PLANNING: ACQUISITION AND USE OF LAND.

HL Deb 22 March 1944 vol 131 cc175-214

LORD LATHAM had the following Notice on the Paper: To move to resolve, That, in view of the statements on planning made by Lord Reith on the 17th July, 1941, on the 7th October, 1941, and on the 11th February, 1942, by Lord Portal on the 21st April, 1942, 17th June, 1942, and the 18th November, 1942, and others, and especially in view of the statement made by Lord Woolton on 10th December, 1943, that "We will make a White Paper available that will give the full intentions of the Government on this matter immediately after Christmas," this House regrets the promised White Paper has not yet been issued and that the country is still without any indication as to how the Government proposes to implement the promises repeatedly made on its behalf or how otherwise it proposes to deal with the question of the speedy acquisition of land on equitable terms, the question of compensation and betterment and other related aspects of proper planning and the provision of adequate housing accommodation for the people.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I much regret the necessity for bringing this matter again before your Lordships' House, but, in view of the very unsatisfactory position with regard to legislation, there will, I think, be few who will doubt the necessity. In order that a truer perspective may be obtained of this sorry story, I fear that I shall have to trouble your Lordships to-day with a number of quotations. The story is one of a Government in Slumberland. In January, 1941, amid the fine fervour and many promises of those difficult and dangerous days, the Uthwatt Committee was appointed as a matter of urgency—and I emphasize those words "as a matter of urgency"—in order to report upon necessary legislation for post-war planning, in order, as is stated in the terms of reference, to avoid any delay, and to avoid post-war planning being injured. In pursuit of that element of urgency, the Committee presented an interim Report, and, in July, 1941, Lord Reith, the then Minister, who, I am sure, we are all glad to see with us to-day, made a statement on Government policy. He stated that the Government accepted the policy of the 1939 ceiling as regards the acquisition or control of land for public purposes. The Government accepted the proposal that reconstruction areas should be acquired as units; that there should be control of building operations; and that the Government accepted the doctrine of national planning. He went on further to say: Not only must local planning authorities have their powers strengthened now and proceed with provisional plans, but central machinery and powers must be correspondingly established, strengthened, settled and applied to the task. Apart from the Interim Development Act, nothing has been done, in March, 1944, to implement in statutory form those obligations and those declarations of policy.

In October, 1941, your Lordships' House was told by Lord Reith: … the Bill is in an advanced stage. There have been several discussions on it with the Ministry of Health, and the Council of Ministers has had the Bill before it on several occasions. We know now, of course, that the Bill at a later stage was in fact in print. Again, on February 11, 1942, Lord Reith said: … but I think I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that legislation based on the Uthwatt Interim Report will be before the House before next Christmas. That was Christmas, 1942. I think that we are entitled to inquire what happened to that Bill and why it was jettisoned.

In April, 1942, Lord Portal informed your Lordships that it was considered better to await the Reports of the Uthwatt and Scott Committees before introducing the Bill, and he went on to say that no time would be lost by this postponement. That is nearly two years ago, and nearly two years have been lost by the postponement of effective action at that time. In June, 1942, Lord Portal said: The objective of that policy is to secure the right use of the land of the country for all purposes. For this, existing planning powers are known to be inadequate, and it will be necessary to introduce legislation substantially amending, strengthening and extending the present law. Before this is done, I consider it essential to have the Final Report of Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Committee, and the Report of Lord justice Scott's Committee, which I am pleased to tell your Lordships' House are now nearing completion. Well, the Report of Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Committee was issued in September, 1942, eighteen months ago, and apart, as I have said, from the Interim Development Act, nothing of a constructive and positive character has yet been done. We are now told, in March, 1944, that Ministers—how many no one can say—are engaged in drafting legislation.

In October of last year the Minister of Town and Country Planning told a meeting in London that unremitting attention was being given to this subject, and that the Government "have been determined not to be hustled into premature conclusions." I may say en passant that there never appears to have been any danger that they would be hustled into any conclusion! He went on to say that "their deliberate findings are now nearly ready for presentation." That was nearly six months ago. He said also that "these include"—and I emphasize the word "include"—"proposals for giving effect to the two pledges already given." It was not limited to those pledges but included them. At the same time and at the same place Mr. Morrison is reported as saying: The pledges given by the Government meant that local authorities could go ahead with the making of plans, secure in the knowledge that they would have possession of the land in the reconstruction areas. That was in October, 1943. Yet in a circular issued by the Ministry of Health this month, local authorities are in terms directed not to proceed to purchase reconstruction areas. The circular says: It is not the intention at the present time to sanction the purchase of the large areas of land required for a long-term housing programme. These suggested purchases must be deferred pending decisions on the major questions of panning which are still under consideration.

Further, on December 1 a deputation of the Association of Municipal Corporations and the London County Council waited upon the Minister of Town and Country Planning to urge him to expedition with regard to legislation. In reply to the submissions of that deputation the Minister said: You want immediate legislation covering as a minimum (1) power for local authorities to acquire compulsorily land for the purpose of replanning and reconstruction at prices related to pre-war values; and (2) the prescription of a simple and very speedy procedure on the lines suggested in the Uthwatt Report for the obtaining and exercise of such compulsory powers, with power of entry in advance of settlement of claims to compensation. He then went on to say: I think that considering the circumstances and the sufferings of our great cities, which you represent, these demands are reasonable and should be conceded. Well, they have not yet been conceded, and Mr. Morrison later went on to say that a scheme of legislation which went much beyond those two minimum requirements was receiving active consideration.

We come now in this, if I may so describe it, discreditable narrative to what was said in your Lordships' House on December 8 by the Minister of Reconstruction. He then said: I can tell you this, that he— that is the Minister of Town and Country Planning— was the first Minister with whom I had consultations regarding reconstruction, for we must settle land policy without any delay at all. And again the noble Lord said: Of one thing your Lordships may rest assured. The proper development of the land shall not be prevented or delayed either by motives of personal gain or other selfish considerations. Our proposals on the matter which affect the groundwork of all sound planning will be laid before Parliament at a very early date, so that local authorities— And then one noble Lord interposed with the question "This Session?" to which the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, replied: After Christmas, so that local authorities can make preparations to meet the responsibility that will fall upon them.

That was on December 8, and on December 10 in winding up the debate Lord Woolton said: First let me say that I agree that this is a matter of great urgency, and that until it is settled it will not be possible to proceed to specific development proposals. He further went on to say: I think perhaps those who complained about delay in this matter, and complained quite justifiably, are not so much concerned to see the Bill as to know what it is that people can do under the Government's proposals and therefore, in spite of the fact that Parliament has had a lot of White Papers, I am going to suggest that it should have another. We will make a White Paper available that will give the full intentions of the Government on this matter immediately after Christmas. We are now well towards the end of March and there is no White Paper, and there are still less signs of any Bill.

It is against that background of many promises and no performance that I invite the House to consider the present situation and the statement made in another place by the Minister of Health on the 15th of this month. In that statement he indicated that comprehensive legislation was still far away, that the utmost that can be looked for in any reasonably short time is legislation dealing with reconstruction areas and with the 1939 ceiling, and that comprehensive legislation for planning and development purposes must await further consideration. Housing cannot be considered separately from planning. Even short-term housing cannot be considered separately from planning. It is one of the most important elements in all planning, and it is almost tragic that the Minister should not only urge but very nearly direct local authorities to disregard planning in respect of their short-term housing activities. You cannot build even temporary buildings on sites without regard to schools, shops, roads, streets, sewers, and each one of them and all of them involve planning. And to suggest that that should be done is to endanger future planning in a very serious degree.

