Lords Sitting of 5 October 1944

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  THE LATE VISCOUNT LONG.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I regret to announce the death in. action of Major viscount Long of Wraxall. I am sure your Lordships will join me in expressing sympathy with his relatives.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) BILL.
2.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS (LORD PORTAL): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I would like to deal first of all with the local government aspect of the question on which it was stared in another place the Health Ministers have been in consultation with the representatives of local authorities. There are three main points: How are the bungalows to be managed and controlled? What is to be the incidence of the cost? How can the necessary land be secured with sufficient speed? The Government are to acquire and own the houses, but to the utmost possible extent the whole scheme will be treated as part of the housing operations of the local authorities. The bungalows will be put up on sites chosen, acquired and developed with the necessary roads and sewers by the local authorities. The local authorities will choose the tenants, fix and receive the rents, and make an annual payment to the Health Minister, the amount of which will be determined in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3.
The relation between the Health Departments and the local authority is that of partnership, as in the case of a housing
370
scheme under the Housing Acts, but it is a partnership in which the Government undertake to bear a much higher .proportion of the loss than in the case of a permanent housing scheme. (The usual proportion is £2 from the Exchequer to £1 from the rates). The actual terms in each case will be settled under Clause 3 but on the estimates which the Government have put forward in the discussions with local authorities (assuming a rent of 10s. a week exclusive of rates) the estimated charge on the Exchequer will be at the rate of £45 a year, and the estimated charge on the local authority in England and Wales will be a rate contribution of £4 and an average of a further £4 for site charges. To meet the case where bungalows have to be erected on expensive sites (a matter of special concern to London) the Government propose that, if through the excessive cost of land or unavoidable waste in development site charges will be excessive, the local authority will be asked to bear only 20 per cent. of that, if that exceeds the normal£4. Provision is also made for a further adjustment if it proves that these cases are not adequately met in this way. The scheme seeks to preserve the basis of partnership without exposing the local authority to any excessive charge.
Speed in the acquisition of land is essential to the success of the scheme. Land must be ready for the reception of the bungalows in advance of the completion of the houses. There are two clauses dealing with this important question. Clause 5 gives a power to, enter on land at the earliest possible stage to ascertain whether it is suitable for the erection of bungalows; for example, to take levels. Clause 6 gives a power to obtain temporary possession of sites required up to the end of 1945 which have been approved by the Health Minister and the planning authority as suitable for the erection of bungalows. This clause enables the Minister to authorize a proposed purchase after considering representations from owners and occupiers on whom notice has bear served by the authorities. On this authorization the local authority will have power to enter forthwith and will be under an obligation to proceed to purchase the land. This power of getting speedy possession is of special importance in the early stages of these operations:

371
that is why the Government have adopted a procedure based on a principle accepted by Parliament in the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920, and also why this clause is limited to the first year, roughly up to 31st December, 1945.
One further point should perhaps be mentioned. There has been some apprehension that the bungalows would stay up too long, and that either the Government or the local authority would for financial reasons delay their removal. This, as your Lordships will realize, is a very important point. The matter is dealt with in Clause 2 of the Bill. The Government may remove the bungalows at any time and they must remove them if requested to do so by the local authority at any time after the expiration of ten years unless the Minister thinks that housing conditions require that they should remain. This question will be handled by the Health Ministers in consultation with the responsible local authorities. It is the intention of the Government that no considerations of finance shall result in the retention of the bungalows once housing conditions allow them to be dispensed with, and that intention is made clear in the Statute.
When I last addressed your Lordships on temporary houses, it was immediately after the erection of the steel prototype house, which was shown to as many people as possible, and was open for inspection for two months in London, and was also shown in Edinburgh during the month of June. The Government wanted to hear the views and criticisms of the people who went to see it, before they decided on the actual details of the prototype. As you all know, many criticisms and suggestions were made, and in June these were all gone through. As a result the Health Ministers decided upon what they considered to be the final plans for the temporary house. In considering all the criticisms one was glad to find that the people actually living in the house—to whose opinion I attach very great importance—were very pleased with it from all aspects. This temporary house was put up in the form of a mock-up. Towards the end of July it was announced in answer to a question in another place, that the Government had approved of
372
the details of this temporary bungalow—the question of the super feet, the height, the fittings, the insulation and also the various improvements that had been incorporated.
The present Bill was introduced in another place on 2nd August and it was given its Second Reading on 26th September. From the early summer the Government have been investigating other types and methods of construction. I want to point out to your Lordships that these could not be finalized until the original prototype with the improvements had been approved, as most of the same details had to be incorporated into these other types. For each type the standard fittings had to be used. Three of these types have been approved by the Burt Committee, which advise the Government on alternative methods of house construction. They consider that the materials and methods of construction of these other types satisfy the requirements of the emergency house. One of these types consists of a light steel frame with asbestos cement for the external walls. Another makes use of prefabricated units of wood covered with asbestos sheeting. The Government propose to enter into arrangements for the production of these types as soon as suitable terms can be arranged. They have also under consideration a type of house constructed of concrete on wooden slabs. Other types will be brought into production if they can be developed satisfactorily.
As the Minister of Production stated in another place, the Government will apply exactly the same costing system to these houses as they have applied to munitions of war and of which they have had great experience. If we get the Bill we shall then have to undertake the negotiation of contracts first of all on an agreed maximum price, with the usual clause which enables the Government to go into the question of costs and to see whether they should not be reduced as the result of mass production, and whether the margin between the cost to the State and the cost to the manufacturer is a fair one.
The question of uncertainty about the provision of these houses is the numbers which can be produced and in what period. The war in Europe—as your Lordships will realize, and as the Minister

