Lords Sitting of 22 September 1943

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

THE REGENCY ACT: MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I have a Message from the King signed with his own hand. His Majesty's Message is as follows:
"In accordance with recommendations which I made to both Houses of Parliament in the first year of my reign, permanent provision was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the uninterrupted exercise of the Royal Authority during any incapacity of the Sovereign and during the absence of the Sovereign from the realm, as well as in the event of the minority of the Sovereign on his Accession.
"The Regency Act, 1937, passed for these purposes, provides, among other things, that, in the event of the illness of the Sovereign or of his absence or intended absence from the United Kingdom, certain of the Royal functions may be delegated to persons who are nominated to be Counsellors of State but from among the persons in the line of succession to the Crown who may be nominated to be such Counsellors the Act excludes any who are not of full age.
"The earnest desire of The Queen and myself that our beloved daughter, the Princess Elizabeth, should have every opportunity of gaining experience in the duties which would fall upon her in the event of her accession to the Throne, leads me to recommend that you should take into consideration the amendment of the Act mentioned in such manner as to provide for including among the Counsellors of State the person who is heir apparent or heir presumptive to the Throne if over the age at which the accession of a Sovereign does not necessitate a Regency, namely, the age of eighteen.
"Further, it will be within your recollection that when The Queen and I were absent from the United Kingdom in the year 1939 it was necessary, in order that the provisions of the Act should be complied with, that Her Majesty should be included among the Counsellors of State notwithstanding her absence. This circumstance leads me to recommend that you should also take into your consideration the amendment of the Act mentioned in such manner as to enable persons who are absent or intend to be absent from the United Kingdom to be excepted from among the number of Counsellors of State.
"I shall be prepared to concur with you in any measures which may appear to you to be necessary or expedient for securing the purposes to which I have alluded."
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return thanks to His Majesty for his most gracious communication recommending this House to consider certain contingencies which are not provided for in the Regency Act, 1937, and to assure His Majesty that this House will, with the least possible delay, proceed to discussion of the important questions which His Majesty has been pleased to recommend to its consideration, and will provide such measures as may appear necessary or expedient for securing the purposes to which His Majesty has alluded.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to return thanks to His Majesty for his most gracious communication recommending this House to consider certain contingencies which are not provided for in the Regency Act, 1937, and to assure His Majesty that this House will, with the least possible delay, proceed to discussion of the important questions which His Majesty has been pleased to recommend to its consideration, and will provide such measures as may appear necessary or expedient for securing the purposes to which His Majesty has alluded.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, nemine dissentiente: the said Address to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

THE LATE SIR KINGSLEY WOOD.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I realize that it is most unusual for a tribute to be paid in your Lordships' House to the memory of a member of another place, but the death of a Chancellor of the Exchequer in office justifies, I think, a relaxation of the usual customs of this House. I know that your Lordships have heard with a profound sense of shock the news of the sudden death of Sir Kingsley Wood. It is a severe loss to the nation, and to the Government, and a deep sorrow to his many friends.
I will not attempt to assess Sir Kingsley Wood's achievements at the Treasury. My noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack, who I understand intends to speak, can do that with far more authority than I. I should, however, like to say one personal word. In the days before the war, I did not always see eye to eye with Sir Kingsley on certain aspects of public policy on which we were both entitled to our views. But those issues are now happily dead, and I have been brought into close contact with him during the last two years since I have been in the Government. I have sat by his side, day after day, hour after hour, in committees, and I feel very sad to-day to know that I shall never do it again. Everyone who has had the experience of working with him will have learnt to appreciate his many and great qualities. His courage, his shrewdness, his imperturbability, his cheerfulness, and his bubbling sense of humour made him a charming and valuable colleague, and his ready accessibility and genuine desire to listen to every point of view were qualities all too rare in politics, and were probably the secret of his outstanding success as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am very glad to have had this, opportunity to pay this brief but most sincere tribute to him, and I am sure that your Lordships will wish to extend the deep sympathy of this House to his widow.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I should like to associate myself and my friends with what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, and to support his view on the Tightness, on this occasion, of making an exception to the usual procedure of your Lordships' House. I think that I can claim that I was one of those who were responsible for giving Sir Kingsley Wood his first official appoint-
62
ment. Before the termination of the last war, when I was Minister of Reconstruction, he was a great help to me in negotiating the inclusion of the approved societies in connexion with what was then the proposed Ministry of Health, and in helping me to overcome a great many difficulties to which he addressed the qualities of open-mindedness, of humour and of imperturbability to which the Leader of the House has referred. Afterwards, when I became Minister of Health in the Government of that day, I appointed Sir Kingsley Wood, though he was not of my own political Party, to be my Parliamentary Private Secretary, and that was the beginning of his association with the Department, of which, of course, he ultimately became the head.
I should like to express one's sense of deep loss, which must be very widespread to-day, at what the State and its councils must have lost by reason of Sir Kingsley's death. I never knew him to be flurried. I never knew him to lose his sense of realities, and I often used to think, from the outside, that that must surely have been one of the reasons why he became, as I think he did become, so exceedingly influential in the counsels of the Party to which he belonged. He brought an originality of mind and a readiness to accept suggestions to every office which he filled. There are two things in particular which I think we ought not to fail to mention. I believe that the establishment of the very highly successful overseas air training scheme was largely due to his assistance in the early days; and he will certainly always be known for his successful conduct of the great office in the service of which he died. I am one of those who are fully conscious of how immensely better these affairs have been managed during this war than they were in the last. What he has done in using his influence in restraining inflation, and in making it difficult to spend, and thereby diverting into savings an immense proportion of the incomes of the people, is an achievement which I think must be almost the envy of the whole world.
Finally, I think that his administration of this office brought into prominence one of his greatest qualities. I do not know that he posed as a particular authority on finance, but he did bring into his office men of great experience from the outside, who have helped to guide the nation

63
in these difficult days, and he was great enough to take their advice. For those qualities of accessibility and willingness to take the advice of men of high experience the nation owes a great deal to him, and I should like to associate myself and my noble friends whole-heartedly with what has fallen from the Leader of the House.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Crewe, owing to domestic bereavement, I should naturally wish to associate those of us who sit on these Benches with this expression of appreciation of the great services rendered by Sir Kingsley Wood, and of our sympathy with his relatives. In my own case, I saw him so often in connexion with National Savings, to which he gave such singular help and sympathy, that I should have been glad to do so in any case, but I expressed my personal view at yesterday's sitting. On these Benches, moreover, is Lord Catto, who has been closely in contact with him all through these arduous years, and who was with him only a few hours before his death. Therefore I rise only to express on behalf of us all our sympathy, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Catto will add something to the tributes which have been paid.
LORD CATTO: My Lords, it is perhaps fitting that a member of your Lordships' House who has been in daily and almost hourly association with the late Sir Kingsley Wood, should add a few words to the eloquent and touching tributes which have fallen from the lips of the Leader of your Lordships' House and from the noble Lords, Lord Addison and Lord Mottistone, and which, I am sure, will fall from the lips of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. May I say, too, that I am sure my noble friend Lord Keynes, who is in Washington, would have been glad to associate himself with these tributes had he been able to be present? When, in 1940, I was invited to become Financial Adviser to the Treasury, I had no personal acquaintance with Sir Kingsley Wood, but in those anxious, difficult and dangerous days of 1940 and 1941 and since I came to know him well and to appreciate his wisdom and ripe experience. Above all, I came to appreciate those rarer qualities of heart and mind which endeared him to all who had the privilege of working with him.
64
He was at all times approachable, and he listened with courtesy and attention and with great patience to the opinions of others. More than that, he had the rare quality of sometimes accepting such opinions, and that often requires a degree of courage which we do not always appreciate. Sir Kingsley Wood had that courage in a remarkable degree; but I would add that he accepted those opinions only if his ripe judgment were convinced of their worth.
I was at a long meeting with him on Monday afternoon, and he showed no sign of strain or of fatigue; yet he has passed from amongst us with tragic suddenness. His place in the political history of the country is assured, for he died in the fullness of his powers and at the height of his success as a great war Chancellor. But it is not of his remarkable public career of which I would speak; I should like to end this tribute with just these words, speaking of the man as we knew him in the Treasury. In Sir Kingsley Wood we have lost a wise chief and a kindly friend, and the country has lost a great public servant. Our deep sympathy goes out to the gracious lady his wife and to all the members of his family.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, at the request of the Leader of the House, I rise to add a few words to what has already been said, though indeed I feel that the tributes already paid have been so fitting that there is little I would wish to say. I am glad, however, to take part, for Sir Kingsley Wood and I were ministerial colleagues in various offices for a continuous stretch of twelve years, and after the first nine months of war, when I came to this House, he took up the task from me at the Treasury. Nobody could have had this long and intimate acquaintance with our departed friend without gaining a real admiration for his qualities and his character.
On these recurring occasions, when the wheels of Parliament are stopped for a moment that we may dwell in memory on the career of some distinguished public man, we do not aim at general and indiscriminate eulogy; we try to pick out one or two of the fine characteristic qualities which we should like to remember in the man that has gone. I will mention two, which, in an experience which now

65
covers many years, stand out very prominently in my mind as associated with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first, touched upon in very moving words by the noble Lord, Lord Catto, just now, is what I may describe as his invariable energy of mind. He was never slack or indifferent about any piece of public work in which he was taking a part. He came to every committee well primed with the documents which had been circulated; he listened, as Lord Catto has said, carefully and thoughtfully. He contributed himself, and was very willing to receive: the views of others. But when he had reached his conclusion he asserted it with great clearness, great firmness and sometimes with great courage, and nothing could move him from the conclusion at which he had felt bound to arrive, except some later superior consideration.
I have never known a Minister of whom you might be so sure that he would always be at the top of his form whatever his form might be. That explains a great deal of his success. He never had the air of a weary Titan. He never claimed that the labours of Government were bearing him down and his pleasant, simple manner and confident smile, I think, tended to make people judge him at less than his real worth. If you take his first great office, the office of Postmaster-General, in three years he achieved tremendous results. By this same constant energy there were improvements made there, transformations indeed, made there, during the time that he was Postmaster-General, for which we shall always be grateful. Then I was particularly glad to hear my noble friend Lord Addison make another reference to him. When he was at the Air Ministry he had a most important part in that which to-day is a satisfaction and an encouragement to everybody engaged on the side of freedom in the war. He was one of the Ministers who carried through and helped to establish with the co-operation of the Dominion of Canada that great air training scheme in the Dominion which since then has meant so much for the cause of liberty.
The other quality which I would venture to mention is the happy knack that he had, when engaged it might be in the most intense controversy, of promoting and maintaining a level of good humour and pleasantness, with the result that I really
66
think it is true to say of him what is often said, but not always truly said, about some others, that in the course of Parliamentary life he hardly made an enemy. That quality, the ability to join in keen controversy, with high conviction on either side, and at the same time to contribute to the general ease and calm of the discussion is a quality which we all may admire but which not everybody can emulate.
These then are two of the things which I think were really characteristic of our friend. I will not attempt to prolong the list though it would be easy to do so. We do right here in this House to depart from our usual custom and take note of the passing of this distinguished Commoner, full of the business of his great office, who has contributed so much to the strength of this country in time of war, now that the place that knew him will know him no more. There was a man who has devoted all that was in him—unstinted, unswerving, single-minded—to the service of his country.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
  COUNTY BOROUGH OF DARLINGTON ORDER.

