Lords Sitting of 13 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.

BRITISH SETTLEMENTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, the Bill is non-controversial and deals mainly with what are purely legal difficulties. It affects only what are known as British Settlements. As your Lordships are aware, the Colonies are more or less divided into four or five heads—that is, into those known as Settled Territory, Protectorates, Conquered Territory, Ceded Territory and Mandated Territory. In some instances it happens that over a course of years there is a combination of two or more types. It is in order that there should not be the inconvenience of having separate Constitutions for each of those various types that this alteration is made. It reduces the number and increases the area of jurisdiction. For instance, the Gold Coast and the Gold Coast Colony are separate types. The British Settlements Act, 1887, provides that there shall be three persons who will be nominated to act as representing His Majesty. This Bill proposes to do away with that provision because it may possibly happen that all three persons will not be resident in the same Settlement. The Bill provides that Section 3 of that Act shall have effect as if any reference therein to an instrument passed under the Great Seal included a reference to an Order in Council; and as if for the reference to three or more persons within the Settlement there were substituted a reference to any specified person or persons or authority. That is the main change which the Bill makes; it provides for convenience of handling and for arranging that there may be only one representative instead of several in the same Settlement.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham).
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, may I intervene for a moment to say that an important statement has to be made to your Lordships this afternoon? It has been arranged that it should be made simultaneously in both Houses of Parliament. For this purpose I would crave your Lordships' permission to interrupt our proceedings this afternoon at 3.15, or as near as may be after that time, in order to give an opportunity for making this statement. After my statement my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will also take the opportunity of making a short statement with regard to distressed persons from the Continent.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will permit me to make a very mild protest at this continued procedure of having to set our pace with that of another place. It may have been justified during the war and the time of the Coalition, but I have been long enough in your Lordships' House to remember the time when we made our own programme, and statements of this sort were made by His Majesty's Ministers when the House met. I do not want to question what is now suggested, but I think that suitable representations might be made through the usual channels to see whether we cannot return to the old pre-war practice.

WAR DAMAGE VALUE PAYMENTS.
2.41 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON LORD WOLVERTON asked his Majesty's Government, at what date they propose that the Treasury shall make regulations under Section 22 of the War Damage Act, 1943, for the purpose of making value payments under that Act. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question which stands in my name, and in doing so I can assure the Government that I raise this question in no Party spirit at all. I had intended to say a few words on the question, which I put on the Order Paper several weeks ago, but, in view of the important debate which is to take place on the Motion of the most reverend Prelate on the very urgent question of housing, I will merely say that I have informed the Government of the main points that I want to raise. I hope that in the reply some satisfaction will be given to the thousands of people who have lost their homes and who are waiting to know what they will get as this value payment. The question also relates to factories. I hope that the Government will be able to give a satisfactory reply.
2.42 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I should like to emphasize what the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, has said. This is a very important question, and I feel sure that he would have explained it more fully had it not been for the important debate which is to follow. I have in my hand a whole list of cases of definite hardship caused by war damage and the non-payment of any compensation. It is not my intention to read out all these cases to you; there is not time, and it would only weary your Lordships. They come from all over England, from all the bombed cities. I should like to refer to one only, as an example of the sort of hardship which is going on. This case comes from Liverpool, and concerns a shop and a house which were occupied by the owner and used by him for a gentlemen's hairdresser business, which provided him with the sum of about £6 a week. The house was entirely demolished by enemy action as long ago as 1940. The estimate by the owner for the value payment is about £600, while the War Damage Commission offer the princely sum of £233. But that, of course, is a different question; what we
820
are discussing to-day is the date. The applicant has lost his entire means of livelihood, with the total loss of his property. Having since suffered a stroke, he is in near destitute circumstances, and is now dependent on an old age pension. I could quote a good many more cases, but I do not want to take up your Lordships' time. I do, however, want to emphasize the fact that this delay in the payment of compensation is causing a great deal of hardship. I hope that the Government will do something to ensure that some payment is made to these individuals as soon as possible.
2.44 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords,I should like to say a few words about the magnitude of the problem. If we exclude the damage which has been done to railways and roads, and to public utilities such as clocks and electricity, gas and water undertakings, it is safe to say that about 3,500,000 properties have suffered war damage. Of that number, about 92 per cent. are dwelling-houses. In round figures, the number of dwellings in respect of which a value payment will be made is just under 200,000. Of course, gar more than 200,000 buildings have been totally destroyed; but, as your Lordships will know, statutory power has been conferred on the War Damage Commission to make, in certain cases, a payment of cost of works, notwithstanding the fact that the building has been totally destroyed. Moreover, the Treasury direction of October 25, 1943, to the War Damage Commission has further increased the power of that Commission to make payments on a cost-of-works basis in the case of certain dwelling-houses which have been erected since 1914, and also in the case of certain dwelling-houses which were erected before that year.
As we all know, a value payment is made to every person who has a proprietary interest in the building. If we assume that there are, on an average, two proprietary interests in every building which is going to be the subject-matter of a value payment, it means to say that there are about 400,000 people in this country who are expectant recipients of value payments. In a great number of cases those people have no money, they have no homes, and in fact they have

821
only hope. Personally, I have not a great deal of hope that they will receive payment in full at an early date. It may be that the Government reply will be somewhat on these lines:
"Hope springs eternal in the human breast. The soul of mall forever more is blessed. The Treasury have the money in the chest. And there for evermore the cash will rest."
2.46 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the Government are grateful to the noble Lords who have raised this matter, and they are anxious that a full and careful statement should be made on behalf of the Treasury. Noble Lords, therefore, will forgive me if I explain the general position rather carefully, although I shall keep an eye on the clock, in view of the important debate which is to follow and the other developments which have been foreshadowed. The noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, was kind enough to supply me in advance with four points that he proposed to raise. Out of deference to the con venience of the House he has not in tact raised them, but I hope he will feel that they are covered in this reply. If he doe, not feel that, I should like to assure him that I come here equipped with a full answer to the points which he had intended to raise.
Let me first of all state very briefly the legal position; secondly, indicate the general attitude of the Government towards the possibility of making value payments at an early date; and thirdly, let me give an explanation of the interim arrangements which are now in force to cope with cares of special hardship. The legal position was finally established by the War Damage Act of 1943—an Act passed, of course, during the period of the Coalition Government. Your Lordships, I am sure, will excuse me from canvassing the merits of that Act. They are not in point to-day. I am not sorry to be excused from dealing with that Act in detail, because it is quite as complicated as the Supplies and Services Bill, which we considered last week, and a very great deal longer. Broadly speaking, your Lordships will recall that payments under Part I of the Act—the Part referring to buildings—are of two kinds, cost-of-works payments and value payments. Cost-of-works payments can be defined, very broadly, as those made where it is economically worth While to incur the cost of restoring
822
a building to its pre-damage condition, and where such restoration in fact takes place. Value payments are made, or will be made, in cases where it is not judged economically worth while to effect restoration. I do not know whether your Lordships will wish me to go into the method of deciding whether a cost-of-works payment or a value payment is to be made, or into the method of assessing the amounts to be paid. Unless you desire that, I will pass over those matters for the moment. But let me just say that in fixing value payments, you will recall that the Commission awards a sum equivalent in amount, at 1939 prices, to the amount by which the value of the property after the damage is less than the value immediately before the damage. It is with these value payments and not with cost-of-works payments that the noble Lord's question is concerned.
To conclude this summary of the legal position, let me recall three of the previsions of the Act which relate to these value payments. First, interest is added at 2½ per cent. per annum from the date of the damage to the date of the payment. I should like to emphasize that point. Secondly (though this does not concern us at the moment), if, when the discharge of value payments generally, or in substantial volume, has become permissible, the War Damage Commission thinks that value payments based on 1939 prices are inadequate, they are to report to the Treasury, and the Treasury have power, if they so wish, and subject to Parliamentary approval, to increase the payments. Thirdly—and this is more relevant this afternoon—under Section 22 value payments are to be made at such time or times as may be specified in regulations made by the Treasury, either generally or as respects payments to be made in different circumstances. So much for the legal position. It gives, as your Lordships are aware, wide discretion to the Treasury, and it is the use of that discretion which to-day is under discussion.
Coming now to policy in general, we may distinguish between what may be called the physical and the financial aspects of policy. Let us take the physical aspect first. Cost-of-works payments are made as soon as the war damge has been made good, and are made to the person who has incurred the cost