373
of Production said in another place—is not yet over, and the date of the end of it is difficult to assume. Will the war end in the way the last war ended or will it drag on in some form or other? We have to look at these three or four prototypes and see how many can be manufactured with the materials and capacity available. Some of these types should get into production quicker than offers, while types inch as the steel house will take longer owing to the need for providing equipment such as jigs and tools, which have to be made. Since we last discussed this question in this House, we have seen the destruction wrought in London; and realize the vast task that faces us in making the repairs required by the houses in London. An ever-increasing labour force is being brought in to deal with this situation. The fact of this very large force of building labour being engaged on this work for a very considerable time reduces the building labour available for permanent houses. But it is not only a question of building labour; there is also the question of materials. Take plasterboard: the total output from this country will be required for approximately six months in London. This is a material that is, as your lordships know, required for house building, either permanent or temporary. I cite this as an example of the difficulties with which we are faced in some cases from the point of view of materials, and which, I assure your Lordships, are being looked into very closely. The Government have previously stated that they cannot allow any materials required for temporary houses to impinge on the programme for permanent houses.
What is the policy lying behind temporary houses? It is to mobilize another form of industrial capacity; in other words, to make use of factory labour to relieve the strain on building labour. By these means the maximum amount of building labour is released to build permanent houses. To meet this one has to consider site man-hours and the saving that can be effected, but there is no reason why the advantage gained by site man-hours in temporary houses cannot in a like manner be demonstrated in permanent houses. This was alluded to in the debate in another place last week, when the demonstration of different types of permanent houses at Northolt was mentioned.
374
There is a type of construction shown there which can be used for flats or houses, made of traditional building materials which can be erected in 900 site man-hours as against 2,200 in the case of normal methods at the present time. I feel sure that if the building industry and the local authorities (some of whom are already experimenting on these lines) are given the opportunity they will erect types of permanent houses that will give similar results, and at the same time they will be making a great contribution to the speedy solution of permanent housing problems.
The question to which I should now like to allude is that of the building industry itself. I would point out to your Lordships the great difficulties through which that industry has passed during the five years of this war. No house-building to speak of has been allowed in this country during that time. Men have been taken away from the building industry for the Forces and for munitions, so that by far the greater number of men in the building industry to-day are over 41 years of age. Others have had to be directed to the East Coast for aerodromes. In fact, building operatives have been doing every type of new construction other than building houses. They have now had to be brought to London to repair the terrible devastation which has occurred in various areas in this great city. At the same time it must be remembered that many of the key men in the industry—and any one who has been in industry will realize their importance—have left or have been taken away from the industry. Local authorities and builders have lost their draughtsmen and others who are all-important at the present time. I mention these matters now because I think it is only fair to point out the great difficulties which must be surmounted if the building industry is to provide the permanent houses which will be required.
In conclusion, I know that your Lordships will realize the importance of this Bill, and the necessity for the Government placing orders for the hulls, fittings and all components for these temporary houses. We need this Bill, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Production has emphasized, so that these can be ordered, and the capacity needed obtained. I hope I have now given

375
your Lordships the main facts of the Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Portal.)
2.24 p.m.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, everyone will wish to co-operate in securing the most speedy passage of this Bill into law. The country is facing a very grave problem in the shortage of accommodation for our people, and perhaps this shortage is the most serious problem in the whole domain of social policy. The difficulties have been very much enhanced by the damage and destruction which have recently taken place in Southern England as the result of enemy attacks by the flying bomb. I should like, in connexion with that acute problem, to pay tribute to the energy which has been shown by the Government in doing everything that can be done to mitigate the grave inconveniences and hardships, and, when winter weather comes, it may well be the grievous sufferings, that hundreds of families have had and will have to endure as the result of damage to their dwellings. It is only fair that those who have been, and I think quite rightly, critical of past delays in the general field of housing and planning should recognize that under the co-ordination of the Minister of Reconstruction the various Government Departments are doing at the moment—and I am satisfied that they are—everything they can to repair the damage and to restore something like civilized living conditions to those who have so grievously suffered. I should here like to pay a tribute to what I regard as the great public spirit exhibited by Sir Malcolm Eve in accepting his thankless and unenviable task, and to wish him and all associated with him the very best of luck in its accomplishment.
The Bill before us this afternoon is designed to provide a speedy measure of relief for the housing shortage which exists. I am normally not in favour of temporary or emergency houses; no one who has witnessed what happened after the last war could be enthusiastic about them. But it is the case that we shall be faced, immediately after the conclusion of hostilities in Europe, with an alarming shortage of dwellings; and anything which can properly contribute to meeting that shortage should, I think, be seriously
376
and dispassionately considered. There have been suggestions outside that the housing problem has become so grave that a separate Ministry of Housing should be established. I do not believe that problems of this kind are best settled by bringing into existence new Ministries, and I do not think that the establishment of a Ministry of Housing to deal with housing alone would be a contribution to dealing with this problem speedily. What we want is not new Ministries but speedy action.
I think that the Portal emergency house, viewed as an emergency house and not as an alternative to permanent housing, is a creditable job, and I think that the Minister and all those in his own Ministry and in other Ministries who have been associated with its evolution are entitled to some commendation. The alternative is not between a temporary house and a permanent house; the alternative that we face is between a temporary house and no house at all, with people living in apartments under overcrowded conditions, perhaps living in one room with the cooking, facilities limited to a gas ring on the landing. That, unfortunately, is the stark alternative which faces us as regards these temporary houses. So long as they are temporary—and I am glad to see the provision in the Bill designed to secure that they shall be—and so long as their manufacture or production or erection does not result in a reduction in permanent housing, I think that your Lordships should approve the Portal temporary house and the other types of temporary house which I gather are under consideration. It is important, however, that the use of the temporary house should result in more dwellings quickly, and not in more temporary dwellings and fewer permanent dwellings. I am sure that His Majesty's Government are sensible of that essential requirement. I hope that Lord Portal will be able very quickly to place his orders, if that is not already done, for the jigs and tools for the Portal emergency house and that those manufacturing agencies which are to be employed will get on with the job of manufacture as soon as possible.
I am encouraged by the provision in the Bill for the speedy acquisition of sites. In the built-up areas the finding of sites for these temporary houses will be by no means easy, especially if one is to avoid putting them upon land which