    BOROUGH OF SALE ORDER.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
    Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEA SETTLEMENT.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether it is possible to make any further statement regarding facilities for ex-Service men and women to settle overseas after the war; and whether the Oversea Settlement Board or some special ad hoc Committee on the lines of the Empire Settlement Committee, 1917, could be instructed to

67
consider th e provision of authoritative information for inquiries; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, some four months ago, at the end of May, my noble friend Lord Barnby initiated a debate on the subject of oversea settlement, but as he limited his Motion to the sole, though very important, question of the transferability of social security contributions, I hope I require to make no apology for raising the subject again in a general way in your Lordships' House. Though the Motion was limited in the way I have explained by my noble friend, the Leader of the House in replying for the Government made some very important general observations on the whole subject, and as it is on those statements by my noble friend the Leader of the House that my questions are based, I should like, if I may, to remind your Lordships very briefly what it was that the Leader of the House said. He said that he "believed that Imperial oversea settlement and the interchange of populations between one part of the British Commonwealth and the others is essential to the future happiness and prosperity, and even for the survival, of the British Empire." My noble friend went on to say:
"It is the policy of His Majesty's Government to encourage migration for those who desire to go to the Dominions."
He added that if returning soldiers "want to try new openings, His Majesty's Government will give them every assistance." He referred to the necessity of a "common front" between ourselves and the Dominions on this matter, and wound up his speech by warmly welcoming any discussion of this kind in your Lordships' House, which he described as peculiarly well fitted to deal with these very wide questions.
My noble friend's statement was, I think, particularly welcome, as I believe it was the first statement that has been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government since post-war problems have been considered. As some months have now passed since that statement was made I hope very much that the noble Duke (the Duke of Devonshire), who I believe is to reply on this Motion, will be able to give some further information—I hope even information of a detailed character—on general matters of policy with which the Leader of the House dealt on that
68
occasion. As my noble friend himself specifically referred to the importance of a "common front" I cannot refrain from asking whether any progress has been made in this direction in the interval in consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions. But, apart from this question of the "common front," the points I wish to raise are limited to matters within the competence of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom alone. I wish to make it quite plain from the outset that my remarks are based on full recognition of the fact that whether or no settlers from any other parts of the Empire are admitted to Canada or any other Dominion is a matter resting entirely within the competence of His Majesty's Governments in those respective countries. In asking what facilities His Majesty's Government here are prepared to grant to those who may wish to settle overseas, I am assuming that such persons are suitable as settlers, and that there are Dominions prepared to receive and welcome them. It would be very unfortunate if there were any impression in any of the Dominions that any of us desired to see any but the most suitable settlers admitted to make his or her useful contribution to the progress of the proposed country of adoption.
As the war proceeds to what we all hope is a no longer distant victorious end, more and more people, inside Parliament and out, are busy discussing what is to be the shape of things to come afterwards, and incidentally, hazarding opinions as to what men and women now engaged in the Forces or on other national work will look for when they return to civil life and are confronted with the problems of the post-war world. After the last war, as your Lordships will remember, on various grounds which I suggest may very well recur, some of them desired not to return to their previous avocations here but to settle overseas. Indeed, I have been informed recently by more than one of the most important voluntary agencies that they are constantly receiving inquiries showing, as they tell me, that there is a great demand amongst Service men and women for information with regard to settling overseas when they are demobilized. Only two days ago I received a letter from an officer serving in the Mediterranean, enclosing a Press cutting of the statement made in the previous debate by

69
my noble friend the Leader of the House, and in that letter the officer says:
"I can assure you that many of all ranks here are anxious to know something definite about the Government's policy in this matter."
In view of the noble Viscount's statement that the Government will give assistance in these casts, I desire to ask the noble Duke whether any proposals are being considered now as to what that assistance should be.
In the last war the Empire Settlement Committee, appointed by the Minister concerned, had already made very detailed recommendations by the summer of 1917. I take it that we are fully entitled to hope that the end of this war is not further distant to-day than the end of the 1914–18 war was in the summer of 1917. That Committee which reported in 1917 had been asked amongst other things to collect the necessary information as to facilities that would be granted by the Dominion Governments and to advise how this information should be communicated to the troops. The Committee, I may add, consisted of members not only from the United Kingdom, but from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Rhodesia. It is really extraordinarily interesting to read this Report now, for much of it might have been written to-day. For example, the Committee considered that emigration should be looked at in the interest of the Empire as a whole, and that individual interests should be subordinated. They pointed out that there would be opposition to, the influx of immigrants on a scale that would disorganize local labour conditions.
It is interesting to read these remarks, made by a responsible Committee over twenty-five years ago, in the light of a speech made only a few months ago by an Imperial statesman, Dr. Evatt, the Australian Minister for External Affairs. I should like to quote a few words of that speech. Speaking here in this country, Dr. Evatt said that one of the great post-war problems that would face the British peoples was that of increasing the populations of the Dominions, including Australia. And, he went on:
"Remembering the great difficulties caused by our limited man-power, we look forward to welcoming Britishers among us. But we must understand clearly what we are aiming at, and we must plan migration schemes most
70
carefully and scientifically. We do not want people from Britain to be forced to migrate by sheer economic necessity. We want the countries from which migrants come—and we especially want the people of Britain—to enjoy full employment. Equally, we in Australia are resolved that our people shall have full employment so far as that is humanly possible. Upon a common foundation of full employment, migration would be truly voluntary."
That was, your Lordships will agree, a very important contribution from Australia.
If I may go back for a moment to the Committee of 1917, I should like to say, incidentally, that the Committee stated in their Report how much they were impressed by the work done by the voluntary agencies in making arrangements, for example, for wives and families to join their men in the Dominions, and they recommended that these voluntary agencies were best fitted for doing such work. I know from personal experience that these great voluntary organizations are equally ready and anxious to help again after this war, and I suggest to your Lordships that they can once more perform very valuable service. These societies believe that schemes on this occasion should not be confined to agricultural pursuits, but that consideration should be given to other industries, having regard to the present industrialization in Canada and in the other Dominions, which it is thought will have a marked effect upon any future population problem. These societies also urge that encouragement should be given to those who were trained under the Empire air training scheme to join, should they wish to do so, friends they have made overseas. I am told that many of them found sweethearts at these places, and are anxious to return to where they were trained to marry and to settle in the Dominion concerned.
There was another problem in the last war—that of the wives and fiancées of men in the overseas forces. We all know that that problem exists at least to the same extent in this war. I read a newspaper statement the other day—I do not vouch for the figure—that in one English county alone 5,000 Canadian officers and men have married English girls. Whatever the figure may be, we all, I am sure, welcome the cementing of ties between our two countries created by marriage between Canadian soldiers and girls in

71
this country. But is it not desirable—and here I would again quote the 1917 Committee—that arrangements should be made for them to be sent out as soon as their new homes can be made ready for them? Here again, I suggest that some of the voluntary societies are specially suited for dealing with this kind of case.
In the last war arose the question of the proper time for the dissemination of information to ex-Servicemen and women who wished to go overseas. Here the Committee stated that the War Office and the Ministry of Labour were both of opinion that the proper time was after the cessation of hostilities and before the men were demobilized; such information to state the opportunities offered to ex-Servicemen in the various Dominions. Therefore, it was considered, during the last war, that the matter required to be considered and studied before hostilities ceased. Ought it not, then, to be taken up now? It was said in the previous debate that the Oversea Settlement Board is now in cold storage. Is there any reason why the Oversea Settlement Board, which has done such good work in the past, should not be revived? I know not. There may be such reasons, but if there are reasons for not reviving that Board I would like to suggest that a Committee similar to the one set up in the last war should now be appointed to collect and then to provide authoritative information to inquirers. I hope that His Majesty's Government will take this suggestion into sympathetic consideration and that the noble Duke may be able to give me some detailed information such as I have asked for on this very important matter. I beg to move for Papers.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, when I heard about this debate I immediately asked myself the question, what do the Dominions want? I feel that that is the crux of the whole matter and I am sure it is a consideration which must have been carefully considered by His Majesty's Government. In the past, as Lord Bessborough has said, it was rather assumed that a migrant from this country would be settled in agricultural pursuits. But with the very greatly changed conditions prevailing to-day that is by no means certainly the case, and it may be that what the Dominions want are electricians, fitters, coppersmiths, plumbers or riveters.
72
There is no doubt that the problem is an even more complex one than it was after the last war. It means also that the individual selection of migrants is even more important now. I think that that individual selection can only be made by the voluntary organizations which take care that the right type of young man or young woman is selected and which give the personal touch throughout.
The Big Brother movement, on the committee of which I have the honour to serve, has brought that personal touch to a fine art. A very large percentage of the young men sent overseas have been boys with a secondary school education and some have had a public school education. The Big Brother movement also does another very important work—namely, looking after the migrant when he has reached the Dominions and keeping in personal touch with him. He is known as a little brother and each little brother has a big brother to look after him. The success of this scheme has been proved by the number of serving men from the Dominions who have called and seen our secretary at Australia House in London. I feel, as Lord Bessborough said, that this personal touch will be greatly helped by the friendships made among men in the Forces. There must have been many fine friendships made in the Middle East and, as Lord Bessborough said, under the air training scheme. Many of these friends will be only too glad to act as big brothers and to help these young men who go out to the Dominions after the war. Therefore I do hope we shall hear from His Majesty's Government that this subject is being given their earnest consideration and that contact will be made, if it has not already been made, with the Dominion Governments, without which of course nothing can be done.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, in the words of this Motion the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has covered the matter so fully that there is realty no need of my supporting it, but I have received letters from so many voluntary organizations expressing the strength of feeling that prevails about this matter that I feel justified in taking part in this debate. Lord Bessborough referred to the fact that this matter was discussed in May on a Resolution moved by myself. On that occasion the Leader of the House was good enough to deal with the matter. He gave the