823
of making it good, whoever he is. In present circumstances, however, not all the damage, even in cost-of-works cases, can yet be made good. The available supplies of building labour and materials are at present insufficient to make good the war damage to all the properties in respect of which a cost-of-works payment is due to be made—houses, offices, shops, factories, schools and so on. For the time being, therefore, an order of priority is necessary, and the repair of houses entitled to cost-of-works payments is given a substantial priority. It is obviously sensible that for the present, while there is such a shortage of houses and other essential buildings, the labour and material available for making good war damage should be reserved for the cases where the damage is not equivalent to a total loss—i.e. for cost-of-works cases. Rebuilding in value payment cases, therefore, like all other new building other than that regarded as essential, must wait for the present.
That is the physical aspect of the matter, but the financial problem is no less acute than the physical, and this is an aspect on which the Treasury desires special stress to be laid. Value payments, as your Lordships are aware, will not be conditional on their being spent on new buildings, either before or after payment. Nor are they related in any way to rebuilding costs, but only to 1939 investment value. The recipients will be free to devote them to whatever purpose they like. In theory, they should reinvest them as capital in some form, but in practice they will be free to use them, for example, to meet current expenditure. Therefore, whenever value payments begin to be made they will represent an appreciable addition to the volume of purchasing power in the hands of the public. If we could be sure that this additional purchasing power would all be saved and used to augment the pool of capital moneys available for investment in Government loans or in new industrial securities, all would be well. But there is a big risk that it would be used in competing either for existing properties available for sale, or for the limited supplies of consumption goods, thus aggravating the inflationary factors in our present economic situation.
Those inflationary factors are one of the chief concerns of the Government at the present time. They are more potent than
824
at any time during the war. We must, at all costs, ensure that the standard of living of the people, as well as the smooth and speedy conversion of our industries to much-needed peace-time production, are not prejudiced, as they assuredly would be, by any vicious spiral of rising prices and wages. The risk of inflation in our present conditions is the justification for the continuance of most of our war-time controls; it is the reason why, in his recent Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to approach with considerable caution the question of reductions in taxation, and it is the reason why he postponed the operation of his major tax reductions until next April, when it is to be hoped that more consumption goods will be available. It is also the reason why there can be no question, for the time being, of releasing the Income Tax post-war credits which have been accumulating in taxpayers' favour during the last five years. In these circumstances, we cannot take the risk of adding further to the present surplus of purchasing power by the release of value payments. At the moment, it is too early to say when the order for release can be given. We must watch how the general economic situation develops. But the House can be assured that release will be allowed as soon as it is judged to be safe in the general interest of the community.
So much for the broad attitude of the Government towards the possibility of making value payments in the immediate future. Finally, a few words about the interim position. Here, I feel, there may be a certain amount of misunderstanding or, at any rate, incomplete knowledge of the facts. The Government are far from blind to the possibilities of hardship occurring in a considerable number of cases through the inevitable postponement of value payments—dictated though that postponement be by the overriding interests of the community as a whole. There is power, under Section 22 subsection (2) of the War Damage Act, 1943, to make advance payments on account up to a maximum of £800 to claimants who were maintaining a residence or carrying on business in the damaged premises and are in need of funds in order to secure alternative accommodation. To anticipate criticism I would explain that that sum of £800 is intended primarily to enable persons in

825
that position to acquire alternative accommodation for themselves or for their businesses. Further, under a direction by the Treasury—this may be known to one or two noble Lords—immediate payments, either in whole or in part, can be made where the owner has incurred cost on works of demolition, clearance or repair or for the construction of a substitute for the damaged building. Your Lordships may rest assured that both the powers which I have mentioned are being exercised at the present time.
I am afraid that this statement may cause a certain amount of disappointment, but I feel sure that while we all sympathize with people who are placed in the position of those whose tragedy was outlined in earlier, speeches, we must agree that the interests of the community as a whole must come first. With the ever-present danger of inflation before us it is impossible as vet to begin to make these value payments.

HOUSING.
2 56 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK asked His Majesty's Government what it steps they are taking to provide the large number of houses urgently required for the health and happiness of the people; and moved for Papers. The most reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I am anxious to ask the Government sonic questions as to their housing programme, but in doing so I have no intention or desire to harass them in any kind of way. They have inherited a rich legacy of unsolved planning and housing problems. The new Minister of Health has publicly stated that he himself, from personal experience, knows the discomfort of an overcrowded home, and he is throwing himself with the greatest enthusiasm into the effort to solve this problem. This, of course, is no Party problem. Every one of us, whatever Party we may belong to, is anxious to see the largest number of houses bunt in the shortest possible time. There ere differences on certain matters. There e re differences, for example, about the best methods to be followed, but there is no difference whatever about the end which we all desire to attain.
The problem is indeed one of the greatest domestic problems that this country has ever had to face. Before the war there were something like 4,000,000
826
houses which had been in existence for over eighty years—the normal healthy life of an ordinary house. During the war, as we have heard, some 200,000 houses were destroyed and a very much larger number were badly damaged. Furthermore, houses have been rapidly deteriorating during the war, and the position to-day is that men coming home from the Front, and looking forward to having homes of their own, find it impossible to secure houses, and, consequently, have to live with others in crowded conditions. I think that the most significant fact showing how grave is the position is this: basement and insanitary houses which long ago have been condemned, and which ought to have been destroyed completely, are now crowded with people because these people have nowhere else where they can live. I am one of those who have always denounced the slums, and have always urged that they should be pulled down and destroyed. To-clay, I would not ask for the destruction of a single slum house, because I know that there is nowhere else where the people dwelling in that house could live.
The first question I wish to ask the Government is this: What is their housing target? We all welcome the statement which was made by the Minister of Health that he resolves to concentrate on houses to let for the lower-income classes. The very remarkable housing programme which was carried out between the two wars—and it was a most remarkable programme and a remarkable achievement—certainly failed in one respect. Houses were mainly built for the middle classes, and while middle-class accommodation increased by 75 per cent., working-class accommodation increased by only 3o per cent. Two-thirds of the working-class accommodation was built by the local authorities, one-third by private or speculative builders, and one-twelfth of the houses built by the private-builders—only one-twelfth—were for letting. If these are the facts it means that the Minister is right in putting in front of himself the determination to build as many houses as possible to let to those who have lower incomes. I hope it will be possible later on to build houses which the man with the small income can buy. The greatest ambition that a large number of people with small means have, is to possess

827
houses of their own. I hope the full cooperation of the private builder will also be called in, but at the moment I think the Government must concentrate on the building of houses to let to those who have the lower scale of income.
But what is the target? The last Government told us what their target was. They were aiming at building four million houses in ten or twelve years. Five hundred thousand of those houses were to be built in two years after VE-Day, but we have not yet had any statement from the Government as to the number of houses they are aiming at building. I believe that the statement of a definite target would give encouragement and would be an incentive to authorities up and down the length of the country. I hope that a considerable number of the houses which are to be built will be built for those living in rural areas. We often talk of the housing programme as if it concerned only the towns, but as a matter of fact in the country you have your slums, an insufficient number of houses and people living in overcrowded conditions. I am told that while in the towns one person out of every four lives in a house which has been built only twenty years, in the country the proportion is one in ten. Unless you have a sufficient number of houses in the country you cannot have a continuation of the revival of agriculture. Young married farm-men will not remain in the country. They will move away to the towns. Men who are demobilized and thinking of working on farms will not do so unless they can have suitable houses. We all owe it to the farmers, and the agricultural community who have done so magnificently in this war in producing food, to see that they are properly housed.
I hope the Government will be able to tell us what it proposes to do in the way of rural housing. Three hundred thousand houses is a target which has been mentioned. It will not be possible to build all these houses at once. It will be necessary to recondition a number of existing houses, and I am bound to say that I felt considerable anxiety when we were told that the Government was not going to proceed with the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. That Act did a great deal of good. I know something about it. I was Chairman of a Committee appointed
828
by the Ministry of Health some years ago to consider whether that Act should be renewed. From different parts of the country we hear how it is working. It has not been used anything like sufficiently in England. Scotland, always knowing a good bargain, has been much wiser. But it has been used up and down the country. A number of houses have been reconditioned and used by those working on the land. I hope the Government have not reached a definite negative decision on this matter, for by the renewal of this Act they will not only provide the houses for those working on the land, but they will also give employment. I am told by local builders that this is the position. A number of their men in the Forces have just come back. They do not wish to come to London or to great towns to work on the repairing of houses. There is no new building in the country, or at any rate only on a very small scale, and the local builders can only use these men, if they are allowed to use them, on reconditioning and repair work. I very much hope that the Government will take this into consideration and renew the Act either in its present form or in some improved form.
My next question is: What kind of houses are there to be and in what kind of state are they to be erected? The Minister of Health said that he proposed in the future that we should avoid the segregation of classes. That was one of the mistakes of our programme in the past. You had one district in which there were wage earners, another district in which there were clerks, and another district in which there were people a grade above them, and they lived entirely separate lives. There was a monotony in that existence and often the dullness of those places was reflected in the dull ness of the architecture. I think the Minister was right when he spoke of these as being unbalanced communities or twilight villages. I hope we shall not build dormitories, but places with community lives of their own, in which there are found representatives of different classes all making their own special contribution to the life of the whole community, just as you find happening in the ordinary healthy village to-day. Every class feels that it has some responsibility towards the village.
I was a little anxious about one statement made by the Minister the other day