377
otherwise could be used for permanent houses before the ten years' life of the temporary dwelling has expired; and certainly in London and other built-up areas small sites, probably capable of accommodating no more than seven to ten of these dwellings, but which, small as they are, have the advantage that the roads are there and the services are there, will have to be used for these temporary dwellings. Now that means that in London hundreds—indeed it may ultimately run to thousands—of small sites will have to be acquired. Especially is that the case in those congested areas where the destruction of dwellings has been most acute, and no other procedure than that contemplated in this Bill would have been adequate to enable either the local authorities or the Government to acquire the sites in time. It would be a tragedy if, when the houses are ready for erection, the sites were not available for them to be put on. I therefore approve the speedy procedure which is set out in this Bill.
I am bound to say that I now come to certain aspects of this problem in which I shall not be so much ad idem with the Government. I take the view—I think it is shoed by many local authorities—that the election of temporary dwellings is really a national job. It is not really a part of the normal housing problem. It arises from the war, and it should be dealt with as a war-time operation. The Prime Minister told us when he made his first striking announcement about temporary dwellings that the Government were going to deal with their provision as a military evolution. My noble friend, Lord Wool-ton, the Minister of Reconstruction, said last week that the Government regarded housing as a military operation. It that be the case, certainly that aspect of housing dealing with temporary accommodation should be regarded as a national task. It is appropriate that the Government should ask for the assistance of the local authorities, who have great experience in the matter of the provision of housing, but they ought not to be asked for that association and help and experience on financial terms which, I am going to submit to your Lordships, are onerous, and indeed unfair.
The provision of temporary houses will not reduce the obligations for providing permanent houses which lie upon local authorities. If a local authority takes and
378
has erected a thousand temporary dwellings in its area, it does not mean that it has a thousand less permanent houses to provide. At the end of the ten years, or when these temporary dwellings are taken down, it will have to provide a thousand permanent houses in their places, and therefore the provision of temporary dwellings does not operate to diminish the housing liability falling upon local authorities. It means this, that a local authority will have to make for ten years an annual contribution of £8 for each temporary dwelling erected, and then at the end provide permanent accommodation, for which it will pay a third of the loss annually for forty years. So the provision of these temporary dwellings, I repeat and emphasize, does not diminish the housing responsibility or liability falling upon the local authorities. In those circumstances therefore a strong case can he made that the whole of the loss upon the provision of temporary houses to meet an acute national situation should he borne by the State, and none of it should be borne by the local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Portal has said, as is the case, that the Minister of Health has estimated that in normal cases a charge of £8 per house will he borne each year by the local authority. It is fair to say that that estimate is based upon a cost of land which is out of all relation to the cost of land in London, is indeed out of all relation to the cost of land in many of the Home Counties bordering London, and is much below the cost of land in many of the industrial cities of this country. Therefore it seems to me that it will be the case that most local authorities will have to bear more than £8 per house, depending of course upon how much the cost of land exceeds the normal estimated cost which has been taken to arrive at that figure. In London, if you take the average cost of land upon which these dwellings will be erected at no more than £10,000 an acre, there will be an additional cost thrown upon each local authority which takes them of £4 4s. per annum; that is to say, in London the local authorities will be asked to pay more than £12 in respect of each Portal house which they take and which is erected. And that does not include anything in respect of the amortization of the cost of the land, it merely includes the cost of the interest on the price paid for the land.

379
If the Government take the view that the local authorities should bear some financial responsibility in connexion with these Portal emergency houses or other emergency houses, it is clearly, I submit, unfair that the burden should not be uniform over the whole of the country. The need for these Portal houses is very largely increased in London and elsewhere—Coventry, Hull, and many of the coastal towns—because of the damage which has been done by the enemy, because those cities have been in the front line. It is unfair because of that, because of the burdens, grievous and heavy, which those places have borne and have endured, that there should be cast upon them an additional charge in respect of each of the temporary houses they have to take. It is not fair, I submit, and it is not right that because the ratepayers of those districts have borne with fortitude and steadfastness the attacks that they should therefore be asked to bear for ten years an additional cost in respect of each one of the temporary dwellings they take in order to house their people.
I am not speaking in this connexion this afternoon especially for the London County Council. It will be the metropolitan boroughs which will be concerned with the erection of most of these temporary dwellings because they will be on small sites, and the London County Council, which will co-operate in every possible way both with the borough councils and the Ministry, can only usefully come in when it is a question of erecting a large number on a particular site. It may well he that, if such is done, these sites will be outside the county because there are few large sites inside the county. Therefore my submissions are particularly in the interests of the borough councils and of the other "blitzed" cities in the country. I hope the Minister of Works will be good enough to ascertain, and to inform your Lordships' House when this Bill comes before it in Committee, whether it is the case that wherever the cost of land exceeds the normal which has been taken by the Minister of Health in his estimates, in each case, without qualification, the local authority will be entitled to So per cent. of the increased annual charge. From what the Minister of Health said in another place it is not quite clear to me and to some of my friends that that is so. We are a little uncertain, and perhaps we
380
are not without some misgiving as to whether there may not be certain undefined conditions attached. I hope, therefore, the Minister of Works may be able to clarify the position.
Be that as it may, I am going to ask the Government again to consider whether any excess costs because of high price of land should not be borne wholly by the Government, so that there is a uniform charge upon the local authorities whether their areas happen to be "blitzed" areas or not. It seems to me that only in that way can you do substantial justice and equity. It is no good praising the inhabitants of London and of the other "blitzed" cities. We know the people of London are invincible. They have shown it. These words have a little aspect of emptiness, if not indeed mockery, when, because they have been invincible, because they have stood up, dauntless and steadfast, they are asked to pay additional annual sums to provide for the casualties in housing resulting from enemy attack. The best way in which to show appreciation of what the citizens of the "blitzed" cities and London and the coast towns have done—and history alone will be able properly to write what they have done—is to see to it that they do not suffer an additional burden because they happen to have been in the front line.
I should like your Lordships to appreciate what the situation is in London. It is estimated that the borough councils of London may need up to 16,000 temporary dwellings. The London County Council may be in a position to provide appropriate sites for large aggregations of them amounting, perhaps, to a further 4,000. The situation, for instance, in Poplar is that, out of 24,000 dwellings, 9,000 have been destroyed. In Lewisham 3,000 have been destroyed totally. In Woolwich 1,630 have been demolished or need demolition. These figures take no account of the pressure there will be for dwellings for the newly-wed—the young man and the young woman returning from the Services who married while they were in the Services and who have not yet had an opportunity of living together as man and wife. There will be a great demand from these people, and that demand will be additional to the needs I have indicated. There will also be the clearance of the slums and the abatement of overcrowding.