73
assurance that the Government intended to explore the question energetically and also other assurances which my noble friend recounted in the early part of his remarks. It therefore might appear to be undue haste on my part if I were to ask now for more than the promise then made. Lord Bessborough has made a strong case for the early consideration of this matter and I hope it may be possible to go further to-day than the Leader of the House was able to go on the former occasion. An additional reason for saying that is this. After the Leader of the House spoke on 25th May, Lord Bennett made a contribution to the debate which was not answered. He pointed out that the situation as regards migration in Canada had changed in this respect, that the social security scheme which he and his progressive Government put forward and which subsequently was called into Question by an interpretation of the British North America Act, had since then become law. That made possible the bringing into operation of machinery which did not previously exist.
May I remind the House that when our last discussion took place I called attention particularly to the possibility of transferring accumulations of contribution under the various social security schemes? Lord Bessborough has put that matter very clearly to-day and has also approached the subject from a much wider angle. So well did he put the case that I am sure the House will have been impressed by the merits of my noble friend's scheme and will agree that what he has said justifies a further early indication from the Government of the result of their examination of this question. Those members of the House who heard Dr. Evatt and the Parliamentary Delegation from Australia and New Zealand will not require to be convinced of the great service which is being done by representatives from the Dominions in insisting upon the need for immigration to increase the population of the Dominions. Surely His Majesty's Government must take a prominent part in giving guidance as to how this can best be done.
Subsequent to our last discussion I approached the Dominions Office and met with that attentive and considerate attitude which one always finds there. I had the opportunity to discuss the point that I made particularly on the 25th May when the Leader of the House was good
74
enough to say it was worthy of attention. That point was that there should be some system of training instituted now, if it were only an emergency measure, to train juveniles with a view to their migration, the idea being that there would be young members of "blitzed" families and young people orphaned in various ways who could be taken in hand and trained with a view to their increasing the population of the Dominions. I am bound to confess that I came away from the Dominions Office very much discouraged, not because of anything that was denied, but because of the fact that there seemed to exist in the Dominions Office an attitude of mind that was not forward looking enough to lead one to hope that the matter would be sympathetically approached. That interview was followed by some correspondence and I have here a letter the effect of which was to draw my attention to the Report of an Inter-Departmental Committee on migration policy published in 1934. The letter suggested that the war did not justify some new procedure and pointed out that in such and such paragraphs of this Report issued in 1934 such and such recommendations were made.
Even if thought in official channels is still bound by what was recommended in the circumstances existing in 1034 I hope your Lordships may feel justified in taking a somewhat more progressive line. Doubtless many of your Lordships have read that Report. I have taken the trouble to read it through again. I was impressed, as I think anyone reading it must be impressed, by the fact that the evidence received and the conclusions arrived at by that Committee were based upon the belief that primary production was the only field in which migrants were expected to be received. My noble friend Lord Gifford has just made very forcibly the point that modern conditions have changed the situation to the extent that secondary industry is now the more likely field in which migrants would be welcomed and useful. When I was in Australia at the height of the depression I found evidence that new arrivals were going into secondary industry and that expansion of primary production was mainly confined to old hands, residents in Australia who knew their way about and were likely to be received more readily by their neighbours when they went into

75
the country to work. The financial side of the problem is one which perhaps limits the outlook of the Dominions Office. But surely these training centres which I have suggested, or the Fairbridge scheme or other schemes which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, so properly eulogized when this matter was last debated, should receive contributions on a scale which would justify progress.
Reverting for a moment to the question of the mechanics of the social security services contribution, which is an essential precedent to anything being done as far as migrants from this country are concerned, may I put forward the thought inspired by one of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that the demobilized soldier's credit might very properly be taken into consideration by the Committees who will advise on this matter? I have just returned from Southern Ireland and I think there is a problem to be dealt with there. Credits will be paid to very large numbers of men—I have heard the figure put variously at from 130,000 to 160,000— who have nationality registered in Southern Ireland and who are now serving in His Majesty's Forces. These men will receive demobilization grants. Is it not proper that that should be taken into account?
Whatever the view taken of these matters, I want emphatically to support the suggestion of my noble friend who introduced this Motion. On the other hand, I fully realize the Government view that it is difficult at this stage to give an indication of policy on migration when that policy must dovetail into the general question of reconstruction. I see three members of the Government present who are familiar and sympathetic with the question of migration. There is the noble Lord, Lord Croft, who has given long study and made most helpful contributions to the problem; there is the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, who with his long administrative experience has great familiarity with this problem, and there is the noble Duke who will reply to this debate on behalf of the Government. Your Lordships will remember his chairmanship of the Oversea Settlement Board. I most earnestly hope that the Government have put him in a position, or will soon put him or some other spokesman in a position, to give an
76
encouraging reply to the eloquent appeal made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I think you will agree that although my noble friend and relative, the Leader of the House, recently gave a full statement of the Government's policy on migration, the House is under a debt to the noble Earl for raising this Motion. The subject is one of gigantic importance and we really cannot think too much about it. I can assure my noble friend at once that the Government fully realize the importance of the question raised by his Motion. I do not suppose he can find anyone—certainly no one in the ranks of the Government—who would dispute the value, in building up the strength and influence of the British Empire in the difficult days that must lie ahead, of the maximum possible movement of population from the United Kingdom to other parts of the British Commonwealth.
The Government also realize that one of the results of the war has been to stimulate the interest of the inhabitants of various countries in the Empire in other countries of the Empire and to increase the desire among the population of the United Kingdom to settle in other British Empire countries. War has many horrible and disastrous results but it also produces, I think, the beneficial result that many thousands of young men who normally would have grown up with a circumscribed outlook have seen vast tracts of the world's surface and their horizon has been almost infinitely enlarged. Nothing can be more certain than that before the end of the war the horizons of many of them will be still further enlarged. It is not for me to prophesy, but I suppose it is tolerably certain that many thousands of Service men and women—I was glad to see my noble friend included women in his Motion—will in all probability serve in Australia. As a result of that their future life may be profoundly modified.
The question raised by the Motion is whether the Government can give facilities for such a movement of population as I have assumed we are all agreed is desirable. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned the Government cannot

77
altogether ignore the question of future population trends in this country. That was discussed in the Report of the Oversea Settlement Board in 1938, and has quite recently been debated in your Lordships' House. But I am in a position to say that, having regard to the desirability, from the general point of view, of encouraging free movement within the British Commonwealth of people wishing for greater opportunities for self-development, the Government support in principle the view expressed by the Oversea Settlement Board that no merely theoretical calculations as to the future consequences of such movements ought to stand in the way of the migration of individuals. I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the Government are definitely in favour of assisting migration within the Empire.
But it is necessary to bear in mind— I think my noble friend showed clearly that he realized it—that migration is not a matter which concerns only the Government of the migrant's own country. It is also very closely (and perhaps even more closely) the concern of the Government of the country to which he desires to emigrate. It is quite clearly for any country to decide on what terms persons from other countries are to enter and to settle in its territories. Moreover, no Government can be expected to encourage, and still less to assist, migration to another country, unless they are satisfied that conditions in that country are likely to be such that the migrant has a good prospect of establishing himself successfully there. The view which has been held by the Government of the United Kingdom, as embodied in the Report of the Oversea Settlement Board in 1938, is, therefore, that while they are ready to give whatever help is practicable, any policy of assisted migration requires not merely the passive acquiescence but the active participation and cooperation of the oversea country concerned. I do not know that I can go very much further at this moment on the general aspects of the problem.
The Motion refers only to the settlement of ex-Service men and women, and it is clearly necessary to concentrate on that aspect of the question which will arise immediately on the conclusion of hostilities, and will necessarily have to be dealt with in advance of the problem
78
of post-war migration generally. Nevertheless, many of the considerations which apply to migration generally apply equally to this particular problem, and in particular the importance of securing that any action taken is acceptable to the Governments of the Dominions. They will themselves be faced at the end of the war with difficult questions arising from the demobilization of their own ex-Service men, and I think it is quite clear that this subject is one about which they will have to think very deeply before they can give us a definite reply.
The United Kingdom Government realizing the importance of early consideration of these problems have already taken up the matter with the Dominion Governments, but so far the latter have not formulated definite views and have not given us any definite reply. I think that we need not be surprised at that for we must bear in mind that all these Governments are very heavily occupied with the prosecution of the war, and that in three of the Dominions General Elections have taken place very recently or are just about to take place. It is therefore quite clear that the Dominion Governments cannot reasonably be expected to give an answer too speedily to the questions which we have put to them.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Duke for one moment? Does what he has just said apply to the general question of migration, or does it also include the specific question of departmental mechanics relating to the interchange between different countries of the Empire and the matter of the accumulated contributions?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am speaking of the whole question of migration in general. We believe that it is a subject of vast importance, and we have approached the Dominions Governments with a view to getting together. My noble friend the mover of the Motion referred to the importance of a "common front." We have approached the Dominions Governments with a view to making the question of oversee, migration one which we can tackle from the point of view of a "common front." My noble friend referred to the matter of a policy Committee. I think he will probably agree that that is hardly necessary because the Government's policy is formed. In 1917 they required their policy

