Lords Sitting of 10 December 1943

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GREETINGS FROM CHINA.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I have to inform the House that the Speaker of the House of Commons and I have received a letter from Mr. Chang-Po-ling written for the Presidium of the People's Political Council of China, sending, on the occasion of the visit of the Chinese Mission to this country, the greetings and compliments of the members of the Presidium to the members of both Houses of Parliament. The letter expresses the hope that the visit of the Chinese Mission will further promote Anglo-Chinese friendship and understanding and emphasizes, as the day of final victory draws nearer, the need and urgency for closer and more frequent contacts between our two peoples. Perhaps your Lordships will authorize me to join with Mr. Speaker in sending a suitable acknowledgment and reciprocation of these friendly expressions.
Ordered, That the said letter be entered on the Journals of the House.

RECONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS.
Debate again resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved by Lord Addison on Wednesday last—namely, 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 SOUTHWOOD: My Lords, at this stage in the debate I do not propose to detain your Lordships for any con-
250
siderable length of time, but I should like to put before you one or two considerations which arise from the important problem of nutrition. I can conceive no subject which so urgently requires our attention. Correct feeding is undoubtedly the key to health and to general well-being. I cannot help thinking that the world historian of the future will regard it as one of the incredible anomalies of our present-day civilization that it was the fate of the majority of mankind to be underfed and under-nourished in a world of plenty. It is commonly conceded that in the years before the war about one half of the children of this country and more than 25 per cent. of the adults were not properly fed. Since then it is quite true that some considerable improvements have been made, but much more remains to be done. The United States authorities have calculated that about one-third of their people are living on inadequate diet. This was revealed in their first nutrition conference held just about two years ago. In India—as we know only too well—in China, and among the vast millions of Colonial peoples in Africa and elsewhere the position is much worse. In these countries the proportion of people who sometimes starve and are always underfed is immensely larger than in the more advanced industrial nations. Taking the world as a whole it is safe to say that even now 50 per cent. of all the peoples are either underfed or badly fed. In Asia, as the Hot Springs Conference showed, the underfed amount to no less than 75 per cent. of the population.
This problem of food is not one which concerns this country alone. It is a world problem. And its solution requires to be looked at from an international as well as a national point of view. I know that the task is an immense one, an enormous one. How then is it possible to deal with it? The experts who met some little time ago at Hot Springs arrived at some very important conclusions. After studying these conclusions Sir John Orr estimated that if the nations are to be properly fed, the world's agricultural production must be at least doubled. Yes, doubled, my Lords. That was, in their considered view, the necessary minimum. It is a vast requirement as I think we all realize. But there it is. If we are to ensure health-giving standards of diet for all, we must get twice as much food out of the world's available

251
acres than the present yield. And the experts at Hot Springs also put forward another very important conclusion. They recommended that there must be a huge increase in the production of what are known as protective foods—milk, vegetables, fruit, meat, dairy produce, and so forth. We must produce more of these foods and less cereals. Cereals, because they are cheaper, form far too large a part of the diet of the poorer classes in all nations, including our own.
So, then, I would make this my first point. I would urge the Government, in its approach to post-war problems, to plan for increasing the output and reducing the price of the essential protective foods. To do this, it is not enough to devise cropping programmes and increase the fertility of the soil. It is just as important to have a public policy of finance for agriculture and the food distributing trades which will keep the protective foods well within the reach of everyone. One of the root causes of malnutrition is lack of adequate purchasing power. I do not think that can be denied. It is, of course, no use doubling the output of produce, unless at the same time the wage levels, both here and throughout the world as a whole, are such as to enable these foods to be paid for. I know that that is a large and separate question which, at the time now at my disposal, I cannot develop in full, but, in passing, I would say just this. If wage levels are kept up here, and if by international action we can destroy the so-called "Coolie level" of wages among the less-developed races, we shall set up an enormous demand which in itself would be a powerful stimulus to greater production. I say we can safely rely upon the mothers to use these higher wages properly. I say that the average women—and I speak not only of women in this country, but of women throughout the world—is not a spendthrift, but a careful and discreet user of her housekeeping money. Give her the means and she will see that her children are fed to the limit of her capacity. Even in these days of short supply she performs miracles with her shopping.
Well, if the demand is there, and the purchasing power is there the farmers will have the necessary stimulus to make it worth their while to increase production. But I would emphasize that it is not enough to leave this vital matter of food
252
supply to work itself out according to the unpredictable operations of the so-called law of supply and demand. We must have a planned economic policy of expansion. Such a policy must ensure regulation of prices both at home and abroad. It must ensure a general overhaul of the system of food distribution so as to eliminate waste, overlapping and unnecessary middlemen. But, as I say, this policy of expansion must rest on one central principle—the provision of full employment and the deliberate improvement of the wage and living standards of the poorer classes. Given that, we shall not only be able to put an end to malnutrition. We shall also have created the conditions in which prosperity can flow throughout industry of all kinds. We shall have found, too, the solution of many other economic problems which are not directly concerned with the problem of nutrition. As was recognized at Hot Springs the payment for more food must be made in increased production of other commodities. A vast increase of food production means greater international trade. It means a big expansion of shipping facilities. It means a more productive use of our resources in almost every sphere of commerce. For that reason I urge upon the Government the need for making its nutrition plan the keystone of its master plan for the restoration of trade after the war.
And now I turn briefly to the question of standards of nutrition. The science of nutrition has, undoubtedly, made in recent years remarkable advances all over the world, not least in our own country. The war itself has greatly stimulated research into methods of feeding and questions of diet. The main and essential facts about diet are established. The discussions at Hot Springs showed that. We are indeed fortunate, at this moment of great opportunity, to be equipped with such valuable knowledge and experience. Scientists have discovered the essential elements of food to make people healthy. Surely we should now apply that knowledge. What, then, should the general standard be? On such a complicated and human issue it is impossible to lay down a standard set of rules, but to put it simply and directly I would myself say that it should be broadly this: All families should be in a position to have liberal supplies of such things as milk, eggs, fruit, meat, dairy produce and other

253
health-giving foods. They should have these things not only adequately supplied, but they should be of high quality. The Government can do much to improve the quality of these essential foods by insisting on new and high standards in every field of agricultural production.
If this policy is adopted—as I earnestly hope it will be—the result will be a finer standard of health and physical well-being for everyone. And while I am on this subject might I suggest that the Government include an educational campaign in their post-war plans for food? The excellent announcements issued by the Ministry of Food have done much to teach the public the essential principles of healthy feeding. In matters of diet let us have an enlightened people. The making of the citizen of to-morrow depends very largely on the contents of the larder of to-day. I would go even further. I would like to see it made impossible to put up for sale a great deal of the shoddy stuff that, especially before the war, passed under the name of food. The penalties should be such as to make it unprofitable for those who desire to foist these things on the market. Now I am sure your Lordships will agree that after the war we must make a continuous and resolute effort to put all our fellow-countrymen on a health diet. Some progress, some very notable progress, towards this has been achieved during the war. Is it not a striking paradox that in the midst of this titanic conflict, despite the deflection of industry from peace to war, notwithstanding the desperate efforts of the enemy by the U-boat campaign and other means to starve us into submission, the broad masses of our people are better fed than ever before? The national health is sounder. This is indeed something to be thankful for.
In the matter of supply we all owe an immense debt of gratitude to His Majesty's Government. Food problems have been immeasurably better handled in this war than in the last. This is undoubtedly due to the foresight and to the magnificent work done by the noble Lord, the Minister of Reconstruction, in the office which he has recently left after so long and distinguished a period of achievement. In the course of this debate there have been some remarkable tributes paid to the noble Lord. I will only just say this, that I give place to no one in
254
my admiration for the remarkable work which the noble Lord has achieved in the Ministry of Food. To have been able to provide 132,000,000 meals a day, that is, three meals a day for 44,000,000 of our population, is something which might almost be described as a miracle. I hope I am not out of place in saying that this nation owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord which we can never adequately repay. The nation is reaping incalculable benefit from his adoption of priorities in certain essentials for expectant and nursing mothers, for babies, for young children, and for school-children. We all hope that he will induce His Majesty's Government to maintain and extend this principle in the post-war food policy.
Of course I do not claim to be an expert on diet, but I think most of your Lordships will agree with me when I say that the Number One priority should be milk. How stupidly, how criminally even, did we waste our milk supply in the years before the war! The surplus— how could there have been a surplus, in the real sense of the word when so many people were not getting enough milk? — was fed to stock, turned into buttons and umbrella handles, even in some cases poured down the drains. With nutrition problems, as with so many other issues, after the war we must think boldly, plan boldly, act boldly. For my part I do not hesitate to advocate free supplies of milk to all children. A refectory where both free milk and free meals are available should be as inevitable a part of the school of the future as a playground has been in the past. I am quite aware that this will cost an enormous sum of money, but the expenditure, I am certain, will be in the nature of a capital investment which will repay the nation over and over again. There will be an immediate dividend in improved health.
This is a large and fascinating subject, my Lords. I have not by any means attempted to cover its many aspects. But in these few words I have tried at least to touch on the broad essential principles. I have ventured to intervene in this wide-ranging debate only because I wanted to remind your Lordships of the importance of this question of feeding 1o the wider issues of our people's future. The war has compelled enormous improvements in our methods of feeding. It would be un-