829
in which he said that he was going to try to persuade some of the local authorities or some of the great cities to make the experiment of erecting high buildings with the rural country round them. He said that just as the spire of a church might add to the beauty of a landscape, so there was nothing inconsistent in a high building conforming with the beauty and attractiveness of the landscape I myself doubt whether the most Cubist of architects could build a high building rather like a church spire which was both ecnomical and attractive. The one justification for great tenement buildings, and many of us dislike them intensely, is that they enable people to live near their work. They are built in places where land is very costly and where there is insufficient land. That is their one justification; but when you move these buildings into the country I can see no justification for their erection there at all I have seen some of these buildings in Italy and elsewhere, as no doubt your Lordships have. They rapidly deteriorate into slums. Far better build attractive small villages or cities outside rather than these great high tenement buildings. I hope very much that the Minister of Health was throwing out an interesting suggestion for stimulating discussion rather than stating what was intended to lot a matter of policy.
If a large programme of housing is to be carried out there are three conditions which are necessary for its working. There must be sufficient labour, them e must be sufficient material at a reasonable cost, and there must be machinery which works easily and smoothly. There must be sufficient labour. That is essential. that is the bottleneck of the whole matter. None of the most eloquent speeches, or the most attractive, programmes on housing will effect anything unless there is sufficient labour to carry out these building schemes. Before the war, there were 1,000,000 men in the building trade. During the war, that number went down to 337,000. The Government proposed to bring that number up to 800,000 within twelve months of Germany's defeat. What is happening at the present time? That is what I felt was the most disappointing feature in the very remarkable speech mode by the Minister in another place the other day. He did not tell us how many it was expected to demobilize from the Forces for
830
this purpose in the next few months. I know there are great difficulties, and that the demobilization of men out of their turn may cause intense bitterness. But let the men in the Forces be told the difficulty and then, I think, if they find there is some change in the order of demobilization, they will understand and appreciate it, if they realize it is for the building of the homes they hope to occupy.
Next, there is the anxiety over materials required for the building of these houses at a reasonable cost. The White Paper which was recently issued, shows that for temporary buildings the cost has gone up by £268. But it is not only the temporary buildings; for permanent buildings the price has gone up by 120 per cent. since 1938. The cost of a house in 1938, £550, has now gone up to £1,200. In an answer given in another place a few days ago, we were told that the cost of building materials had gone up from £274 to £472, and the largest increase was in connexion with timber. The noble Viscount who leads this House knows how serious this was immediately after the last war, when the cost of a three-roomed non-parlour house was £930, and which, in ten years, had gone down to £350. Why are these prices going up? People write and tell me there is a ramp. I am always uncertain what is meant by that phrase. I looked up the word "ramp" in a dictionary, and the first definition it gave was: "Standing on hind legs with forepaws in the air." It is rather a vivid description of people trying to grab something to which they are not necessarily entitled. What I would say is that—I realize I must stop at the end of this sentence; I have little more to say—if there is a ramp, if any class of the community, whether it is the capitalist class, the landlord class, or a trade union which is trying to make excessive profits out of the national emergency, that is a most unpatriotic action, and I trust the Government will use all the power they have to stop such reprehensible processes. I think your Lordships would wish me to finish now. I can do so in three minutes.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There are still five minutes.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My last point is that, for the carrying out of a large housing programme, you will

831
need not only labour, not only materials at a reasonable cost, but also a smooth and swift working machinery. I have asked local authorities what they find the greatest hindrance in the way of getting on with their schemes, and I almost invariably get the same answer: they say they find it almost impossible to work quickly when they have to work with so many different Ministries. One local authority tells me they had to deal with six Ministries. They got through five of them, and were held up by the sixth. Another told me they got through the six Ministries, and had their scheme approved, and then, unexpectedly, the Ministry of Education stepped in with a claim to some of the land. Swift working is impossible with this machinery when matters have to be referred always to the Ministries of Health, Works, Town and Country Planning, Supply, Labour and Agriculture and, occasionally, Education, and I think there is another Ministry the name of which I have forgotten.
How can you carry on business quickly when you have to deal with all these different Ministries? It is a kind of obstacle race. The local authorities, understaffed at the present time, are baffled by this endless correspondence with endless Ministries, receiving, sometimes, replies which need further correspondence, and then, after months and months and months, they find they have to start again. I believe the Minister himself feels this difficulty, and is anxious to find some remedy. For Heaven's sake let us get rid of some of this red tape, so that we may be able to get on quickly with this problem. I hope you will not feel I have been over-critical. I have attempted to condense my remarks within the time for the general convenience of the House. I feel terribly anxious about this whole problem, and the whole position of housing. We cannot build up home life in this country unless there are houses in which the people can live. The happiness and contentment of the country during the next two years largely depend on the success of this housing programme. I can assure the Minister that if he adopts a wide and clear-sighted policy, and carries it through with vigour and determination, he will receive the support of the whole country. I beg to move for Papers.

THE JEWISH PROBLEM.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I would thank the most reverend Prelate for stopping his speech just now, although I am sure everyone of us would have been glad to hear him at greater length. Nobody, more than he, has this question more sincerely at heart. By your Lordships' permission, the proceedings are being interrupted for a short time, for a statement to be made by me in this House, which is also being made in another place at the same time, and, I believe in Washington, in a corresponding place:
"His Majesty's Government have been giving serious and continuous attention to the whole problem of the Jewish community that has arisen as a result of Nazi persecution in Germany, and the conditions arising there-from.
"It is unfortunately true that until conditions in Europe become stable, the future of a large number of persons of many races, who have suffered under this persecution, cannot finally be determined. The plight of the victims of Nazi persecution, among whom were a large number of Jews, is unprecedented in the history of the world. His Majesty's Government are taking every step open to them to try to improve the lot of these unfortunate people. The Jewish problem is a great human one. We cannot accept the view that the Jews should be driven out of Europe and should not be permitted to live again in these countries without discrimination and contribute their ability and talent towards rebuilding the prosperity of Europe. Even after we have done all we can in this respect, it does not provide a solution of the whole problem.
"There have recently been demands made upon us for large-scale immigration into Palestine. Palestine, while it may be able to make a contribution, does not, by itself, provide sufficient opportunity for grappling with the whole problem. His Majesty's Government are anxious to explore every possibility which will result in giving the Jews a proper opportunity for revival.
"The problem of Palestine is itself a very difficult one. The Mandate for