Planning is one problem, it is not two, as the Minister of Town and Country Planning said when he was addressing the deputation to which I have previously referred. It is one problem, and to be effective it must embrace all the elements of planning, including that important element, housing. Moreover, the legislation promised by the Minister of Health on the 15th does not go as far as the minimum requirements admitted by the Minister of Town and Country Planning to the deputation to which I have referred. But the position is worse. The Government are seeking to divide housing into two parts—short-term housing and long-term housing, with a different method of acquisition of land for each. For instance, the local authorities are being urged to acquire additional sites for a two years' or a three years' programme under the existing legislative machinery, at the existing price, without limitation of the 1939 ceiling, with only one modification, and that is that there is to be no compulsory inquiry in respect of a compulsory purchase order. But the legislation which is required to limit the cost and to give powers of entry before claims for compensation are settled will not be available to local authorities purchasing land for the immediate two years' or three years' programme. Later we have been told that local authorities would be able to acquire larger areas, including reconstruction areas, with the limitation of the 1939 ceiling. But we are not told whether, when that limitation becomes operative, it is to be retrospective to the land which we are now urged to buy under existing machinery.

Then there is another curious aspect of this matter. In another place the Minister of Health ventured the opinion that the bulk of the land to be acquired for the short-term programme will be undeveloped land. Well, I am pretty well acquainted with London. I would like the Minister of Health to show me undeveloped land in London, except that which is available and ought to be retained for open spaces. But really in many of the provincial cities there is no undeveloped land adequate to meet the problem, or even to cover the first two years' programme. Very few local authorities can build houses outside their own boundaries. No doubt the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will be able to deal with this matter with more particularity, but I confess, from my knowledge of many provincial cities, that I cannot see how the land which they are to buy can be undeveloped land. And if it is developed land, whether within reconstruction areas or not, they ought to have the powers to acquire under the limit of the 1939 ceiling. Moreover, we are invited as local authorities to see to it that our short-term policy does not conflict with the long-term policy; but we do not know what the long-term policy is going to be. That is precisely our complaint. How can any one settle policy, whether short-term or otherwise, by reference to considerations of which he has no knowledge?

Until the Government make up their minds, if ever they do, on planning and reconstruction, there can be no long-term policy and there can be no standard by reference to which local authorities can guide and direct their short-term activities. What will be the effect? At the best it will be muddle, it will be a mix-up, and in any case there will be inevitably grave risk of delay. I can speak, for instance, as regards London. We know there are at least sites for 3,000 dwellings—sites which are either in our possession or very nearly so—upon which we hesitate to build because we are not certain as to whether they will conflict with the principles of the County of London plan. We cannot ourselves settle the principles of the County of London plan definitely until we know what the Government's general planning policy is going to be and what legislative powers we shall have in that connexion. So building these 3,000 dwellings will inescapably be held up if this failure to decide and to legislate should continue. Moreover, at the same time as the Minister of Health is telling local authorities that they must limit their purchases to provision for the next two or three years—and their purchases will not be of the wide and extensive order contemplated under planning—we find the Minister of Town and Country Planning, on March 3 of this year, directing local authorities in all their housing activities to have regard to planning considerations, the siting of schools, churches, shops, community centres and, indeed, neighbourhood units. One Minister is inviting local authorities to do one thing and another Minister is inviting them to do another.

That is where we are after three years of "very careful consideration," "active consideration," "urgent consideration" —every consideration, in fact, except action. It really is a thoroughly discreditable muddle and mix-up, and I want to urge with all the sincerity I can that, unless we get this comprehensive legislation now, town planning in a real sense is lost. If it is lost, it will be lost for a generation. Housing will be piecemeal, unplanned, and there will not only be no national planning, there will not be, in my submission, even effective local planning. There is, I understand, an activity in agriculture called hedging and ditching. The Government have been hedging and ditching over this matter for the last three years. It first ditched the Bill which was in print at the time of Lord Reith. I shall offer no comments on the manner in which Lord Reith had to lay down his office, but at any rate that Bill was ditched. Since then the Government have been hedging. Now apparently certain proposals, which we are given to understand unofficially, from the Press and elsewhere, the present Minister of Town and Country Planning had in mind to resolve the difficulties of preparing an effective land control and use have been ditched. This process has been going on, and half-a-dozen Ministers have taken a hand. Really the Government in this very important, probably the most important, domestic problem seems to be stricken with the fatal disease of infirmity of purpose. Ministers may come and Ministers may go, but none of them seems to be immune from it, and as any psychiatrist will tell you, a disease of that kind is most acute when the patient denies he has got it.

People outside—and I mean the ordinary man in the street—are getting very disturbed about this situation. They are asking, with increasing cynicism, whether it is the case that the nearer we get to victory the further we get from the Government keeping their promises on this question of reconstruction. Can it be wondered at? Three years have elapsed, and apart from a number of debates, many promises, quite a number of declarations, we are really in the same position as we were in when the Uthwatt Committee was appointed in January, 1941, save and excepting—I must say this to be fair—the Interim Development Act, which really does not help us very much. It seems to me that this cynicism, if it continues to grow, may have very serious repercussions upon the values the people will attach to representative institutions and to democratic government. It is useless for the Prime Minister or any other Minister to talk of homes for the people unless powers and means to provide them are available and unless legislation to that effect is passed.

I do beg the Government to stop this shilly-shallying, this vacillation. It is always to-morrow that we are to have something—never to-day. Time is now running against us. Whatever virtues there may have been in the prospect of a White Paper at Christmas, I submit it is too late for the White Paper to-day. It is essential that we should now have the Bill—a Bill which will comprehensively deal with the acquisition and the control of the user of land, not a Bill limited merely to the 1939 ceiling or to reconstruction areas, but a Bill which will deal with all aspects of planning and give the local authorities appropriate powers to get on with the work which they all keenly desire to do, and in respect of which they are, quite properly, under considerable pressure from their own citizens. I beg the House, and through the House the Government, to view with the utmost seriousness the almost insoluble deadlock which has now arisen through this failure to act in the proper way at the proper time. In my considered judgment, this is the last occasion when we shall be able to save planning in this country. If we fail now we shall have lost all opportunity for a generation. I beg to move.

Moved to resolve, That, in view of the statements on planning made by Lord Reith on July 17, 1941, on October 7, 1941, and on February 11, 1942, by Lord Portal on April 21, 1942, June 17, 1942, and November 18, 1942, and others, and especially In view of the statement made by Lord Woolton on December 10, 1943, that "We will make a White Paper available that will give the full intentions of the Government on this matter immediately after Christmas", this House regrets the promised White Paper has not yet been issued and that the country is still without any indication as to how the Government proposes to implement the promises repeatedly made on its behalf or how otherwise it proposes to deal with the question of the speedy acquisition of land on equitable terms, the question of compensation and betterment and other related aspects of proper planning and the provision of adequate housing accommodation for the people.—(Lord Latham.)

VISCOUNT SAMUEL, who had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That this House regrets the prolonged delay in the presentation to Parliament of the measures on land acquisition and the control of land use which are an indispensable preliminary for any satisfactory policy of national planning and reconstruction and of full employment after the war, said: My Lords, the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York, had upon the Order Paper for some months, a question to ask His Majesty's Government when their planning proposals would be laid before Parliament. Recently I wrote to the most reverend Prelate and suggested the time had come when the matter should be brought once more definitely before the House. At that time the noble Lord who has just spoken (Lord Latham) put down his Motion, but I thought nevertheless perhaps the House would permit me to put down also, and for the same day, the Motion which I had already had in mind in order that it should be made clear that noble Lords sitting upon these Benches, and indeed the Liberal Party as a whole, take a keen interest in, and a grave view of, the present situation. I therefore have put down the terms of my Motion upon the Paper, but I do not propose to move it for the points which I had in mind have been most ably stated by the noble Lord who has just spoken and are fully covered by the Resolution which is now before your Lordships' House.

