Lords Sitting of 7 November 1945

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
LORD KILLEARN.
The Right Honourable Sir Miles Wedderburn Lampson, G.C.M.G., C.B., having been created Baron Killearn of Killearn in the County of Stirling—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, it has been reported to me by the Lord Chancellor that the Law Lords will not be sitting again until Monday, having finished an appeal. Your Lordships will be aware that the arrangement recently arrived at, that we should meet on Thursdays at 4 o'clock, was in order that the Court might have a full session on that day. That will not be required tomorrow, and, as we have before us the Committee stage of a very important Bill, which may take a considerable time, I think it may be, for your Lordships' convenience—though the notice is, unfortunately, very short, for which I am sorry, but for which I am not responsible—that we should meet tomorrow at 2.30 o'clock, the same time as today. I hope that, notwithstanding the short notice, that will meet your Lordships' convenience.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think that is a very good arrangement, because there is a great deal on the Order Paper tomorrow. In spite of the short notice, it will certainly be for the convenience of the House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (RESUMPTION OF ELECTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

THE FOREIGN SERVICE.
2.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA THE EARL OF DROGHEDA rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they could state what progress had been made in implementing the proposals' for the reform of the Foreign Service; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, some considerable time has, I think, elapsed since any question concerning the Foreign Service was raised in Parliament, or at any rate in your Lordships' House. Therefore I have put down the Motion which stands in my name, because I think that it is well that we should be kept informed of anything which really affects the efficiency and the well-being of the Foreign Service. Nothing could more vitally affect that Service than does the scheme of reform to which my Motion refers. That scheme is set forth in a Command Paper entitled Proposals for the Reform of the Foreign Service, which was presented to Parliament by the Foreign Secretary in 1943, and which deals with some most important matters.
It might perhaps be convenient if at this stage I were to remind your Lordships not, of course, of all its details, but of its four main provisions. These are as follows. First, the amalagamation into one unified Service of what have hitherto been three distinct Services—the Diplomatic Service, the Consular Service, and the Commercial Diplomatic Service. Secondly, the introduction of an entirely new method of recruitment and training. Thirdly, the appointment of an additional Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office to deal with questions of administration and non-political affairs. Fourthly, the grant to the Foreign Secretary of powers enabling him to superannuate on pension any member of the Foreign Service, even though such member may not have reached normal pensionable age or years of service. I most warmly support those proposals. Indeed, I regard this as one of the most pleasing legacies left to His Majesty's present Government by their predecessors.
I need hardly say that I have not put my Motion clown in any spirit of unfriendliness towards a Department in w I had the honour to serve very many years ago, at a time when one of the rising young men of the Diplomatic Service was His Majesty's present Ambassador at Cairo, the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, who has been introduced into your Lordships' House this afternoon. The scheme of which I have spoken is not, of course, and does not purport to be, the last word in possible Foreign Service reform. Indeed, the Command Paper describes it as being an outline, necessarily incomplete and liable to modification in detail, of the proposals for a new Foreign Service. But that scheme, so far as I know, holds the field. It is most important and far-reaching, and, therefore, I intend to confine my remarks this afternoon to that scheme only, and not to be led astray into discussing such inviting topics as the changes that will certainly be required in the internal administration of the Foreign Office under modern conditions, or the position of the Department of Oversee s Trade, that offspring of the Foreign Office from the Board of Trade whose parents seem never to have agreed either as to its allegiance or as to its future.
I wish, if I may, to ask His Majesty s Government three general questions. Do they adopt the 1943 scheme? If so, is any important modification of it proposed and in what direction? Are they now in a position to complete what was described as the incomplete outline or, at any rate, to fill it in to some extent? Having asked those general questions, may I turn once again, for a moment, to the four particular proposals? Your Lordships will remember that the first of these proposals was the amalgamation of the three Services. Well, I do not think that anyone could be found who would object to that proposal, because it is plainly right, under modern conditions, that every member of the Foreign Service should hove some knowledge of the economic as well as of the political side of the Service. And I think that that particular proposal, at any rate, must already have been carried into effect because the Command Paper speaks of it as going to he introduced immediately, and "immediately," of course, was two years ago—in 1943. The Paper goes on, I think, to say that some time must elapse before the three
734
branches of the Service can be made interchangeable, because that cannot happen until the new entrants have received training so that they are able to do the three kinds of work that will be required of them. That is, perhaps, inevitable. The great thing is that we shall know, in the future, that members of the Foreign Service will have the same wide training and equal opportunities of rising to the highest posts.
The second proposal, the introduction of a new method of recruitment, is, I think, the most novel and also the most important of the changes advocated. I think that I am right in saying that, hitherto, anyone who wanted to join the Foreign Service had first to appear before a special selection board and obtain leave to compete in an examination. He then went away, and, for a considerable time, either at his own or his parents' expense, studied various subjects. He then took his examination and, if successful, he at once became a full member of the Service. As I understand it, the new method contemplates three different stages. The old selection board is abolished, and, instead, there is an open competitive test designed so that it can be taken without any specialized study. The successful candidates then receive travelling studentships which will enable them to go abroad for eighteen months and, at the expense of the State, study at least two foreign languages, economics and history. Then they have a qualifying examination, and those who qualify become full members of the Service, subject to one year's probationary period, half of which will be spent at the Foreign Office and the other half in studying economic, social, industrial and labour questions in the Government Departments which deal with such matters or in centres of industry or any other suitable place.
That seems to me to be a most admirable scheme. It has two great advantages. In the first place, it will enable anyone to compete for the Foreign Service, whether he has any private means of his own or not. In the second place, it will ensure that everyone who goes abroad to a post in the Service will at least have some real knowledge of his own country before he goes. That has by no means always been the case in the past. Indeed, a candidate had to have very exceptional ability if he was to find time after leaving school to study any questions other than