255
forgivable if we slipped back into the bad old ways of the days of peace. Our happiness, our prosperity and our ability to remain an influential power in the world will depend more and more upon our people acquiring and retaining the highest physical well-being. And so I urge with all the emphasis in my power that this important problem should have the serious attention of His Majesty's Government, and I feel sure it will have sympathetic consideration by the noble Lord, the Minister of Reconstruction.
THE EARL OF WARWICK: My Lords, I intervene in this debate in your Lordships' House because three days ago I withdrew a Motion standing in my name which was intended to ask my noble friend Lord Woolton one or two specific questions relating to the position the agricultural industry will hold in post-war planning. I feel almost ashamed to do so after hearing the discussion of the wide range of subjects which so many noble Lords have attacked, because I shall only be pin-pointing some very small, or seemingly small, points. After the masterly speech that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, made to your Lordships two days ago, I for one am certain that all planning, while its end is control, will be of a most practical nature. But, to be practical, we have not yet received the Government's White Paper on agriculture, and one remembers the treatment that the industry received after the last war and the difficult times that it was going through until the outbreak of this war. There is reason for agriculturists to be a little suspicious. The land which the noble Lord's Ministry will need for the enormous plans which have been suggested in this debate does not as yet belong to the Minister. The agricultural industry will be very glad to know the methods by which that land is to be acquired and the effects those methods may have both on the capital and the running of the industry.
To return to the actual terms of my Motion the other day, we all heard on November 10 a most remarkable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It was a speech to which I listened with interest, appreciation, and sometimes with enthusiasm. He himself only referred to land in what are described in the Report of the Uthwatt Committee as
256
"reconstruction areas." As such, of course, that should in no way affect either the farmer or the owner of agricultural land; but I did not feel at that time, and the speeches of Lord Latham and several other members of your Lordships' House have not altered my impression, that I could presume to tell where the town ends and where agricultural land begins. Quite rightly, while planning for the rebuilding of the damaged areas, all local authorities have, hand in hand with their schemes for this obvious necessity, other schemes for improving the general housing conditions of our people, for improving the amenities of the areas in which they live, for the decentralization of industry, for the rebuilding of roads to relieve the traffic congestion which was so very apparent in 1939, for new drainage, better water supply, more parks and open spaces, and a thousand and one other things. How many of these things we shall see come as quickly as perhaps my noble friends on the other side of the House expect, I do not know, but I cannot believe that you can make a dividing line. These projects cannot come singly. They must form part of a broad plan which is aimed at certain rather distant objectives, and which will take a considerable number of years to implement.
In proof of this difficulty of dividing town and country I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to read a very short extract from a letter in the Eastern Daily Press which bears out exactly what Lord Latham asked for yesterday. The writer of the letter, Mr. Palmer, who is Chairman of the Norwich Town Planning Committee, went to the London Conference of Town Planning Committees a little while ago, and wrote this letter in the Eastern Daily Press, which serves a very considerable farming population, one of whom sent the cutting to me. Mr. Palmer wrote:
"I took the opportunity of asking Mr. Morrison, Minister of Town and Country Planning, the following questions: Does the Government pledge of powers to local authorities to acquire land in reconstruction areas include adjoining land unaffected by enemy action that may be required for a wide redevelopment? If so, will local authorities be able to acquire at March, 1939, values?"
Mr. Palmer goes on:
"The answer of the Minister to both these questions was 'Yes,' and the Conference Chairman later announced that the Minister was so impressed by the evident feeling

257
shown by the Conference on this matter that he has promised legislation in the forthcoming Session."
This is a difficult subject, but surely planning can only be beneficial nationally if its pattern includes all the various spheres of our activities. It must be senseless for any plan to be created which affects, however slightly, one or two sections of our industrial life while ignoring other parts of the whole which are just as important. I should like to ask the noble Lord—and I think I know what his answer will be—for the reassurance of everyone, whether any of the Government's plans do, in fact, include any mention of nationalization. For myself, I do not like it, but much more important than that, unless we are clear in agriculture about the way in which we are going to have to live over a fairly extended period of time, it is going to be very difficult to make the necessary plans for organizing the industry along the greatly increased scientific and mechanized lines which have been hastened by this war. If we are going to have nationalization, of course, everything has to be reorganized from top to bottom, but, if we are not, the general public should realize that the farmer and the owner of agricultural land form, under our existing system, an indissoluble partnership, and no discrimination against either party to that partnership can help affecting the other one. So I would like, in reply to Lord Addison's opening speech, to say that while I quite agree that it is the duty of those who own the land to administer it properly—I know your Lordships all agree with that—it also becomes the duty of the nation to see that these people get fair compensation for their work, fair interest on their capital, and fair prices if they are dispossessed.
I should like to draw attention to the enormous change that has been taking place in our agricultural methods in the last few years, principally because it affects so much this question of capital which of course lies very close to the noble Lord's plans for the acquisition of land. The whole trend of agriculture under the goading demands of war has been towards increasingly mechanized and scientific methods of production. These methods have produced the most astounding results, but they have only been achieved by the expenditure of the greatest amount of capital individually
258
possible. Farmers have had to pay an enormous amount for machinery, and that machinery is now gradually getting old. Part of its depreciation, I agree, is possibly due to the farmers not always looking after it as well as they might, but in any case, in the fulness of time, it will have to be renewed. Although the farmer is making money to-day, in the sense that he has paid off the overdraft which he had before the war, and has been able to acquire this machinery in order to produce the food he has been called upon to produce, it is going to be very difficult for either him or the landowner, who bears the heavier part of the equipment branch, to produce the capital that will be needed after the war, if we are to continue farming on modern lines, unless there is a greater measure of security.
I was very encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said in his speech in this debate. If your Lordships remember, we had a debate, a week or two ago, on the Motion of Lord De La Warr, in which Lord Geddes talked about the importance of co-ordination in these big planning schemes. It seemed to me that that is exactly what the noble Lord suggested he would do. He would leave the existing Departments, who, after all, have an enormous amount of statistical knowledge, to carry on, but he would bring them all together in forming his well-shaped plan. I say this because I think in one respect I can see where the town planners occasionally make a mistake. They do not realize that agricultural land is not static; it is dynamic. When you get a plot of land in a town it is static land, it is doing nothing; but agricultural land is dynamic. One acre of land may produce £1,000 worth of food per annum, another only £20 worth, and that depends not so much on the static productivity of the soil as on the methods, the skill and ability with which it is farmed. That factor must be taken into consideration when one comes to deal with questions of compensation.
If this country really wants a stable and happy agricultural industry, if it wants that industry to go ahead along the lines that the war has made available to us, apart from the capital side of it, the country will never persuade a farmer to farm in exactly the way it wants him to farm unless this income-varying factor is taken into consideration in matters of com-