833
Palestine requires the Mandatory to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced thereby His Majesty's Government have thus a dual obligation, to the Jews on the one side and to the Arabs on the other.
"The lack of any clear definition o: this dual obligation has been the main cause of the trouble which has beer experienced in Palestine during the past twenty-six years. His Majesty's Government have made every effort to devise some arrangement which would enable Arabs and Jews to live together in peace and to co-operate fen the welfare of the country, but all such efforts have been unavailing. Any arrangement acceptable to one party has been rejected as unacceptable to the other. The whole history of Palestine since the Mandate was granted has been one of continued friction between the two races, culminating at intervals in serious disturbances.
"The fact has to be faced that since the introduction of the Mandate it has been impossible to find common ground between the Arabs and the Jews. The differences in religion and in language, in cultural and social life, in ways of thought and conduct, are difficult to reconcile. On the other hand, both communities lay claim to Palestine, one on the ground of a millenium of occupation and the other on the ground of historic association coupled with the undertaking given in the first World War to establish a Jewish home. The task that has to be accomplished now is to find means to reconcile these divergencies.
"The repercussions of the conflict have spread far beyond the small land in which it has arisen. The Zionist cause has strong supporters in the United States, in Great Britain, in the Dominions and elsewhere; civilization has been appalled by the sufferings which have been inflicted in recent years on the persecuted Jews of Europe. On the other side of the picture, the cause of the Palestinian Arabs has been espoused by the whole Arab world and more lately has become a matter of keen interest to their 90,000,000 co-religionists in India. In
834
Palestine itself, there is always serious risk of disturbances on the part of one community or the other, and such disturbances are bound to find their reflection in a much wider field. Considerations not only of equity and of humanity but also of international amity and world peace are thus involved in any search for a solution.
"In dealing with Palestine, all parties have entered into commitments. There are the commitments imposed by the Mandate itself, and in addition the various statements of policy which have been made by His Majesty's Government in the course of the last twenty-five years. Further, the United States Government themselves have undertaken that no decision should be taken in respect to what, in their opinion, affects the basic situation in Palestine without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews.
"Having regard to the whole situation and the fact that it has caused this world-wide interest which affects both Arabs and Jews, His Majesty's Government decided to invite the Government of the United States to co-operate with them in setting up a Joint Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, under a rotating chairmanship, to examine the question of European Jewry and to make a further review of the Palestine problem in the light of that examination. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Government of the United States have accepted this invitation.
The terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry will be as follows:—

"(1) To examine political, economic and social conditions in Palestine as they bear upon the problem of Jewish immigration and settlement therein and the wellbeing of the peoples now living therein.

"(2) To examine the position of the Jews in those countries in Europe where they have been victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution, and the practical measures taken or contemplated to be taken in those countries to enable them to live free from discrimination and oppression and to make estimates of those who wish or will be impelled by their conditions to migrate to Palestine or other countries outside Europe.

835

"(3) To hear the view of competent witnesses and to consult representative Arabs and Jews on the problems of Palestine as such problems are affected by conditions subject to examination under paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) above, and by other relevant facts and circumstances, and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States for ad interim handling of those problems as well as for their permanent solution.

"(4) To make such other recommendations to His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States as may be necessary to meet the immediate needs arising from conditions subject to examination under paragraph (2) above, by remedial action in the European countries in question or by the provision of facilities for emigration to and settlement in countries outside Europe.

"The procedure of the Committee will be determined by the Committee themselves, and it will be open to them, if they think fit, to deal simultaneously through the medium of sub-committees with their various terms of reference. The Committee will be invited to deal with the math s referred to in their terms of reference with the utmost expedition. In complying with the second and fourth paragraphs of their terms of reference, the Committee will presumably take such steps as they consider necessary in order to inform themselves of the character and magnitude of the problem created by the war. They will also give consideration to the problem of settlement in Europe and to possible countries of disposal. In the light of their investigations they will make recommendations to the two Governments for dealing with the problem in the interim until such time as a permanent solution can be submitted to the appropriate organ of the United Nations.
"The recommendations of a Committee of Inquiry such as will now be set up, will also be of immense help in arriving at a solution of the Palestine problem. The Committee will, in accordance with the first and third
836
paragraphs of their terms of reference, make an examination on the spot of the political, economic and social conditions which are at present held to restrict immigration into Palestine, and, after consulting representative Arabs and Jews, submit proposals for dealing with these problems. It will be necessary for His Majesty's Government both to take action with a view to securing some satisfactory interim arrangement and also to devise a policy for permanent application thereafter.
"This inquiry will facilitate the finding of a solution which will in turn facilitate the arrangements for placing Palestine under trusteeship.
"So far as Palestine is concerned it will be clear that His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of their duties and responsibilities under the Mandate while the Mandate continues. They propose, in accordance with their pledges, to deal with the question in three stages:

"(i) They will consult with the Arabs with a view to an arrangement which will ensure that, pending the receipt of the ad interim recommendations which the Committee of Inquiry will make in the matter, there is no interruption of Jewish immigration at the present monthly rate.

"(ii) After considering the ad interim recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry, they will explore, with the parties concerned, the possibility of devising other temporary arrangements for dealing with the Palestine problem until a permanent solution of it can be reached.

"(iii) They will prepare a permanent solution for submission to the United Nations and, if possible, an agreed one.

"The House will realize that we have inherited, in Palestine, a most difficult legacy and our task is greatly complicated by undertakings, given at various times to various parties, which we feel ourselves bound to honour. Any violent departure without adequate consultation would not only afford ground for a charge of breach of faith against His Majesty's Government but would probably cause serious reactions throughout the Middle East, and would arouse widespread anxiety in India.
"His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the course which they propose to pursue in the immediate future is not only that which is in accordance with their obligations but: is also that which, in the long view, is it the best interests of both parties. It will in no way prejudice either the action to be taken on the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry or the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement, which will supersede the existing Mandate and will therefore control ultimate policy in regard to Palestine.
"His Majesty's Government in making this new approach wish to make it clear that the Palestine problem is not one which can be settled by force and that any attempt to do so by any party will be resolutely dealt with. It must be settled by discussion and conciliation and there can be no question of allowing an issue to be forced by violent conflict.
"We have confidence that if this problem is approached in the right spirit by Arabs and Jews not only will a solution be found to the Palestine question, just to both parties, but a great contribution will be made to stability and peace in the Middle East.
"Finally, the initiative taken by His Majesty's Government and the agreement of the United States Government to co-operate in dealing with the whole problem created by Nazi aggression, is a significant sign of their determination to deal with the problem in a constructive way and a humanitarian spirit. But I must emphasize that the problem is not one which can be dealt with only in relation to Palestine; it will need a united effort by the Powers to relieve the miseries of these suffering peoples."
I would add in conclusion that through-. out there has been the closest consultation between my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for the Colonies in this matter, which concerns the latter, since the mandatory status of Palestine brings that territory within the responsibility of the Colonial Office, but which is also of deep concern to the former, since the problem is clearly an international problem. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the problem shall continue to be handled in close collaboration
838
between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office in order that the particular question of Palestine and the wider international issues which are involved may be harmonized and treated as a whole as a great human problem.
3.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Leader of the House for the very important statement he has just made. I do not propose to say anything about it this afternoon, for, like, I suppose, many other of your Lordships, I would prefer to consider it with the care it deserves before I venture on any comment. We shall, of course, have to consider whether it would be desirable to put down a Motion for discussion on this subject. I am quite certain that the whole House will clearly be anxious to do nothing to prejudice a situation which is fraught with danger, especially in view of the remarkable new development which has just been announced.
3.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to join with the noble Viscount who has just spoken in expressing my appreciation of the statement we have just heard, and, like him, to reserve for a later occasion any observations on the substance of this statement. At the same time, as one who has had a very close connexion with Palestine for a number of years, perhaps I might be permitted to say, on my own behalf, and without any opportunity of consulting with my noble friends on these Benches or any others, that it appears to me to be a very wise handling of the immediate situation. In particular, I rejoice that the Government have not followed the plausible but illusory scheme of partition which has been urged upon them in many quarters. Further, I welcome the declaration that they will not allow themselves to be influenced in any degree by the threat or by the actuality of violence, no matter from what quarter it comes, but that any form of violence will be immediately and resolutely suppressed.
The essence of the statement is the participation of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in a joint endeavour to find a solution to this very difficult problem, relating both

839
to persecuted Jewry in Europe and to the question of Palestine. That, I feel sure, your Lordships will most warmly welcome. It is a great advantage that the United States should take a close and direct interest in this matter, for the question of Palestine is not solely a question for this country. Although Great Britain has important strategic interests in that part of the Middle East, nevertheless there is no reason why the burden of the responsibility for a solution of the Palestine question should rest on this country alone. It is of great utility, and it should be cordially welcomed by all of us, that the President of the United States has expressed his willingness to join in this effort. Furthermore, it is contemplated that at a later stage any suggestions which are made and adopted should be submitted to the United Nations Organization. With them unquestionably the final solution of this problem must rest.
3.38 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if he could elucidate one part of his statement, where he spoke about consultation with the Arabs in order that the present monthly rate of immigration should continue? He did not say what the monthly rate was. If it is convenient, could he inform the House?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, with regard to the question just asked by my noble friend, the monthly rate of immigration at present is not to exceed 1,500 per month. With regard to the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, and the noble Viscount below the gangway, I am sure the Government will be only too happy to facilitate a discussion when, by mutual consultation, it is deemed desirable.