735
those he was likely to meet with in his examination. Looking back over the years, I realize how ill-equipped I and most of my contemporaries must have been when we joined the Service, although I am afraid at times we were blissfully unconscious of the depths of our ignorance. I am sure that the new scheme is a great advance on anything known hitherto either in this or in any other country. It is inevitable, I suspect, that some time must pass before the scheme can be brought into full operation and in the meantime no doubt some provisional temporary form of examination will have to be held in order to fill the vacancies, which by now must be numerous.
In the meantime, may I ask His Majesty's Government if they will consider one or two suggestions? The first one is that six months seems a very short time in which to learn about social, economic, labour and industrial conditions in this country. I quite realize that it would not be fair to keep people on probation for more than one year but surely the period of probation might come to an end and the period of study, if that is found advisable, should go on rather beyond the six months. Then I should like to suggest that as much of that period as possible should be spent not in other Government Departments because entrants will have had six months in the Foreign Service. One Government Department tends to be very much like another and one may know a very great deal about Whitehall and yet be amazingly ignorant of Britain.
I should also like to suggest that as much of the time as possible should be spent in the provinces rather than in London and in seeing conditions from an unofficial rather an official angle—not from too lofty an angle, but the angle, in fact, of the man in the street and the man who has to earn his living in England, Scotland, Wales and even Ireland. I suggest also that it is very desirable that members of the Service should be given the chance at not too infrequent periods during their career to come home and refresh the knowledge they will have gained during their studentship period in England. Life in the Foreign Service tends, and must tend, to be somewhat that of an exile and it is only natural that people in the Service on coming home
736
should go and visit their families and friends. I think it is important that they should be brought home on some job which will keep them here and which will refresh their knowledge of England, because the higher up you get in the Service the more important it is that you should keep in personal contact with trends of thought and events in England.
The last point I have to make on this particular proposal is that I trust that our Missions and Consulates abroad will be sufficiently well-staffed to enable the members of the Service while they are abroad to spend some time, not perhaps each year, but frequently, going about the countries in which they are posted and learning about them in the same way as when they are students they are going to learn about England. In the past many posts have been insufficiently staffed and people were tied far too many to their desks. The third proposal in the scheme is the appointment of an additional Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, and I know that that proposal has already been carried into effect aria that the best possible appointment has been made. I hope that the Deputy Under-Secretary will see to it that the Personnel Department of the Foreign Office is always kept strongly staffed both in quality and quantity, because I know from my own experience that the nonpolitical Departments in the Foreign Office have a way of not always attracting the best men in the Service.
Finally, I come to the last of the four proposals, the proposal that the Foreign Secretary should have powers to superannuate. That, I imagine, was brought into effect by the Foreign Service Act of 1943. The only point I wish to make on that is that some of the wording of the White Paper makes me fear rather that the intention is not to use that power until the members of the Service are nearing the end of their careers. The wording which makes me fear that is something like this: "It is necessary that the Foreign Secretary should have the power to terminate by retirement on pension the careers of those members of the Service who, although perhaps excellent as subordinates, have shown that they are not fitted for the higher posts." My personal experience has been that the men who are not fitted

737
for the higher posts have not been excellent subordinates. Perhaps the new system of recruitment by which candidates will have to go through such a severe training before they join, will make they operation of this proposal largely unnecessary, but people can, if they are misfits, do an awful lot of harm in comparatively junior posts, and after all they are often left as heads of Missions whit, the Ambassador or Minister is away. Therefore, I think that it is wiser and better for the Service and often kinder the man himself, to terminate his career on pension, when necessary, as soon as the axe allows and not to wait until he is practically head of a Mission. I apologize for having kept your Lordships for rather long on a complex subject. I beg to move for Papers.
2.59 P.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, when I first read this Motion on the Order Paper to-day, I rather feared that it might overlap with a Motion which I hope to bring before your Lordships' House later in the month, but after talking to the noble Earl who moved this Motion and above all after listening to his speech, I am quite clear that the apprehensions which I cherished were founded. My Motion is to deal with Foreign Office affairs—or may I call it the control of foreign affairs on the very highest Ministerial level?—and no proposals have yet been put before Parliament on that particular problem. On the other hand, the Motion which we have before us deals, as the noble Earl pointed out, purely with the official side of the Foreign Office, and concerns questions which have already been discussed in your Lordships' House, and to which your Lordships have given your formal approval.
With your permission, there is one word I should like to say about my own Motion before I proceed to deal with the one in front of us today. It may be possible that that Motion will not appear on the Order Paper on the day for which it is at present put down. I would like to assure noble Lords who have given me sc much support in the past, and who promise continued support in the future, that, if there is any postponement, it will not mean, in any way, that I have abandoned the cause, or thrown in my hand. It will be simply because it is plainly
738
desirable that the Government should have a little further time for the examination of this very important problem. After all, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Prime Minister have all been strictly occupied since the new Government came into office, and I do not think it would be proper to press them overmuch. At the same time, I hope the Government will realize that this is a question of really cardinal importance, and that they will not, if there is a postponement, fail to examine it without undue delay.
I would now turn to the Motion which is before your Lordships' House. Before saying anything on its substance, I should like—and I think your Lordships would wish—to congratulate the noble Earl who has brought it forward, because I understand this is the first time he has addressed your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: I am afraid that is not so. I addressed your Lordships' House 32 years ago.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think we ought to he grateful, anyhow, to the noble Earl for bringing this Motion forward. What he has asked for, in effect, is a progress report on reforms which, we have been assured, have already been introduced. It is quite right that we should be told what has been happening, particularly as there are rumours from outside that there is a considerable delay in putting these reforms into effect. Therefore, I fully support the noble Earl in his request for a report of that kind. I would remind your Lordships that the former Foreign Secretary told us that most of the reforms outlined in the Command Paper would be effected by administrative action.
There are two additional headings on which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for information. I indicated the two points previously, and I hope His Majesty's Government may be able to tell us something about them. The first concerns the economic set-up of the Foreign Office. Towards the end of last year we were told by the representatives of the Government that an Economic Department, together with a Foreign Economic Intelligence Branch, or Department, was to be established in the Foreign Office. The Foreign Intelligence Depart-

739
ment was largely staffed by officers from the Ministry of Economic Warfare, the Ministry in which the noble Earl who raised the question played such a distinguished and successful part.
I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether those economic departments of the Foreign Office are now working efficiently and effectively, and whether it has been found desirable, and possible, to add to the staff officers from the Treasury, the Board of Trade, and also from outside experts. I ask this because I doubt whether without additions of that kind the economic side of the Foreign Officers really adequate for the very important task which it has to discharge. It is certainly true that before the war economic and foreign policies were very closely interwoven; but today they are inextricably united, and, therefore, it is essential, to my mind, that there should be an economic branch of the Foreign Office which can authoritatively advise the Foreign Secretary as to the impact on foreign policy of economic events abroad, and also advise him as to the impact, again on foreign affairs, of proposals made by Government Departments here at home. That is my first point.
I now come to the second point—namely, that of publicity abroad. I know there is a small and very efficient Press Department in the Foreign Office, and I presume that we shall have Press Attaches attached to our various Embassies and Ministries in the capitals of the world. So far, that is all to the good, but I would like to ask what is the position of the British Council. This is a body which has a budget of something over £3,000,000 a year. It is quite true that not all of that money is spent on work in foreign countries, but a very consider, able proportion of it is so spent, and I would like to ask whether there is adequate Foreign Office supervision over the objects and aims of the Council, and whether there is proper co-ordination.
There is another point: there are the activities of the Ministry of Information, as far as they concern foreign countries. Not very long ago, the former Minister of Information told us, or, at any rate, implied, that his Department was going to be wound up, and that the part of it which dealt with foreign countries would pass
740
under the control of the Foreign Office, and that some of the staff would go with the work. No doubt—and I rather gather that is so, from what has passed in another place—the Government have not definitely made up their minds on this point. It may well be that they will find there are certain vested interests which stand in the way. Vested interests created in favour of civil servants are a most formidable obstacle to overcome. Nevertheless, members of this Government have declared that they are not going, to allow vested interests to stand in the way of reform, and I therefore suggest they should take their courage in both hands and make this transfer. It is conducive both to economy and to efficiency.
Now I come to my last point, and that is with regard to broadcasts to foreign countries from the B.B.C. We all realize how intently and eagerly those broadcasts were listened to during the war and what a wonderful asset they were to us and to our fight for freedom. Is it really proposed that those broadcasts should be discontinued? I hold very strongly that we ought not to throw away those advantages, and that the broadcasts should go on under the control of the Foreign Office. I have studied very carefully the speech which the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack made the other day with regard to controls, and the conclusion that I came to was that it might fairly be said that the noble and learned Lord was slightly enamoured of controls. Well, here is an opportunity to give his affections full rein. I suggest that he might and should persuade his colleagues in the Government not only that those broadcasts should continue but that the control which this time is in the national interests should also continue and even be strengthened.
3.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I intend to intervene for a few moments only, and especially for the purpose of concentrating attention on the questions put by the noble Earl who initiated this discussion. He formulates his questions by asking what progress has been made in implementing suggestions for the reform of the Foreign Service, and, as he reminded us, he is referring principally to the White Paper which was issued in 1943, which was itself the basis of discussion extend-