259
pensation. If a man is to be compensated on the same lines as his neighbour—an old-fashioned farmer, perhaps, who has not altered his way of farming at all— then I think you would allow the farmer to slip all too readily into the easy rather happy-go-lucky habits which he used before the war. The great difficulty of this compensation according to 1939 value so far as agriculture is concerned, lies in the enormous change that has taken place since 1939. We were then at the bottom of the agricultural depression. It was the time of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, of Munich and of other terrible things. For years farms had been going down to grass because there was no money in wheat crops—a story which your Lordships all know very well. Now, the whole position has been altered. The productivity of the soil is being gradually restored, and if the local authority is to keep the respect of the farming industry, it must at least see that it is made possible for a man who is dispossessed of his land— I do not mean a speculator or a profiteer, but a farmer or an agricultural landlord who has continued in the practice of food growing for a long time—to find an equal quantity and quality of land to carry on his business in some other place.
The value of the pound has probably depreciated to a certain extent during this war. Certainly the price of land has gone up and to base this capital payment for compensation on the 1939 value can bear no relation to facts at all. Why must the year 1939 be chosen? I do not know what the reason of the Committee was for choosing that year. One might have chosen 1929, or 1919, or 1909. That was an arbitrary method for dealing in a static way with a dynamic element, and, for that reason, I personally feel that it is almost an impossible thing to have suggested. But if that year must be chosen, I think you will have to have some additional system of compensation, because land will no longer be a free market. You must have something like that which has been done for the Civil Service—a bonus to cope with the increase in the standard of living. In addition to that, you must have something which will encourage a man to look after his land well. It is not enough to say, "I will give you back the capital you have spent in putting in this new dairy plant, which has a little
260
depreciated, because it is not so good as it was when you put it in." It is not enough to do that. You have to recompense him for the initiative and the desire to amend his ways, as I think the farmer has done to-day, otherwise you will go back to the farming that you had between the two wars.
Then the question of disturbance compensation adds itself to the ordinary capital payment for the acquisition of land, and the same thing, I think, applies there. Many farmers before this war did not even own a plough and to-day they really are carrying a very heavy amount both of machinery and disturbance value. I would ask the noble Lord if he would be kind enough, when these questions are thrashed out, to remember that the disturbance rate which was paid before this war to the farmer is in no way applicable to the new methods of the farmer to-day. It must be altered if we are to go on with the modern farming of the country as a well-designed growing policy. That system of payment will have to be altered it you want to improve farming. You must be fair to the farmer. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the old disturbance money amounted only to a year's rent, and now that we are dealing with a position in which higher wages are being paid and more machinery being used, I do not think the figures of the past really bear any relationship to the disturbance value of the present day.
I am afraid I have taken rather a long time to discuss a simple point, but it is a very important point. Nobody wants to encourage land speculators. Of course we do not. I entirely agree with all noble Lords who have spoken against them. But it is almost impossible for any industry to get on with its job unless it can plan with a knowledge of what is going to happen, and the sooner the noble Lord is able to give us a considered answer to these questions the more relieved the whole agricultural industry will be.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I would very much have liked to follow the noble Earl in the most interesting speech he has made, but I cannot do so in detail for two reasons. Firstly, my noble friends asked me to speak on one specific subject—namely, full employ-

261
ment—and secondly, I never attempt to say anything about agriculture. But I would like to congratulate the noble Earl —I understand he is a practical farmer— on being the first farmer I have ever known to admit that the farmers are now making money.
EARL DE LA WARR: Is that a crime?
LORD STRABOLGI: It is not a crime to make money. It is a crime to pretend you are not making but losing money when actually you are making it. I do agree, however, with the noble Earl that people must know where they are and I am sure my noble friend Lord Woolton is fully seised of that. The trouble is that the future of the land and the question of rationalization is something which it is impossible for Lord Woolton to decide. That can only be decided by the people themselves when at last they are allowed—too late, possibly—to express themselves at the polls. If we are returned, as I hope we shall be under God's benevolence, as the Government of the country, I can put the noble Earl out of his agony at once by telling him, if he does not already know it, that nationalization of the land or other property introduced by the Labour Party will be accompanied by compensation. That for years has been a basic part of our creed.
THE EARL OF WARWICK: I am glad to hear that nationalization will be accompanied by compensation, but that really has nothing to do with the state of the farmer. The farmer only wants to know what is going to happen to him. Once we have nationalization I do not think it matters very much whether the landowners are paid like the coalowners or not. This matter goes further than the payment of money from one individual to another. The farmer must know where he stands.
LORD STRABOLGI: I entirely sympathise with the farmer. No class of the community has my good will more than the farmers. But to come to the question of full employment I think your Lordships will agree that it is a matter which is of supreme importance. I cannot join in the so far universal congratulations to my noble friend Lord Woolton. I commiserate with him on his appointment, and I will tell him why. First, however, let me repeat the very old adage, "Beware when all men speak well of
262
you." Why do I commiserate with the noble Lord? I am dealing now with the primary need of full employment as an overriding consideration, which men in the Forces and men in the factories and women as well are all discussing, as the noble Lord must know perfectly well. He is faced with tremendous difficulties. As things are, I doubt whether he can solve them and bring into being a scheme for providing full employment unless there is a radical change in policy on the part of the Government. The most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York, said that he was doubtful whether private enterprise could provide full employment without Government assistance, or words to that effect. My noble friends and myself are agnostics in this matter. We are doubtful whether the pre-war system of capitalism can provide full employment with Government assistance.
If the noble Lord is to have a scheme of full employment based on the Prime Minister's—I will not say catchword but on the Prime Minister's rallying cry; I want to be as polite as possible—of food, work and homes, how that can be done without a radical change of policy I do not know, and I do not think the noble Lord knows. Secondly, apart from policy I do not think he has the machinery or the powers to do it. I have read and re-read his remarks on this subject on Wednesday, and I have read and re-read the statement of his running mate in another place, Sir William Jowitt, and I am inescapably reminded of what happened when the Government under Mr. Neville Chamberlain was trying to rearm. There was the same agitation for a better organization, for a Ministry of Defence, and for a general speeding up of rearmament. The noble and learned Viscount Lord Caldecote—Sir Thomas Inskip as he then was—was appointed Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Like Lord Woolton he had a secretariat but no staff; like Lord Woolton he had no Ministry but the title of Minister; like Lord Woolton he had the business of prodding the various Defence Ministries to induce them to get on with rearmament; and like Lord Woolton he received some prodding himself. I hope Lord Woolton will get prodding from my noble friends. It will be a case of prodding the prodder.
Lord Caldecote started off with very good will. I did not agree with the