381
May I just give one or two figures of what he rate burden in certain parts of London will be if the Government do not bear the additional cost arising from the high price of land? If Bethnal Green needed 2,000 of these dwellings, on the present basis, with no provision for writing off the cost of the land, it would increase the rates of Bethnal Green by 1s. 6¾d. in the pound. If they look 1,000 it would increase the rates by 9d. If Deptford took 2,000—and Deptford has suffered very heavily as a result of the flying bomb as well as from normal bombing in 1940–41—it would add 11d. to their rates. If Shoreditch took 2,000 it would add 1s. 1½d. to their rates. I suggest that that a burden that ought not to be cast upon them. That I burden ought to be spread over the whole country. It ought to he shared by those who have been fortunate enough to escape enemy attack, whose houses, bad as they may be in some respects, are still intact, and unsuitable as they may be, can still be lived in. In the areas I am talking about the houses have gone. They have been demolished. The people have suffered the destruction also, in most cases, of their furniture and their modest possessions. If temporary houses are to be provided to meet this urgent, clamant need, then the burden should be borne by, and spread equally over, the whole population.
That is a just, honest and fair claim, and I hope the Government will consider it. There is, I am happy to see, power in the Bin for the Minister, with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues, to meet the whole of the cost above the normal which has been taken in the figures quoted by my noble friend Lord Portal. I hope that the human as well as the financial elements of this matter will be appreciated. Let us really express our appreciation of the people who have lived for four years under the menace of the enemy by seeing to it that, at all events, they shall not be asked to pay more because they happen to have been in the front line.
2.49 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord opposite in the financial argument which he has addressed to your Lordships. I shall only say that he seemed to me to make a very powerful
382
case from the point of view of the London County Council and of the borough councils, and I am sure that that will receive the consideration from the Government which it deserves. I propose to direct my attention to another aspect of the campaign for temporary housing, and voice the apprehension which I feel as to the difficulty of gearing it into the permanent housing policy.
I must admit to your Lordships that I approach this Bill with considerable misgiving. I am just a little afraid that it may turn out to be one of those short cuts which in the event prove to be really the longest way round. The noble Lord opposite said that he did not like temporary dwellings but that the choice is between a temporary dwelling or none at all. If it were as simple as that of course there would be no difficulty. I am afraid that that is not really quite the choice. I am wondering whether the real choice is not between a temporary factory-made dwelling or a permanent factory-made dwelling. I am encouraged to put the question in that way by the extraordinarily interesting figures that the noble Lord gave us and the success which his Department has achieved in reducing man-hours in permanent construction by factory methods. The noble Lord told us just now, if I understood him rightly, that they have actually reduced the man-hours in the construction of a two-storey dwelling from 2,200 by normal methods to 900 man-hours by factory-made construction. That is a great step forward and I should have thought that this tremendous amount of energy and labour and materials which is being put into this temporary housing campaign would have been better thrown into the campaign for the production of permanent houses by the factory-made method to supplement the ordinary methods of orthodox construction.
Let me try and explain to your Lordships the two reasons why I view with some misgiving the siting of these bungalows. First of all as to the question of sites which was mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, I conceive that the great majority of these bungalows will have to be put on sites which are really destined for permanent housing sites. How is that going to fit? The Portal bungalow has a frontage, allowing for access to the back, of 39 feet. That is

383
quite different from the frontage of the permanent house which is to be put on the site. The plot is going to be of quite a different shape. There is another great defect which is due to the sacrifice to conditions of mass construction. This bungalow is not, if I may put it that way, reversible. Your Lordships know the importance of the living room facing to some extent to the south. In this Portal bungalow the living room is on one side of the building and does not go right through the building. It is a type of building in which the living room will not get light from both sides. The problem would be much easier if it did. The living room is on one side and all the windows are on the two long sides of the bungalow. Consequently the difficulty of adaptation to site is very great. I cannot help thinking that this bungalow was designed by people who were thinking much more about internal construction than about the lay-out of site.
I notice that in another place the Minister of Production, answering criticism of this kind, made this statement:
"My honourable and gallant friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) asked about the space taken up by the Portal house. The lay-out worked out by the Ministers of Health and Town and Country Planning, which will be circulated to local authorities for their assistance when the Bill becomes law, shows that steel bungalows can be built at thirteen to the acre in a satisfactory manner, and this compares with a normal density of twelve to the acre for two-storey houses."
When I read that I rubbed my eyes and went back to my own technical advisers. I can only say that that may be a correct statement for a particular acre which is perfectly horizontal and on which all roads or paths can run from north to south, but I should be very much surprised if in practice it is found that a Portal bungalow can be satisfactorily sited to give twelve or thirteen to the acre on the average acre. In practice the acre of ground on which you have to put houses is never flat and rectangular. It always has contours. The streets do not run straight and the difficulty of siting this bungalow without having a north aspect and yet getting an adequate number on the acre is going to be very great indeed.
Naturally I am not asking my noble friend for any reply on this point now,
384
but when we come to the Committee Stage I should be most grateful if he could enlighten us a little more on that point. The 39 feet frontage for this bungalow is going to create great difficulties. Let me give one illustration. Supposing in a provincial town there has been a bomb which has destroyed eight terrace houses. A terrace house might only have a frontage of 15 feet; eight times 15 feet frontage makes 120 feet. Taking five to the house, that means a population of forty in that space. With three Portal bungalows you would get a population of twelve. That is only for the temporary housing, but it is going to be highly inconvenient. I cannot help thinking that there are going to be great difficulties in trying to adapt temporary housing in the "blitzed" areas. Surely the same design cannot be equally suitable for central areas and for a more open suburban lay-out. I think it is urgently necessary if we arc to have these bungalows that more attention should be given to the design.
There are two other types of bungalow about which the Ministry of Health have issued a circular. One is called the Arcon and the other Uni-seco. I am not sure whether they both share this limitation of the Portal bungalow, but one certainly does. I would ask the noble Lord to see if his technical advisers could not get a reversible type which would immensely facilitate the lay-out on the sites where they have to be put. If I am right, the average number of these temporary houses to the acre will be only nine or ten, and they are not going to fit the permanent housing sites. Those who advise me on this technical problem, because I am not a technical expert, lead me to think that not more than eight Portal houses can be put on an acre if the services are to gear into the services needed for the permanent housing programme.
That brings me back to my original submission to your Lordships that it would be far better, rather than having this great expenditure of money and material all of which will be wiped out in ten years, if we could devote the effort to getting, by the discoveries which the noble Lord's technical advisers have made, much quicker and greater progress with the permanent prefabricated house. That is the submission I wish to make to your Lordships. I do not want you to think I am merely a destructive critic. If we must

