest that that feeling might be obviated if the Government would also start a reorganization of local government. It seems to me that one of the most pressing needs of this country is for the remodelling and reform of our local government. I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer and I would merely repeat my sincere hope that the new Minister will help to bring about an agreed plan for medical service in the country.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Latham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) REGULATIONS, 1943. UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED AND ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS) REGULATIONS, 1943.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That they have examined the Special Orders as required by the Standing Orders of the House: that in their opinion the Orders raise important questions of policy and principle: that the Orders are founded on precedent: that in the opinion of the Committee the Orders cannot be passed by the House without special attention, but that no further inquiry is necessary before the House proceeds to a decision on the Resolutions to approve the said Orders.
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

STOURPORT GAS ORDER, 1943. THORNTON CLEVELEYS GAS ORDER, 1943.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Orders, and that there is nothing in these Orders to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
House adjourned.