741
ing, I think, over two days in this House. What I wanted briefly to point out was that, as is so often and so usefully the case, that discussion went rather wider than the White Paper, and it became evident that of these posed reforms some would be brought about by administrative action—by the decision of the responsible Minister or the Cabinet of the day that certain changes should be made. I think that would be so as regards the method of choice of new members of the Service. I do not imagine that would be based on legislation.
On the other hand, another portion of the then proposed reforms could only be effected by passing legislation; and legislation was passed, because the House may remember that, on the Motion of my noble friend Viscount Cranborne, in 1943, there was in due course carried through this House and placed on the Statute Book the Foreign Service Act. That Act, if I recollect rightly, though I have not a copy before me at the moment, was principally concerned with authorizing a very necessary change—a change that would make it possible for a Foreign Secretary to provide for the retirement of a member of the Service before he reached the age of sixty, notwithstanding that he was not entitled to a pension on the ground of ill-health, but providing for such a person's retirement on an appropriate pension in cases where it was felt that, though he had rendered good service, he had not displayed the qualities which would make it probable that he would reach the highest ranks in the Service. That required a Statute, and that Statute was passed. But of course, as my noble friend the Lord Chancellor will at once recognize, it provided only that the Foreign Secretary should be empowered to do this; it did not say he must do it or in what cases he should do it. It I could supplement, to that extent, the questions put by the noble Earl who first spoke, I think it would be interesting to know whether the powers conferred in 1943 have been used. Naturally I do riot ask for the names of individuals, but have those powers been used and in how many cases have they been used? That would be a very good indication of how far the very carefully thought out scheme, which this House in the war years very warmly approved, had really been put into effect or was in course of being put into effect.
742
I would also like to ask, if it is not inconvenient to answer it, what progress has been made in that branch of the changes which does not require legislative action at all. You do not, I think, need an Act of Parliament to alter the conditions under which young—I was going to say young men, but perhaps I should say young men and possibly young women, may be appointed to the Foreign Office service. That is a matter of adjustment, but not necessarily by direct legislation. How far have we got in that regard? There were very serious proposals—proposals which at any rate for the time being gave the go-by to a most severe examination and, to a large extent, if I remember rightly, would have admitted candidates to become members of the Foreign Service before they had shown that command in foreign languages which has hitherto been a very striking mark of the qualified Foreign Office servant. There are a great many of us who flatter ourselves, or flatter one another, that we speak French very well indeed; but the standards which, are attained by those who really enter the Foreign Office Service are most distinctly higher than these convenient, though possibly not always very accurate, conversational acquirements.
It will be interesting to me to know how far we have already entered upon any new scheme of that sort, which has great practical advantages from some points of view. That again is putting, perhaps with more precision, the question which, I think, was involved in the noble Earl's speech and which certainly is stated in his question. I have no desire to say anything in the way of criticism or opinion, but I do think this is an occasion, fortunately provided by the noble Earl, on which we may fairly expect to get a definite answer as to what in fact has been done either in pursuance of statutory powers or otherwise in this most important matter.
3.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I am sure that all of us who have listened to this debate will be grateful to the noble Earl who raised this Motion, not only for raising it but for the tone and temper in which fie raised it. I am glad to have an opportunity of telling your Lordships how far

743
we have got in this matter. I agree with my noble friend Lord Perth that we are not discussing to-day in any shape or form questions of the formulation of foreign policy. That is a wholly different topic, a topic which perhaps relates to the problem of machinery of government. On an appropriate occasion, when there has been time to consider that matter, that in itself will form the subject of an interesting but wholly separate debate. To-day we are discussing the question of the Foreign Service.
Let me at the outset give this specific answer to the noble Lord who raised this Motion. His Majesty's Government adopt the proposals which were outlined in the White Paper of 1943 and adopt them without any important modification whatsoever. That, I think, will be satisfactory to the noble Earl. Having said that, your Lordships will want me to give you some account of the progress we have made in rather difficult times—difficult because, of course, we have had a very serious shortage of experienced staff and also a shortage of accommodation. I will deal with that presently. The 1943 reforms had two aspects, the long-term aspect and the short-term aspect. We realized, of course (and the White Paper realized) that at the end of the war we should find a Foreign Office seriously understaffed as a result of non-recruitment through the war years, and at the same time facing a heavily increased burden of responsibility, The short-term aspect of the proposal was designed to enable the Foreign Office to face that situation as well organized and as well equipped as the circumstances of the case allowed. The long-term aspect related to the more distant future when normal recruitment was open, when competitive examination would be resumed. It was stated in the White Paper that the full effect of the reforms so far as recruitment and training were concerned could not be felt for some years. It was laid down, however, in the White Paper that one of the main reforms—namely, the amalgamation of the Foreign Office, the Commercial Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service—should be put into effect immediately; and further (and this will appeal to some of your Lordships) that the new unified Foreign Service should be—and I quote the words of the White Paper—" entirely separated from
744
the Home Civil Service "and" be treated as a self-contained and distinct service of the Crown."
Both those proposals have now become accomplished facts. Amalgamation is now as complete as the present conditions of work allow. Let me give an illustration. Of the 120 members of the senior branch of the Foreign Service employed in the Foreign Office, one half were formerly members of the Consular branch and the other half members of the Diplomatic Service. There arc, of course, limitations upon the extent to which amalgamation can be applied to the existing members of the Foreign Office, particularly in the case of those senior officers who have spent perhaps twenty or thirty years in the Consular Service, or in work in the Foreign Office, or with Diplomatic Missions abroad. It is only in the long-term aspect, that is when the older generation has passed away, that the full effect of the amalgamation will be felt. For the time being it can only, for the most part, apply to the younger members of the former separate branches and to the new entries from the reconstruction examinations. I can, however, inform your Lordships that the principle underlying amalgamation is being faithfully followed; that is to say, to pick the best man available for the job irrespective of the branch of the Service which he originally joined. To assist the process of amalgamation and to remove even the basis of the former division into separate branches, combined Foreign Service Regulations, which will supersede the various regulations formerly applicable to the separate branches, have been drafted and are now in the final stages of discussion with the Treasury.
Now I come to recruitment. The arrangements outlined in the White Paper for recruitment during the reconstruction period have now been put into effect and the results of the first examination have just been declared by the Civil Service Commissioners. I am glad to say that we are fully satisfied with the standard of the candidates declared successful. Some twenty young men are now about to join the Service as a result of that examination and in the course of the next three years we hope to get some 200 more. Owing to the situation now facing the depleted Foreign Service—a position which might be described as desperate and which is most certainly unprecedented—the help