385
have these bungalows I am hoping that we shall not have to have so many as was originally thought. Originally there was a reference to 500,000, then it became 100,000, and I am not without hope that it may perhaps be found possible to continue this diminishing progression. But if we do have to have these bungalows of whatever type I would ask two things. First, I would ask for the study of the design which I have already mentioned; and secondly, I would like to suggest this plan to my noble friend. He may not agree with me about my eight or nine to the acre, but I think he will agree that the technical lay-out is a matter requiring great skill and I do not think that that skill will be available to the smaller local authorities. The suggestion I want to make is that where the smaller local authorities have to use these bungalows the noble Lord should make available, or some Government Department should make available, technical skill to advise those authorities and help them to get the best value in their lay-outs.
2.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, the Minister of Works, on the very valuable contribution that he and his Department are making towards the solution of one of the greatest social problems that this country has ever had to face, the rapid provision of homes for a home-starved population. It is a matter which I am quite sure lies uppermost in the minds of the British people, only second to the all-important necessity of conquering our national foes. It looms very large, as the noble Lord opposite said, in the minds of those who have lost their homes by enemy action, but it looms very large also in the minds of the most vital section of our population, the younger generation which has recently entered, or is about to enter, married life, and it is on that generation that the future of our race in the main depends.
I think it is clear to all of us that under present conditions it will be impossible to solve this problem or even to tackle the fringe of it if we apply the ordinary dilatory methods of house construction to which we have been accustomed so far. This problem differs in no very great extent from that which we found ourselves up against in the immediate years before this war, when we realized that we had
386
to provide armaments of all kinds in the shortest possible space of time with which to maintain the defence of our country against powerful enemies. Looking back over the past six or seven years I think we can say that the armament problem has been tackled by and large remarkably successfully and remarkably quickly. We have solved it by the application of up-to-date, scientific mass production methods, by agreeing upon certain designs, making the jigs and tools necessary to put those designs into production, allocating our limited materials in the direction where they were most urgently required, and putting the particular item of armament on a production line. If we are to solve this housing problem successfully and rapidly—and I am quite sure that we can if it is done in a spirit of real determination—then we must apply exactly the same methods and set about it at once.
I am sure that every possible constituent element required for the immediate provision of houses, whether permanent or temporary, should be factory-produced where it possibly can be factory-produced and highly standardized, so that each can be assembled into a whole easily and in the shortest possible space of time like a child's meccano set. Full use should be made of the whole range of limited materials at our disposal. It is only by this means that you can save labour, material, man-hours and money both in the original construction and in the subsequent repairs and renewals. The noble Lord the Minister of Works is a man of affairs and an industrialist thoroughly conversant with these up-to-date methods of production. He is the right man to do this job and I have the fullest confidence in him.
There is only one warning note that I would like to sound and it is a warning note that has already been sounded by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I have said that the first essential is to have the right plan—the blue print—and I am not altogether satisfied that he has got that yet. His mind, I suggest, is working too much on a temporary house as such. The whole of this Bill is about temporary housing. I should like to see his mind working much more in terms of an emergency house which can become a permanent home. I am quite convinced that this problem can be solved much

387
more efficiently by the production of prefabricated rapidly-erected permanent houses than by temporary sub-standard bungalows.
I am not going to waste the time of your Lordships by enlarging on the obvious defects of the temporary house, particularly the type now known as the Portal bungalow; the site space and material that it wastes; the fact that it cannot possibly be amortized during the licensing period, and that consequently it must be grossly uneconomic; the danger of the licensing period being extended beyond the normal expectation of life of the house, so that it is almost bound to contribute to another slum problem; and, worst of all, the fact that it is far too small and consequently is bound to create another over-crowding problem. Reference has been made in debates on this Bill in another place to the Report of the Sub-committee on House Design of the Central Advisory Committee over which I had the honour to preside. In that Report, which has been extraordinarily well received by the people of this country and seems to coincide with what they require, my Committee laid down certain standards of space and design, equipment and fittings below which they felt that houses constructed in the future, whether temporary or permanent, should not fall. The Report contains a mass of technical desiderata which together with the excellent reports of the study groups of the noble Lord's Department will, I hope, be of use to local authorities and other building agents. It is at any rate an attempt at good design and a design which can be adapted to almost any material or constructional medium.
The Portal house in many respects falls considerably below those standards, and for that reason, as well as the reasons which I have already enumerated, I hope that the noble Lord will think again before committing the country to very large numbers of this type of sub-standard bungalow, which ought to be limited to childless couples and to families of two children at the most. If it is unavoidable that British families must live in substandard conditions I would far rather see the provision of larger numbers of two-storey standard houses of about 1,200 square feet, or even less, built under the same quick erection methods as the Portal house, licensed temporarily during the
388
emergency period to take a family on each floor, which could be readily converted into a four-bedroomed house for one large family at the end of the emergency period. This would avoid many of the present defects of the Portal house and I believe it would be found that not a great many more man-hours, if any, would be required for the erection of two-storey prefabricated houses, especially if erected in pairs, than are required for the erection of the single bungalow type. This view of mine is more strongly confirmed in the light of what the noble Lord has told us this afternoon. But the fact remains that the greatest housing need in the country is for the three-bedroomed type of house and you will not begin to solve this problem until you have provided very considerable numbers of this type—many hundreds of thousands—for which my Committee laid down a minimum space of 900 square feet apart from outbuildings.
I do hope that we shall not lose sight of this paramount fact. What is the use of putting a young, newly-married couple into a Portal two-bedroomed sub-standard bungalow with an area of 616 square feet, when in five years' time they will have had, as we hope they will have had, and as we should encourage them to have, five children—one a year? Even with four children they will be living in hopelessly overcrowded, unhealthy, uncomfortable conditions with no possible chance of moving into a larger house because a larger house simply does not exist. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, expresses surprise at the fact that families have a child a year. They do, and good luck to them. I hope we shall have a great many families which have a child a year. Therefore, if as a result of these debates the noble Lord and the Minister of Health decide upon the early provision of more of his prefabricated, three-bedroomed type of house of standard size, and fewer of the two-bedroomed bungalows, I am sure that they will have achieved a very great deal.
I believe that noble Lords need not be afraid of breaking away from traditional methods of building, traditional designs and traditional materials. One's eye has, of course, always got to get accustomed to something new, but a factory-made house should not necessarily be an ugly house. Indeed, it most certainly should not be so, provided the design is architecturally sound. My Sub-committee laid