263
statement made by the present Prime Minister when Lord Caldecote was appointed. I do not agree with Mr. Winston Churchill that it was the most remarkable appointment since the Emperor Caligula made his horse a Pro-consul. Lord Caldecote was a very assiduous man, with great mental ability and mental integrity, and later he made a most agreeable Lord Chancellor. But his task as Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence under such circumstances was impossible, and so will Lord Woolton's task be impossible. When Sir Thomas Inskip became Viscount Caldecote and came to your Lordships' House, a most able Peer, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Chat-field, a man with tremendous experience, great driving power and immense knowledge, was appointed Minister for the Coordination of Defence. I know something of the work of both Lord Caldecote and Lord Chatfield. They were both good enough to ask for my help in certain small matters. It was impossible as things were to do anything practical and nothing practical was done. It will be the same to-day.
There is this difference of course, and I have not overlooked it. Lord Woolton is relying on the support of the Prime Minister. But how often will he be able to go to the Prime Minister to get his decision on some point, and how long will he have to wait for a decision? As everyone knows, the dual burden of Prime Minister and Minister of Defence in this war is overwhelming. The trouble is that in all domestic legislation and administration, where the final judgment is that of the Prime Minister, delays must occur. The Prime Minister is surrounded by a Government of pygmies apart from noble Lords who sit on the Front Bench opposite—they, of course, are giants. Nobody can move without the Prime Minister's approval and that approval has to be awaited a very long time. It is almost as bad in the most important strategical decisions of the war. When it comes to questions relating to what is going to happen after the war, when the present House of Commons, I hope, will not be in existence as regards the greater part of its membership, if the noble Lord thinks he will get rapid decisions from the Prime Minister I am afraid he is too optimistic. These are the two reasons why, much as I admire the noble Lord personally, I
264
cannot congratulate him politically and can only commiserate with him.
Now in regard to the overriding problem, as I venture to call it, of full employment. Let us see what we mean. I presume that this is what the Prime Minister was referring to in his declaration about preparations being made to secure work, food and homes for the people after the war. But you cannot have everyone at work all the time. You cannot even employ under ideal conditions everyone who wants to work. There is bound to be seasonal unemployment, and what the Americans call technical unemployment due to changes of fashion and taste and to changes in processes of production. You will also have unemployables until Lord Southwood's policy, which he has just so admirably adumbrated, is carried out. There must always be, until then, a number of physically incapacitated people, people who are weak in body or in mind and are really unemployable, the relics and results of past abuses and of malnutrition, as Lord Southwood has told us.
With these reservations, the problem will be to find work for everyone able and willing to work after the war and after demobilization. That is, of course, going to be a very intricate and complicated business. We in the Labour Party believe that it can only be done under a Socialist system, and we also believe that it can only be done under a policy of expansion, financially and industrially, as opposed to a policy of monetary restriction and industrial rationalization and the tolerance of national and international trusts, monopolies and cartels. If that sort of thing goes on you cannot have full employment. As I have said, we in the Labour Party believe that full employment, with the reservations I have mentioned, can only be guaranteed under a Socialist system. The only living example we have before us is Russia, where, after twenty-six years of practical working experience—and I do not know if Lord Woolton proposes to study the experience of Russia; I hope that he will.
THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): I have heard of it.
LORD STRABOLGI: Study it, was what I said. The noble Lord has heard of it, no doubt, but I am afraid that he has

265
only heard of it through trumpets of misrepresentation before the present war.
LORD WOOLTON: YOU really cannot speak with authority as to what has been happening in my mind.
LORD STRABOLGI: Then the noble Lord is perfectly well aware that the bogy of the lack of incentive under a Socialist system has been largely laid in Russia by differential rates of payment and rewards. That, of course, is quite apart from the very strong incentive of patriotism on which I am sure we in this country can rely just as much as it can be relied upon in Russia.
There is one other matter I wish to touch upon before I venture to make a proposal to the noble Lord, which I hope he will regard as a practical proposal. On the first day of this debate he warned us of our poverty after the war, and in doing that he followed the example of that great Dominion statesman, General Smuts. We, in my Party, profoundly disagree with the suggestion that the nation will be poor after the war—that is unless we impoverish ourselves. If we lose our courage we shall indeed be poor. But, as I have ventured to suggest in your Lordships' House before—and I do not think there was disagreement—we shall come out of this war, provided we do not suffer a great invasion or further great devastation, actually richer than we were when we went into it. I repeat, we shall be richer than we were when we went into it, though we shall be poorer in certain directions, poorer, for example, through the loss of fine young lives. On the debit side, too, there will be the loss of buildings, the loss of forests, and the loss of land taken for aerodromes and other non-productive purposes.
A NOBLE LORD: And foreign investments.
LORD STRABOLGI: But we shall be much richer in the things that really matter—skilled workers, plant and machinery, more land under cultivation, more ships and more passenger aircraft. I only mention those as a few examples of real wealth in which we shall be richer. To pretend that we are going to be poor after the war, and that we have to cut down in every direction, is a sort of financial defeatism.
LORD WOOLTON: I did not do it.
LORD STRABOLGI: I have the report of the noble Lord's words here and I can quote them if he wishes to dispute what I say.
LORD WOOLTON: I did not tell people to cut down anything.
LORD STRABOLGI: He encourages this idea by his statement that we shall be a nation poor in wealth; and he goes on—and very rightly, I quite agree with him—to say how rich we shall be in our reputation. And that of course is the key. I wonder if he would allow me to quote a German philosopher who lived in an age when Germany produced good things— Schiller. "Money lost, nothing lost. Honour lost, much lost. Courage lost, all lost." If we come out of the war in a defeatist, miserable frame of mind then we shall be poorer. We shall not have the enterprise or the initiative or the courage or anything else to enable us to take advantage of the enormous opportunities which will await us. I do not think it will be possible—and I presume the noble Lord will agree with me here—to lay down in respect of his great labours on reconstruction a long-range policy, a policy of reconstruction after peace is fully restored. I presume, and it is certainly most urgent, that his chief immediate care will be to prepare and plan for the change-over period between peace and war.
In this connexion there has come to my notice, in my capacity as an employer, a proposal which is being canvassed in the Midlands, that there should be a period after the armistice, when the guns have ceased to fire, during which munition and war manufactures should continue for some months, even if the goods are not required, so as to give a breathing space. That proposal is being seriously put forward, but I hope that it will not be pursued. It would involve a waste of raw materials. I think that we should quite frankly face the fact that there must be a change-over period in which we might well give all workers a holiday with pay, or a paid rest-cure, if you like—possibly for a considerable time. You do that with the soldiers when they come home. On demobilization members of the Armed Forces have leave with pay. Why should not the same principle be extended to the war workers? Do not give them unemployment pay dur-