745
which these new recruits can bring to sorely-tried posts abroad is so eagerly awaited and so urgently needed that we cannot afford to give the men more than a brief period of preliminary training. This training will include a course of lectures on the Foreign Service and its work and a special short intensive course in the French language for those who need it. However, if recent candidates are any guide, these now entrants will already hay a very good knowledge of at least one foreign language.
The noble Earl referred to the six months' study of economic, industrial and social questions which will be undertaken by candidates who qualify for the Service during their year's probationary period in this country. He suggested that six months might not be long enough for that purpose As I have just mentioned, it has not been possible to give the recent new entrants more than a very brief period of training, but I can assure the noble Earl that the more lengthy period will be put into effect as soon as the Foreign Service has been brought up to strength through the reconstruction examinations, and by the resumption of recruitment by open competition. We have to gain experience of the six months training period before considering any extension of it. I agree it is a very short time, but these young men have very much to learn and a comparatively short time in which to learn it. I sympathize with him when he says he thinks it desirable that a good deal of the time should be spent out of London and in unofficial rather than official circles. That idea will certainly be sympathetically considered. We shall learn by experience in these matters, but I think his suggestion has much to commend it.
We want, further, to enable members of the Foreign Service to make renewed contacts with this country from time to time more frequently. There has, therefore, been introduced a system of what are called refresher visits. Officers from all posts, from Embassies to Vice-Consulates, are by this system able to return to this country to see what they like; for instance, to take tours around ports or factories or to study some particular problem in which they are interested, such as labour conditions, housing, hydro-electric schemes, education Officers from agricultural regions have been able to visit
746
experimental farms and see for themselves what is being done. I should like to say how grateful the Foreign Office are to the Ministry of Information, who have arranged tours for this and kindred purposes.
Finally we organized short summer courses, both last year and this year, to enable officers who were visiting this country on leave to meet together and to discuss under expert guidance such subjects as Commonwealth affairs, domestic reconstruction and international trade. We are indebted to the authorities of the colleges at Oxford, where the courses were held, and to the very distinguished speakers who gave their time and thought to leading the discussions. I hope that the noble Earl will agree that this scheme will go some way to meet his point that members of the Foreign Service should be given the opportunity, at intervals throughout their career, to maintain and improve their knowledge of home conditions. He also suggested that posts abroad should be sufficiently well staffed to enable members of the Service to spend more time in travel and in studying the countries to which they go, and less time tied to their desks. I entirely agree, and we hope to reach that position as soon as ever we can; that is to say, as soon as the present depleted Service has been reinforced. The White Paper further describes a scheme for incorporating the subordinate ranks in the regular Foreign Service, and we have made very satisfactory progress on that. I shall not trouble your Lordships with the details, unless you want to hear them.
I now come to superannuation. It is the fact, as the noble and learned Viscount; Lord Simon, said, that under the Act of 1943 the Secretary of State is empowered to place on retirement with a pension certain officers who prove unsuitable for the highest posts. He asked me whether that power had been acted upon, of course not asking me to mention names. I can tell him that it has been acted upon six times; six officers have been retired in accordance with the provisions of the Act. I agree that it would be wrong merely to retire people who have reached almost the top of the tree at the end of their career, and we have no intention of limiting our powers in that way. At any time in the course of an officer's career, if it appears that he is not fitted for this

747
particular Service, we shall not hesitate to apply the powers under the Act.
I turn next to the question of financial grants and allowances payable to officers of the Foreign Service on transfer and during tours of duty in the Foreign Office. The White Paper asserted, as I think is obvious, that Foreign Service officers posted to London should not, if they are to do their work properly, be obliged through lack of means to cut themselves off from contact with foreign representatives or from those wider contacts which are necessary if they are to be effective representatives of this country when they go abroad again. It is plainly necessary that such persons should be able to live on their emoluments once they-are in the Service, whether abroad or at home. The question of home service allowances is now being discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have every reason for hoping that arrangements will be reached which will enable the Foreign Service officer who possesses no private means to regard a transfer to the Foreign Office as a welcome opportunity to renew contact with his homeland and to maintain his effectiveness as an interpreter of British ideas abroad, without subjecting him to financial difficulties and stringency.
As the noble Earl has said, it is the fact that we have already appointed an additional Under-Secretary of State to relieve the Permanent Under-Secretary of administrative and non-political work. We have also created a Personnel Department. We hope to be able to make further administrative improvements when the Departments principally concerned with the administration of the Foreign Service are housed together in one building, which will be the former German Embassy. At the present time the question of accommodation is one of the very greatest difficulty for the Foreign Office. That Office to-day has necessarily a vast communications staff working all round the clock, ciphering and deciphering and distributing telegrams. I asked how many documents the Archives Department deals with in an average week, and I was told that I should be safe in saying well over 10,000. The Foreign Office has completely outgrown the building erected to house it some eighty years ago, and now occupies no fewer than nineteen different buildings
748
in London alone. It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the difficulties which come from that dispersal, and from the very acute shortage of what I may term "professional staff," the Foreign Office gas been able to discharge its main task with efficiency and dispatch, and at the same time it has been able, as I hope that I have satisfied your Lordships, to press on with these reforms which will lead to the creation of a first-rate Foreign Service.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked me about the various Departments. I am told that the Intelligence Department has been set up, staffed very largely with officers formerly employed by the Ministry of Economic Warfare. The Economic Department is in process of being formed. The extent to which the British Council or, indeed, the Ministry of Information and their services shall be integrated with the work of the Foreign Office has not yet been finally determined, but those problems are under consideration, and the observations which the noble Earl made will certainly be borne in mind.
He referred also to broadcasts. I seem to have left him under the impression that I was in favour of controls. Let me say that I always feel that if we are "gunning" at controls as being unpleasant things, we are gunning at the wrong enemy. The real enemy is shortages. In the abstract, I suppose that we all dislike prisons; but, after all, prisons are necessary so long as there are malefactors. The real thing to aim at is the malefactor, not the prison. I feel that so long as shortages exist, controls are necessary; but directly shortages go, nobody will be more pleased than myself to be able to buy what I like where I like, and from whom I like, and to be able to buy socks which reach some considerable distance above my foot! That, however, is by the way. The noble Earl asked me about these broadcasts. I did not know that he was going to ask that, or I should have got myself instructed with the proper answer. I entirely agree with him that it would be a lamentable thing if some similar service to the wonderful series of broadcasts which we had throughout the war were not to continue in the clays to come. With regard to the admission of women, that has been mentioned, and I may add that, as your Lordships probably know, a Committee has been set up to