I shall not repeat the main outline of his speech. He has comprehensively reviewed the tragic chronology of the housing and planning question in the last few years and has forcibly, but not too forcibly, stated the indictment, for it is nothing less than an indictment, which can now be properly raised against the Government. I shall limit myself, in a not too lengthy speech, to dealing first, briefly, with the facts of the present situation; secondly, in trying to find some explanation for them; and thirdly, in reminding your Lordships of the probable consequences. As to the facts, between November, 1940, and December, 1943, this House had shown its deep concern in this matter by holding no less than fourteen debates. It would not be correct to say that nothing has happened during those three years. Various things have happened. Lord Reith was succeeded by Lord Portal and Lord Portal was 'succeeded by Mr. W. S. Morrison as Departmental Minister in charge of planning. The Chairman of the Committee of Ministers which has co-ordinated, or was intended to co-ordinate, the action of all the Departments concerned was first Mr. Greenwood, and he has been succeeded by Sir William Jowitt, and Sir William Jowitt has now been succeeded by Lord Woolton. But that is not all that has happened. The Ministry of Works and Buildings became the Ministry of Works and Planning and the Ministry of Works and Planning was divided into two, and we have had the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. But beyond that the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers was in the hands of the Minister Without Portfolio. He was succeeded by the Paymaster-General and now we have the Minister of Reconstruction. So that it would be wrong to say that the Government have been idle during those three years.

We also have had an expert Committee appointed — the Uthwatt Committee—which, after the time it was fully entitled to occupy for considering what is indeed a most complicated and difficult subject, reported in September, 1942, and for eighteen months the Government, we have been told, have been most earnestly considering the Report of that Committee. When Mr. Morrison was appointed as Minister of Town and Country Planning in January, 1943 (fourteen months ago), Sir William Jowitt said in the House of Commons that he was the jockey who was being hoisted into the saddle for a triumphant gallop round the course. Some of us smiled a sardonic and perhaps a sinister smile as we read that expression and now, after fourteen months, we know that the horse and the jockey have not yet even started. In May of 1943 that small departmental measure, the Interim Development Bill, was introduced and passed, and then in October Mr. Morrison used those expressions which have already been quoted to the effect that their deliberate findings are now nearly ready for presentation. But he also used one sentence which I think is worth requoting at this juncture. He said: The Government take the view that the solution of the compensation and betterment problem is a necessary precedent to successful planning. We must all bear in mind that fact because until this question of compensation and betterment, which is the subject matter of the Uthwatt Committee's Report, is dealt with, it is absolutely impossible to take any effective steps that are needed for carrying out necessary measures of replanning.

In December the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said, as has been quoted, that we must settle what land policy will be without any delay at all, and that the White Paper would appear immediately after Christmas. So that it is wrong for anyone unkindly to allege that nothing has happened during the three years! One Minister has succeeded another and has been succeeded by a third, the names of the Departments have been changed, and most definite assurances have been given in terms of extreme urgency. But it would be true to say that nothing has been achieved. It reminds me of what', as once said that the Government are like the chorus in an Italian opera, they display agitation without action.

Such, then, is the present situation. It reminds me also of an incident in the time of Queen Elizabeth when the Queen was speaking to the Speaker of the House of Commons and said to him: "Mr. Speaker, what has passed in the House?" The Speaker replied: "If it please your Majesty, six weeks have passed." In this case it is three years. We must look about for an explanation of how it is that a Government of very able men, full of energy and patriotism, who, recognizing the needs of the situation, are able to take vigorous and effective action in such matters as education and national health, have become entirely atrophied in this matter of national planning. A great deal of time was wasted before they could make up their minds what was the right lay-out of the central planning authority, and how the Government should organize itself for dealing with these questions. And the matter was complicated by an unfortunate suggestion that there ought not to be a Ministry of Planning but a Commission to which these matters should be referred. After much discussion and debate that was fortunately rejected and the Government adopted what might have been seen from the beginning to be the right course—namely, the establishment of a Ministry of Town and Country Planning, with a Standing Committee of the Ministers at the head of the numerous Departments concerned under the Chairmanship of one of the principal members of the War Cabinet. That has been done some time ago, but still the results have not yet appeared.

Looking about for some explanation of this astonishing state of things I may perhaps have chanced upon one element at all events in the matter in a communication sent to me by the National Federation of Property Owners. The National Federation of Property Owners sent me the report of their reconstruction committee on the Uthwatt Report in which that Report was denounced comprehensively and in detail and in terms of considerable vigour. The annual meeting of the Federation was held soon afterwards and The Times report of it was headed "Property owners on the defensive; Uthwatt proposals to be fought." The thought passed through my mind, hesitatingly and apologetically perhaps, Is it conceivable that the National Federation of Property Owners and others holding similar views could have brought any influence to bear upon any section of the Government? If so, it may be that there is one explanation or partial explanation of the present otherwise incomprehensible situation.

A Coalition Government has many advantages. Where there is agreement it is able to put through the necessary legislation with a speed which is sometimes lacking in normal times. But also it has the defects of its qualities, because if there is any measure of disagreement it is at once paralyzed. In a normal Government if there was disagreement on such questions as land legislation the matter before long would be brought out into the open, the question would be fought out in Parliament and in the constituencies, and if individual Ministers were in disagreement with their colleagues they would be transferred to other offices or they would resign from the Government. Sooner or later the proposals would be definitely accepted or rejected. But with a Coalition Government, with all the Parties represented in it, that process is in suspense. Whatever is done is done behind the scenes, and in silence and obscurity the contending views are considered. The statesman Cavour, who had a great deal of experience of Parliaments and of Courts, once said that the worst Chamber is better than the best ante-chamber. That is a truth. It is far better to have matters debated publicly and in the face of the world, even if there are imperfections and delays caused by the process, in open discussion in the forum of a Parliament, rather than to have debate going on behind the scenes, no one knowing what is happening, with the result that nothing is achieved.

There is a procedure in the House of Commons, as your Lordships are aware, whereby a certain time at the sittings is devoted to unopposed business. If, when the title of a Bill is read out, any one Member rises in his place and says "I object" then the business has to be postponed to another occasion. It would be a lamentable thing if under a Coalition Government anything of that kind were to prevail, and if it were possible for any interest for its own selfish reasons, on the ground that we have a Coalition Government and therefore controversial legislation ought not to be proceeded with, were to be given the right of saying "I object" with the result that immediately the matter has to be postponed. We cannot allow five years of the nation's life to be wasted by giving such power to any influential interest to block necessary reforms.

What are the consequences of this prolonged delay? We all know that the public at large are taking the keenest interest in questions of the post-war Britain that we are to have, and that the men in the Forces both at home and overseas are continually discussing on every possible opportunity the changes that will be necessary in our social and economic system after the war. There is widespread approval, I believe, throughout the nation and in the Forces of the new Bill for the extension of our education system and the new measures for safeguarding the national health. There is equally a violent condemnation of the neglect of these questions of planning and physical reconstruction and of what is regarded as the cold-shouldering of the Beveridge Report. This dissatisfaction is shown sporadically at by-elections. I can assure your Lordships that we in the Liberal Party are conscious of deep discontent among the rank and file on this and other matters and that it is extremely difficult to maintain the electoral truce at the by-elections for that reason. Precisely the same feeling prevails in the Labour Party. The leaders are doing their utmost to secure the honourable fulfilment of an agreement that was made for good national reasons at the beginning of the war, but I must warn your Lordships that it would be extremely hard to maintain the political solidarity of the nation, which is so important to the war effort, if these matters are still regarded throughout the country as being postponed, and postponed under the influence of vested interests which put their own demands above the general interest of the community.

The Times newspaper has played, if I may say so, a most useful part in this movement, again and again publishing strong articles inspired by a very enlightened spirit, urging the speedy solution of these problems. Indeed, I think it would be right to say that The Times is expressing public opinion in these days by a series of remarkable articles to an extent that has never been surpassed in all its long and honourable history. On March 2 of this year The Times published a leading article on the difficulties which have arisen at the by-elections and the sensational defeat that the Government had suffered in one of them, and it wrote: The Government owe the trouble they have encountered almost wholly to the interminable delays which have so far held up the acquisition and use of land for public pursecurity and of measures to simplify the acquisition and use of land for public purposes and for the location of industry—all parts of a process that must be firmly established beforehand if the transition from war to peace is to be safe and sure. Those are very wise words which I commend to your Lordships' consideration.