79
to be formed. Machinery was set up and the Government came to a certain decision. The policy of the Government being formed, we, therefore, require no assistance now in formulating a policy. At the present time we are in process of dealing with the mechanics of the matter, and although, as I have said, we have had no definite reply yet from any of the Dominions Governments which have been approached, there is no doubt that great interest is being taken in this question not only in the Dominions but also in this country. The United Kingdom Government hope that it will not be long before we have some more definite indication of the views of the Dominions Governments particularly on this question of the settlement of ex-Service men and women. I am sorry that I cannot make a more definite statement to-day, but I can give my noble friend the assurance that the Government will miss no opportunity which may present itself of discussing this matter with the Dominions Governments. In the circumstances, until we know what is the policy of the Dominions Governments, it is hardly possible to get down to the details of machinery whether in the form of a revival of the Oversea Settlement Board or of the setting up of a special Committee.
Clearly, if a policy of assisted migration, either general or limited to ex-Service personnel, is to be adopted, the provision of first-class authoritative information to inquirers on up-to-date conditions in any particular class of employment overseas must be most important. Such information must be equally important for unassisted migrants. That authoritative and up-to-date information can be secured, however, only through the use of the resources at the disposal of the oversea country concerned, and would be dependent on the policy of that country as regards the future trends of trade and as regards the reception of immigrants and so on. Without such co-operation, the bare provision of machinery by the United Kingdom Government would not facilitate the giving of such information to prospective migrants. I doubt whether the Oversea Settlement Board would be the best vehicle for conveying that information to prospective migrants. I fully agree that it is of the utmost importance that such information should be available for migrants, and I have every confidence,
80
that the Government will, in conjunction with the Dominion Governments, see to it that it is available; but I do not think that the Oversea Settlement Board would be the best machinery for making such information available. it is a Board of highly qualified persons, set up to advise the Government on policy, and could hardly adopt as one of its functions the very necessary one of providing information to individual migrants. I believe that that can best be done by the combination which existed before of the voluntary socicties—and I would pay one more tribute to the invaluable work which they have done—and of the Dominion Governments themselves.
I can, however, give the noble Earl this definite assurance, that as soon as any conclusion has been reached, in conjunction with the Dominion Governments and as the result of the necessary consultation with those Governments, as to the policy on migration generally, the United Kingdom Government will forthwith consider the best form of organization for giving effect to that policy. I hope that my noble friend does not think that I have been too indefinite. I have tried to give him as definite an answer as I can. He began by asking whether any further statement regarding facilities can be made. To my regret, I cannot go very much further than my noble relative went four months ago. He was able to assure the House then that the Dominion Governments would be consulted, and I can give the assurance that they have been consulted. On the question of policy, I can give him the definite assurance that the Government believe migration to be a sound policy, and it is their intention to do everything in their power to help to facilitate it.
VISCOUNT BENNETT: My Lords, I had not intended to participate in the debate, but, in view of the observations which have been made by the noble Duke, I should like to express my very deep approval of two things which are quite apparent, and which reaffirm what was said by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, some months ago. The first is that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will assist migration. There is a general view in many parts of the King's Dominions that this country would be very much better off if a large number of its people made their home in

81
another part of the world; in other words, there are too many people in this country. That view prevails very largely in many parts of the world. The statistician has been able to show—or he thinks that he has—that it is a very dangerous thing for people to leave this country in large numbers, that we are now on the down-grade, and that our population will not be more than twenty millions within a reasonable time. The noble Duke has dealt with this point, however, by reaffirming that there will be assisted migration; that is, that there will be a reservoir from which people may be moved to some other part of the world with the assistance of the Government.
That covers permission by the Government of this country to its citizens to leave it; but then comes the more important question, from the point of view of the settler himself—namely, whether he will receive permission to enter the country to which he desires to go. That involves Governmental understanding, or at least' agreements and arrangements between the Governments of the two countries, the one permitting the migrants to leave and the other permitting them to settle. I have had some little experience in connexion with that matter. During the period of the great depression, when it was at its worst, settlers who came to Canada from this country were asking us to make an order for their deportation, because they said that they had certain social advantages and benefits in this country which were not available for them in Canada. We now have in Australia, however, as in the other Dominions of His Majesty, including Canada, an Unemployment Insurance Act and some general scheme of social legislation, and this means that' there should be an arrangement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Canada and the Government of Australia with regard to matters of that kind. That is regarded by the people concerned as being of very great importance.
In the next place, it is important that there should be "selected" migration. I use that word with great deliberation. In a very few cases—I am happy to say very few—settlers were sent to the Dominions who were wholly unsuited to take up life in a new country, and some of them were not desirable in any event.
82
That is bound to happen, of course. Sometimes great emphasis was laid on it —improperly, in my judgment—because there was a disposition to get rid of an unsavoury character and, if he went to Canada or Australia, he was a long way away and caused no more trouble here. Happily, as I have said, those cases were very few. I suggest to the noble Duke that when he is dealing with this matter it is important to ascertain, in the various communities of this Kingdom, who desire to leave it and for what purpose. That can be done very readily in this country. They should be asked whether they desire to go to Australia, to New Zealand or to Canada, and whether they desire to follow agricultural activities or to be employed in industrial life. In the last war it was part of my duty in the office which I then held, to send a card to every one of our troops. These cards were distributed to every single man, and he was asked whether or not he desired to take up agricultural pursuits when he came back from the war, and what capital he might have. The response enabled us to have a very clear conception of what might be done in the way of land settlement by these men when they came back from the war. This country lends itself so easily to obtaining information that in the first: instance it would be easy to ascertain who wanted to leave Britain, where they wished to go to, and what they desired to do when they went there.
It is quite true, as has been said, that a great many people think that it is only agricultural pursuits in which the receiving countries are interested. That has been true to a large extent in the past, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said, conditions have changed with regard to secondary industries. In Australia and in Canada, for example, these have attained very formidable proportions for countries with such small populations— there are fewer than twelve million people in the whole of Canada—and it is quite clear that, if these countries are to continue to be successful in their effort at nation-building, they must have more people. In Canada, for instance, we have facilities for a population of at least twenty-five millions, and in Australia much the same state of affairs prevails, although perhaps the figure would not be quite so high, having regard to the conditions in the centre of that great Continent. It is quite clear, however,

83
that the envious eyes of others are looking upon these countries as countries which are unsettled and in the development of which we are not discharging our full duty. That is one of the problems which we must consider.
The matter can be settled only by an Imperial Conference. It has been the subject-matter of discussion at Imperial Conferences, and it will continue to be; but, inasmuch as it is certain that there must be an Imperial Conference within a reasonable time, if it is not settled before it will certainly be necessary to settle then what is the attitude of the receiving countries towards this country as the reservoir that provides the settlers. I suggest to the noble Duke that, having ascertained the names of those who desire to take up their homes in new countries, it is of the utmost importance that there should be a planned settlement. It is no use merely dumping people at the port and leaving them there. There must be a very clear arrangement made by which supervision is exercised as they go on farms for a period of at least two or three years. It is quite evident from what is said by those who have come that they are very lonesome in a new country, and if possible something should be done towards making a community settlement of those who come from the same locality. Thus the people who come from one shire might settle in a particular section of the country where there are vacant lands.
Then there is another class which does not come within the category that I have mentioned—those who have some capital and growing families for which they desire to provide, believing that opportunities are greater in a new country than they would be here in England. I have pointed out on more than one occasion that in the old Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and in Ontario to a very considerable extent, there are abandoned farms, most excellent farms, but abandoned because the young men went west or, in the lower part of the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they went to the United States. Places are available now, and there are first-rate educational facilities in these Provinces, including universities. Their children could grow up, obtain an excellent education and understand the conditions of life in the new country,
84
whether it be Canada or Australia—although there are not the abandoned farms in Australia that you will find in Canada, for reasons that are apparent. These people with some small capital could make their home, having about them the facilities I have mentioned, and they could give their boys and girls an adequate education. They would then fit into the life of the country and make for themselves a place in the life of the nation.
I think that is a matter that can only be studied by the voluntary organizations, but—and I say this with very great deliberation—there must be the most careful planning with respect to these matters. I have seen great hardships come upon people who have settled, both in Canada and in Australia, and I have seen very great difficulties arise through their having gone there under what they conceived to be misrepresentation, or misunderstanding at least, with respect to what their future would be. And no words that I can add to what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, will strengthen what he has so fittingly said—namely, that we do require these British settlers in these oversea Dominions. We require them for many reasons—I will not take up time by reviewing those reasons now—and unless we do get them I feel that there is a very difficult time ahead for these Dominions. The ability to care for themselves of some of the people who have gone from this country and succeeded is very marked. Every now and then, if you take the trouble to ask a man where he came from, you will be told that he came from one of the English counties. He may be in industry or on the railway. Frequently it is a man who has made a great success of his farming operations, who went into the western part of Canada and settled on a homestead, where he would get a free gift of 160 acres of land if he had resided upon it and cultivated portions of it for three years. You will find them everywhere.
But those days are not these days. Great changes have taken place, the homestead lands have been taken up. There are vacant lands still near railways. One of the difficulties that these Dominions have to meet is due to the fact of the lands near the railways being held by private individuals or corporations for speculative purposes. The Governments of the countries concerned must deal with that phase of it, in order that land may be available for settlement,