389
great stress on the importance of good architecture, but good architecture does not by any means necessarily mean traditional architecture, and a visit to the experimental houses at Northolt, which have been put up under the auspices of my noble friend, will convince one that attractive houses can be constructed of all kinds of new factory-made, prefabricated, materials.
Of course, what can be achieved in the realm of the provision of homes, whether factory-made or built in the more traditional manner, in the immediate postwar years must, in the main, depend upon the availability of labour and materials. We are told that at the end of hostilities the building labour force will be reduced to below one-third of what it was at the time of the outbreak of this war, and that much of that force will be required for urgent repairs such as those to which the noble Lord opposite has referred. Surely that, in itself, is an argument in favour of more and more prefabricated methods of building so that, as the noble Lord, the Minister of Works, has said, different types of operatives may be added to the pool of normal building labour, both in factories and on site. As the war in Europe draws to a close, and as many war contracts arc curtailed and cancelled, so will labour and material become more and more available for other work.
Surely, it should be possible to harness much of this to the apparatus employed to deal with the pressing housing problem. It is not too early to make an active start now. The utmost efforts should be made to mobilize the largest possible building force, and to commence training the younger men. The noble Lord tells us that the force after the war will contain very few men under the age of forty-one. As I say, efforts should be made in these directions and a beginning should also be made with the assembling of all the materials available as quickly as possible on the highest priority basis. The younger generation of the British people have proved themselves in every way worthy of the highest traditions of our national history. The Government would indeed be deemed ungrateful, and themselves unworthy, if they failed to do everything within their power to provide these young people with the first essential of a happy life—a decent home to live in. I am quite sure the
390
nation is under a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for what he has done already with a view to solving this great problem.
3.14 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I would first like to join with the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, in congratulating the Government on having brought in this Bill. There has been a good deal of argument by the two last speakers in an endeavour to show that it would be better to build permanent houses rather than these temporary ones, but I am inclined to agree with my noble friend opposite, Lord Latham, that it is better to have these temporary houses than to have no houses at all. At the present moment, as the Government know, and as I think every student of housing politics must realize, it is almost impossible to get these permanent houses built. The question may well be asked: Are we going to see the process of shrinkage of the number of houses continue if provision of Portal houses is not facilitated? I think it is the view of all local authorities in this country that, at the present time, it is necessary to have a considerable number of Portal houses, or prefabricated houses, or whatever you wish to call them. Therefore I welcome this Bill. I should also like to support my noble friend Lord Latham in what he said regarding the unfair burden cast not only on London and the metropolitan borough councils, but on all big towns—and on smaller towns, too—which have suffered so much in this war through bombing. I concur in the view that the work of restoration should be to a great extent a national charge and should not be allowed to throw such a great financial burden on the rates. It does seem to me to be very hard on the particular localities in question, which have gone through so much with such courage, steadfastness and determination, that they should be penalized and that that part of the country which has suffered nothing should not be called upon to contribute anything towards this very heavy local increase of financial responsibility.
There is one matter upon which I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Latham—whom I congratulate on his elevated position on the Front Opposition Bench. I feel that he rather misled a good many of my friends the other day when

391
he talked about the cost of land in London. He told us that certain land in London—I think it was in the Strand—cost £1,000,000 an acre. But when I read his speech carefully I found that he referred to the price of certain pieces of land as working out at the rate of £1,000,000 an acre. That is a very different story. It may very well be that a particular piece of land of very small area, if taken over for some purpose, would cause a great deal of damage to adjoining property—hence the very high price. But that is a matter which I do not wish to discuss at this moment. I only wish to enter a caveat against alarm being raised regarding the matter of the cost of land over a long-term period. We have had the figures before the House and I do not wish to repeat them again. In a great many places—I do riot say in big towns—the cost of land is a negligible quantity in the weekly rents when assessed altogether.
As regards the provision of these bungalows, there is a fear that they may interfere with the bigger housing schemes and redevelopment schemes, but anyone who is cognizant of local government knows that there are certain sites in the different localities where land is available, not in great quantities but in quite useful amounts, which could be temporarily used for bungalows or prefabricated houses without in the least jeopardizing future replanning on a bigger scale. I am glad to think that the Government have put so much energy into this matter, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for giving us a "Commanderin-Chief" in London to speed up housing in London as much as possible. I am sure that people in the country generally, and even many noble Lords, do not realize the amount of destruction which has taken place in London and in the coast towns. It is absolutely appalling. I am in agreement with what has been said about the need for long-term housing, but it must be remembered that we have to find homes of a temporary character as quickly as possible for those who have no homes at all. On behalf of my friends who are interested in this matter, therefore, I congratulate the Minister of Reconstruction and the Minister of Works on having brought this Bill before the House. From what I know of both noble Lords I feel sure that they will push forward this
392
matter with energy, and I hope with complete success.
3.22 p.m.
LORD PORTAL: My Lords, I shall refer to two or three only of the comments which have been made, because my noble friends Lord Latham and Lord Balfour of Burleigh were good enough to say that they would like a reply on the Committee stage to the points which they raised. My noble friend Lord Dudley, however, mentioned one or two points to which I should like to refer, He asked why, if we could prefabricate, or put more work into the factories, we should have any temporary houses. The point is that at the present time we want all the houses that we can get. That is the Government's point of view, and I think that that is all important. He also said that he was certain that we could reduce the site man-hours. Efforts have been made in this direction which no doubt will be reflected when we come to the permanent building which we shall require. As he knows, there has been a house put up at Northolt which can be converted on the lines of which he spoke. It is called the "duplex" house. It was recommended, I think, by one of his Sub-committees. That house is of 900 superficial feet, and consists of two flats, each of 450 superficial feet. People will have to live in these fiats for eight or ten years in the same way as they will live in the temporary houses. There will not be much room in those flats for families on the scale the noble Earl suggested. There would be more room in the temporary house, which has 630 superficial feet, as against 450 for the flat.
I do not make any excuse for the cost; I agree with my noble friend on the question of cost. The "duplex" house has been erected by the traditional forms of building, and the site man-hours—I will give my noble friend the figures if he would like to have them—are not such as would result in any saving of the building labour normally required for the ordinary permanent house. We are trying for the interregnum period to mobilize all available forms of labour so as to make more men available for building permanent houses. I quite see the point that the provision of temporary houses must not stand in the way of the ordinary building programme, and I referred to that in my speech. That is