267
ing this period, but give them their basic wages. That, I think, would go a long way to help in the solution of this problem. The workers, I am sure, will be very glad of a rest and very glad of an opportunity to set their own affairs in order. They have been extremely hard worked and they deserve this break.
Now the general expectation is that the European war will be over before the Pacific war. In saying this I am speaking with reference to the preparation for the change-over period. If this is borne out, of course the problems of demobilization and the change-over from war to peace will be very largely simplified. I have ventured before to put forward the view that the Pacific war is going to be an even bigger undertaking than the European war owing to the immense areas and distances involved. I presume my noble friend the Minister will be also prepared for the unexpected. There might, for example, be a revolution in Japan. The Pacific war might end before the European war. It is not impossible. The end might come quite suddenly. Now this is what I propose very seriously should be done for the first change-over period. Carry on with all war-time controls and war-time finance and war-time methods. At the risk of over-simplying the proposal, pretend the war is still going on. Above all, have only the same amount of Treasury control as in the war, and then, using your war-time method, your war-time spur, and your war-time courage, proceed on the great tasks immediately, preparing your plans for building and for reafforestation, repairing the roads and restoring the land. The restoration of the immense areas of agricultural land now used as aerodromes will be a very great task indeed.
Then you have got a lot of overdue great capital schemes, such as the Forth and Clyde Ship Canal. You badly need another tunnel under the Severn; you need a tunnel under the Humber; and there is a perfectly practical and very valuable scheme, which has been in the pigeonholes of the Government for years and years, for a great land reclamation of the Wash, which Lord Woolton knows is feasible, necessary and desirable. But, above all, keep up your war methods and war spirit during that transition period; of course, have everything ready and prepared— and this I know is Lord Wool-
268
ton's chief task—to marshal and deploy your labour on these great schemes. In that way I think you can avoid a great deal of inconvenience, dislocation and disappointment. I hold that suggestion out to my noble friend in the hope that it may be of some small value. Of course, he would put it quite differently from the way I put it; I put it much too crudely, but the way I put it will be understood by the ordinary soldier in the Eighth Army.
I am very sorry to have to end on a note of complaint. I regret that more use is not being made, in this matter of finding full employment, of Sir William Beveridge. Why is he being allowed to work independently at this immense problem? There is a man of great experience and first-class ability. You have not many men of his capacity in the country.
LORD JESSEL: Who?
LORD STRABOLGI: Sir William Beveridge, a man of great experience. If the noble Lord does not know about him I will explain to him afterwards who he is.
LORD JESSEL: I could not hear. You talk so low. You do not speak out.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am sorry. I will take some lessons in elocution. I was speaking about Sir William Beveridge, and I regretted that more use was not being made of his services on this question. I am very sorry that that letter—of course, on the authority of the Government, as I imagined it would be—was sent by the head of the Civil Service, Sir Richard Hopkins, to the civil servants not to discuss the problem with Sir William. The higher civil servants surely know the etiquette of their calling, and I think that letter was unnecessary. But it is bad in this way, that to-day in war-time your Civil Service has been enlarged by the introduction of eminent economists and men of great ability who ordinarily would be private individuals, and you are barring them from contact with Sir William Beveridge. Take the case of two noble Lords in this House. Technically speaking, Lord Keynes and Lord Catto, both men of great ability and knowledge in these matters, are civil servants, they are advisers to the Treasury. Is it suggested seriously that it would be improper for Lords Catto and Keynes to confer with Sir William Beveridge on this greatest of all

269
problems, full employment after the war? I am afraid this is only too symptomatic of the approach to the problem by His Majesty's Government, and if the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, can alter that attitude, I believe he will do a great service to the nation.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I wish to support a few references to the land by the noble Lards, Lord Addison and Lord Bledisloe, and I think it is appropriate to advance a step further a suggestion by Lord Addison, that we should put the view that ownership is dependent upon putting the land to good use and providing the equipment which is necessary for farming. I think it is desirable, and perhaps even necessary at this stage in deliberations about the post-war period, to make a clear and emphatic declaration on behalf of landowners, which I feel entitled to do, that they accept this obligation, and that they regard it as a responsibility to put the land to good use and to provide this equipment. The noble Lord who has just spoken indicated that if his Party are returned to power there will be nationalization of the land, with compensation, presumably, on the lines which they choose.
LORD STRABOLGI: No, fair compensation.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I did not say otherwise. But I would like the noble Lord to bear in mind—what I believe to be the case and what I have been told by members of his Party—that they, as well as the mass of the people, are really more interested in the land being properly used than in the question of ownership. While one is aware that it is natural that his Party should put forward this question, as they have recently done—it is one of their permanent political principles—yet I hope they also bear in mind that it is rather contrary to ideas of freedom and democracy in this country suddenly to wish to impose upon its people a system contrary to what is accepted in every country in the world, a system under which ownership of land or property is not allowed.
The task which is imposed upon owners of land is a very big one and will need a very large expenditure after the war. It means taking a big risk and, as the
270
money is not there now, in many cases it means recourse to credit, which will be much easier if Parliament safeguards the future of agriculture and restores a sense of confidence to producers and a greater security to those who own the land. If we are enabled, without being unduly handicapped, to undertake this task, there is a very great deal which we can do towards the provision of food, homes and work. A mere maintenance of the existing equipments is very much below what will be necessary, and it can easily be understood that, with all improvements in equipment and all the new buildings that are required, it is essential that the Inland Revenue should make some inquiry into the working of taxation as it is to-day and endeavour to find some better method, which will bring to them what they consider the necessary quota from the land but will not impede the task of reconstruction. They should also bear in mind that if they revise the present system they can do much to increase what is for them a valuable taxable asset.
I should like to say one or two sentences about forestry. This is another obligation which falls upon the owner of land much more than upon the farmer— namely, putting to good use, by planting, all those parts of the land which are not suited to cultivation. We in private forestry have our task of looking after a very large number of small plantations. The Forestry Commissioners, on the other hand, have their task of growing large numbers of vast forests of 1,000 acres, 5,000 acres, 10,000 acres, or more. The two tasks are very different. Ours is a much more complicated one and should be a much more costly one, though actually I maintain that, under private enterprise, the cost of forestry works out at much less than it does under State management. All I ask to-day is that the noble Lord who is responsible for this new Ministry will endeavour to secure for the Forestry Commissioners that Ministerial and Parliamentary support which will be necessary after the war to enable them to carry out the vast task of reafforestation and increasing our timber production, and to see to the administration of both State and private forestry. I should like him to bear in mind that this forestry service is going to be a big and difficult thing. When the nation has neglected an industry for so long, we cannot suddenly produce the trained foresters and

271
the houses for them wherever they are wanted to provide the timber which the nation needs. Forestry under private enterprise is perhaps more a service and an obligation, in some respects, than a business or commercial undertaking, and I feel that when the time comes for discussing the various details connected with it private enterprise can put up a good case for sympathetic handling on the part of Parliament.
Another matter I should like to mention which is seldom mentioned here—it is also in connexion with land reconstruction or restoration—concerns the iron ore workings in the Midlands. There is, as noble Lords are probably aware, a good deal of devastation of the surface of the land going on at an increasing rate, and in a few years there may be as much as 10,000 acres in a horrid condition. This may not seem a very large area, but it is making a terrible mess of the countryside. I would like to assure noble Lords that these owners of land in Northamptonshire, who are concerned there with the mining companies, are aware of how public opinion regards the desirability and necessity for the utmost restoration possible, and we are, and have been for some time, conferring among ourselves on the best ways of carrying out this restoration. At the present time a number of experiments are taking place, some of which are showing that positive and satisfactory results can be achieved, while others, I am afraid, show that with the extraordinary variations in soil conditions any real restoration is quite out of proportion to the huge cost involved.
There is only one point I should like the Government to look into in connexion with this expenditure on restoration—it concerns chiefly the Minister of Town and Country Planning—and that is the point that any money spent now by the landowner on restoration is subject to taxation. It was naturally not anticipated in previous Budgets that this question would arise, but it is both necessary and desirable in the coming Budget that there should be a short clause enabling expenditure on restoration to be undertaken as an expense against revenue and not out of capital. I hope that the Government will deal sympathetically with the three points I have mentioned.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I feel I must apologize for my late entry into this debate. I have not been able to attend on the last two days when your Lordships have been discussing these grave questions; but while we all agree with the importance of taking an early and forward view on reconstruction, it is still the case with many of us that our lives continue to be dominated by the necessity of production for war purposes. I have tried to repair this omission by burning midnight oil on Hansard, and if there are any points I have missed I hope the House will forgive me. The noble Duke who has just spoken raised the very vital question of agriculture, and touched upon the topic of open-cast mining in the Midlands which has given many people very grave concern. I should like to assure him and the House that very active and urgent work is being done there, and to some extent with success, and it is hoped that a great deal of that land, which at one time we thought would have to be written off as a total loss, will in fact be recovered.
I cannot refrain from expressing in a few words the gratitude which many of us in the industrial world feel for the appointment of the noble Lord to his new post. It is a very grave and arduous post, and one which is likely to bring him into conflict with a great many different sections of the population, including many different Government Departments, but we all feel he has so much gained the confidence of the country in the most difficult and delicate task of feeding the nation, which he carried out so successfully during the last few years, that there is no man who could more properly have been entrusted with the task. In addition I should like to make special reference to the fact of his early scientific training. He is an exception in that respect—in fact, a new phenomenon to some extent in the Government of this country. Apart from that very eminent scientist Lord Cherwell, he and Sir John Anderson are the first two great Ministers of State who have come to the management of the nation's affairs with a basis of scientific training. Those of us who take an interest in scientific matters expect great things as a result, though the conjunction of these two scientific pillars of the State, and how they fit together, is a matter to be discussed later.