85
because it is impossible for settlement to take place remote from centres of population, involving the provision of new transportation facilities in countries already more than well provided with such facilities. That is true of Canada and of some parts of Australia. It is less true perhaps of New Zealand, but the day of large holdings in those countries is past. That is quite apparent from what we see is going on, and with the breaking up of these large ranches and holdings there is a greater opportunity for reasonable, planned settlement of settlers from this island, who will make their home there and whose children will exercise a profound influence on these Dominions, Canada and Australia. There is this to be said about Australia and New Zealand, they are very much farther away than Canada, and once settlers get there it is not easy to get back. But in Canada, owing to the social services of this country, there was an urgent demand from many of them to come back, and as a matter of fact they did come back, sometimes asking to be deported. Certainly the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, will tell you that, because he was an Englishman and Governor-General, he was receiving letters from time to time from British settlers complaining of the conditions in which they found themselves at that time.
If we are to maintain the ascendancy of the British spirit—I put it on that basis: not British, but the British spirit —in this British Empire, let us try scientifically and with great care to settle in these far-off Dominions men and women who have not only a love of Empire and of British institutions and traditions, but who also are determined to remain there, that their children may be able to benefit from what, after all, was secured for them by the sacrifice of the blood and treasure of the people of this Kingdom. I for one am never unmindful of the fact that the great Crown lands of Canada, the great mines, the riches of forest and stream, were given to us by the free act of the people of this island and of the Crown, to which they belonged, without compensation—a gift without price. You will perhaps recall that Lord Durham said that one of the three things that could not be dealt with by the new Colony was the Crown lands, that they must be dealt with from here because they were the property of the Crown. And yet you
86
handed them over to Canada. You have never received a brass farthing for them, and they cost you much treasure and many lives. I think if that thought could be kept in the mind of all our people, both at home and in the Dominions, it would have a profound effect. I remember recalling it in Australia to a group of people there, who said they had never thought of it in just that way.
I like to think that these boys who leave this country and make their home in Canada or Australia are going to a land in. which they have some interest, even as I and others who are citizens of the British Empire feel that we have an equal interest in the great traditions; and the ancient buildings and monuments and achievements of the people of this island. And I do think that if we do it scientifically and plan it carefully we may be able to achieve success. There is a long record of mistakes and failures in the past and surely from those mistakes and failures we can derive great profit. That is one of the real benefits of experience in connexion with settlement. I do not intend to trespass further on your Lordships' time, but in view of what was said as to the settlement policy of the Government I desire to direct attention to the necessity of that policy being worked out with most careful planning so that the mistakes of the past will not recur.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but I should like to remind your Lordships of the part that could be played to a small extent—a smaller extent, perhaps, than the Dominions—by the territories administered by the Colonial Office. I think they could help, and though their contribution would not be so great, possibly, as that of the Dominions, nevertheless it would not be negligible. Possibly with the assistance of development by the Government, they could play an even larger part in this question of migration. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind, especially in connexion with territories administered by the Colonial Office. In their case other Governments have not to be consulted, and there is no necessity therefore for spending time in that way. I would like to suggest that some scheme of Colonial migration should be considered by the Government now, quite apart from any-schemes relating to the Dominions.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to thank the noble Duke for the sympathetic nature of his reply. We all know my noble friend's deep and sympathetic interest in the whole of this most important problem, and we feel that he also expressed the very full sympathy of His Majesty's Government as a whole I am sure the House will welcome his statement, which goes further than that made on the last occasion by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House stated that a common front was necessary, and to-day we heard that the Government are now endeavouring to build that common front in consultation with the Dominions. I can only hope that the result of these consultations, having regard to the position we have reached in the war, will not be unduly delayed. I gathered that the noble Duke does not favour my suggestions either for the revival of the Oversea Settlement Board or for a Committee on the lines of the Empire Settlement Committee; but in view of the fact that he says that as soon as information is available machinery will be set up, I can only express satisfaction with that undertaking and ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PLANNING POWERS.
LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have yet reached any decision as to planning and physical reconstruction and when they propose to introduce legislation to give adequate powers to planning authorities; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which appears in my name on the Paper for consideration to-day was put down by me under "No day named" as long ago as May. From that time, from week to week and month to month, I have been hoping that the Government would do something positive with regard to at least two of the recommendations of the Interim Report of the Uthwatt Committee; but nothing at all has been done. Local planning authorities, and the public generally, are scandalized at the sustained delay on the part of the Government in this important sphere of domestic politics. It is the case, of course, that the interim development proposals have been carried into law, but they add nothing to the
88
positive procedure which is essential if planning is to be done in a satisfactory way. Interim development is, of course, development which takes place before a scheme comes into operation, and, as I say, the Act which was passed in June of this year adds nothing to the permanent town planning powers of planning authorities. No one would dispute that the Interim Development Act is a good little measure. It tidies up one or two things. It, for instance, excuses by implication those authorities which had not passed a resolution by deeming them to have done so, but it adds nothing to the powers of the bulk of the planning authorities which has passed resolutions. Most of these are faced by the most acute problems of planning and redevelopment, for they are the authorities for towns and cities where the need is greatest.
I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning said, as is the case, that "interim development" is a term of art. It is certainly not a term of heart, because the Government do not seem to have planning at heart at all, if one is to judge by the delay that is allowed to take place. Moreover, there was no need to wait for the Uthwatt Report before amending the law in regard to interim development. The most important section of the recent Act concerned, as I have said, deeming a resolution to have been passed. The Barlow Committee suggested that, and all town planners knew of its necessity long before even the Barlow Committee Report was published. Clause 8 of that Act which improves the machinery for the establishment of Joint Committees is of no value at all unless the planning authorities which are to constitute the Joint Committees have, in fact, effective powers, and the same is the case with regard to the extension of the powers to the Minister. The exercise of these Ministerial powers is dependent upon the local authorities being able themselves to exercise effective powers, and my submission is that, as the law at present stands, that cannot be done.
It is therefore idle to pretend that the Interim Development Act is a major improvement in town planning legislation. I do not believe, any more than President Roosevelt believes that Japan can be "inched" out of the islands of the

89
Pacific, that our planning problem can be solved by "inching," whether by interim development proposals or otherwise. A thorough attack upon the problem is necessary if anything desirable is to be achieved. The Uthwatt Interim Report, which I would remind the House was issued as a matter of urgency, recommended, first, that public authorities should be enabled to acquire land needed for planning on a standard of values based upon March, 1939—what we refer to as the 1939 ceiling. It also recommended that the local authorities should be empowered to acquire as reconstruction areas areas which had either been "blitzed" or were blighted. Those were the two main proposals of the Uthwatt Interim Report. Both those recommendations were accepted by the Government. In July, 1941, the then Minister, Lord Reith, stated categorically that the Government accepted those recommendations. Again, in October, 1941, Lord Reith repeated that statement and went on to say that draft clauses, and indeed a Bill, were in an advanced stage of preparation in which those two declarations and certain other admittedly desirable reforms of town planning procedure would be given effect to.
Some of us know that this Bill was in existence, that it was in fact in print. I think one is entitled to ask, what happened to this Bill, who jettisoned it, what were the influences which led to the abandonment of that Bill and to requiring the present Minister of Town and Country Planning to introduce the emasculated interim development proposals? It is correct that upon the departure of Lord Reith and the succession of Lord Portal he (Lord Portal) said in your Lordships' House that he thought it would be desirable before proceeding further with this Bill to await the Final Report of the Uthwatt Committee. Well the Final Report of the Uthwatt Committee was issued in September, 1942; yet nine months after, in the Interim Development Bill, there is not a reference to them or any provision at all dealing with the two matters of policy which the Government had stated through the mouths of Ministers were accepted. It was said, I understand, in the United States during the difficult days of depression in the 1930's that cheques came back not marked "No account "but" No bank." Well, two promissory notes uttered by Lord Reith
90
and Lord Portal by and on behalf of the Government were presented by the present Minister as the holder in due course and have come back marked "No intentions"—at least at present, because up to the present the Government have given no reliable assurance that after two years of accepting these proposals they intend to embody them in effective legislation.
I personally have some sympathy for the present Minister of Town and Country Planning. I feel that for one reason or another he is being prevented from doing what he wishes to do. It is true that on the occasion of his appointment it was stated by the Minister Without Portfolio that he was to be mounted on a racehorse. Well, as any punter knows, there are racehorses and racehorses, and if the horse upon which the present Minister is mounted is in fact a racehorse, if he wants to make any speedier progress he should get off it and get on a cart horse, because never was progress so slow. It is of course the case that the present Minister has stated that no delay is taking place, that what is happening is that there is a consumption of time. That is a new euphemism I think, but in any case judged by the results there is a much too large consumption of time and much too little production so far as this important matter is concerned.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is not in his place because I am bound to refer to some statements of his made on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Interim Development Bill. I regret that I was prevented by public affairs from being in your Lordships' House for that debate, but I have read the whole of the debate in the Official Report and I am bound to say that I am unimpressed by the feeble excuses put forward on behalf of the Government for the delay that is taking place. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House enunciated the trite constitutional doctrine that whilst Committees may report it is for the Government to decide. No one dissents from that. The fact is the Government have decided. The Government decided to accept the 1939 ceiling. The Government decided to accept that local authorities should be given power to acquire areas as reconstruction areas. It only remains for the Government to embody those two declarations in legislation. One is entitled to assume that any responsible Government