Such, then, is the situation, and such are the possible explanations of it, and let us remember that all that is even offered at the present time is a White Paper. A White Paper is not a Bill, and a Bill is not an Act, and an Act is not a local plan. How long will be needed for the passing of a great and complicated measure through another place and through your Lordships' House; how long for drawing up and formulating local plans in detail which are the necessary precedents to actual action? The minimum is a year, the probability is two years, and the possibility is three years. Here we stand in March, 1944, after three years' discussion, this being our fifteenth debate in your Lordships' House, and we have not even yet reached the preliminaries to the beginning of action. The consequences, of course, have been the most vehement protests throughout the country. The local authorities have made their voices heard. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, after a letter from himself to the Press, headed in July, 1943, a number of Lord Mayors and Mayors of the "blitzed" cities and towns strongly protesting against the delays that have occurred. That was in October, 1943, and in the present month they have repeated their protest. London has also protested, and to-day the noble Lord who is the leader of the London County Council has given the specific reasons why that great municipality is unable to proceed with effective measures, solely owing to the delay on the part of His Majesty's Government. Birmingham has made similar protests, and throughout the country the outcry is loud and vehement.

Let it be borne in mind that when the troops come back after the war the chief economic problem before the country will be that of employment. You cannot have hundreds of thousands of soldiers kept in the Army when their services are no longer needed, nor can you demobilize them unless you have some opportunity for their employment. There is no economic field in which employment can more readily be given to a very large number of men than in building and reconstruction, and if all that is held up because local authorities say they are very sorry but they have been unable to prepare their plans as questions of compensation and betterment have never been settled, and there is no proper land legislation, then the discredit into which the Government will fall will be extreme, discontent and anger will be deep and widespread, and, indeed, the whole political and social condition of the country may be one of great danger.

Our civilization has many great achievements to put to its credit, but it has also had many great failures. One of the worst is exemplified by the kind of towns in which people have been condemned to live in the chief industrial countries of the world, the environment in which the masses have had to have their homes. We are so accustomed to our own squalid industrial towns that we have hardly noticed them, but destruction through bombing has made us conscious of what those towns really are. The whole nation, I believe, is braced up to a great effort, after the war, to secure, physically, a better Britain. This procrastination exasperates the people, and if it is stubbornly continued the gravest political consequences must ensue.

THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON)

My Lords, I think, perhaps, it may be well if I intervene at this early stage in the debate in order that you may have some statement of Government policy, in so far as I am able to give it. The substance of the Motion that is before your Lordships was originally down in the name of the most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of York. He was good enough, at my request, to agree to postpone it for a short time, because I told him then that I hoped to be able, a little later, to deal adequately with the subject, and I defined to him what I meant by "a little later." He was obliging enough to withdraw his Motion, and I think that the noble Viscount was in the same position. The noble Lord, Lord Latham, has, quite properly, exercised his privilege, as a member of this House, of deciding when your Lordships should discuss the matter, and I make no complaint at all about that.

LORD STRABOLGI

You have no ground for making any complaint. Lord Latham is speaking for the Opposition.

LORD WOOLTON

I said I made no complaint about it; so we are completely agreed. I am bound to say that when I listened to that part of the noble Lord's speech in which he referred to "a Government in Slumberland," a Government that was unable to come to decisions, I was a little surprised.

LORD LATHAM

You are not more surprised than we are.

Loin WOOLTON

In point of fact, His Majesty's Government have been a little occupied during the course of the period from 1941, and for the noble Lord to pour scorn in this manner on a Government who have held very high the reputation of this country did not seem to me to be the sort of thing that was in accordance, at any rate, with the facts. I make no complaint at all about the noble Lord's statement—I thought it a very powerful statement—regarding the number of occasions on which members of His Majesty's Government have tried, and anticipated that they would be able, to come to some decisions regarding this specific problem. That is before the House, and I am bound to say that those of us on this Bench enjoyed as much as the rest of the House did the noble Viscount's account of the numerous changes that have taken place. I do submit to your Lordships that, at any rate, during the last few months when momentous decisions on matters affecting the whole issues of this war have had to be taken there has been some excuse for delay in dealing with what I, personally, have found to be a peculiarly intractable problem.

Had the Motion been deferred until after Easter, I had reason for hoping to be able to make a quite definite statement on the matter. The noble Lord, however, has decided that we shall discuss it to-day, and to-day I am not in a position to make that statement. Your Lordships are quite entitled to draw my attention to my own words. I stated in December that His Majesty's Government would present a White Paper soon after Christmas, and, moreover, that legislation dealing with land would follow during the present Session of Parliament. Let me admit at once that I made that statement within a very few weeks of taking office and, when I made it, I had not fully appreciated the immense amount of time which would be taken in working out the legislative details, in order to bring into practice the principles that I had in mind, and concerning which I anticipated that there would be substantial agreement not only in the Government but in this House. I judged then that, after all the discussions which had taken place, the problem of making land available, and doing it in an organized manner, both for housing and for industry, was a matter of primary importance. I retain that view.

The noble Lord, Lord Latham, mentioned certain things which have appeared in the newspapers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, talked about the delay being due to the opposition either of vested interests or of political Parties. Let me assure your Lordships that I know of no such opposition. I at any rate have come across no other attitude of mind than a desire to get this problem, which has disturbed political life for a long period of time, settled. No Party and no sectional influence of any sort has been brought to bear on me, as the Chairman of the Committee to which the noble Viscount referred, in considering this matter. I think it proper that I should make that statement publicly, because the problem is difficult enough in itself, without the issue being complicated by the suggestion that vested interests are at work. I am sure that nobody will be more glad to know the true position than the noble Viscount who has just spoken.

It is one thing, however, to enunciate a principle, and it is quite another to express that principle in legislation. Any of your Lordships who have had the experience of trying to translate principles into legislative form will be fully aware of the complications which result. The delay for which I can speak—the delay of the last three months—has no other reason behind it than this difficulty of trying to get into legislative form things about which we are in fact in substantial agreement. It is perfectly proper for noble Lords to retort that it is the business of the Government to do this work, and I can understand those who are particularly interested in this problem telling us that we ought to solve these difficulties with greater speed, but I have, I hope, said enough to assure your Lordships that the delay in producing legislation has not been due to any change of front. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, is here to-day.

LORD LATHAM

Can we take it that the principles have been decided by the Government?

LORD WOOLTON

I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Reith, is here to-day. When he was Minister he made several statements of principle on behalf of His Majesty's Government. We have not changed our opinion on those issues about which the noble Lord spoke, and I am authorized on behalf of the Government to say here to-day that we will make proposals to Parliament after Easter.

LORD LATHAM

Does that mean legislation?

LORD ADDISON

Does that mean before Whitsuntide?

LORD WOOLTON

It means precisely what it says.

LORD LATHAM

Does it mean legislation or a White Paper?

LORD WOOLTON

Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear what I said.

LORD LATHAM

Yes, I did.

LORD WOOLTON

I am authorized on behalf of the Government to say that we will make proposals to Parliament after Easter.

LORD LATHAM

Does that mean legislation or a White Paper?

LORD WOOLTON

I said proposals. The noble Lord has spent much of his time to-day reciting past, utterances, so that he must not mind if I choose my language very carefully to-day and do not go beyond it.

LORD LATHAM

Even though it be not clear?

LORD ADDISON

My Lords, I am exceedingly sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is a very important statement, and it is only fair that we should know what the statement means. Will he tell us what he means by the words "after Easter"? It might mean years hence.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Does it merely mean not before Easter?

LORD WOOLTON

Your Lordships are quite well aware that I do not find myself in an easy position. You are equally well aware that having committed the great mistake of defining "after Christmas" as meaning immediately after Christmas—

EARL DE LA WARR

We really must ask the noble Lord—

LORD WOOLTON

Do you mind if I finish?

EARL DE LA WARR

This is a serious point.