273
Much has been said in the course of the debate in regard to Government controls of industry, materials, and other matters, and, in general, the Government's relation to industry. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, himself appealed to us for industrial harmony. If I may use his musical simile for a moment, I too would like to see industrial harmony. As I see the position, it amounts to this. The noble Lord will be the conductor, and we in industry will play the instruments. We have all the more confidence in him as conductor because in his younger days he was himself no mean instrumentalist. The point that gives us some concern is, who is going to write the score? That is the point which, above all else, is vital to the successful issue of a harmonious orchestra, and the avoidance of the horrible cacophony to which we were subject in the last twenty years before the outbreak of war. Remembering all that we have heard from Ministers of the Crown in the past, and assuming that the score is to be written upon the theme of full production, and assuming that all the difficult matters of agriculture, of export and of control are to be dealt with, it does seem to me that, unless the noble Lord is in a position to have very great influence with the Treasury, if not indeed to write the Treasury score for them, he will be in some difficulty possibly in conducting mother man's score and possibly in producing the results he would like to produce.
The essential points in all these matters of reconstruction and in the whole question of full employment is not organization but finance, and it is a question of how the country's finances are going to be managed that will determine the success or failure of the Government in these matters. If you are going to employ the nation fully you have to begin by providing a national income which will give that level of employment and it is, to me at any rate and I think to many who have been giving thought to this question, reasonably clear that if that national income is not estimated to be available in any one-year period it will be necessary to continue it by a resort to borrowing, as has to be done in war-time. In other words, you cannot expect to stop borrowing altogether at the end of a period of this kind, and borrowing must be continued for the early stages, at least, of peace-time. Equally, we feel, it would
274
be a very grave error to pursue the course which was pursued after the end of the last war, which was to maintain taxation at a very high level and drop borrowing altogether. Both must be reduced pari passu, borrowing, no doubt, coming to an end after a period, whatever it may be, say five or ten years.
With regard to the question of what you are going to do in order to supplement the national income in such a form as to give employment, it probably will be the case that sooner or later—and I hope under the influence of the noble Lord—the Government and the Treasury will come forward in another place and present us with rather a different sort of Budget from that which we have been used to in the past. A current Budget for current affairs is an excellent institution and is brilliantly done in this country, far better, I think, than in any other country in the world and far better in modern times than in the past, but there is a necessity for a long-term capital Budget, not a Budget from year to year but one, perhaps, for a five-year period. That is a vital matter. I do not see how it can be dealt with unless the noble Lord in his position has the full co-operation of the Treasury to deal with it.
I would give the noble Lord just one warning from the past in regard to these matters. It so happens that after the last war my predecessor in this House was Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment. He went to Gairloch and there saw the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, and said to him: "I do not think I can deal with this problem as it stands in this country alone, but if you allow me to take in the Empire and I am allowed to have £100,000,000, I think I can deal with it." Mr. Lloyd George agreed, and my father came back full of hope and optimism, but Sir Robert Home, later a member of this House, came to see him a few days later, having also made a visit to Gairloch, and addressed my father in these words: "Alfred, there is not £100,000,000 now." When I have repeated this, it has usually caused laughter, but really it is a tragedy. It was this policy that completely ruined the attempt to provide employment. My father used to say it was like asking a man to stop a leak in a battleship with a postage stamp. I hope the noble Lord will not try to stop leaks in battleships with postage stamps. The most vital issue, as I say, will be

275
the financial policy which the Government adopt. It is the basis of all that the noble Lord will do in the future and we hope he will be successful in producing an entirely new atmosphere in that respect. If I may say so, I suggested in a letter to The Times the other day that the problem we have to face, as I see it, is how to provide the nation with the mass purchasing power required to purchase the mass production of modern times. If he can solve that problem I think he will find that the appeal he made to industry when he spoke in this House, to throw its heart and soul into the task of reconstruction and co-operate with him in every way, will not have been made in vain.
LORD KENILWORTH: My Lords, I wish at the outset to convey my best wishes to the Minister of Reconstruction in his new and important work, and I trust he will meet with every success. I welcome the wording of the Motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition in that he places work before the other items in the post-war programme, for it certainly is the first and most important matter with which we shall have to deal in the post-war world. Provided work is available I think other matters will fall into proper line. I speak as an old industrialist who went through all the difficulties surrounding the post-war position in 1919 and the 1920s, and I am hopeful that when the war ends we shall find ourselves in a much better position to cope with the situation with which we shall be faced. My feeling of confidence arises from the fact that the experience gained on the last occasion will be remembered and therefore some of the things then done will not be repeated.
During this war the method of dealing with the production of war supplies has been entirely different from that which prevailed during the last war. Shadow factories have taken the place of the extensions of plant which had to be provided by the manufacturers themselves, with the result that at the end of the last war they were faced with large extensions partly paid for, and plants which had been laid down for the production of munitions which were of little use in their ordinary business. I think the position has been entirely changed now and industrialists will be in a better position to set about their ordinary business. Further
276
than that, their financial resources will not be entirely drained away in that they will have substantial amounts of E.P.T. repaid to them, always assuming, of course, that these amounts are not to be taken away by excessive taxation. Therefore I hope we shall be in a better position to reorganize industry on normal lines and employ large numbers of workpeople. I personally am naturally a great believer in private enterprise, and in spite of all statements to the contrary I am sure this country will never be able to regain its great position in the world if it abandons private enterprise.
So far as other matters are concerned, I think we shall find that the war will finish in two stages; therefore demobilization difficulties will not be so serious. We shall have demobilization after the war in Europe is terminated and then we shall carry on to the end of the Asian period and have further demobilization after that. The effect of that will be largely to avoid the terrible difficulties that arose on the last occasion, when we were faced with enormous numbers of demobilized men wanting employment. I am inclined to believe that we shall find a better spirit on this occasion, and I hope that the Government will carry on with the scheme adopted at the end of the last war in connexion with the liquidation of war contracts, when the Government allowed work to go on in a quiet manner in the production of goods which were certainly not wanted for the further prosecution of the war. I myself carried on for a long time quietly liquidating the balance of certain contracts and thus was able to keep a certain number of my staff together. The essence of the whole question, of course, is the production of material on a reasonable basis, and I trust that industry generally will conduct business on the lines of minimum profits rather than extravagant prices, such as operated in 1920 with such disastrous results. In any case, many difficulties will have to be faced by all concerned, and I hope that some reasonable way out of these various difficulties will be provided.
On housing I would like to make this remark. As I see it, people wish to live near their work, and fanciful schemes providing housing which entails long journeys to and from work should be avoided. The effect of these long journeys is to