DISTRESSED PERSONS FROM EUROPE.
3.39 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, the statement I have been asked to make relates to the admission of distressed persons into this country. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government that our contribution towards the alleviation of distress in Europe shall be the maximum which the resources of this country permit. With this object,
840
the Government have considered which of the classes of distressed persons among the countless cases calling for sympathy have special claims to join relatives in the United Kingdom and to receive protection and help. They have authorized a scheme of admission to this country for the purpose of enabling husbands, wives, and dependent children to be reunited, of enabling young people who have no one to give them a guardian's care to receive such care from relatives, whether near or distant relatives, in this country, and of enabling elderly people who are in special need of filial care to find shelter in the homes of children or grandchildren in the United Kingdom.
In pursuance of this scheme, instructions will be sent to passport control officers that when a person in distressed circumstances on the Continent has an offer from a relative in the United Kingdom of maintenance and accommodation in his home, a visa may be granted, subject to considerations of public health and character, if the applicant falls into one of the following six categories:

(1) The wife of a man who is in the United Kingdom, and any of his children under twenty-one. If the result of bringing the wife and any children under twenty-one to the United Kingdom would be to leave alone and in distressed circumstances one daughter over twenty-one who is unmarried or widowed and without children, she also may be allowed to come.

(2) The husband of a woman who is in the United Kingdom if he is incapacitated, infirm or too old to support his wife abroad.

(3) Females under twenty-one with their children, if any, and males under eighteen who have no relatives to look after them abroad, but have a relative in the United Kingdom able and willing to take them into his household.

(4) The mother or grandmother of a person in the United Kingdom, if she is widowed and in need of filial care.

(5) The father or grandfather of a person in the United Kingdom, if widowed and in need of special care owing to age or infirmity.

(6) Where both man and wife are living together abroad, such couples may be admitted if, because of age or infirmity

841
or other special circumstances, they are unable to look after and support One another and are offered hospitality by a child or grandchild in this country.
All admissions to the United Kingdom under this scheme will be subject to time limits which will be reviewed periodically in the light of circumstances obtaining future dates. It will be right that many of the younger people shall engage in occupations in which there is a special nerd of workers, such, for example, as agricultural work, and it will be a condition that persons admitted under the scheme shall take Such employment only' as is approved by the Minister of Labour
Persons in this country wishing to invite a relative who falls into one of these categories should write, not to the Home Office but to the relative on the Continent, a letter showing that maintenance and accommodation are available, and should advise the recipient to show the letter to the passport control officer at the British Embassy in the country in which the relative is at present. As regards Germany and Austria, where there is no British Embassy, special arrangements for dealing with applications from persons in those countries will be worked out as soon as possible. If some people may be disappointed that the scheme does not cover their relatives or friends, it must be realized that no scheme of this kind is workable unless it operates within clearly-defined limits, and a flood of letters to the Home Office about persons who do not fall within the prescribed categories will merely impede the official machine.
It is not possible to give a numerical estimate of the persons likely to be admitted under this scheme, and its operation will be carefully watched. The difficulties are obvious which would be caused by large-scale additions to our foreign population at the- present time, when there is a shortage of housing and of supplies of many kinds, and when we are struggling to repair the losses and dislocations of a five-year war in which we have sacrificed our resources without stint; but it will, I think, be the general desire of the British people that, despite these difficulties and within the limits imposed by them, the utmost should be done to maintain this country's historic tradition of affording asylum to the distressed. It is to be hoped that other
842
countries will share the task with this straitened island and will, in proportion to their resources, give opportunities of refuge in their territories to many of these victims of oppression.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I do not wish to take up the time of the House, and so I shall merely say that I hope the remarks I have already made with regard to the statement by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, will be applied also to the further statement which the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has just made.

HOUSING.
Debate resumed.
3.45 p.m.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I rise in order to support the Motion moved by the most reverend Prelate. Like him, I rise in no spirit of opposition to His Majesty's Government or of discouragement, because, indeed, they are faced with a problem of the greatest difficulty; but I rise in order to elicit, if I may, a little more information from the Government than we have already had, information on which it will be possible for this House and for the country to form some judgment. Housing was put well in the forefront by all the Parties concerned in the last Election. The Government of which I was a member were extremely cautious in the views which they put forward, but they were definite. We did tell the country that during the first two years after the end of the European war, assuming, as we did at that time, that the Japanese war would go on for another twelve months, with the restrictions on labour that the continuance of such a war would have involved, we undertook to finish building 220,000 houses and to have 80,000 in process of building. I share with the present Minister -the dislike of temporary housing, but, much as we disliked it, we came to the conclusion that that was the only possible solution that we could urgently apply, and we said that we would provide 200,000 of those houses. That was a clear and definite programme.
In another place the Lord Privy Seal said that that programme was "just chicken-feed." He said that at a time when he recognized quite well that we had very little labour, as the most reverend

843
Prelate has pointed out, on which to base our plans. We thought that it was the best estimate that we could make. The question which I think the Government may expect us on this side of the House to put to them is, what are they going to produce? A good deal has been said about whether the land will be available. Let me remind your Lordships that land was owned by local authorities before this Government came into power sufficient for 276,000 houses. In June of last year my right honourable friend Mr. Willink obtained from local authorities a statement that they had sites for 102,089 houses ready at that time for the beginning of building operations. That was the position when this Government took over; and the purpose of my rising to-day is to ask them whether they will tell us what the position is now, because time is marching on. The best months of this year for building have already gone, and any delay which we have had during the last three months has indeed been delay the effect of which will extend over many months.
I propose to confine most of my remarks to questions. The most reverend Prelate pointed out that we decided that with the war in Japan going on we could get together a building force by the end of the first year after VE day of 800,000 men. We were careful to point out that that would mean an average over the year of only 500,000. The question which I should like to put to the noble Viscount who is to reply, is whether he will tell us how many men have been demobilized for the building trade, and how many men they expect will be demobilized during the immediate months to come.
In a speech which Lord Nathan made to your Lordships, I think in the last housing debate—I am very sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place; I am afraid that I did not do him the courtesy of letting him know that I was going to mention him to-day, and for that I apologize—he made a very strong appeal that the Government of the day should make a scientific approach to this problem of housing, that they should ascertain how many man-hours were going to be taken by each sort of house that was going to be erected. I want to remind His Majesty's Government that, if they look in their files, they will find that Lord Portal built at Northolt a series of houses,
844
in respect of which he obtained precise information as to the number of man-hours that would be taken for each type. He also had costings made of those houses, and the cost was approximately £900 each.
Let me make this point: that £900 was the cost of a house erected by a carefully selected body of building operatives, perfectly balanced so that there would be no case of any waiting by any of the operatives for the next job. I mention this because I want to ask His Majesty's Government whether in the demobilizing of building labour now they are seeking to get some balance between the various kinds of building operatives who are being released under the scheme B; whether there is some opportunity for selection. I think that I am not being in any way cantankerous if I say that the rate of demobilization at the present time is slow enough to justify us in saying that in view of the slowness of that process His Majesty's Government may be able to have the time requisite to get some selection. Then I want to ask about all these men in the Forces of whom we have heard, restless, discontented and bored as they are, waiting for demobilization. This waiting is a demoralizing process; is it not possible to bring some of those men to this country and also to find engineering or labour units that are prepared to help, with the consent of the trade unions, in the process of preparing sites for building new houses and the erection of temporary houses and, even, in the general building work?
I would further like to put this question to His Majesty's Government, that Government which was largely returned to power as a result of the trade union vote. Have they got the trade unions behind them on this housing question? Have trade unions agreed—and I hope they have—to waive those restrictive practices which they instituted? On that matter let me say this: I think the unions were right to institute the practices at the time because they were faced with great unemployment problems. It was their protection against unemployment and they have all my sympathy in having done what they did then. But there is no danger of unemployment in the building trade now—unless His Majesty's Government are so slow in getting out the plans that unemployment flows from that. There is no danger of unemploy-