LORD WOOLTON

I do take it seriously, but I shall not take it any the more seriously for being constantly interrupted. I defined "after Christmas" as meaning immediately after Christmas. That was a mistake. I now say "after Easter," but what useful purpose would it serve for me to get up in your Lordships' House and say that this is going to be done after Easter if I did not mean that it was going to be done at a reasonable time after Easter, and not that it was going to be done a long time after Easter? I do not know, and you do not know, what will be happening immediately after Easter in this country; neither do you know how much the mind of His Majesty's Government may be occupied by things of infinitely more importance even than this problem. I do not propose, therefore, to be pressed, in a situation of this nature, which is not the sort of situation which is normally found in political life in peacetime, to go further than I have already done. I am instructed by the War Cabinet to say that we will present our proposals immediately after—I mean, after—Easter. We shall present them as soon as possible after Easter.

I can understand the eagerness with which noble Lords who regard this problem as being of supreme importance speak of it, and I can understand that they speak of it almost with emotion. I make a practice of finding out what the public are thinking, and I have paid visits to the troops, not to deliver lectures but to mix with small bodies of men and find out what are the things in which they are interested when they return from the war, if they do return from the war. I do not minimize the importance of this question of the proper control of land. I hope, indeed, that your Lordships know that I regard it as of the greatest importance, and I almost share the enthusiasm of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, on this subject. But the troops have not talked to me about it. They have not mentioned the word "Uthwatt" to me once. I have found indeed that their minds were going on much simpler issues. They were primarily concerned to know whether there will be a job for them when they come back to this country.

LORD LATHAM

And a home.

LORD WOOLTON

And they were concerned, too, to know whether there would be a house. Do not let there be any doubt about that. They were concerned about the house, and I think the statement that my noble friend the Minister of Works made to your Lordships, which at the time I seemed to think satisfied your Lordships, indicated that the Government had not been asleep when they were considering the problem of houses.

But let me come back to this issue of land reform. It is a question of such fundamental importance that it is impossible to settle it by Committees of Ministers. It is a matter which must go to the War Cabinet and which must be determined under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister. Well, I have only just joined the War Cabinet, I have only just seen how a War Cabinet works, I have only just come to understand the magnitude of the problems that every day are facing that body. The War Cabinet has indeed been concerned with other issues than those which have been raised on the Reports on the proper utilization of land, and it has been concerned during the last three months with Matters much greater. Before your Lordships sit in judgment on what the War Cabinet has done because it has not put into legislative form undertakings that were given by my noble friend Lord Reith in 1941, I ask you in fairness just to look at what has been done. The decisions that that body has taken affect not only the ultimate future of the country, they are affecting the lives of the men who are fighting for us. The men who have the responsibility for issues of such gravity have at any rate the right to determine the issues that shall have priority in their consideration, and priority on the calls made upon their time.

There is no man in this House who is more eager to get this problem settled than I am, but let it have its place. Now when the whole issues after months of preparation for what may well be the determining, if not the final, stage of the European war, are occupying the minds of your Government, I ask you, even those of you who are the keenest on this matter, is this the time when you propose to express your displeasure with the conduct of His Majesty's Government; is this the time when you think that it will add to the morale of the country, to which some of your Lordships referred, to divide the House and to say that this Government is a sleepy Government, not facing the realities of the situation?

Look at what we have done. Your Lordships may have a right to complain that I personally was over-optimistic in my calculations, you have a right to complain that I had not recognized the intricacies of the problem, and perhaps some of your Lordships on reflection will agree that we are on common ground there in not having recognized the intricacies of the problem. For that reason I am bound to say that I welcome this debate and think that it will serve a useful purpose. Many of your Lordships have devoted much time to this problem and you speak with very great experience, and consequently a two-day debate in your Lordships' House may be a great help in elucidating the difficulties with which we are faced and, maybe, in clarifying the opinion of the House. For I cannot believe that all the members of this House are of a common mind on this subject. In may indeed be that the course of this debate will reveal to those of your Lordships who are not experts in this problem some of the difficulties that those who have devoted many hours during the last three months to its clarification have faced. But I am bound to confess that our minds in this period have not been engaged exclusively on the problem. Your Lordships have been given some instances of other factors as well as the pursuit of war with which we have been concerned. There are those measures of social reform which the noble Viscount referred to, some that we have already placed on the Statute Book and some which quite rightly, he said, the public is urgently demanding that we should place on the Statute Book. Well, I hope that at any rate the fact that we have been dealing with this thing will give you some confidence in our inherent desire to secure such reforms as are possible.

I do not want to occupy your attention any longer. I regret as much as the mover of this Resolution that there has been delay, but I conclude with this quite simple statement. Ministers of His Majesty's Government have in the past been authorized to make certain statements of general principles as to the Cabinet's intentions regarding the future control of land. Those statements stand.

LORD LATHAM

They also stand still.

LORD WOOLTON

I think that remark, if I may so, is cheap. I am authorized to say that the issues involved! in this Motion are occupying the attention of the Government at the present time and that the Government will lay before Parliament their views and their legislative proposals with as little delay as possible after Easter. And I assure your Lordships that there is no desire for delay in any quarter of His Majesty's Government. If any of your Lordships out of the depths of your convictions in this matter desire to condemn the Government for the tardiness of their decisions, then I ask you to bear in mind the way in which they have carried the responsibility for the war and the gravity of the other problems that they have been facing, and with which they have been dealing during the period when they have been delaying coming to a conclusion on this issue.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a very few moments, but, as the noble Lord has pointed out, I have had a Resolution for some time on the Paper asking for a Government statement on the Uthwatt and Barlow Reports, and I postponed this question at his request in view of the very heavy pressure on the Government at the present time in connexion with matters concerning the war. I did not feel it right to refuse his request and I am certain that if the noble Lord has been unable to give us a full statement to-day he is as disappointed as any one in this House. I feel that most of us sympathize with him in what was a difficult statement to make and also in the fact that he has not been able to make to us that full statement which we had anticipated.

Quite frankly, I must say that I and a great number of others, who have no concern with Party warfare, are disappointed at these continued delays. It would be impossible for me to give any kind of account of the various steps which have been taken, the changes of Ministers, the different statements that have been made. My mind is in a state of confusion when I look back on the statements which have been made on this matter in the last few years. But one thing which is quite plain amidst all the confusion is that no decision has yet been taken by the Government on the recommendations either of the Barlow Report or the Uthwatt Report. We are encouraged to look forward to the future. It seems to me it is a Case of "Jam yesterday, jam to-morrow, never jam to-day." I hope from what the noble Lord has told us that some time after Easter—and that is indeed a very elastic term—he will be able to make the statement which we so eagerly desire.

I must say I am still puzzled at the reasons for the long delay. It is not because there is no lack of sympathy either on the part of the noble Lord who has spoken or the Minister of Town and Country Planning. It is not because there is any Party opposition. Members of all Parties are keen to see a planning policy carried through. The admirable report recently issued by a Conservative subcommittee shows that a very large number of Conservatives are as anxious as any one to see this policy carried out. I was inclined to suspect, as the noble Viscount opposite stated, that there might be some powerful interests behind obstructing progress, but the noble Lord (Lord Woolton) in the most express way has denied that that is so. I would only say that if there were any powerful interests obstructing reforms of this nature, the indignation of the country would very soon make it quite impossible for those interests to obstruct any other legislation in the future affecting the welfare of the people of this country.

The people of the country are deeply interested in this, and we come back to the hard fact that until the Government make some definite statement of policy schemes are held up. I know it is difficult; I do not want to underestimate the very real difficulties; I accept all that the noble Lord has told us about the difficulties in the way; but whatever the difficulties may be, the fact remains that at the moment local authority after local authority up and down the country is holding up its schemes for planning because no statement has yet been made on Government policy. The private builder is interfered with; he hesitates to go forward. The local building authorities are all hesitating. I have spoken to many who are concerned with building and planning in our great towns in the north, and one and all tell me exactly the same, that they are waiting until the Government are able to make up their mind on policy. I am sure that the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government realizes that as mach as any of us here, probably more.