277
break up the associations which are formed and on which the happiness of the workpeople, and particularly their wives, so much depends. From what I have seen I should think that the L.C.C. scheme for housing at the White City should prove an admirable method. Finally I would like to suggest that in this matter the new Minister will be batting on a very much better wicket than was the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, when he faced similar problems at the end of the last war. I wish the noble Lord every success in his endeavours.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I must, at the outset, thank your Lordships for the great personal kindness that you have shown me in the many speeches that have been made in this debate. I may perhaps say at once, in order to relieve the mind of my noble friend Lord Southwood, that I propose to accept this Motion on behalf of His Majesty's Government. The debate has covered such a wide range that if we are to conclude our proceedings at a reasonable hour it will be necessary for me to omit comments on many of the speeches. Those speeches, however, were made not only for my guidance but obviously in order that I might contemplate them afterwards, and of that your Lordships need have no doubt in your minds.
A thing that struck me, as the debate went on, was the fact that this House, with its peculiar aloofness from the passing moods of politics, has shown to the country during the course of the last three days, how deeply concerned it is with the way in which the people are living and are going to live when the war is over. Your Lordships' reputation of course is that you have in this House many men who are Pro-consuls knowledgable in international affairs, in finance and in Empire affairs. Yet the whole tone of this debate has been a domestic tone, going right into the homes of the people and showing that in any reconstruction of the country that is the thing about which we care. For my own part I can only say that I do care, and care profoundly. No other consideration would have led me to this office.
It was, of course, quite inevitable that any debate in which I am concerned should attract the views of the agriculturists. There was one occasion when I spoke in this House when people did not
278
talk about agriculture to me, but only one. Therefore I am very well aware of the views of most of your Lordships on the subject. I do not wonder that you are concerned. It seems to me most reasonable that with past history in their minds Lord Addison and Lord De La Warr should have made the speeches they made. I can only fall back on a quite simple expression of my personal faith which I have on frequent occasions given you. I believe in agriculture and—I will say it again—I believe it is the fourth of the defence services of this country. In whatever plans we may subsequently make for the reconstruction of the country, we must take account of agriculture, not only as a means of feeding the people, but as a way of life for the people of this country, because there is something more than food and more than raiment and that is the happiness that people can get out of living in the conditions under which they have to live. With a prosperous agriculture in the country we are ensuring for very large numbers of the people a means of living which is happy, healthy, and stable. Therefore on that issue I need no pressing.
Your Lordships are aware that conversations are already taking place, with the consent of his colleagues in the Cabinet, between Mr. Hudson and the farmers. I hope that these conversations will lead to some practical results. You can be assured of this, that I, of all people in His Majesty's Government, who for so long had to face the problem of trying to feed the people of this country when we were very uncertain what our import capacity could be, will welcome any conclusions arising from these conversations which are going to give permanency to a reasonable prosperity for the agricultural industry of the country. I know that when we come to define terms such as "reasonable" it is very often in the cutting of the cake and not in the making of it that disputes arise. But it seems to me that among reasonable men that problem should be settled.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, who spoke with great kindliness, was concerned about my powers. I think he was concerned because he wanted me to remain in office. Lord Strabolgi, too, was concerned about my powers, but I do not know whether he wanted me to remain in office or not, because he said that, under Providence, his Party may be returned to

279
power. But, anyway, he was just a prophet of gloom so far as my tenure of office is concerned if I do not get any more powers than I have now. I do not know how best I ought to reply to these expressions of concern on your Lordships' part. But, as Lord Strabolgi has said, you will have plenty of opportunities of prodding me if I do not get along. If I am content to undertake this responsibility, for which I shall be answerable to the country as well as to your Lordships' House, with the powers that the Prime Minister has given me, well, I would with great respect suggest that perhaps it is not necessary for you to be unduly concerned.
I read in one of the newspapers the other day a headline to the effect that if I did not get the powers I wanted I would throw up the job. My Lords, I am not suffering from that particular form of inferiority complex which makes me feel at this early stage in my new work that I need go throwing my weight about and telling the world that I would throw up my job. I really have arrived, almost, at a ripe age of discretion, I have lived in many forms of activity, and I came to the considered judgment that there was a job here to be done. Whether or not I had the capacity to do it was not my concern; the Prime Minister was good enough to say that he had no doubts on that score. But I would point out that I have the support of the whole of my colleagues, and why, therefore, does any noble Lord need to worry about whether I am going to fail from lack of powers? If I fail I shall fail from lack of capacity, and on that issue I am prepared that my blood should be upon my head.
LORD STRABOLGI: That was not my suggestion. I do not want the noble Lord to think that I was in any way questioning his capacity.
LORD WOOLTON: No, I was the person who was questioning it, knowing, as I do, more about it.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Archangel Gabriel could not do this job that you have got now.
LORD WOOLTON: My opening speech the other day was designed not to lay down a new programme but to indicate an attitude of mind, to indicate an approach to this problem of reconstruc-
280
tion. I had only been in office fourteen days, and you must not mind me telling you that the truth is that I am not clever enough to be able in fourteen days to find a solution to all these problems, neither have I been able to read all the papers and reports, going into hundreds of pages, that have been produced. Therefore, it is perfectly true that Lord Latham could reasonably have said that he found my speech disappointing inasmuch as I did not say more than I did say. I thought on the whole, though, that he was a little unreasonable when he suggested that my speech on Wednesday did not convey any more information than my right honourable friend, the Minister Without Portfolio, had conveyed in his speech in another place on Tuesday. I cannot work as quickly as that. The Minister Without Portfolio and I are colleagues in the Government; we are working together. I knew exactly what he was going to say; we planned that together. He knew what I was going to say on Wednesday. That is an example of co-operation. Lord Latham seemed to think that I ought to have thought of something fresh overnight. I am sorry I disappointed him, but he disappointed me because I do not think it is any part of my business to find places in which we disagree and to exaggerate them.
Neither for Lord Latham nor for Lord Strabolgi am I going to be drawn into political controversy. I do not belong to the Labour Party; I do not belong to the Party which generally sits on this side of the House; I do not belong to the Party that generally sits over there, and I am not, while I remain in office, going to have anything to do with any of your political Parties. I am going to remain completely outside—and that is my value at the present time. We are going into a mass of problems, under the heading of reconstruction, that have been the elements of Party politics for a very long time, and if, as a neutral member, I can get agreement, the general agreement of men of good will, not on the whole of the programmes but on something that is going to help the country during the next few years, that will be of value. But I shall be of no value, if I start entering into Party conflict across the floor of this House or elsewhere. Therefore I have nothing to say either to the noble Earl, Lord Warwick, or to the noble Lord, Lord

281
Strabolgi, on the question of nationalization, and I am fortunate in having one on each side of me, so to speak, asking that question.
I want to make one fact very clear. Lord Latham, I think, took a speech out of a pigeon-hole and dusted it up, because there was not anything in what I said on Wednesday, not one word, which would justify a sensible man—and the noble Lord is an accountant, he understands finance by profession—in trying to father on me those sentiments about a contractionist policy. I have had nothing to do with a contractionist policy. I urge the noble Lord—who has apologized for his absence to-day—if he will be good enough to read what I am now saying to him in absentia, just to look back on my personal record. I was one of the people in this country who, at the depth of the depress on, said to the companies with which I was associated, "We are capitalists, with money, with reserves. Now is the time to spend them." And I went out in practice on an expansionist policy at that time, to the subsequent benefit of my shareholders and myself. There is no justification for Lord Latham's views. But I am glad to know that we are on the same side in this matter, because I have been looking up Lord Latham this morning. I find that he is a director of several companies. I am glad to know that he has these expansionist views, and I hope that he will now go and practice them in the companies of which he is a director. It will be of great value to the problem of creating employment if he will do so.
Lord Latham asked me one question which I should like to answer, if I may. Putting it not in his language, which was more refined than mine, but putting it quite crudely, what he asked was: When the war is over are we going to build houses or are we going to build cinemas, and how are we going to decide which we are going to build? The reply is quite simple. It is that we are going to build houses. The post-war programme of building will quite certainly be based on a statement of priorities. It will not be possible, unless we are going to run into a terribly inflationary position, to allow anybody, with the very restricted materials and the very restricted amount of labour that there will be, to go and build just what he thinks will be the most
282
profitable to build. And we shall have during the period—I do not know how long—to ensure that both building materials and labour are used for the purpose of the greatest national interest. I hope that statement will be acceptable to your Lordships.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I read to you, in order that it may go on the record and that I may be precise, a reply which I want to give to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who in the course of his speech referred to the definition of the functions of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Works. The position is this. The primary responsibility for housing policy will continue to rest with the Ministry of Health. It is that Department which will approve the schemes prepared by the local authorities, who will have, as in the past, the execution of a substantial part of the housing programme. To meet war-time needs, however, we have greatly expanded and developed the technical services provided by the Ministry of Works, and my noble friend's Department has now become the central Government authority on design, specifications, materials and building technique.
The Government naturally desire that in the framing and execution of the postwar housing problem full advantage should be taken of the great wealth of technical knowledge and experience that is now available in the Ministry of Works. It has therefore been arranged that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Works, together with other Departments also concerned, such as the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Agriculture, shall collaborate in preparing for the guidance of local authorities a manual of general instructions on housing matters, and this will ensure that the Ministry of Health and the local authorities have the full benefit of the special knowledge of the Ministry of Works on the technical questions of plan, design, specifications, materials and building technique. It will, moreover, secure that this technical advice is made available without there being any question of requiring local authorities to submit particular schemes to the Ministry of Works as well as to the Ministry of Health. And for all the purposes of the post-war housing programmes, the Ministry of Health will be the single channel of communica-