845
ment for many years to come. I ask His Majesty's Government have they got the good will of the trade unions to haster on the process of housing? I beg them not to be too careful as to the rates of wages they pay. It is not rates of wages that matter for economical production, ii is output. Anything the Government can do to get increased output will not only be of great service to the people who are waiting for houses, but it will, in fact, result in economical production. Have His Majesty's Government got the support of the trade union movement? Have they any undertaking, or have they made any arrangements, with a view to increasing output per man per hour?
The noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for War, in the speech to which I have already referred, spoke with feeling and with great sympathy for the returning soldiers—those men who are coming back and who will be looking for houses when they come. It has been a matter of great credit to the British Army that, in this war, it has been an all-class Army. The returning soldiers do not belong merely to what are called the lower wage-earning classes. They belong to every class in the community. Most sections of the community are suffering from the housing shortage, except in the case of a very few people indeed who are suffering by reason of the fact that they have very large houses which they cannot possibly afford to keep up under the present rate of taxation. Some of those people who are looking for houses want to be municipal tenants. Most of them want houses to rent, and they will pay their rent with equal reluctance or avidity whether they are paying it to a municipality or to a private landlord—that person to whom the most reverend Prelate referred as a "speculative owner." I hope the most reverend Prelate did not use the term "speculative" as one of opprobrium, but merely as a matter of fact.
Some of those men want houses to buy, and I suggest that there is no reason why even the most paternal Government or the most paternal Minister should discourage people from buying houses. I thought I noticed that the other day the Minister of Health said something about gravestones round peoples' necks. Perhaps he meant millstones, but it comes to the same thing, they weigh about the same, He referred to the sort of people
846
who might be going to building societies to buy houses. Well, that is not the business of the Government. If people want to buy houses at high prices, I suggest that the Government already have so much to do that they need not bother about that issue. They can leave the public to spend what little money is left for them to spend when the Government have finished with them in the ways they choose. Do not let us discourage people from owning houses. I lived, for a very short time of my life, I am glad to say, in one of the industrial towns of Lancashire. It was a matter of enormous pride to all those weavers and spinners in that town that they owned their own houses. They felt better for it, and I rather like an England in which each man can own his own house and in which he should be encouraged to own his own house. Therefore, I beg His Majesty's Government in their zeal for protecting the people of this country, not to dissuade them from this, because it seems to me to be a very proper desire.
We hear so much about the lower wage-earning classes for whom we are to build houses. I suppose that that means the clerks, the black-coated people and the teachers. It certainly does not mean the old industrial classes, because they are now getting a great deal more. They have ceased to be—and I am glad that they have—a lower wage-earning class. Do we need to attack this problem of houses with that sort of class-consciousness? It seems to me improper for a Government to do that. His Majesty's Government are not the Government of a particular class. They are the Government of the whole of the people in this country, and I appeal to them to approach this housing problem from that point of view. Why do not they bring in everybody who can help to solve the problem? There has been a tendency in the speeches which have been made in another place to say that they will bring in the local authorities to build houses and that it must be a local authority job. My Lords, they are the least experienced in the country. House building in the past has not been primarily the business of the local authority, and, as the most reverend Prelate said, there are thousands of builders in this country, small builders, who are perfectly capable of building good houses, some of them in small towns and in rural areas. They are anxious to build

847
houses, and I beg His Majesty's Government to allow them to do so. Let them get on with the problem by using all sorts of people who can build. The problem is big enough, surely, for them to embrace all who are available.
I want to ask His Majesty's Government what they are going to do on the question of subsidies. What subsidy are they going to pay to municipalities? I hope I may have the attention of the Leader of the House who is going to reply because this is surely a very urgent matter. What subsidy is His Majesty's Government going to give to the municipalities? And I also want to ask this question: Is it equitable that in dispensing the money of the State they should say, "We will only give a subsidy "which comes, of course, to mean a reduction in rent—" if you are a person who is a tenant of a building which is owned by a municipality "? Whose money is it that they are spending? It is the money of the whole community, and I claim that a person who is renting a house built by a builder or by a corporation acting as a private body or by speculative builders, is just as much entitled to a subsidy from Government funds as any municipality. I will go further, and say that the man who says, "I want to build a house of prescribed dimensions, not a mansion, which I will occupy myself and for which I will pay rent," has a right to the subsidy too, always providing that he cannot use that subsidy for a commercial transaction and that he cannot subsequently, having got the subsidy, sell the house at a higher price. In the last Government, we were considering—and I think it was a wise scheme—saying that such a person should have a subsidy on condition that the house remained in his own possession. If subsequently he desired to sell it, he could sell it to the local authority at such a depreciated value figure as was warranted by the number of years it had been built.
If I may summarize what I have said, I will say this. My appeal to the Government is not to confine their subsidies only to those for municipalities, but to let the subsidy go to people who are prepared to build houses for rent and to keep them over a prescribed period for rental, and even to let the small man build his own house. I want to ask
848
another question. I want to ask His Majesty's Government what they are doing to ensure that there will be adequate supplies of building materials at reasonable prices. We can understand that building materials must be flowing in an irregular manner because so many of the people making building materials before the war have had their factories taken over for other purposes. I think I heard one of the noble Lords opposite say, "What would you do?" I will tell you, with great pleasure. The course I venture to recommend to the Government is that they should place orders in large quantities in order to get the most economical and regular production of these building materials, and that they should underwrite the possible loss to the firms. They need not take possession. The trade will take these things over because they will be in demand provided always that they are made to specified standards. By that means we can get cheap production and avoid the possibility of a ramp. I recognize, however much I may object to some forms of control, that price controls in the building industry will prevent these goods made in bulk production from reaching excessive prices. I believe that the amount that the Government will stand at risk in underwriting with the manufacturers, the possible loss from the sale of these goods, will be remarkably small. The ordinary trade channels can be maintained on that system.
Now I want to ask the Government what rate of interest they propose to make possible for housing loans. One of the most distinguished members of His Majesty's Government during the course of the Election thought that it would be an appropriate thing to have a housing loan of 2 per cent. for this country. I should like to know at what rate they propose to supply funds to local authorities, or at which funds will be supplied by local authorities. I feel shocked at these stories to which the most reverend Prelate referred, about the very high prices of tenders. The Leader of the House has every reason to know how easy it is, in a period of shortage, for houses or anything else to get completely out of value; but surely this is where the Government can take action. All of us who have had any experience during the war of buying on scarcity markets know that we have not gone to the markets and

849
said: "Would you gentlemen like to has become taciturn and cautious since he tender? The demand is many times more than the possible supply; will you tender?" That is not a businesslike way of dealing with the problem. I invite His Majesty's Government, with the specifications they already have, to come to a conclusion as to the proper price far a house. I invite them to take the responsibility of securing, through demobilization, that builders shall have balanced labour. Then, having determined the proper price of a house in t city, in a smaller town, and in a rural area, to say: "That is the price at which His Majesty's Government are prepared to allow tenders to be accepted." Let them put down the price; their costings system is quite good enough to enable them to do it. Everyone will then know where he is and I believe, with the proper control of labour, they will be able to get houses built at that price. I appeal to them, in addressing the building trade, to bring everybody in, and to have prices for the building of small numbers c f houses, say, four houses, for the building of fifty houses, and for the building of 200 or 300 houses. I think that" is a practical proposition, one to which the building trade would be prepared to respond, and which would settle, once and for all, the question as to whether there is going to be profiteering in build-Profiteering will find no support on this side of the House.
During the last fortnight, I have travelled many hundreds of miles in this country. As I looked out of the railway train, I tried to see where the house s were that were going up. I was going to say I did not see any, but that is not true. I did, with great excitement, see one small building estate going up—it was in a military barracks. During the course of those travels, I saw a large number of people, men who have been working in dispersed factories and who want to come back to their home towns. I talked to railway porters, to men working on the railway, to clerks, and to shop assistants, and all of them said the same thing. The one urgent question in all their minds is: What are the Government going to do about building? I have come here, in support of the Motion put down by the most reverend Prelate, to ask the same question.
Something strange happens to people hen they get into office. Mr. Bevan
850
has become taciturn and cautious since he came into office. He is making no promises now.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Very sensible.
LORD WOOLTON: The Election is over. But the country is very disturbed, and I do not want the country to be disturbed about His Majesty's Government. So many urgent problems are facing the country at the present time that this is not a time for Party politics and the making of political speeches. I hope I have not made a partisan speech to-day, but I do beg His Majesty's Government to take the country into their confidence. We should never have got through with the food scarcity if the country had not known just what was happening so that the people felt that they, too, appreciated the position. I hope the Leader of the House will forgive me for using that illustration, but he, himself, has been good enough to use it in the past. I beg the Government to tell us what they are going to do, because there is no sense in having secrecy about this programme. I ask them to tell us what the targets are, and how they are getting on with the targets; what accomplishments they achieve. In conclusion, I beg His Majesty's Government not to make this a sort of class problem, not to be too concerned with their Socialist principles, but to bring everybody in, all sorts of builders, and to build houses for all sorts of people. I am grateful to the most reverend Prelate for having brought the Motion to your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Before my noble friend Lord Listowel speaks, it has been suggested to me by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that it may be convenient to the House if, at an appropriate time to-day, this debate should be adjourned and continued to-morrow after the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the questions on the Paper. We could then continue this debate, which will be adjourned from to-day.
4.17 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I should like, first, on behalf of the Government, to welcome the opportunity provided by the most reverend Prelate to render an account of our stewardship of housing to your Lordships' House. In the beginning, I wish, if I may, to express my personal