This is, of course, a really gigantic problem. It is a problem affecting the homes of the people of this country. I get more and more impressed—or depressed—with the huge housing problem awaiting the country at the end of the war. We are back again to 1918 with an enormous number of overcrowded and insanitary houses. No one is to blame for that condition. People are prepared to put up with much during the period of the war, but when the men come back from the Front expecting homes of their own, when the women come back who are away now working in the factories and the munition industries, and find they have to share a house with possibly two or three other families, then you will have widespread discontent and bitter resentment. In all fairness I must say this. The Government's plans for dealing with the immediate problem after the war have made really good progress—plans for temporary housing, prefabrication, and various other plans, especially the plan for training additional recruits for the building army. Plans of that kind have gone forward, but there can be no comprehensive scheme of planning which will prevent higgledy-piggledy building here and there until the Government have made up their minds on this matter. Fully recognizing the difficulties, fully sympathizing with the noble Lord in the reply he has had to make, recognizing that he is doing all he can to press forward this matter, I do hope that after Easter, and soon after Easter—I dare not say in the Octave of Easter—he will be able to make a reassuring statement.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, we are taking part in a debate on housing, and we are also, not for the first time, discussing the whole question of planning. I am very glad that during the last half-hour a certain measure of heat has shown itself, because we must recognize the fact that the whole prestige of Parliamentary government is at stake. Unless the two Houses of Parliament are able to deal in time, and adequately and efficiently, with the problems which face this nation, the whole system of democratic government will be discredited and we shall have people turning to, and advocating, other forms of government. As one who is an ever increasingly convinced supporter of democratic government, I am anxious that during the coming weeks your Lordships and our colleagues in another place should show by their actions, not merely by their words, that democratic government can deal in time and efficiently with the problems which face us.

I propose to speak to-day partly as a representative of one of the great provincial authorities and partly as a member of your Lordships' House, the Legislature which is responsible for surveying these problems not merely from the point of view of local authority but from the point of view of the nation as a whole, a House in which the three Parties are represented and where there is also a considerable proportion of Peers who call themselves Independent. I speak also as a member of the Conservative Party, and I have been glad to see in the papers recently that a group calling themselves "The Young Tories" have come forward with definite proposals for dealing with this problem. I understand from members of that group in another place that they brought themselves into existence because they wanted to be in watchful opposition to those of their colleagues whose pet name is that which was given many years ago to the associates of Ali Baba. Mention has been made to-day of the date of this debate, March 22, 1944, not March, 1943, or March, 1942, but March, 1944. That is important. We do not know when hostilities will terminate, but we trust that we are within measurable distance of the termination of hos- tilities. I notice in the Press that in some speeches which the Home Secretary has been making recently he also as a supporter of democratic government has been putting forward certain proposals based on realities. He has suggested that the Government and Ministers should act to an increasing extent by Orders in Council, not because he wants to deprive Parliament of its right of discussing the details of every subsection of legislation, but because as a practical man he knows of the coming congestion.

We know perfectly well that even before the war there was congestion, that we were not able to deal with the various problems and issues which had to be dealt with. During the war that has increased. The Standing Committees of another place have not been set up, so that we find our colleagues in the other House not able to deal with the same rapidity as they were able to do in peacetime with legislation. One does not have to give a great deal of thought to the future to accept the statement that when the war is over we are going to be faced with so many problems of complexity and magnitude and involving so much controversy, that the ability of our legislative machinery to deal with those problems quickly enough is going to be on trial. It is because of that that some of us for years have been pressing that the decks should be cleared. There are certain measures dealing with the machinery of government which we ought to pass now during the war, measures which are essential for dealing with the problems of reconstruction when the war is over. Nobody knows how much time we have ahead of us, but the time is limited. It is not a question of years, as it was in 1941, 1942 and 1943. Nobody knows whether the war will end this year or next year, but the time is relatively limited.

The Government, Members of Parliament and Ministers, have been spending two or three years studying these problems. It is not something new which has suddenly been brought before us. The problems were perfectly well known and, fair as we all want to be, we know well, looking back, that some of the past delays have been quite unnecessary. I am particularly interested in the problem associated with the bombed and "blitzed" cities. As far back as July, 1941, a member of His Majesty's Government set out principles on which the Government proposed to deal with that problem. Public authorities were to be enabled to acquire property and the price was to be related to pre-war prices. This is what we usually refer to as the 1939 ceiling. The public, that is to say, was to be protected from exploitation. Next, procedure was to be accelerated so that the right of entry was to be quicker. I claim, and I claim without hesitation, that a measure dealing with that problem should have been passed in 1943, and could have been passed in 1942. If that had been done the task of those of us who are to replan and rebuild and reconstruct these provincial cities that have been largely wiped out by enemy action would have been enormously simplified. But instead of that we who have plenty of local problems, we the Lord Mayors and Mayors of the bombed cities, have had to work up an agitation in order to try and get a little action and activity from the Government.

There is great dissatisfaction in the provinces. In the letter which we wrote to The Times recently, we pointed out that if a city is to be replanned it must involve changing the lay-out of streets, the fixing of the line of new streets, the provision of new water services, new sewers, new gas mains. Until you know where your streets are going to be, you cannot tell where your shopping centres, and schools, and open spaces are going to be. What is the good of our planning unless we know we are going to have the property? We have been receiving promises for over two years now. Let me give an illustration of delay which relates not merely to legislation but goes right through the Government. In 1941 the Council of the City of Plymouth invited Professor Abercrombie, a world expert, to associate himself with our very capable city engineer and surveyor in the preparation of proposals for the future replanning of Plymouth. About July, 1943, that report was ready. In March, 1944, we hope and believe that now, March, 1944, we have received the paper to print 3,000 copies of the report. We were moderate in our demands. We have had to negotiate with no less than five separate Government Departments, Committees and Controllers; for eight months we have been trying to get the paper to enable us to present our citizens with the recommendations for the future of Plymouth. It has taken eight months to get paper for the report. Are your Lordships surprised that we in the provinces are a little indignant at the red tape which we find everywhere and at these constant delays? I understand that when General Montgomery was given the important position which led to a succession of glorious victories in North Africa, he cut red tape. We want somebody who will cut red tape in Whitehall, and I hope the noble Lord will not only introduce legislation but will cut some of the departmental red tape which is holding up everything.

There are two aspects of this problem: that of housing and rehousing and that of planning the country as well as the towns. Previous speakers have referred to the question of a policy of national planning. But we settled this a long time ago. We are not discussing to-day whether there should be national planning. The Government decided on that years ago, the public accepted it and Parliament did not dissent. The Committees to which reference has been made—the Uthwatt Committee and the Scott Committee—were set up as preliminary steps to enable the Government policy of national planning to be carried out. If the Government had not wanted national planning they would not have set up those Committees, they would not have asked the busy and capable men who composed those Committees to spend the time which they did evolving a policy to assist the Government. If the Government had not meant business they would not have done those things.

The Uthwatt Committee had an interim Report in July, 1941, and a Final Report was made in September, 1942. The Scott Committee reported in August, 1942. What has happened since then? Lord Woolton was appointed last November and reference has been made to a speech he made in December, 1943—twenty-eight months after the interim Report of the Uthwatt Committee, sixteen months after the Final Report of the Uthwatt Committee. What has been happening during all those sixteen or twenty-eight months? We know perfectly well that there was a battle of Whitehall. The various Departmental jealousies and controversies resulted in a sort of guerrilla war. The Board of Trade, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Health, the Treasury all had views and opinions. The jealousies between Marshal Tito and General Mihailovitch are nothing compared to the jealousies and the rivalries we find between different Departments in Whitehall. The difficulty is that these internecine conflicts never reach finality. Some Minister at some time acting on behalf of the Government has to give a decision. Otherwise these guerrilla wars would go on indefinitely.

The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was appointed in November, 1943, but he did not come in to find a blank sheet. The Minister of Town and Country Planning had been appointed a long time. I rate the ability of Mr. Morrison, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, very high, and he has some excellent officers with experience taken from other Departments. What have they been doing all these months? They have not been waiting for the noble Lord. Presumably they have been considering how to put the Uthwatt Report into a Bill, or whether the administrative difficulties of implementing the Uthwatt Report were so serious that it was desirable and necessary to produce an alternative. Let us assume that by December, 1943, the Minister of Town and Country Planning and his officers had decided that there were certain objections and administrative difficulties connected with the Uthwatt Report, and had produced an alternative which for the sake of argument I will call the Morrison proposal, so that when the noble Lord was appointed he did not have to start de novo. He had the advantage of the months of work given by the Uthwatt Committee and the subsequent months of work and study given by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. What he had to do, broadly speaking, was to decide between the relative merits of these two.