749
consider the matter. When it has reported, no doubt the Foreign Secretary will turn his attention to the subject.
There it is. We have in the past been proud, and have had every reason to be proud, of the work which our Foreign Service has done for us, but that is not to say that it cannot be improved, and we intend to do what we can to improve it. We want to make it a service which can be staffed by and recruited from all, sections of society. We want to have a Service in which a man, once he enters it, can earn sufficient emoluments to live in a suitable position on his pay. We want to be able to see that he is instructed not merely in diplomacy and foreign affairs and languages, but also in those hundred-and-one problems of economics labour, housing and so on which must enter into the life of the diplomatist, and a knowledge of which is required to enable him to play his full part in the service of his country. I hope I have been able to satisfy the noble Earl that we are very anxious to carry out these proposals in the White Paper. There is no sort of political difference between us on this matter at all, and, as soon as we have got over the difficulties of shortage of staff and lack of accommodation, we shall be able to carry on still further on the lines on which we have proceeded so satisfactorily so far.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I am very much obliged indeed to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for his replies to my numerous questions, and for the way in which he received the suggestions I made. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GAS MASKS.
3.41 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state when they expect to be able to reach a decision regarding the disposal of gas masks: whether, in the meantime, there is still a liability to penalties for lack of care in maintaining them, and, it so, what these penalties are.]
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, His Majesty's Government hope to be in a position before long to reach a decision regarding the disposal of civilian respirators. The numbers issued to the public are so considerable—they run into many millions—that their mere collection and storage involve a very considerable use of man-power, transport and storage space. Moreover, there is no immediate shortage of the component material for re-manufacture. Until a decision is reached His Majesty's Government rely upon the good sense and patriotism of all citizens to take care of the respirators issued to them until facilities become available for their orderly conservation or disposal.
As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, under Section 67 of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, the property or any equipment provided on behalf of His Majestry under the Act of 1937, free of charge, remains with His Majesty. Any person who fails to use reasonable care for the preservation of a respirator so provided is, accordingly, liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £5. But His Majesty's Government prefer to believe that the requests already made to the public by Ministers and in the Press to keep their gas masks safe and free from damage, entailing, as individual custody does, a negligible or relatively small sacrifice on the part of the community, will render it unnecessary to contemplate taking proceedings for the imposition of penalties.
LORD REA: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. I would like to ask if we are to understand that a small child who has lost his gas-mask is liable to a penalty of £5.
LORD WALKDEN: Technically, I suppose that is so, but actually, I think, the small child would be excused.

REPAIR OF CONDEMNED COTTAGES.
3.43 P.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the shortage of cottage accommodation throughout the country, they will consider the desirability of amending the law so as to enable local authori-

751
ties to waive or rescind a demolition order made prior to the war, where a cottage subject thereto can be rendered habitable to their satisfaction at a reasonable cost, but its reconditioning or repair is not at present contemplated in face of the prospect of the enforcement of such an order; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before proceeding to submit my Motion to your Lordships, I would venture to say that the rural problem in all its aspects—economic, domestic and social—is, at the present time, a very serious one, and, in my humble judgment, nothing but a combined or communal effort of all the interests genuinely concerned with rural welfare will effect real and lasting improvement and restore the feeling of confident security which has been notoriously absent from the British countryside for at least a generation. This leads me to say that so long as the Government provide the incentive to all the three classes of the agricultural community to pull their full weight in effecting a renaissance of rural Britain, I can promise, for my part, and I think I can promise also on behalf of those with whom I normally work in this House—leading members of the Central Landowners' Association, and the Royal Agricultural Society of England—that no hostile criticism will flow from our Benches and that we will endeavour to be, so far as we can, constructive in our criticism.
I would remind your Lordships that what I ask of the Government today is this: what is to be the fate of the large number of cottages in rural areas which, prior to the war, were condemned by the local housing authorities—that is the rural district councils—as being unfit for human habitation? Circumstances have very considerably changed since 1939, when the then Government issued their decree in regard to these condemned cottages. The shortage of cottages in the countryside has enormously increased, and is today a very serious factor in relation to the re-establishment of healthy conditions in rural England. If I may be a little more specific, I would remind your Lordships that in cases where demolition or clearance orders have been made under the Housing Acts and have become operative, the provisions of these orders cannot be waived or rescinded—however anxious the
752
local authorities who have made them may be to cancel or modify them—without statutory authority, which, of course, Parliament, in spite of changed conditions, has not yet given.
Prior to the outbreak of war the Council for the Preservation of Rural England—I happen, myself, to be President of the Gloucestershire branch—made repeated representations to the Ministry of Health regarding the difficulties and hardships resulting from the demolition procedure under the Housing Act of 1938. The Central Housing Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Health appointed a special sub-committee to investigate the matter. Their report was published in 1939. The late Lord Crawford, well-known for his interest in art and particularly, perhaps, in buildings of historic interest or exceptional architectural beauty, was a member of that sub-committee. The Minister of Health accepted the recommendations of the report but did not consider himself justified in making provision for rescinding demolition orders in cases where satisfactory reconditioning has subsequently been found possible.
I may say, in passing, that the seriousness of the condition of many of these houses that were condemned as unfit for human occupation, on the representations of the surveyor or the engineer of the local rural district council, was actually unknown to the owners, and in many cases it was not known what would happen to these properties in the event of the owners not having the means to carry out as soon as possible, if not immediately, the necessary reconditioning. The Minister, as I say, accepted the recommendations of this report, but would not go so far as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England hoped that he would go. In spite of the acute shortage of houses created or intensified by the war, there has been no change in the situation, except that demolition has been suspended during the war because of the necessity of providing accommodation for evacuees and to meet other war-time requirements.
The Ministry of Health has taken the view, which most local authorities share, that it would be a retrograde step to encourage the indefinite perpetuation of houses found to be unfit for human habitation and incapable of being brought up to a proper standard at a reasonable cost.
Owing to the acute housing shortage, which has become now even more acute by the return of many thousands of men of our Fighting Forces, it will be necessary to allow many condemned houses to remain occupied for a time. It will be the aim of the Government, we are told, to make that period as short as possible. This, however, only constitutes a temporary reprieve and in no way alters the legal status of those houses as condemned houses which must be pulled down as soon as the necessary replacement accommodation can be provided. My submission is that conditions are now, and will continue for a long time, to conic to be, very different from those prevailing prior to the outbreak of war, and if houses which have been condemned and are subject to an operative demolition order are found now on inspection by a competent authority—a competent health or sanitary authority—to be capable of being reconditioned, and 1:hc owners or the local authorities are pre-pat ed to see that this is done effectually powers should surely be given to the local authority for that purpose.
In making this statement I have the support not only of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England but also other Rural District Councils' Association. I should like to mention the following fact out of my own experience. Only it July last in my own county (as in other counties) there was a conference of housing authorities held at the Shire Hall, Gloucester, to consider this urgent rural housing problem. That conference was a tended by representatives of the county conned and of all the rural district councils in the county. The terms of this Motion were received by them without any supporting comment. They unanimously passed a resolution in favour of this Motion and asked that they should be given a second chance, or in other words that they should be given by statutory authority the opportunity of revising their decision in regard to the condemnation of those houses which took place prior to the war, assuming reconditioning to have been effectively carried out, that sanitation and health had due consideration and that money was available to carry out the required alterations.
On December 12, 1944, when rural housing was under debate in another place, the then Parliamentary Secretary
754
to the Ministry of Health, Miss Horsbrugh, in the course of a long speech, said:
"It has been suggested that a number of rural cottages in rural areas have been made subject to demolition or clearance orders but which could properly have been dealt with under the scheme for reconditioning. In some cases I believe that substantial works, alleged to have made the cottage fit for habitation, have been carried out since the order was made. There is no power under the present Housing Acts to rescind the order but the existence and the occupation of houses which had been condemned before the war have been preserved by Defence Regulations. These continue in existence and will no doubt. continune for some time. There is, therefore, no question of any likelihood of demolition in the near future, and in view of the shortage of houses there will be ample opportunity for considering those cases where it is suggested that, since the demolition order was made, such large-scale works of reconstruction have been carried out as to make the house now fit for habitation. A change in the legal status of the house could only he effected by legislation."
That is the change I am asking His Majesty's Government to make now.
"While this possibility will be examined—and whether legislation will be possible or what form it will take I cannot say—I must point out that the position was examined before the war and was then found to be fraught with many difficulties. In any case, there is no prospect of immediate demolition of the cottages and there is time to go into the matter."
My comment on that is that there is no incentive whatever to an owner, or indeed a local authority, to carry out the necessary reconditioning of those cottages so long as the sword of Damocles hangs over their head and the cottages remain doomed to demolition.
I am bound to refer, of course, to another Act in this connexion—the Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1936. Under that Act a Government grant of up to £100 is available—I think through the medium of the county councils—where reasonable reconditioning can be effected. I will comment on that presently because apparently that particular Act is not going to be re-enacted by the present Government. The difficulty is that no owner or local authority is going to spend £500 or more on reconditioning a cottage even if, as in the past, the owner does receive a grant from the county council under this Act, with the consciousness that an operative demolition order may in the early future become effective. Many leading architects have expressed the view that where there are four strong, damp-resisting outside walls and