283
tion between the Government and the local housing authority. That, I believe, will help somewhat those who have been complaining that they have to go to several Departments before they can find out about what they want to do.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Latham, in the course of his observations made special comments regarding the prospect of legislation in connexion with the acquisition of land, and the noble Earl, Lord Warwick, raised the same point. If I understood the position correctly, they were concerned not only with the urgent need for legislation in this matter but with the scope of that legislation. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on either of those points in your Lordships' minds. First let me say that I agree that this is a matter of great urgency, and that until it is settled it will not be possible to proceed to specific development proposals. As regards the time when your Lordships may be invited to consider legislation, I obviously cannot state an exact date during the current Session when this legislation will be submitted to you, or will come up to you from another place, but I can say this. There shall not be one day's delay between the time it takes to draft the necessary legislation and the submission of it constitutionally to Parliament. I think perhaps those who complained about delay in this matter, and complained quite justifiably, are not so much concerned to see the Bill as to know what it is that people can do under the Government proposals, and therefore in spite of the fact that Parliament has had rather a lot of White Papers, I am going to suggest that it should have another. We will make a White Paper available that will give the full intentions of the Government on this matter immediately after Christmas.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, might I ask a question for the purpose of clarification? We quite understand that the noble Lord cannot give the House an assurance as to the date on which legislation will be introduced this Session. Obviously that has got to be looked at. But may I take it that we now cannot rely on what I took to be his pledge the other day that there would, in fact, be legislation during this Session, apart from the issue of the White Paper he has just promised?
LORD WOOLTON: What do you mean by this Session?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Lord's pledge was "early in the new year."
LORD WOOLTON: I am not going back on my pledge, I am glad to say.
EARL DE LA WARR: The White Paper is in addition?
LORD WOOLTON: The White Paper will be in addition, and legislation will follow the White Paper. Your Lordships have more experience than I have of the length of time it takes to get legislation prepared, even when you have made up your mind what you want to legislate about. I was therefore trying to help the position, if I could, by saying that however long it may take to get legislation— and I hope it will not be long—the Government will make their intentions fully known by means of a White Paper which will be available shortly after Christmas. The White Paper—this may be of some use to those concerned—will cover the question of compensation and betterment in its widest sense, and will provide the background against which Parliament can consider the Bill when it is presented.
As to the scope of this Bill, I can perhaps add to the statement that has already been made in another place. It will define the scope of the powers of purchase, the procedure to be followed in exercising these powers, and by whom purchase will be made. The Bill will also include any necessary provisions with regard to the basis of purchase, including the application of the 1939 ceiling. As has already been pointed out in this debate, the 1939 ceiling has been accepted in principle by His Majesty's Government as the basis of these terms. My noble friend opposite was concerned lest the definition of a reconstruction area in the Bill might be too restrictive to allow for proper planning. I can relieve his anxiety on that point. The Bill will provide for the acquisition of all land essential to the proper planning of an area, including land which lies outside the immediate limits of the area that has been devastated. This will also apply to obsolescent areas which need replacing or restoring as a whole.
I cannot detain your Lordships much longer. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Southwood, not only for the quite

285
undue amount of credit he gave to me for the state of the health of the country, but for the masterly way in which he put the position before us as to what we should do to secure, in the future, a healthy people well fed. He went right to the fundamental issue of this question of nutrition. If we grow more food all over the world, and pay people a decent price for it, then we shall indeed be using food (shall I say?) to oil the wheels of commerce, and other trade will follow. I am sure that the noble Lord rendered a service by making the speech that he did. Almost his final words were that he hoped His Majesty's Government would do something to prevent what he called "shoddy" food coming on to the market. It was with very great pride that just before I retired from the office of Minister of Food I brought in an Order in Council that will do that. That Order in Council will last only as long as the Defence Regulations last—which, I trust, will not be very long —and I hope that when the time comes for it to end the noble Lord will come along to this House, if the Government have not already done so, to propose some permanent enactment for the protection of innocent people against subterfuges in food being thrust upon them.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, laid down an elementary principle which will be useful to us in our subsequent negotiations on the subject of land. He said that landowners accept the responsibility that is theirs for the proper use of their land. I am grateful to him for that observation. I believe that, controversial and difficult as is this problem of land, in the present mood of the country and of political Parties it is not going to be long before we arrive at a reasonable, sensible, and fair solution of the problem. I listened with great respect to the noble Duke's views on forestry, which I have heard before and I am grateful for the help which he has given to me in coming to some conclusion on that subject—a subject to which my right honourable friend the Minister Without Portfolio has already given a great deal of attention. It ought not to be very long before His Majesty's Government express some general and agreed policy on this issue.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi need be fearful that anything I do will lead to the cutting down of opportunities for people to have full em-
286
ployment. With his views on currency I am in agreement so far as he expressed them to-day; I do not want to be committed further than that. On this general expansionist theory I have doubt that he is right. We are indebted to my noble friend Lord Melchett for what he said. With his great business experience he directed our attention to the importance of seeing that money is used in its proper way for the benefit of the people of this country. I hope I have not over-simplified his views in saying that, but they are my views. In this period of reconstruction we have to recognize that money is the servant of the public. It is very encouraging when you get a great industrialist like the noble Lord coming and expressing such views I find—I say this without disrespect—that these views are common among the great industrialists of the country; I find they are common among the bankers of the country; and I believe that that is one of the reasons why we should have great hope and great encouragement for the future.
Whilst I was careful to stale the other day that I would make no promises as to what was going to happen in the future unless I knew, there is no reason why we should not have hope. I believe there is every room for hope. I believe the great industrialists of the country are going to recognize that here is their opportunity confronting them to rebuild this country. This is not a matter of Party conflict as to whether the industrial organizations should belong to the nation, belong to the municipalities, or belong to private capitalists. I do not care about that so long as these organizations are ready, so that the moment the war is over all these great commercial and industrial forces in the country will say, "Now that we have, by the grace of God, been preserved from defeat, we shall rebuild in this country a land which is worthy of the men who have gone, without whom we should not have had this opportunity." I believe, and I am encouraged by what the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Kenilworth, have just said, that the great industrial organizations of this country are going to take up that challenge, and if they do so then indeed they will have rendered great services to the community.
I have kept your Lordships much longer than I desired to do and I am very grate-

287
ful to the House for the encouraging way in which it received the remarks I made the other day. I know that I have taken on a task of great difficulty and lack of definition, but the end we have in view is quite clearly defined, and that is that this land shall be restored, as Lord Elton I thought so beautifully put it, as a land
288
in which families can live together in happiness and contentment, with some sense of security. That is the task before us and to that, my Lords, I promise you from the bottom of my heart I will dedicate such capacities as I have.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.