Whatever the decision may be, if it results in a worth-while Bill somebody is going to object to it. You will never get complete agreement. We do not want to start scraping through the pigeon-holes or searching the waste-paper baskets of Whitehall to find another alternative. Let us assume that, experienced men having given two years to the study of this problem, all that remained was to decide between two alternatives. We cannot hold the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in any way responsible for what happened before December, 1943. When he was appointed we welcomed his appointment. He has been a successful business man, and he has been a very successful head of a Government Department. Those who have followed his career know that he is genuinely interested in social problems and their solution, and from his speech we know that he has the authority of the Prime Minister and only meant to continue so long as he had that responsibility and authority. The noble Lord also has the great advantage of not being a career politician, and so he has a measure of independence that does not belong to every politician. In the numerous debates that we have had on this topic we have frequently listened to the noble Lord, Lord Snell, replying for the Government. I think most of us often felt sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Snell. We know how keen he is on solving these great social problems, and we saw him marking time, trying to defend a policy in the moulding of which he had no share and for which he had no responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is in a more fortunate position. He is not speaking for some other Minister or Department. He can speak with authority. He is the man on whom the decisions apparently rest.

Reference has been made to the promise given by the noble Lord of a White Paper in January, and the noble Lord has told us to-day that he means to bring forward proposals—I am not going to quarrel whether before or just after Easter. I should like to know very much what the noble Lord means by that. Does he mean that the Government intend to introduce only a Bill to amend the Housing Acts and that this Bill may be accompanied by a white Paper containing another statement of what the Government would like to do on planning? Because if that is what he has in mind we shall have to recognize that he has failed. Or does he mean that the Government will bring in a Bill dealing with town and country planning and that this Bill will be accompanied by a White Paper or a statement explaining the basis on which compensation, betterment and development are to be worked out? When the noble Lord finished I was wondering whether some if the promises of the past might have to be looked upon as scraps of paper. What we want to know is what exactly the Government propose to do, and we look to the noble Lord to implement and co-ordinate the definite and specific promises made on behalf of His Majesty's Government to deal with the whole problem of town and country planning.

We are told sometimes that this is one of those measures which is controversial, and therefore ought not to be dealt with now. We drifted into war unprepared and inadequately armed; the public before 1939 were not convinced that war was coming. To rearm adequately would have been controversial; it would have been controversial to go to the country and explain the nature and extent of the rearmament that the Government must have realized was necessary. I need not remind your Lordships of the fate meted out to that Government when war came. Before 1939 the public did not know whether war was coming. We know now that peace must come, and our task is not to drift into peace unprepared. I would say one thing to those of your Lordships who are interested in the political welfare of the Party to which I belong. If they go into an Election to be fought on land, the Party which has to defend the interest of landowners to exploit the public need will meet with a fate which will surprise them. If there is controversy to-day, then that controversy is being created by those who oppose the taking of steps which are essential to prepare reconstruction in time for peace.

This is a serious occasion and a serious debate. I trust that the noble Lord to whom we look for guidance and action will succeed in the endeavour which I am sure is in his heart and that he will be able to put forward, or that his colleagues in another place will be able to bring in a comprehensive Bill giving drastic new powers for town and country planning. We need new powers to amend the Housing Acts, to help the "blitzed" cities, to provide homes for the men and women in the Forces on demobilization. We need new powers to check ribbon development, that form of housing which kills communal civic consciousness. We need new powers to prevent factories being put on choice farm and market garden land. We need new powers to prevent the past scandal when thousands of unemployed and many idle factories were to be found in some areas, while at the same time new factories were being built in residential and agricultural areas. We also need new powers to preserve that choice and lovely scenery, whether associated with coast, or hills, or downs, or valleys, which has not only made this little island an attraction to visitors, but has endeared it to millions of men, whether they come from England or Scotland or Wales.

LORD MESTON

My Lords, I would like to say a few words in support of the Resolution which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and also in support of the statements that have been made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I am sure that we all appreciate the great difficulties with which the Government are faced to-day. Their main and dominating pre-occupation is the successful prosecution of the war, but at the same time they cannot be insensible of the public apprehension on some of the matters which are mentioned in the Resolution before your Lordships' House to-day.

To illustrate the urgency of the matter, I may mention briefly two subjects which require action. So far as housing is concerned, I hesitate, at this late hour of the day, to cover any of the ground that has been already covered in the course of this debate. But I understand it is the policy of the Government to construct something like 3,000,000 houses in the ten or fifteen years immediately after the war. Perhaps I should correct myself and say it is the policy for some Government to do that. Of these 3,000,000 houses it is intended to construct some 200,000 or 300,000 in the two years immediately after the termination of the war. That must have some reference to the question of planning. Now the only spade-work that has been done up to date has been the passing of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act of 1943. As your Lordships know, under that Act all the land in this country which is not already the subject of a resolution to prepare a planning scheme is to be deemed to be the subject of such a resolution. To put the matter shortly, the Minister of Town and Country Planning has got effective control over all interim development in this country. But that does not carry the matter the whole way. Up to date, final schemes have not been made for the whole country, and, indeed, if they had been made they might not have been appropriate because those schemes would have been made not on a national basis but on the basis of local requirements. As your Lordships know, when these schemes are made they require the approval of the Minister himself. I have heard it said that the position of the Minister of Town and Country Planning is a very ineffective one. I do not mean to say that the Minister is ineffective—far from it—but his position is very ineffective. I have heard him described simply as an auditor for the proposals of local authorities.

The position is this. Until the Minister of Town and Country Planning is given powers to deal, himself, with the whole country on a national basis we shall never have any policy for the location of industry and population. To construct 200,000 houses after the war is one thing; to construct them in proper places is another thing. Unless they are constructed where they are required, the value of the accommodation will be greatly lessened. I understand that, at the present time, local authorities, having no guidance whatever in regard to the location of industry and population, are simply reviving and extending 1939 schemes. That is to say, they are simply providing for further suburban extensions on a large scale, and also for the provision of blocks of fiats in central areas at high density, thus perpetuating some of the worst features of crowding in our urban areas. Quite frankly, I think it very difficult indeed for His Majesty's Government to draw up a scheme for the location of industry and population which will be fixed and final. It is, indeed, quite impossible to do such a thing. But, at all events, I do submit that they should—and should at a fairly early date—draw up a somewhat general and elastic scheme for the location of industry and population after the war. The time is indeed short, for we have been informed in your Lordships' House that, in May or June of this year, when some of the machinery that is at present being used for constructing airfields becomes available for other purposes, it will become available for the construction of housing sites. It does look possible that the construction of housing sites may begin before there is any proper national policy in regard to the location of population and industry. It may well be, in those circumstances, that confusion may arise, and may arise at an early date.

The only other subject I would touch upon now is that of reconstruction areas. It is extraordinary to me to hear people talk about reconstruction areas, for that term has never been defined. I suppose that most of us when we talk about reconstruction areas are thinking of areas where all the houses have been completely or substantially demolished. But there are other areas which are reconstruction areas in the sense that the properties there want reconstructing. I am thinking of those areas which were defined as clearance areas before the war, and which would have been made the subject of compulsory purchase orders had not the war intervened. All those areas are in a sense reconstruction areas, but, of course, at the present moment we are all left in the dark as to the policy of the Government in regard to those areas.