755
a sound roof, in existing circumstances it is nothing short of a crime to demolish houses which can be made reasonably fit for human habitation, especially where the site is dry, sanitation and water supply are satisfactory, and there is a good garden. This applies particularly where two or more adjacent cottages under one roof can be thrown into one cottage or where the house has been condemned—and this is the case in a good many cases—owing to the ground floor being beneath the level of the outside ground and it is practicable to lower the latter by excavation.
I understand that the Government have decided not to re-enact the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. Mr. Aneurin Bevan, the Minister of Health, speaking in another place on October 17, said in that connexion that the reason why the Government did not want at this stage to re-enact the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was that they wanted to know first of all how the demobilized building workers would dispose themselves over the countryside. He said he was not against the Act and that, later on, he hoped to give the House a better Act. He wanted, first of all, to canalize all the available rural labour to build new houses. Later on, when they could see how the problem developed, he hoped to come to Parliament to ask for An Act to enable cottages to be reconditioned, because, in any case, many of these cottages which were being reconditioned, ought to be preserved. I think I am entitled to ask whether this contemplated Bill will be retrospective, and will cover reconsideration of the case of the pre-war sentences of death on reconditionable cottages. The Minister went on to say that many of these cottages had 'great architectural value; it would be a -disaster if they fell into ruin. Their facades, their exteriors, were often quite charming, and ought to be preserved. The interiors, of course, would have to be brought up to date.
That, in effect, is the whole of the case I have to submit, to put it quite shortly, but I have just received a letter from one of the leading architects, certainly the leading authority on rural architecture in the country, a very eminent F.R.I.B.A., in which he emphasizes three points. The first is that decisions as to whether cottages should
756
be condemned, and as to whether cottages are capable of economic restoration, should not be left to the surveyors of rural district councils. These useful public servants, usually, have not the specialized knowledge and training required. He goes on to say that the acute housing shortage and the high cost of building make it all the more important to preserve and improve old cottages. Cottages which he would have condemned before the war as being too expensive to repair can now be reconditioned at a price which compares favourably with the cost of building new cottages. Unfortunately, the very people who have the necessary knowledge to deal with reconditioning—his kind, the domestic architects, who have specialized in restoration—have, in the past, been too busy with the better-paid work of making luxury houses for the well-to-do to bother with cottage restoration, with its poor financial reward. He said that, perhaps, now that luxury homes will be taboo for some years, the domestic specialist will take a hand in the all-important work of preserving old cottages.
I have no more to say in this connexion, except that I venture to hope that, with very strong pressure from both experts and housing authorities, the present Government will see their way to reconsidering this question and will, at an early date, either introduce a one-clause Bill restoring the discretion of local housing authorities in regard to demolition, or will introduce into the now promised Housing Bill a clause which would carry out this purpose. I beg to move.
4.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTH: My Lords, the Motion which my noble friend, has just moved is a very tempting one, on which hangs a much larger question, the drastic and terrible urgency of the problem of rural housing, but at this late hour it cannot be discussed. On the general subject of rural housing, I hope there may be a Motion in your Lordships' House on which the whole subject can be raised, and gone into thoroughly, in the near future. But, however modest my noble friend's Motion is, it is, at the same time, one of very widespread importance, for we cannot afford to overlook the slightest thing that can help the