393
why it is necessary to use steel and to have steel fittings, because timber will be needed for furniture. A great deal of timber for that purpose will be required by the people of London to replace the furniture which they have lost. While people have every right to be critical about these matters, if we look at the question as a whole and consider how we haw to piece these things together and make the best use of what is available we shall realize the difficulty. For example, plasterboard for lining the temporary houses is not available in any quantity, and so it is necessary to use insulating board, and we have to ascertain how much insulating board is available in this country.
I do not put forward these considerations as an excuse, but to show you how the whole picture has to be regarded. I agree that the more we can do to aid the building of permanent houses the better it will be. The Committee over which the noble Earl presided were working for the Ministry of Health, and they have done most valuable work. I was delighted with the two houses which have been put up according to their design. The noble Earl, being a really progressive man, was not so pleased in one or two cases as I was, but that is because you never get on in industry if you are smug about yourself. I imagine that that is why the noble Earl made the remarks which he did. I thank your Lordships for the way in which you have discussed this Bill and for the Very great help which you have given me. Whether I am in total agreement with all the opinions expressed is another matter, but from the point of view of the Gavernment this debate has been extraordinarily helpful. In conclusion, I would say that in view of the urgency of this Bill I propose to ask the House to take its remaining stages on Tuesday next.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (WARMARRIAGES) BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, your Lordships
394
will expect me, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, briefly to explain the situation which necessitates the Bill and then to refer to the nature of the remedy which the Bill provides. It is, as your Lordships will have noticed, purely a war measure. It is confined to certain marriages celebrated after the war began and before a day to be appointed by Order in Council, and it is limited to proceedings for dissolving those marriages begun within five years of the appointed day. It is therefore a Bill which is strictly limited in the scope of its application, but I would submit to the House that it is really needed, and that the absence of some such measure is causing great hardship.
The particular problem with which the Bill deals has arisen from the presence in this island since the earlier part of the war of great numbers of men who are domiciled overseas—soldiers training here and waiting to go to the Continent and the like; mainly Canadian or American—many of whom have contracted marriages here with English or Scots women who were domiciled here: the husband domiciled abroad, the wife before her marriage domiciled here. If such a marriage has unhappily broken down through the infidelity or desertion of one party or the other, as things stand there is, practically speaking, no remedy by way of divorce which is available to the innocent party. Your Lordships who are acquainted with this rather technical subject will at once see the reason why. The existing rule of our Divorce Court—and the same is true in Scotland in this respect—is an exceedingly strict one. The Divorce Court will only entertain proceedings for divorce from a party who is domiciled here. Of course "domiciled" in that connexion does not mean resident: the test is, where is the person's real permanent home? There is a second proposition well known to lawyers at any rate, which also comes in, which is this, that when a woman marries a man she at once acquires the domicile of her husband and loses the domicile she previously had, if it was different from the domicile of her husband.
Therefore if you take the case of an English girl, who has never been out of England probably, who is domiciled here in the fullest sense, who marries a visitor

395
from overseas, she may marry him here and she may, as far as she has lived with him, have lived with him here, but she has no longer got an English domicile because the matrimonal domicile is that of her husband; and consequently she has no recourse to our English Divorce Court if the marriage goes all wrong and she is entitled to divorce. What she would have to do—in many cases it would be perfectly idle and useless advice—would be to cross the sea, go to the particular country where her husband is domiciled—it may be a State of the American Union which is his domicile—she would have to take the evidence and the witnesses over the Atlantic for the purpose, and then under the system of foreign law she might succeed in getting rid of her worthless husband.
The same thing is true if you take the reverse case; both kinds of case happen, unfortunately. It may be that the Allied soldier who is over here training is the most upright and faithful of men. He marries an English girl who is no better than she should be. The marriage may break down because, while he is entirely faithful to her, she goes off with somebody else. Then in ordinary circumstances the basis of a divorce manifestly exists. But what is the man to do? He may be here, or he may be serving on the Continent, he certainly is under orders, he cannot go where he likes for his private purposes. But if he wants to divorce his wife he must go back to the country which is his domicile, and in the Courts of that country he must take proceedings to get rid of his wife. I do not think it can be doubted that in the particular circumstances—and we have had very large numbers of visiting Allies—that does constitute a very serious grievance, and it is no answer that there is in theory the possibility of going to the country of the man's domicile and there taking proceedings.
A similar situation on a much smaller scale arose in the last war, and some of your Lordships may remember that there was legislation passed towards the end of the last war to deal with it, not precisely in this form but dealing with the same matter. But the situation is much more serious now because of the much greater number of visiting men who are here. I do not know whether your Lordships
396
whom I am addressing have had your attention called to individual cases. It is enough to say that in another place a number of questions have been addressed to the Government by members in reference to individual cases, and the assurance has been given that the Government would see what could be done. I do not think I need say more to explain to your Lordships what is the strength of the argument that here is a grievance which we should try to meet if we can.
Now comes the question, what is the proposed remedy? If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 (2) of the Bill you will see very clearly stated the limitation which we seek to impose:
"The marriages to which this section applies are marriages celebrated on or after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, but before the appointed day, where the husband was, at the time of the marriage, domiciled outside the United Kingdom, and the wife was, immediately before the marriage, domiciled in England."
I think what I have already said has explained that situation sufficiently clearly. I call attention to the proviso which is then added, which denies the relief which this Bill affords in a case where the parties to the marriage have resided together in the country of the domicile of the husband. If in the instance I gave the British-born girl goes and lives with her husband in his own country, sets up a home there and to that extent associates herself actively with the new country, I do not think the case is nearly so strong, and we do not propose to extend our Bill to that case. I am thinking of the case where the girl is here, remains here, has never been away from here, has got the evidence here, perhaps has a child here, and in such a case I strongly think something of this sort is needed.
In those cases, and in those cases only, we provide that the High Court in England (under Clause 2 the Court of Session in Scotland) may entertain proceedings for divorce by either party—it is a reciprocal business—notwithstanding that the matrimonial domicile is not in this country. It is inevitable of course if this legislation is passed that we should also include the provision in Clause 1 (1) (b), the provision that for this purpose the limitation inserted in the Herbert Act of 1937, that there should be no proceedings taken for divorce for three years after the marriage, should not apply.The case