91
would have assured themselves before authorizing their Ministers to make declarations of that kind that the particular project could be embodied in legislation and how it could be embodied. I should hesitate to assume that the present Government were so irresponsible as to authorize Ministers to make such declarations without having first assured themselves of the practicability of the proposals. If that be the case, why the delay? Why cannot local authorities be given these two powers which are essential if the preparatory steps to town planning are to be taken in good time? Are we to assume from this unbroken delay that the Government are having second thoughts about these two proposals, that they are in fact receding from their position, that in fact they do not intend to confer these powers upon local authorities?
In indicating these misgivings let me say quite frankly that there is growing up among the people of this country who are interested in planning a cynical disbelief in the intentions of the Government. They are openly saying that on this occasion, as with other matters on other occasions, the people will be dished again. I have had an opportunity in the last two or three months of being able to sound and register public opinion on this matter. There has been held in London an exhibition of the County of London plan to which over 1,300 people came each day it was open. I am glad to say that a large proportion of those who came were young people and a substantial proportion of those were men and women in the Services. They were interested in what the London of the future might be, but they were very cynical as to whether anything would be done and as to whether the Government really intended that anything should be done. I have received personally at the County Hall a large number of letters expressing the same misgivings, and in the last four or five weeks I have addressed a number of meetings in London on the County of London plan. At all these meetings these misgivings as to the Government's intentions have been expressed.
These misgivings reflect the doubt of the people in the honesty of intention of the Government. It is a serious and a disturbing circumstance. It leads to a disbelief in the spoken word and it leads to a deterioration in the respect that people
92
pay to democratic government. It is no use Government speakers, whether in your Lordships' House or elsewhere, saying that the matter is being given consideration. Time is being consumed. People are demanding, and quite rightly demanding, that there shall be more action and fewer words. I observe that in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Interim Development Bill on June 10, it was stated that the criticisms of the Government's inaction were unjustified because in fact local authorities were proceeding to prepare plans. The London County Council, the City Corporation, the Cities of Hull, Bath and Plymouth were, I think, mentioned in that connexion. It is a novel excuse that Government inaction should be justified by the action of local authorities. But in fact the preparation of these plans is not planning. Nothing can be done with these plans in fact. Quite a number of cities in this country have, for reasons of protecting their own ratepayers, declined to publish their plans until they know where they will stand in respect of the March, 1939, ceiling and the ability to acquire areas as reconstruction areas. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, can speak with more particularity than I can about that.
Local authorities in most of the cities of this country are very concerned about this delay, and feel that, unless these powers are granted at once, they will be in a very difficult position as regards planning their respective areas. It is, I believe, a fact that outside London owners of sites are deliberately withholding them in expectation of a rise in value as a consequence of potential planning. It was stated by the Chairman of the National Building Society in August this year that his society had been asked for an advance on a property not further than twenty miles from London which cost £850 and which was to be purchased by the intending borrower for £1,200. We all know that outside the metropolis at all events, speculation is going on and that land prices are rising. For that reason, that very sound reason, local authorities are unable to publish their plans. It is true the London County Council has published the provisional County of London plan. The London County Council's area is a very large one, and damage in that area is more dispersed than in the case of the City of

93
London or provincial cities. We do not perhaps run the same risk that intending speculators can easily identify certain, projects in the plan. I would like to utter this warning, that if there are any speculators who think they can make profit from an examination of the County of London plan they need to be careful. They will most likely burn their fingers and if they do they can expect no mercy from the London County Council. To quote words employed in another connexion by the Prime Minister, "we shall stoke up the fires" under them. But there is a real difficulty outside London with regard to possible speculation if plans are published.
We are often told in your Lordships' House, not without justification, that the Government are unable to take positive action because they have to consult the Dominions or they have to consult members of the United Nations. The Government are under no such obligation about planning. They need not consult the Dominions and they need not consult the United Nations. The Government can do what they will, when they will, if they will; but up to the moment they have refrained from doing anything. It is idle for the Ministry of Health to ask local authorities to prepare comprehensive and ample housing programmes after the war, because unless local authorities proceed to acquire sites as individual sites without relation to planning they cannot get the sites. It is idle to contemplate large extensions in the field of education unless local authorities are empowered to acquire the sites needed for the new or extended schools.
Unless these powers are conferred without any further delay there is a grave danger that after the war there will be no satisfactory planning. We must remember that much has to be done after these new powers are conferred—if they are conferred—and private enterprise and local authorities are entitled to know where they stand in regard to their quite proper desire to return to peace-time activities as soon as they can after the cessation of hostilities. This pressure to return to peace-time activities, the pressure of people returning to the large cities and requiring housing accommodation, will be such that unless the local authorities are enabled to be ready there will not be any planning, there will be mess, muddle and confusion, and to the extent
94
that local authorities may be compelled to allow buildings to be put up without reference closely to long-term planning, we may find that within five years of the cessation of hostilities satisfactory planning has been defeated for more than a generation. That is the position in which the local planning authorities have been put.
It is of no real help to the solution of the problem to have elegant references to the Red Queen in Alice through the Looking Glass. What is wanted is action by the Government. I know that my noble friend Lord Snell has been asked to reply for the Government in this debate, and he will acquit me, I am sure, of any disrespect to him when I say that he will do so with that conciliation of phrase, charm of manner, and urbanity for which he is noted, and for which he is highly appraised. But, really, urbanity and conciliation in regard to this matter are not enough. The local planning authorities have waited for over two years, and I say with every respect that I think that on a matter of this importance the Leader of the House should have been present to say what the Government propose to do. The nation respects an answer. The need for planning has been admitted by the Government. The demand is clamant. The Government have the necessary power; what is restraining them? It is a fact that in the debate on June 10 some resentment was expressed by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, at the reference by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to "interests." Well, the people outside are being forced to the view that some interests are standing in the way of this legislation. They are not without recollection that, in the past, on quite a number of occasions, interests have thwarted the putting on the Statute book of adequate town planning legislation, and they are beginning to say, as I have already indicated, that interests, well-concealed, are standing in the way of these proposals being put on the Statute book, and local planning authorities being given adequate powers.
I have not indulged, nor shall I indulge, in factious criticism of the Government, whether in your Lordships' House or outside, but I think I am voicing the feelings of local authorities up and down the country and of all those who are interested in

95
planning in our big cities and our countryside with a view to making both more worthy of the people of this country, when I say, with every respect, that it is time the Government stopped fooling about with this planning, and that they should get on at all events with embodying in legislation, at once, the two declarations to which they have been committed since July, 1941—namely, that local planning authorities can secure land with a ceiling of March, 1939, as to price, and that they shall be empowered to acquire, as a single unit, reconstruction areas whether property in those areas be blighted or be "blitzed." My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I am very glad to associate myself with the Motion and with the questions which have been put so lucidly by my noble friend Lord Latham. I speak as one who holds a responsible position in a local authority that has a great opportunity to plan but is, at the present moment, absolutely unable to take any proper step forward. This Motion is divided into two parts. I am not going to spend any time on the first question, that is the question as to whether or not the Government have made up their minds. I refuse to believe that the Government with all the talent, experience and intelligence which are available to them, have not yet had the opportunity of making up their minds.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, indicated that as far back as April, 1942, legislation was almost ready. On April 24, 1942, it was stated that progress had been made in the drafting of the necessary legislation and that the Government were just awaiting publication of two more Reports. Those Reports have now been out for a year. The Government have members with vast experience of administration, nationally and locally, and they have officers and officials in the Departments with a great weight of experience and intelligence. I refuse to believe that at this date now, towards the end of September, 1943, the Government have not yet made up their minds what to do. So I think that we should devote ourselves to the question of when they propose to introduce legislation. As Lord Latham indicated, unless this legislation is introduced soon, it will be of no use. Local authorities have got to get ahead and pre-
96
pare to meet the demand for houses. There is an acute shortage of houses, which cannot be dealt with unless we are given the powers which have been promised. I would repeat that I am not asking for a promise of Government intention, but for the naming of a date when legislation is going to be introduced. I see Parliamentary time being mortgaged for other great measures, and, without being unduly optimistic, one sees the end of the war within sight, and therefore we must be prepared for action.
There are only two points on which I want to touch, and they are two points which have been brought to the attention of local authorities. One is the need for the preparation of housing schemes for re-housing and for providing accommodation for Service men and women when they are demobilized; the other is the recasting of the lay-out of our cities to prepare for replanning. So far as our powers go for acquiring slum properties and for rehousing, the present Act is totally inadequate. The last time Plymouth had a slum clearance scheme, it was fifteen months from the day when the local authority passed the resolution until they were able to get hold of the property. Your Lordships cannot imagine Service men waiting fifteen months while we go through all the procedure of public notice, public inquiry and waiting for approval. Moreover, it is extraordinary how difficult it sometimes is to trace the owners of property; they go away and leave no address. We must have the right of quicker entry; without that we cannot possibly go ahead with the preparation of housing.
Then, as I understand the matter, it is the intention of the nation, and has been the express desire of the Government, that we should plan new cities and rectify the mistakes of the past, mistakes due to haphazard, unplanned growth. In the last century, arising out of the Industrial Revolution, enormous cities grew up haphazard. We now have an opportunity to re-plan and to rectify some of the mistakes then made. If it had not been the intention of the Government that we should do this, they need not have created a new Department; the Ministry of Health could have dealt with housing. The fact that the Government created a new Department shows an intention some months ago that we should in fact be given powers to replan. Replanning does not mean

97
merely widening a street or straightening an elbow or rehousing. In the case of cities which are more fortunate than the one with which I am associated, the work will have to be carried out over the next generation, or perhaps the next two generations; but in cities such as Plymouth Hitler has given us an opportunity to remedy now the mistakes of the past and to start afresh.
In order to do this, however, we must have new powers. I have been in touch with my colleagues, the mayors and lord mayors of other cities, and I can assure the Government that a very strong feeling of indignation exists and is increasing. We have been asked to do a particular job, and we have not been given the powers to do it. We see time passing, and, unless the legislation is carried through quickly, it will be too late and we shall have missed the opportunity. As the noble Lord who preceded me has rightly said, the pressure of public opinion on local authorities to build houses will be so tremendous that, if nothing is done, they will have to go forward and erect houses without proper planning.
I expect that your Lordships have visited some of the cities which have been damaged by enemy action. I wish that you could come to Plymouth. I would take you to what used to be our main shopping centre—the main shopping centre of two counties—and you would see grass growing there; the whole place has been burned out. I cannot describe to your Lordships the plan that has been prepared by Professor Abercrombie and our surveyor, because it has not yet been published. Some of the reasons for that have been hinted at, and also there has been a shortage of paper—but I need not go into the reasons. You need not be a town planner, however, to see the enormous changes which can be made. If you walk about you will see the narrow, twisting streets which can be straightened out, and you will see the space at present wasted. A great opportunity is given to us. We cannot start either on housing or on the location of schools or on any of our other tasks, such as the provision of new avenues, new gardens, sites for community centres and so on, unless entirely fresh, drastic, constructive legislation is put on the Statute Book, and put there soon.
98
It is not merely a question of acquiring bombed sites. We want those powers, but we also want an opportunity to acquire tracts of land outside the bombed districts, adjacent to the building areas which have been destroyed; and we need these powers for a variety of reasons, which I have indicated. We also want power to acquire, if need be, a building which is intact in the middle of a burned-out area, and pull it down; otherwise we cannot straighten the street or replan. At present we cannot do those things, so that we have neither security nor power to go ahead and do what the Government have asked us to do. As men of experience and men of the world we know that on different occasions there have always been some people who were prepared to exploit public need by land speculation. That is why we are pressing the Government to introduce legislation now, and not to wait. The noble Lord has hinted that prices are going up. They are. Options are being obtained, I am told. I think it would be generally accepted that inflation in land values has started, and we know from past experience that that process tends to increase enormously as soon as public need becomes manifest. I refuse at this stage to believe that the Government are going to bow down to and be beaten by those interests. It is because I refuse to believe that the Government do not intend to implement their pledges and their promises, made repeatedly in this House and elsewhere, that I urge them to give effect to those pledges in the only way which is effective—namely, by passing the necessary legislation and putting it on the Statute Book.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, there is undoubtedly a widespread feeling that in one field of post-war reconstruction almost no perceptible progress is being made, and the two authoritative speeches to which we have just listened have given the plainest evidence of this sense of dissatisfaction. The lack of any substantial progress in this field is all the more striking in view of the really considerable advance which has been achieved in other directions. The Government have accepted the Beveridge proposals for security from want, and they mean to prepare the ground for a policy of full employment after the war. They have also a magnificent scheme of educational reform. In the