757
rural housing position to-day. In the countryside, at this moment, we are faced with the problem of losing, probably, 100,000 and more workers in the course of the next year or eighteen months, who had previously worked on the land without occupying cottages. Therefore, even if there are only one or two cottages of the sort my noble friend has mentioned in every village, they, none the less, constitute ate an item which we cannot afford to overlook. I know that there may be a very reasonable argument in saying that even if we give a guarantee, or His Majesty's Government give a guarantee, that condemned cottages, put into good condition, should remain for twenty, fifteen or ten years, the problems of the shortage of labour to-day are such that the labour would be better occupied in building new cottages. I do not think that that necessarily holds. District councils, who, in the main, will be charged with building new houses under the present plan, and the local authorities, will naturally employ the larger builder. The small country builder will have some materials, probably, and will have some labour returning to him. The estate yard material and labour, where the land is owned by a landlord, can also supply the labour and material in a small way, to do these cottages piecemeal, and, therefore, I do not think there would be a clash between the urgent demand for labour to build new rural houses and the demand for reconditioning.
There is another point which I think is of very great importance. The more old houses that are done away with in the village, the more difficult it is to do needed repairs on non-condemned cottages existing in the village. I can give an example from memory of a village which consists of twenty-five old cottages, most of them perfectly habitable, with perhaps two condemned. Of the twenty-three that are not condemned, people, in future, will not live in these cottages unless they are enlarged or unless two small but reasonable cottages are made into one, or unless bathrooms, sanitation, and drains are put in chimneys are rebuilt. While that is going on, the inhabitants of these cottage is cannot occupy them. They must be moved, and there must be a reservoir of cottages in which to put people, temporarily while they are being given better houses. I think that is a most important
758
point, and one which is very often overlooked. There must be that reservoir, and if the condemned cottage did no more than remain in a habitable condition for people to occupy while their houses were put in order, that would be a valuable contribution to rural housing. I beg to support my noble friend's Motion.
4.9 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to the case which has been put before your Lordships' House, I should like to support the Motion which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, moved rather more fully than I feel is really necessary under present conditions. What the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, have said, really covers the ground thoroughly, but I should like to add my voice to the plea that this opportunity should not be lost by His Majesty's present advisers, and that the suggestion put forward by the noble Viscount, with regard to those cottages condemned before the war—that the demolition order should be capable of revision—should be considered. I do not think that it is the least necessary for me to enlarge, in your Lordships' House, on the appalling conditions that obtain in many villages with regard to the cottages and the accommodation available. If it were, one could go on for a very long time, both from one's personal experience and also from one's knowledge of other parts of the country. It is a matter of the most urgent importance that in the big scheme which His Majesty's Government have in regard to building, this small but yet not immaterial point, should not be lost sight of. I beg to support the noble Viscount's Motion.
4.10 p.m.
LORD METHUEN: My Lords, I do not wish to detain you, except for just a short moment, by adding to what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has said on this matter. I should rather like to advocate that something be done on the lines suggested, on purely æsthetic grounds. The beauty of this country is made up of, and depends very largely on, its cottages and its small houses. If you pull them down in any large quantity, you are going to change very much the nature of the beauty of this country—beauty which has been painted by Gains-borough and other lovers of it. I do

759
suggest that it would be far more profitable and, I think, logical, to rescind an order and prevent the demolition of these cottages, provided they can be, and will be, brought up to date. It is not a very difficult matter to bring them up to date. There is a very good little book, published quite recently, probably by the architect referred to just now, in which he has shown, beyond any doubt at all, that it is easy to raise the ceiling of a cottage by excavation from a ground floor or by raising it from the upper floor. In other words, if you wish to increase the cubic capacity or the height of a cottage it is not at all a difficult matter, and I think a great deal more opportunity should be given to the landlords to enable them to put these cottages in order.
Another matter, even more urgent, is to encourage local authorities to bring their side of the problem up to date by bringing sewerage systems to hamlets. We, as landlords, on the whole do the best we can for these cottages, so as to preserve the amenities of the country, but we cannot do much in the matter of sewerage, drainage and so on. That is a matter for the local authorities. We can grapple with light, gas, water, and so on, but we cannot do much in this other regard. When you talk about modernizing cottages I think mostly you mean getting the sanitary arrangements up to date, and I do advocate that local authorities be given every encouragement in that direction. There is another little point I should like to mention. A lot of structures—some people call them rabbit hutches—were put up during the war as temporary structures. I do not think it is fair, if we can possibly avoid it, to ask people to go on living in them any longer than is absolutely necessary. The sooner objects of that sort are replaced the better. It is far more urgent, in my opinion, to encourage building alongside these rabbit hutches and to move the people into the new dwellings as soon as possible. Let us have something decent for people to live in. I warmly support this Motion.
4.14 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I should like to start off by thanking the noble Viscount opposite for his prefatory remarks. He said that he and his associates
760
in this House and the Central Landowners' Association would indulge only in constructive criticism of the Government's policy for the countryside, and that the tone of that criticism would not be hostile or destructive. I can assure him that the Government will always welcome that type of criticism, and that we appreciate the offer of a partnership, if I may so term it, which can only redound to the good of those who live on the land. I should like, if I might, before I proceed to the pith of the noble Viscount's questions, to reply to a question he raised in the course of his speech, although it does not arise directly out of the terms of his Motion. He was asking the Government about the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts which have now been allowed to lapse. Now the question of these Acts has been referred to the Rural Housing Advisory Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Health, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is awaiting the recommendations of his Committee before he decides about the form of future legislation.
I can assure the noble Viscount and those noble Lords who have supported him in the course of the debate, that His Majesty's Government do share to the full his dissatisfaction and their dissatisfaction with present housing conditions in rural areas, and his and their desire that we shall do everything possible to assist local housing authorities to discharge their responsibility for the provision of decent homes for the population of the country-side. I am sure that his intimate knowledge of life in the country and the sense of urgency he and others have communicated to the problem of rural housing, will have given useful guidance and a healthy stimulus to public opinion. But the question of how to legislate so as to give the local authorities the best instruments for their task is one, as I am sure he will agree, that needs most careful consideration. I am certain that the noble Viscount will not expect any decision from His Majesty's Government this afternoon about his proposed amendment of the housing code, as the specific alteration in the law he wants has been referred, with other suggestions for alteration, to the housing experts of the sub-committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee. This sub-committee is now dealing with the matter without any unneces-

761
sary delay, and will consider, at a meeting to be held later in the month—I be live it is on the 22nd—the suggestion made by the noble Viscount this afternoon, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is anxious to awaits views before he arrives at a final decision and communicates that decision to Parliament.
The noble Viscount's proposal that a new power should be conferred upon local authorities to revoke or rescind a demolition order would, if adopted, have important and far-reaching consequences affecting our whole housing policy and programme for town and country alike. It is just possible that my noble friend has not himself foreseen all the consequences of such a change in the law, or the many difficulties to which it would inevitably give rise. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some of the difficulties inherent in this proposed change so that the House may have a fair picture of the drawbacks as well as of the advantages of the scheme and thus he placed in a position to decide whether on balance it is as desirable as the noble Viscount ha; claimed.
This suggestion is not, of course, a new one; it has been made on several occasions between the wars but has been invariably rejected by the Government of the day. For example, the granting of a power to rescind demolition orders was considered by the Rural Housing Sub Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee in their Second Report published in 1937. The Sub-Committee then reported their view—and here, my Lords, I shall quote—
"There would be, it seems to us, the gravest objection to the reopening of the question after the period allowed for an appeal to the County Court has expired. In certain casts proposals may have had to be abandoned owing to the existence of the demolition order but the majority of the members of the Sub-Committee feel that the disadvantages likely to attend any alteration of the law relating to this matter far outweigh any advantage: which might be gained in the few instances in which this position may be expected to arise. Vie accordingly do not recommend any change in the present procedure other than that recommended in the following paragraph."
The "following paragraph" deals with the temporary suspension of the execution of demolition orders on houses occupied by very old people, so that those old people may continue to live in their old home until the end of their days.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I ask the noble Earl what is the date of that Report?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: 1937. I can give the noble Viscount the month, but I should have to refer to the Report to do so.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: May I ask whether the noble Earl has taken cognizance of a subsequent Report of the same body dated 1939?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, my Lords. I only give yon one example of the evidence which has led the Government to reject this proposal in the past. The main reason for this reluctance to change the law was the knowledge that unless a demolition order was made irrevocable the slum conditions that public authorities and all those concerned with the countryside have been trying to uproot would continue indefinitely, for if there were no limit to the number of appeals that the owner of a slum property could lodge against the decision of a local housing authority to demolish, such a person could put up a whole series of unsatisfactory proposals which would enable him, while they were being considered, to go on receiving rent from an investment which would otherwise have become a dead loss. Experience between the wars has shown convincingly that so long as a house unfit for human habitation is left standing it is extremely difficult, on account of its relative cheapness in relation to other accommodation, to stop tenants from going in even when there is no actual shortage of accommodation in the district.
The perpetuation of slum conditions would be the first and most unfortunate accompaniment of a general power conferred on local authorities to revoke any demolition order. I need hardly remind your Lordships that the speedy clearance of the slums has been a cardinal principle in the housing policy of every Government since the 1920s. I think the noble Viscount's intention—I hope he will correct me if I misinterpret him—was to limit the use of this new power to rural housing authorities, but the terms of his Motion, as it now stands, would extend its application to urban authorities as well. Another regrettable consequence of reconditioning cottages already scheduled as unfit for human habitation would be the