851
thanks to the most reverend Prelate for the notice he gave me, in advance, of the main points he intended to raise this afternoon. For many years he has been the principal protagonist of housing reform on the Episcopal Benches, and some of your Lordships will remember, quite vividly, his frequent interventions in housing debates in the years before the war. In those days, the most reverend Prelate and I were allies in the cause of housing, and I hope that alliance may continue, in spite of my change of location in the House and his in the hierarchy of the Church.
I am afraid I can only give the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, an interim reply. Unfortunately, I did not have advance notice of the questions he intended to raise, but I have already noted them, and referred them to the appropriate Departments. I have also asked my noble friend the Leader of the House to deal with them when this debate is resumed to-morrow, if he speaks, and he has consented to do so. There is, however, one question that I am in a position to answer immediately. I hope the noble Lord will be gratified to know that the Government have taken his advice in the matter of placing orders for building materials. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health said in another place last month, that:
"We have decided to keep in being the Ministry of Supply, and the Ministry of Supply will be used by me to supply housing materials and components. We shall be placing orders through the Ministry of Supply, and the Royal Ordnance Factories which we are retaining will be used, if necessary, to supplement the output of private industry."
The most reverend Prelate has asked, among other questions, whether we have a national housing target. If he means us to say how many temporary and permanent houses we expect to finish by a definite date, our answer must be "No." The fulfilment of a building programme, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, depends on an immense variety of factors, human and material, from the local housing authority to the bricklayer and manufacturer, and each of these is a potential bottle-neck. So many uncertain and incalculable quantities render prediction quite impossible. With the best will and intentions in the world, recent Ministers of Health have already come to
852
grief over their estimates for the output of temporary houses. We mean to profit from their misfortunes, and to give no firm undertakings about the future until we are certain they can be carried out to the letter. We ask to be judged by deeds, not by words. This was also the criterion chosen by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when he was responsible for the feeding of the nation and, later, for laying the foundations of our post-war reconstruction scheme on which we are now building. The noble Lord rarely gave a promise; he never broke a promise. People trusted him because they were not disappointed at any time during the war years by false hopes, and they soon realized that he was not asking, as others have done, for popularity on the cheap. May I say, in parenthesis, how glad we are to observe the noble Lord's sustained interest in these social problems which he was handling with so much skill as a distinguished member of the late Caretaker and Coalition Governments?
It is surely sound principle, if we want to preserve the standards of our public life, that no Party or Government should promise more than it can with dead certainty perform. The battleground of politics, as I think your Lordships will agree, is littered with unfulfilled election pledges, and one glittering promise has a curious way of begetting another that outshines it. My right honourable friend, the Minister of Health, is offering, in place of this uncertain future target, a series of detailed progress reports, forming a continuous record of actual building achievement, rendered to Parliament at regular intervals. This will be supplemented, as soon as the local authorities are in a position to get on with the job, by the varying building targets we shall ask them to reach in their respective areas. Many of your Lordships will have attended Thanksgiving for Victory Savings Weeks in different parts of the country, and noble Lords will have noticed how it becomes a matter of civic pride to attain the savings target for the week, and of civil rejoicing when that target is outstripped. There is also a healthy desire to beat the figure set for other towns of a similar size and population. We hope local housing targets will appeal in the same way to local patriotism and arouse a keen spirit of emulation among different public authorities.
LORD WOOLTON: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. I think he is helping us very much. Does he propose then to set local housing targets throughout the country?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Precisely, my Lords. The noble Lord has understood exactly what I have intended to convey.
LORD WOOLTON: So we can aggregate them and get the national one?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: When the time comes the local target will be fixed in relation to the needs and programmes of each housing authority. There is another and different sense in which it would be true to say that we are aiming at a distant but not, as we believe, unattainable national target. In this sense the word "target" is synonymous with long-term housing policy. Our housing policy differs from the policies of preceding Governments, because it starts from a fresh conception of the responsibility of the State for social welfare. Hitherto the housing functions of the Government an I public authorities have been mainly negative—to enforce sanitary and safety bylaws, to clear the slums, to relieve overcrowding and generally to establish minimum conditions below which the con-science and good sense of the community will not allow even the poorest wage earner to sink. Since the Great War of 1914, the minimum standards have risen steadily and the scope of the housing responsibilities of public bodies has been correspondingly enlarged. But even the White Paper of March, 1945, which lay s down the housing policy of the Coalition Government and makes "a separate dwelling for every family "the first objective to be secured, is, if I may say so without any reflection on the noble Lord opposite, still somewhat under the influence of the old anti-slum anti-congestion mentality.
We maintain that the positive responsibility of the State in the field of housing, as in education or in public health, is to create and maintain optimum conditions of life for all its citizens. The terms of the Motion in the most reverend Prelate's name, which refers to health and happiness, suggest that he shares this view. We regard housing as the social service that will enable the low-paid wage-earners to Share these optimum conditions. The
854
negative policy of the past guarantees that no one shall live below a certain minimum standard. The positive policy of the present day guarantees that, in the long run, no one shall live below a socially acceptable modern standard. I believe that public opinion supports us in claiming that the provision of a modern standard of housing for every family, regardless of its means, has now become just as much a State responsibility as the provision of schools or battleships.
Most of the houses standing to-day are working-class houses built in or before the nineteenth century. They were built in days when labour was described as a commodity, or factor in production, differing from land or raw materials only because it needed shelter to keep it fit for work. And so thee drab Victorian dwellings sprang up wherever industry settled, without regard for architectural merit or planned environment, at a time when sunshine, fresh air, baths, indoor sanitation and gardens were regarded as for ever beyond the reach of the toiling multitude. The long-range problem is therefore to replace existing working-class housing by modern flats or cottages to let, at rents the great majority can afford. The middle and higher income groups had their turn between the wars, and it is only fair that they should now take their place at the end of the housing queue.
It follows from this that the main providers must be the local authorities. We welcome private enterprise in its proper place. We hope that it will make a maximum contribution to economic reconstruction at home. We cannot do without it. But experience between the wars has proved conclusively that the private builder can do little or nothing to help the lower-paid wage earners. During the whole of the last interlude of peace, building costs and interest rates never fell sufficiently to enable private enterprise to supply new houses for the poorer working-class families. Private building enterprise is incapable of meeting demand in terms of need, because it is designed to respond to demand in terms of cash. Such, briefly, is the outline of the long-term housing policy we shall endeavour to carry out with broadening effect over a period of years.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, asked for more practical information, and I hope we can satisfy that desideratum, for I will