99
no less vital field of physical reconstruction, however, on which a satisfactory environment for our whole urban population will depend, they have done little but appoint Committees of outstanding merit without paying attention to their excellent advice.
An unceasing conflict between national and sectional interests for the use of the nation's land is going on. Reference has been made to this in both the speeches which have preceded mine. While the Government will not assume themselves or confer on local authorities sufficient statutory power to control the use of land in the public interest, landowners, builders and speculators are doing just as they please, and multiplying existing misuses. The task of planned reconstruction after the war becomes harder and harder the longer the Government delay their decisions on matters of essential policy. If we are caught by the Armistice without any effective policy for controlled development the pigeon holes of the new Ministry of Town and Country Planning will be choked by paper plans, supplied and prepared at its own request by local planning authorities who will continue to lack the power and the money to put them into execution. The local and regional planners are themselves uncomfortably aware that their schemes will be futile without Government action on the broad lines suggested by the Barlow, Scott and Uthwatt Committees. For example, the authors of the now celebrated plan for the County of London, say in the preamble to their report that
"The proposals now presented are framed on the confident assumption that the new conception of planning implicit in the Report of the Barlow Commission and the Scott and Uthwatt Committees will be translated into law."
And yet, save for the establishment of a central planning authority in the shape of a Ministry of Town and Country Planning, the basic recommendations of these admirable and far-sighted Committees have been ignored by the Government.
The net result of years of popular agitation and of a spate of expert advice has been a new Ministry without any effective powers. The Minister accepts in principle the desirability of the redistribution and decentralization of industry, but, although the Barlow Committee recommended unanimously that he should be authorized to refuse consent to new
100
industries in London and the Home Counties, even this moderate and negative power of influencing the location of industry has been denied him. A gradual redistribution of industry to relieve the worst urban congestion is still a pious hope. Nevertheless, local planning authorities are dutifully drawing up their plans for post-war development. They have no adequate data for the population they will have to serve, and no certain knowledge of the use to which the land in their areas will be put. The inevitable result of leaving the location of industry to be decided by purely business considerations without allowing the Minister to use his influence or authority to safeguard the public will be a further increase in the size and density of our largest centres of population. This is exactly what all progressive opinion, including that of the Government, as frequently voiced by their official spokesmen, has come to regard as a serious menace to the health and happiness of their inhabitants.
Then there is the important recommendation of the Scott Committee about the reservation of certain areas of conspicuous beauty as national parks, an undertaking that has been begun by the work of the National Trust, which can never in the very nature of things be completed without statutory assistance. The Committee laid special emphasis on the need for saving what remains of our coastal scenery from further devastation by unplanned building development. But the Scott Committee reported in August, 1942—over a year ago—and there is still no sign of official action to implement its views on this and other matters relating to the future of the countryside. But the most formidable of all obstacles to planned development of urban communities, and the one that has been stressed by both the previous speakers, is the continued absence of any solution to the problem of purchase of land, of compensation and betterment. Serious as the effect of this obstacle to local authorities has been in the past, it will be positively disastrous if it has not been removed by the time that the great building drive envisaged by the Government immediately after the war begins.
If the Government cannot implement the main proposals of the Uthwatt Committee, the least they can do surely is to submit an alternative scheme to allow building

101
enterprise to acquire land at a fair price and without unreasonable delay. To leave things just as they are now will vitiate the bulk of their post-war building programme. In this event we should be repeating the fatal mistake of the nineteenth century, when public authorities stood aside while towns grew up at random to serve the interests of individual firms and individual property owners. What we need, as my noble friend Lord Latham has said, is immediate legislation to give the Minister the new powers he must have to control the use of land, and to enable the local planning authorities to play their part in an effective partnership between central and local government. The Government surely cannot complain that they have not had plenty of time to consider the views expressed in these three Reports—over a year in the case of the Scott and Uthwatt Committees, and nearly four years in the case of the Barlow Commission. Every month of delay increases the chaos of haphazard development and adds enormously to the difficulties of an ordered social planning. My noble friends on these Benches have authorized me to say that unless we receive a satisfactory answer from the Government, we shall raise the subject again in the House at the earliest possible opportunity, because we regard the continued procrastination of the Government as the worst fault in their post-war domestic policy, and as threatening to saddle the community with a burden of misplaced development that it may take generations to throw off.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the speeches to which we have listened in this very important debate have been in one definite sense highly encouraging. They have assumed that the war situation is such as to make planning and physical reconstruction a question of almost immediate urgency. It would of coarse be a definite calamity if when the right time comes the Government were unprepared with plans to meet the need, and my noble friend Lord Latham, in his important speech, urged that something should be definitely stated or done at the present time. So closely is my noble friend concerned with the position of local authorities in this matter that he showed a sense of grievance that was almost personal. To some extent this was supported by my noble friend Lord Astor. My first duty is to say that the criticisms and the sug-
102
gestions that have been made will be noted and studied by those immediately concerned, but no one is entitled to assume because results have not been published that the matter is being neglected. The major charge that we have heard this afternoon is that of delay, of neglect of opportunity, and my noble friend Lord Latham said that people outside were even doubting the honest intentions of the Government in this matter. I have known English Governments for quite a considerable time, and I have never known a Government which escaped that charge, whatever might have been its political colour.
I should like, as fairly as I can, to approach this question of delay, trying to understand what it really means. I shall never permit myself, so far as I know, to become an apologist for delay which is due to neglect or complacency in the matter concerned; but here we have the allegation of neglect concerning something which has to do with the very nature of the case. The fact is that we are called upon to enter a field of adventure in which our past experience gives us no help whatever. We have relied upon an unplanned, an even thoughtless, prosperity, and we have now actually to discover and develop the art and science of planning; and the full development of it, we might as well make up our minds about it, will occupy a very great deal of the second half of the twentieth century. For more than a century we have, in the interests of the policy of laissez faire, discouraged most forms of State activity, and it is not the least use expecting that a complete plan of reconstruction on a national basis will appear suddenly, as the goddess Athene appeared, ready-made, perfect, ready for battle, and with a shout of victory. We have got to arrive at conclusions, I am afraid, in a different way.
My noble friend Viscount Astor said that this waiting, as far as local authorities are concerned, was highly embarrassing and even injurious, but let me see if I can find any advantage in delay. We know how irritating it is, but are there no advantages in thinking twice or three times about a matter? I suggest that time given to preparation is sometimes time saved. Francis Bacon tells as that he knew a wise man who, when he saw men hasten to conclusions, said: "Stay a little that we may make an end the sooner." In support of that theory, I

103
suggest that if Mussolini had waited to verify his impressions before he struck at France, it might have been better for Italy and for the world, but he now knows that you should never kick a man until you are sure he is really down and that his friends are not looking! There are dangers in waiting and waiting, but let us look at the matter squarely with the desire to face all the difficulties. The right moment must be chosen for action. That is the essential thing. Opportunity has a habit of knocking at your door once and then passing on.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SNELL: It is rarely that she knocks a second time, so do not let us hurry before we know, but when we know, do not let us delay more than we must. I have belonged to a Society for more than fifty years to which most of my noble friends opposite, if not all of them, also belong. Its foundational motto happens to be: "For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius waited when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays." But' it also says: "When the right moment comes, you must strike as Fabius struck, or your waiting will be in vain." Irritating as delay is, it need not mean inactivity, and I want, if I can, to relieve the anxieties of my noble friend who introduced this Motion. The situation is not really so gloomy as he allowed himself to fear. In actual experience many a heart has been broken by troubles that either did not exist or were greatly exaggerated. My noble friend Lord Latham presented his case with force and skill, fortified by great experience as a local administrator. If your Lordships will permit me to say so, I consider your Lordships' House is greatly helped by the kind of experience that he brings to its deliberations. The Government have no sort of complaint that they should be called upon to say what they are doing. Indeed, one of the salutary duties of Opposition Parties in our admirable system of Parliamentary democracy is to prevent the Government of the day from putting too many beauty spots on themselves. If my noble friends in the Opposition find, as I am sure they do, that their style is somewhat cramped by the confederate position in which they find themselves, they must have consideration for others who are in a similar position.
104
Let us look at this criticism a little more closely. Let us acknowledge that the need is urgent, and let us sympathize with the local authorities in their perplexities and disappointments. Life is not all a picnic, and the hard fact which we have to face is that no quick and easy solution is possible. The problems to be faced are complex and interdependent. No one aspect of them can be treated in isolation, and a decision on one point involves decision upon others. The question of land has been mentioned. That is the root of the whole problem. Certain questions arise. Firstly, what measure of control is to be exercised over land use? That is one problem. The second is, on what terms is that control to be assured? The third is, in what manner and by what methods is control to be exercised? All these questions are very difficult to answer. They were partly answered, perhaps fully answered, in the Uthwatt Report to which considerable attention has been paid. In that Report these difficult problems are set out in language which is at once learned, simple and impressive. The very clarity of the Uthwatt Report makes the problems appear to be more simple than they really are, and it is natural that the attention of the Government should be concentrated upon the questions which the Report raises.
Let us look at the Uthwatt Report for a moment in relation to the problems concerned. In the first place it proposes two different methods of dealing with the landowners. The owner of urban land is to be treated differently from the owner of undeveloped land. The former is to receive in general the market value of his land and the scheme proposes to recover betterment from him by instalments, but the owner of undeveloped land on the other hand is to have his development rights purchased by the State and he is to receive for those rights a fraction, which amounts to from one-half to one-third of what those rights would fetch if he were given the full market value of his land. I express no opinion as to the equity of these proposals but it is obvious at once that the separation of developed from undeveloped land would be a task of considerable difficulty and one perhaps attended by a good deal of controversy. Secondly, the Uthwatt Report proposals are that when land is developed it is to be secured by the public and the lease of property is to be given to the developer.