763
diversion of a considerable quantity of building labour and materials from the construction of houses. The policy of His Majesty's Government is to build new cottages in the villages with up-to-date conveniences and labour-saving devices and not to patch up insanitary hovels which would at best be wretched substitutes for modern buildings.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. There is nothing that any decent agricultural landowner would deprecate more than encouraging slums in the rural areas. We have never for a moment suggested anything of the sort. As the matter appears now, according to the noble Earl, to be sub judice, I should not like anything that is now said by him to influence this judicial body from coming to a perfectly impartial decision, in regard to buildings which in the view not merely of the housing authorities but the Ministry of Health can be rendered perfectly fit and habitable for present-day workers in the countryside. One thing I deprecate more than anything else is this suggestion that we sympathize with the continuance of slums in the countryside.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am afraid the noble Viscount has misunderstood what I have said. I do not for a moment suggest that the noble Viscount, or any of his friends, is other than anxious to do away with these slum conditions. I did suggest that he might not have foreseen some of the legal consequences of the alteration in the law which he advocates. I am merely trying to describe its consequences in full because I think that without such a full description it is impossible for your Lordships to decide on the merits of the case. I do not think it can be fairly argued—it was not argued by the noble Viscount but it is an argument that has been used—that under existing law the owner of a slum property is not given a fair chance to do essential repairs at a reasonable cost. A local authority is required to give such a person notice that his property has been listed as unfit for human habitation, and to suggest an early meeting at which he can submit an offer to do the work necessary to put the property in good order or, alternatively, to agree to leave it vacant. If he fails to take advantage of that opportunity—he is given ample
764
time—and the local authority issues a demolition order in respect of his property, he still has twenty-one days in which to appeal to the County Court against the order. This procedure really does give any owner who is willing and able to do the necessary repairs a full opportunity of making his property habitable. If any public grounds for not carrying a demolition order into effect can be adduced by the owner of a dilapidated property, my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has shown that he is prepared to give them full consideration.
I hope that what I say now will appeal particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, who has made such an eloquent plea for the preservation of the amenities of the countryside. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health has had his attention directed by the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings to the risk of the demolition of old houses of historical or architectural interest. It has now been arranged with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning that if a demolition order has been made but not yet carried into effect on such a building, when the Minister of Town and Country Planning takes the view that it is one which he would otherwise have listed under the recent Town and Country Planning Act of 1944, a very special procedure shall be followed in the hope of saving it from destruction. If the owner or anyone else is prepared to do whatever may he necessary to make the house fit for habitation or to use it for some purpose other than working-class housing, the Minister of Health will approach the local housing authority concerned and suggest to them that they should not enforce the order. I hope this will be good news to those of your Lordships who support the Council for the Preservation of Rural England or the Georgian Group of the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Monuments. I hope that such noble Lords and those who sympathize with them will be gratified that this action has been taken.
LORD METHUEN: May I say that that is very good news?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I can assure your Lordships that we are as anxious as anyone to do whatever we can to save what remains of our architectural heritage, It is, of course, as several noble Lords have pointed out, unfortunately true that,

765
under present conditions, many unfit houses will have to go on being occupied for a considerable time, both in cases where demolition orders had already been made before the war and in other cases where cottages have reached an advanced state of dilapidation since war broke out. But it is one thing to recognize and admit this unfortunate fact and quite another to amend the permanent law housing in a way which will perpetuate housing standards that neither the public nor the Government can accept. While it is not possible for the Government to give a final decision until the view of the Central Housing Advisory Committee has been expressed—and the matter, as I pointed out to the noble Viscount, is being dealt with by them without delay—I would say new that far stronger reasons than any which have so far been adduced would be needed to justify so drastic a change as the noble Viscount contemplates in his Motion.
4.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I cannot pretend to be either enthusiastic or convinced as a result of listening to the noble Earl. I do not know whether I must understand from him, as I thought that I did, that this matter is under re-consideration by a new body set up by the Ministry of Health; hut, if it is, and if the whole problem is now being considered, I venture to hope that some evidence will be admissible by that Committee to emphasize the arguments which I have attempted to present this afternoon, especially bearing in mind that the whole of the conditions have altered since that period before the war when the Report, part of which the noble Earl read, was drawn up, and bearing in mind also that documents of a much more promising character and at a later date—1939—including very particularly the Report of the Demolition Procedure Sub-Committee of the Central Advisory Housing Committee, have been promulgated since.
766
My main point, which I want to leave in the minds of the noble Earl and other members of the Government, is this: what incentive have owners of these reconditionable properties to-day to do anything to render them fit for human habitation? As I have pointed out, the Rural District Councils' Association and, in the county which I know best, all the rural district councils as housing authorities, have asked that this decision should be reconsidered. Surely there should be a more favourable response to an appeal such as that. In asking leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers I do so because, apparently, the matter is still sub judice, and a different decision may still be come to. I will complete my appeal by saying that I believe that leading architects strongly support the view that some of these buildings, which were hastily doomed before the war, should now be reconditioned, not in the interests of the landowners—I do not believe that they will derive any financial advantage whatever from such a scheme—but in the interests of the rural workers, whom they want to see provided with homes, and who include a large number of men now demobilized, who want to find homes in the country but cannot do so, though there are buildings which could be made perfectly fit for them. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, in moving that this House do now adjourn, I ask permission to remind your Lordships of the announcement at the beginning of our proceedings—namely, that we meet tomorrow at half past two o'clock. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Lord Amnion).
On Question, Motion agreed to
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.