397
we are dealing with is that where the breakdown of the marriage has taken place early and the remedy 'should be available with promptitude.
I need not spend time in expounding the Scottish clause, which is practically the same as the English clause. Northern Ireland may wish to legislate on this matter for itself, and we make provision that it may do so and go on to say what will happen if it does. I ought, perhaps, just to refer your Lordships to Clause 4, which as no doubt the most technical and difficult clause in the Bill. I shall not, unless expressly asked, seek to expound at now, although I think I could. The point of it really is this. We want, as far as ever we can, to create a situation in which the divorces that are granted under this Bill will be recognized as valid and effective divorces ending the marriage elsewhere. As your Lordships know, our strict rule which gives jurisdiction to the Divorce Court only because the matrimonial domicile is here, is not the rule that obtains all over the world. It is not for example, the rule that obtains in some of the States in America where residence—sometimes very brief residence—is treated as giving jurisdiction. But it is important as far as ever we can to secure that the divorces which this Bill will authorize should be recognized as valid divorces everywhere.
One of the ways of securing that would be to provide for the possibility of reciprocity. We do not, of course, seek to legislate for our Dominions. They legislate for themselves; but if a Dominion were to pass a Bill corresponding practically to this Bill, we should then be able, under the terms of Clause 4, by arrangement with the Dominion, to agree that we should recognize the divorces which they pronounce and that they should recognize the divorces which we pronounce. That serious difficulty always arises in connexion with an amendment of the Divorce Law of this kind, and it is one of the reasons why, for my part, I am only commending this Bill to the House as a war measure. Whether there should be any more permanent change in the Divorce Law is a much bigger question and very difficult on its technical side, but I submit to the House that I have proved the presence of a situation that ought not to be left without adequate remedy, and that the remedy which this Bill would provide is
398
clear and deserves to receive the support of your Lordships' House. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, as this is a very technical matter perhaps I should say that having carefully read the Bill I am satisfied it will tend to remove an injustice in quite a number of cases to unfortunate English girls who have a good cause for divorce but who are unable to institute proceedings in this country owing to the fact that the husbands who married them were not domiciled in England. The same applies to Scotland. I do not think your Lordships should have any hesitation in giving this Bill a Second Reading. I am not satisfied that the proviso in Clause 1 is quite satisfactory and perhaps that matter might be discussed in Committee. It is also possible that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would like to consider whether the difficulty of proving at the date of a particular petition that the husband is domiciled outside the United Kingdom, might usefully be met by some provision as to what it would be necessary to prove in order prima facie to establish that claim. I shall not add any more than that I warmly support the Second Reading.
3.45 P.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about this Bill simply on my own authority, not speaking for the Bench of Bishops as a whole. First of all, naturally, with the considerable increase of divorces in our own country and the weakening of the marriage tie, one looks anxiously at any suggestions which might seem to facilitate further divorce, but as I read the Bill and listened to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, two things are clear. First of all, I have no doubt whatever that there are a large number of these hard cases. Unfortunately, with the war, it is not simply a question of the breakdown of marriage between British girls and some of our troops from the Dominions or the United States. There are very many other cases. This Bill deals with a particular difficulty, and I am convinced that there is a sufficient number of these cases to make it desirable that a Bill on these lines should be brought

399
forward. Secondly, however much we may regret divorce, nevertheless it seems to me to be quite indefensible to suggest that the barriers to divorce, mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount, should continue in these cases. We are not going to safeguard marriage by making it extraordinarily difficult for people, by compelling them to travel over to the United States or Canada to obtain divorce. Meanwhile, the individual is suffering through the unfortunate breakdown of the marriage, and perhaps the innocent party has been very grievously wronged. Therefore, so far as I can see, on grounds of necessity and also on grounds of true morality, your Lordships ought to be ready to give your consent to this Bill.
3.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, after the extremely interesting speeches to which we have listened, it is evident that this short measure will find support in all quarters of the House. We are all aware that since the beginning of the war there have been thousands of marriages between English girls and members of the Dominions and Allied Forces passing through or residing in this country. Most of these marriages have no doubt been successful, but in such a large number there are bound to be a few that have failed. Surely nothing could be more undesirable than that in such cases the unfortunate women who have suffered should be debarred from obtaining relief by the accident of their husbands' domicile which prevents access to the British Courts. This Bill, as the noble Viscount has explained, overcomes this obstacle to relief in these deserving cases. It will give those concerned in days to come a chance of re-marriage and starting a family, if they so desire, later in life. I am sure your Lordships will approve such a humane piece of legislation.
LORD JESSEL: May I ask the Lord Chancellor whether this Bill is on the same lines as legislation in the last war?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not quite on the same lines.
3.49 P.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, like other members who have spoken, I am of opinion that the Lord Chancellor has made out fully the case for the Second Reading of this Bill. At the same time
400
I feel, with the right reverend Prelate, that the House should rightly be careful of any new measures for the relaxation of the marriage laws. When, in 1937, the Bill to which the noble and learned Viscount has referred was before this House it gave rise to much controversy and many exceedingly animated debates. That was because many members of your Lordships' House felt that the tendency in the present day to careless and lighthearted marriages resulting in the breakdown of the family and the denial to the children of the marriage of a proper home, is a tendency greatly to be deprecated in the interests of a right social life for the nation.
Therefore, although in the case of that Bill good reasons were given for the changes, as has been the case to-day, I do not think that your Lordships welcome this Bill for the tendency that it indicates, except for the reason that it is a special case. Undoubtedly it has nothing to do with general principles of family life whether a husband and a wife are living in the same locality or whether, owing to causes that are inevitable and beyond the control of the parties, one is at one side of the Atlantic and the other at the other side. It is not a question of morals, it is a question of geography, and if a divorce is right and proper when the parties are close neighbours it does not become wrong merely because one of them is living at a great distance. Since the point is purely one of legal procedure in determining how far domicile should be a controlling factor, that is a sufficient justification for the enactment of this Bill.
There is only one point I should like to clear up. The Lord Chancellor has made it plain that this is a war-time measure and it is provided for in the Bill that its operation shall apply only to marriages that have been made before an appointed day. But when one turns to the definition of "the appointed day" in Clause 5 one finds that it means "such day as His Majesty may by Order in Council appoint." I should like to ask what is the intention of the Government with regard to that, for if no Order in Council is made then this Act would apparently apply to all marriages irrespective of date—that is, if my understanding of the actual wording of the Bill is correct. Perhaps it is wrong,

401
but in any case I should like in conclusion to put the point to the Lord Chancellor and ask in what way it is intended to provide that this measure shall truly be of a temporary character.
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, answering the question just put by my noble friend Lord Samuel, he is well aware of this phrase "the appointed day"—" such day as shall be appointed by Order in Council." It constantly occurs in Acts of Parliament. It must be used here because nobody knows when the war will end. The intention is—and I can make the statement as an assurance to the House—that the Order in Council which will fix the appointed day will be made at the end of the war. That will secure that the Bill, as its title indicates, really is a war measure. That is all I intend and I am prepared to assure the House that that is all the Government intend.
In answer to Lord Jessel I would say that the Bill is not on the same lines as the Bill of 1919. He will find the Bill of 1919 on the Statute Book. That Bill was based on securing reciprocity of agreement between countries. I am sure it is hardly possible to do that in advance and that we must take the lead in this matter. As long as we act perfectly fairly and reasonably I am sure the result will be that that will be recognized and in many cases corresponding arrangements will be made elsewhere. I may say that after consulting the Dominions we learn that no Dominion raises any objection.
402
New Zealand has sent an assurance of its positive approval and I think in the case of South Africa they would like us to go even further.
I think we are on safe ground and can proceed with some confidence on the lines of this Bill. I would like to thank the House and noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome they have been good enough to give to the measure. That is of good augury. I shall take the opportunity, if I may, of consulting my noble friend Lord Maugham on the two points that he mentioned and we shall together discover whether there are some adjustments that should be made.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ADEN COLONY (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1944.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Order, as presented to Parliament, and reported from the India and Burma Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at five minutes before four o'clock.