105
That would in the nature of the case arouse a good deal of controversy which might not expedite results. I mention these as examples of the administrative questions which must be settled if the scheme to be laid before Parliament is to commend itself as feasible. Much study has already been given to these problems and is being given now, and also to the method of overcoming these great administrative problems and no time will be wasted in arriving at a conclusion in regard to them.
I have said that some of these proposals involve intricate and highly controversial issues but that is no justification for not facing them. It may be some excuse that you cannot produce immediately a solution for them. They cannot be answered by a simple declaration. Exhaustive and perhaps prolonged examination will have to be given before a decision is reached. Let us remember that the fires of controversy once started may occupy a great deal more time in the act of extinguishing them than if time had been taken to avoid them. The position of the Government is indeed more difficult than that of impatient critics. The critics have only to demand action at once but the Government have to be satisfied that the legislation which they present to Parliament is both equitable and practicable.
Now let us look at the action of the Government in this matter. It is not really true that nothing has been done. Lord Latham felt that the Interim Development Act was a minor affair, but for what it was worth the Interim Development Act was passed, and in other ways steps have been taken to safeguard post-war reconstruction from being prejudiced pending the wider legislation which will be necessary. The Act, though small and not appreciated, implemented the recommendation of the Uthwatt Committee that planning control be extended to cover all land in England and Wales. It greatly strengthens powers in respect of interim development control, especially those of direction and control by the central planning authority.
Then my noble friend Lord Latham was rightly much concerned as to the position of the 1939 ceiling. The Government have accepted, as I think he acknowledged, the principles of the 1939 ceiling subject to the proviso that its detailed application would require consideration. The application of that principle is indeed by no
106
means so simple as might at first sight appear to be the case. For example, to apply the ceiling only to the purchase of land by local authorities or by the Government while other purchasers are left free to find their current market level might well be to impose a special disadvantage upon those landowners whose land was selected for public purposes. Similarly many owners of revenue earning property have had their property destroyed by enemy action and have been compelled to acquire premises elsewhere often at a high scarcity value. If these latter premises should be selected for purchase by the planning authority it might well be that to pay only the 1939 value might impose a direct loss upon the owner. I mention these difficulties, which by no means cover the whole ground, simply by way of illustration of the problems which arise from the application of even so comparatively simple a recommendation as that of the 1939 ceiling. The difficulties of principle and of administration which arise, for example, in connexion with such questions as compensation and betterment are even more complicated and numerous. I do not mean by this that the Government intend to evade the difficulties by doing nothing but the detailed working out in practice of the recommendations of the Report does, I think, require most careful consideration.
I have done my best to meet the major criticisms which have been made. There remains only the difficult question of the conditions upon which the planning control for the use of land is to be exercised. With this, of course, is associated the recommendation in the Uthwatt Report on the subject of the acquisition of development rights in undeveloped land and of the recovery of betterment in built-up areas. My noble friend the Earl of Listowel asked about the Scott Report. A draft Government statement on the Scott Report is now under immediate consideration and the Government will be ready to make a statement about that matter, I hope, within the next two or three weeks. I regret not being able to say more than that the Government intend to reach such a solution of these problems that I have referred to as to enable the work of reconstruction to be effected in the interests of the community as a whole.
I hope that what I have said may have relieved some of the anxiety felt by my

107
noble friends Lord Latham and Lord Astor and have mitigated some disappointments. After all, local authorities know that they can go ahead with their planning and they also know that the prices which will prevail will not be above the 1939 ceiling. It is not the case, I feel, that until a final solution of these problems has been reached and embodied in legislation local authorities are unable to proceed with the essential preliminary work that must precede reconstruction. That that is not so is evidenced by the admirable Report of the London County Council to which my noble friend Lord Latham alluded and the exhibition of the plans for the reconstruction of the London area prepared by Mr. Forshaw and Professor Abercrombie. I wish I had power to compel all your Lordships to visit that exhibition and see what a great local authority has in its mind for the future development of our capital city.
To sum up, legislation has already received the Royal assent which in all important respects safeguards the position until the major work of reconstruction can be put in hand. Furthermore, local authorities can proceed with the preparatory work for that reconstruction with full confidence that legislation will be introduced which will enable them to enter into possession of such land as may be acquired by them for the purpose of reconstruction. The major financial question which awaits solution, of which close examination has been and is being made, forms part of the general post-war financial problem as a whole but planning authorities can and should proceed with work on the assumption that a fair solution will be found for their difficulties. In other ways, too, the foundations of the new world which we hope to build are being well and truly laid and we can with both hope and assurance await the hour of the builder and the engineer.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I would wish first to express my appreciation of the references made by my noble friend Lord Snell to the County of London plan. If I may say so, if the Government had been half as assiduous as regards legislation as the London County Council has been in seeing to it that that plan was prepared, there would have been no need to discuss the Motion which is before your
108
Lordships. I feel that I must also commiserate with my noble friend Lord Snell. He surely can never have had a poorer case to defend. He displayed in that defence all the ability of which we know he is possessed, but really he did not answer the case that was made in this debate and has been made on former occasions in your Lordships' House. We are not asking the Government to enter a field of adventure. The Government have entered. They entered in 1941. They accepted these proposals in 1941. They are not only at the gate but through it and in the field. They were there in 1941. Are they going to say that, as a consequence of the further submissions in the Final Report of the Uthwatt Committee, going into the field was an unwise act and therefore they should now be entitled to come out? In November, 1942, two months after the publication of the second Report of the Uthwatt Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Portal, in your Lordships' House, reaffirmed these promises.
Your Lordships' House was not invited, in this debate to press the Government to carry out the whole of the policy laid down in the two Reports of the Uthwatt Committee. I dealt principally with two recommendations in the Interim Report. Those recommendations were referred to as matters of urgency by the Minister. These proposals were submitted to the Government in July, 1941, and the Government stated that they accepted them. How it can now be said that dealing with them involves difficulties, that legislation affecting them may have implications and repercussions in other directions, I really cannot understand except on the assumption that the Government were so irresponsible in 1941 as to permit a Minister to say that they accepted these things and to promise moreover their implementation in legislation at an early date, and, later, to say that in fact draft clauses had been prepared without satisfying themselves that it could be done. Really I cannot credit such untidiness of administration and such irresponsibility of action as that would mean. I cannot therefore accept the plea that there are reasonable grounds for not giving effect to these quite specific undertakings given from July, 1941, to November, 1942.
With regard to the 1939 ceiling it is all very well for my noble friend Lord Snell

109
to say that local authorities can go on with the assurance that they can acquire below that ceiling, but he has filled me with dismay because his words indicate that the Government are now proposing to modify their declaration with regard to that ceiling in special cases, and, if you please, as between property which may be selected by a local authority—out of need, not necessarily out of desire—for reconstruction as against property which will not be so selected. I can only say with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Snell that I view that statement with the utmost dismay, and I think no statement has yet been made about the 1939 ceiling which will more encourage the speculator than the statement made by my noble friend. If we are going to be told that the promise of 1941 is to be modified in that sense no self-respecting and responsible local authority will buy a yard of land. They will wait until they see it embodied in an Act of Parliament and therefore conferring a right upon a local authority before they proceed to commit their ratepayers or to commit the Treasury as regards grants.
Similarly, Lord Snell said that the view was taken that we could go ahead and acquire areas in the full assurance that we could go in when we wanted to. Well, there have been many things done, quite properly I think, under war conditions, but I say frankly that the L.C.C. are not going to run risks based upon that simple declaration of the Minister which has no force of law. They are not going to go into property before they get a title to do so. We want that title and that authority. It is the lack of that which prevents us from really getting on with the job. No doubt your Lordships will be interested to know that the Government expect to be able to make a statement on the Scott Report at an early date. It would, I am sure, be of value if the House could
110
be told the form of that statement. I, personally, would like to know whether that statement is likely to have any greater value than the statement of Lord Reith in 1941 about the 1939 ceiling, or whether we are to regard dates when statements are made as being dates from which there will inevitably be two years' delay before anything is done. I am sorry to have to say this, but I think that Lord Snell has been put in a false position. His statement filled me with dismay. As an essay upon the advantages and the virtues of procrastination I could find no fault with it at all, but as a justification of the failure of the Government to implement their promises—promises not only to do something but to do it quickly—I find it most unsatisfactory.
I would merely add this. It is only with great reluctance that I refrain from seeking to divide your Lordships' House upon this Motion. I would like to confirm what my noble friend Lord Listowel has said, that unless something is done very quickly we shall seek to bring this matter before your Lordships again, and, not without reason I think, we expect that the Leader of the House will be in a position to make—if I may say so with every respect towards, and in all friendship to, my noble friend Lord Snell—a more satisfactory statement than that which has been made to-day. There is undoubtedly anger and impatience among the people at this delay. It may well be—and no one would regret it more than I—that there will be tumult against the guilty men who have let weeks, months and years pass by in Slumberland. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.