So far as those areas comprise property which has been completely destroyed by enemy action, the question of reconstruction is, in a sense, bound up with the question of war damage compensation. As your Lordships know, when property has been totally destroyed or has suffered a total loss, prima facie the payment that is made is a value payment. I say "prima facie" because the War Damage Commission have discretion, in certain cases, to make a payment on the basis of cost of works, instead of a value payment. When the War Damage Act of 1941 was introduced and passed, owing to the faulty wording of the Statute, no account was taken of fluctuations in prices and the result was that for a long time it was difficult, and, in fact, in a great number of cases, impossible, for the War Damage Commission to come to any conclusion as to whether a property had or had not, in fact, suffered a total loss. As a result of amending legislation, however, the position has been greatly simplified, and the question to-day is simply this: if the property was worth repairing as at March 31, 1939, on the basis of prices existing at that date, it is worth while repairing it to-day, but if it was not, it is not. The War Damage Commission are now proceeding rapidly to determine whether the proper payment in given cases should be a value payment or a cost-of-works payment.

But, although the machinery for the ascertainment of the appropriate war damage has been greatly simplified and improved, no one knows what is going to happen to the sites of these demolished houses. The War Damage Commission and everybody else are in the dark as to what will happen to the sites. These demolished areas are probably those which we all have in mind when we speak of reconstruction areas. At the present moment we do not know whether those areas are going to be acquired by some Government or statutory authority, we do not know who is going to be allowed to build upon them, and we do not know whether they are going to be built upon or whether they are going to be left free as open spaces. In that state of uncertainty, large numbers of people are greatly prejudiced. Local authorities, for example, and especially, I believe I am right in saying, local authorities in the County of London, are greatly exercised over the question of rates. If some of these vacant spaces are going to be left as open spaces in the future, there will be a large loss in the rateable value of the area and, when that happens, no doubt assistance will have to be obtained by the local authority from the Exchequer.

That is only one example of the difficulties which exist to-day through not knowing precisely what is the Government's policy with regard to those areas which have been totally destroyed by enemy action. There are many other points on which I should like to say a few words, but there are also many other and more qualified speakers. I should like, however, to say this in conclusion. I have no desire to criticize any proposals, for the simple reason that there are no proposals before us which can be criticized. But I respectfully ask His Majesty's Government to put proposals before us in the course of time, and then, if we do criticize them, I hope that we shall criticize them in a helpful way, and assist in every way possible in coming to some useful conclusion.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I understand that this is the first occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has taken part in the debates of this House. I am certain that it will be your Lordships' wish that I should compliment him on your behalf on his speech. I hope that he will often take part in our debates, and there is no doubt at all that he will be a great asset to your Lordships in your deliberations.

The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, mentioned in the course of his speech the National Federation of Property Owners, and I want to make one point quite clear about that body. I have had the privilege of being its President for the last ten years. I wish that what the noble Viscount said was true, and that we could bring more influence more effectively to bear on the Government. Unfortunately, they do not listen to us enough. I can assure the noble Viscount that no impediment has been put by the National Federation on the provision of houses, and that we are most anxious—as anxious as anybody in this country—to see the housing question dealt with satisfactorily. If I may be allowed to do so, I should like to read out what we call our three-point declaration of policy as regards reconstruction: In post-war housing and reconstruction, the Federation is willing and anxious to assist the Government by helping to cut existing red tape and to remove causes of delay in the acquisition of land required for urgent development purposes. Private enterprise must be encouraged to make its contribution to the problem of postwar housing. The extent of this contribution will depend on the amount of encouragement received, but its capacity is enormous. Property speculators do not have the sympathy of the Federation, which condemns such practice. I think that those three statements will make it clear that we have no desire to hold up any development proposals, and certainly I would have nothing to do with such action.

We have been discussing the Uthwatt Report. Many of the proposals in that Report have been most acceptable to the Federation, but what has worried me and what has worried the Federation—and I am not at all sure that it is not the one fact which has been worrying the Government, and is perhaps why they cannot see their way to bring in legislation—is that there are two separate issues contained in the Uthwatt Report, and in some other Reports dealing with the question of housing. The first is the provision of houses in very large numbers and in the quickest time possible. I think that there is no dispute at all as to that aim and object, and I believe that there is a great deal of agreement on the steps which should be taken for that purpose. But, coupled with these proposals, there are other proposals which deal with the acquisition of development rights by the State, and other matters of that kind. I suggest that these questions are matters of the very greatest controversy. I do not know whether that has been responsible for the slight delay in the formulation of proposals by the Government, but I do think that this is a most unsuitable time to raise questions which are so controversial, and which affect the future of so many thousands of people.

If the acquisition of development rights is necessary for the provision of houses, then let us accept it; but I cannot see that by the State acquisition of development rights one single extra house will be built, or be built more quickly. I think that the introduction of such a matter in connexion with housing, which is a matter of great urgency, can lead only to disagreement and delay. I am glad that in this respect I seem to be in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Latham, and I would remind your Lordships of the words used by Lord Latham in this regard in the debate which took place in your Lordships' House on November 18, 1942. The noble Lord said: Moreover, this scheme,"— he was referring to the acquisition of development rights— which, in my view is unfair to the State as being more costly than proceeding in the normal way, is likely to be inequitable as between the owner of land in the rural areas and the owner of land in urban areas, and is likely also to be inequitable as between owners of rural land itself. If that were the case, it would lead to obstruction on the part of owners of land in rural areas which could not fail to slow down proper and desirable development. And later Lord Latham said: In these circumstances I am bound to say that I do not think that this development rights scheme would work, and I do not believe that it is necessary in order to solve the problems of compensation and betterment. I am very glad for once to be in complete accord with the noble Lord. The two questions of the provision of houses and the acquisition of development rights are entirely separate. They have nothing to do with each other.

Surely it is our job at the moment to concentrate on the tremendous question of the provision of houses. It is big enough to absorb our whole attention, without our being distracted by other questions. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said, houses are wanted, not the Uthwatt Report. As regards the acquisition of land, if it is difficult or if it is found impossible to obtain the necessary land for the provision of houses by negotiation, powers already exist for the acquisition of that land by local authorities and by the Government. Those powers can, and in my opinion should, be strengthened and altered where necessary in order to cut out delay and red tape. In the present circumstances there is no dispute as to the necessity for this, or for taking the 1939 value as the general basis for the price to be paid. I suggest that the community as a whole is more than ready to support the Government proposals which are concerned with the provision of houses, but I do say that it is not prepared to support them in matters which are not essential to the provision of houses but have a very strong smell of nationalization.

There is one other point which is worrying me—I have spoken about it before—and that is that it looks to me as if the provision of this enormous number of houses is going to be left to local authorities. I want to stress once again the part that can and must be played by private enterprise and private individuals. Schemes have been prepared by local authorities and have been submitted for the approval of the Ministry of Health. I suggest that landowners, property owners, builders, and others should be given a chance and be encouraged to prepare schemes. At the present moment private enterprise is discouraged. Owners of land capable of development are not allowed to dvelop it at the moment, and are told not to contemplate the building of houses. If they do, they have to get rid of their land to somebody else, and somebody else will have to do the work; in addition to which the landowners will be penalized for daring to try to help. In the period between the two wars, as is very well known, houses erected by local authorities proved to be very much more expensive than those erected by private enterprise, and you can take it that that will be the case again. We recognize that there will be a shortage for some time, and in any case there will be disorganization of labour and shortage of material. So long as that shortage exists we recognize that control will be absolutely essential, but only so long as that shortage exists. Control will have to be exercised and labour and material allocated where they are most urgently required.

I have a suggestion to make if it is not too late to be included in the Government's proposals which are coming out so soon—namely, that schemes should be submitted by private enterprise as well as by local authorities for the approval of the Ministry of Health. After that is done some form of priority list could be made, and eventually when the time came labour and material could be allocated accordingly. If that is done, schemes submitted by private enterprise must rank equally with schemes submitted by local authorities. The only criterion for priority treatment must be the urgent need for certain houses in certain localities. At present it is thought that local authorities will have preference over private enterprise, and that private enterprise is not wanted in this scheme. Surely the problem of providing millions of houses is so tremendous that all our resources should be mobilized to the full in order to deal with it. I have said it before and I say it again, without the help of private enterprise houses will not be provided at reasonable cost or in reasonable time, if they are provided at all. I am encouraged by what we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wool-ton, to-day, and I shall look forward eagerly to the Government proposals, which we shall expect as soon as possible after Easter.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Viscount Maugham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

House adjourned.