855
now deal in more detail with what we have already done in the last three months. If the House will bear with me while I quote some figures, I shall be able to present what might be regarded as a prelude to the periodic progress reports to which I have already alluded and which will start in the new year. Tenders for 12,595 permanent additional houses in England and Wales and 9,475 in Scotland have been approved by the appropriate Departments by the end of October as compared—and your Lordships must obviously have a standard of comparison by which to judge—with 731 approvals for England and Wales and 5,784 for Scotland at the end of July.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Do you mind repeating the figures for Scotland?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: The figures for Scotland are that there are 9,475 tenders for traditional permanent houses as compared with 5,784 at the end of July. The noble Earl knows far better than I do how different conditions are in Scotland. I am not trying to draw any comparison or even to give the full figures for Scotland. I hope he will accept that this is not out of any disrespect to Scotland, but simply because I have had to make a brief résumé of statistics which I thought might he of the greatest interest to your Lordships. The average price for three-bedroom houses in England and Wales was 20s. 11d. per square foot. That compares with 9s. 4¼d. per square foot in 1939, but the new houses are superior both in accommodation and equipment. It is obvious from those prices that Ministers must do their utmost to keep down the cost of tenders, and for this reason they have been obliged to reject as exorbitant tenders for 1,375 houses in England and Wales and for 82 in Scotland. The figures for completed temporary houses for the same period are 4,964 in England and Wales and 195 in Scotland, as compared with 1,701 and 15 respectively at the end of July. Those figures, if we may draw any conclusions from events over so short a period, indicate that the trickle of new temporary houses is substantially larger than it was three months ago, and that the preparatory stages of permanent housing are well advanced. These modest beginnings will broaden steadily into a
856
wide stream as labour and materials become increasingly plentiful.
I shall say something on the subject of rural housing later, because I know it is a matter in which many of your Lordships are keenly interested. I think it would interest the most reverend Prelate, as a former Chairman of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee of the Ministry, to know that the rural housing authorities have already made a flying start with their building programmes. Fourteen per cent. of the rural district councils in England and Wales, as compared with about 12 per cent. of the non-county borough councils and urban district councils, have already had their tenders approved. That shows that those housing authorities, covering a wide area of the countryside, are well forward in the preparation of their schemes as compared with their urban neighbours. Private building has even now a small but useful contribution to add, though we obviously cannot permit large mansions or luxury flats. No licences are being issued for houses costing more than £1,200. By the end of September, 8,658 licences for private builders had been issued by local authorities—a figure which includes the replacement of 1,240 houses destroyed in air attack. I hope this will clear up any misunderstanding there may be about our policy in relation to private building. We are not anxious to cut out the private builder on doctrinal grounds. I think as time goes on it will be evident that he will play a more and more important part.
As I have already explained to your Lordships, our policy is to do our utmost to encourage the building of permanent houses, and for this purpose we are offering local authorities an option between traditional and a variety of non-traditional types. Particulars of eight separate types of prefabricated dwellings have been sent to local authorities, and these include five steel or steel-framed systems and three concrete systems. They have been asked how many steel houses they want to put up, on the assumption that these will cost roughly as much as the traditional type of structure. Their range of choice has been widened still further by the onset of deliveries of timber houses from Sweden. But the preparation and execution of any building programme occupies a considerable stretch of time,

857
and we can only bridge the interval by making the most advantageous use of existing accommodation.
We have put forward three proposals for alleviating immediate hardship. Government Departments have been asked to give up as soon as possible the small houses they requisitioned during the war The number of small houses still requisitioned by the Services and other Government Departments is roughly 14,000, but all the Departments concerned have now prepared programmes for the release of the small houses they now hold. We must also prevent houses or flats from being converted into business premises. For this purpose a Defence Regulation has already been made, and its effect will be to stop such conversions taking place without the consent of the local housing authority. Finally, we are appealing to the consciences of people who own large houses. We hope they will share wish their less fortunate neighbours in the spit it they showed in accepting evacuees during the war. To enable them to offer their spare rooms to deserving tenants, we are removing any legal difficulties that may arise from restrictive covenants or the Rent Restrictions Acts. The last item in this preliminary progress report is our programme of housing legislation, which shows that in the last three months one housing Bill has been introduced (in another place) to control furnished lettings, while two others have reached the preparatory phase that precedes submission to Parliament.
Now a word or two about rural housing. I hope I may be able to dispel some of tae anxiety which has been displayed by your Lordships both this week and in a debate which occurred a week ago. Our policy for the farms and villages is to build hygienic modern cottages for those who live and work there. We want to preserve the picturesque atmosphere of our old countryside, and we welcome improvements provided they do not hamper new building. During the next few months a very large number of building workers will return home from the Services. Unless they get a building job in their own neighbourhood, they will drift elsewhere in search of work, or he-come fully occupied for a long time on local repairs. It is therefore essential that building schemes to which they can attach themselves should be in actual progress
858
when they get back. That is why we have not renewed the subsidy for reconditioning under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts. We believe that these Acts have done good, and we are in entire agreement with the most reverend Prelate on the point, but we do not believe that they are so perfect they cannot be improved upon. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health is now waiting for the advice of the Rural Housing Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, to whom he has referred the whole matter. These experts on rural housing will recommend, after examining all the facts, and taking all the evidence, whether labour can be supplied without diversion for reconditioning, and also what improvements can be made on the provisions of the lapsed Acts.
There is one other point in connexion with rural housing with which I should like to deal. The most reverend Prelate mentioned the reference of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health to high buildings in rural areas. I am sure that nobody desires that reference of the Minister of Health's to be misunderstood. It was in fact aballon d'essai, to use diplomatic parlance, intended to stimulate discussion about design, and not a decision on policy, far less a direction to the local authorities.
The most reverend Prelate also asked for information about the type of house and housing estate envisaged in our programme. The main differences between our policy and that of the Governments between the wars in respect of the type and quality of houses which we mean to build, is that we are insisting on higher standards of comfort and amenity than they provided. We want our flats and cottages to be less cramped, and we are therefore accepting 900 square. feet as a bare minimum of floor space for the ordinary three-bedroom cottage. We want, above all, to ease the burden of the housewife. We have had from the Design of Dwellings Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, under the Chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, some helpful suggestions for better internal equipment to save time and labour in the home. The housewife's workshop is her kitchen, and this improved equipment will lighten her main tasks of cooking the meals and doing the family washing.

859
What we want to avoid on new estates is the class or income segregation which has characterized so much development in the past. Here again we are in the heartiest agreement with the words of the most reverend Prelate. The strength of the nation lies in its unity. We want that unity preserved and emphasized by making every residential area as nearly as possible a cross-section of the whole community—young and old, rich and poor, professional and artisan. This will depend very much on the skill and sense of responsibility with which these estates are managed by their owners. We are grateful for the recent Report of the Housing Management Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee, under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The Minister of Health forwarded last month to the local authorities copies of this Report, asking them to consider its recommendations quickly. The Report laid special emphasis on two points: first, that the primary consideration in selecting tenants should be the relative need of the applicant for a house, and not either his occupation or his length of residence in the district; secondly, that need can be found in all classes and that a broad view should be taken of social antecedents. Since the noble Lord is in his place, I should like to say that the Minister of Health very much regrets that pressure of other duties has obliged the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, to resign his position. The Ministry are extremely grateful to him for all the valuable work which he has done.
Now let me say a few words about the subsidy question. The most reverend Prelate has asked for information about our plans for a subsidy for the building programme of local authorities. I can give him some up-to-date information which will, I hope, satisfy him that we are moving fairly rapidly. Hitherto the complete uncertainty about building costs over any period of time has prevented us from even attempting to arrive at a precise figure; but we hope that this difficulty can now be overcome, and representatives of the Ministry of Health will shortly be meeting the associations of local authorities to discuss the terms and conditions of the new subsidies. Meanwhile, the local authorities are not holding back their programmes until the
860
subsidy or subsidies have been fixed, because they realize that their effect when finally agreed and accepted by Parliament will be retrospective.
The most reverend Prelate has complained that the local authorities are obliged to deal with too large a number of Government Departments; but, if I am interpreting him rightly, and if he was referring to the selection of sites, I wonder whether his complaint is altogether justified. Local authorities need deal with two Ministries only to obtain approval for their housing sites. I hope that the most reverend Prelate will correct me if I have misunderstood him.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: Sites and building.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: That opens a wider question. Let me deal first with sites, and then I think I shall have something to say which may relieve some of his anxieties on the other issue. On the question of sites, the local authorities need obtain the approval for the disposition of their houses only of the Ministry of Health and of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and the latter have to consult any other Departments which may be involved. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health is fully aware of the difficulties caused to local authorities by any unnecessary complexity or delay. He is anxious to reduce the number of separate agencies with which local authorities have to correspond to a minimum, and to simplify and speed up the preparatory procedure as much as he can; and he is at this moment giving his mind to the question.
Let me say these few words in conclusion, because there are many noble Lords whose advice the Government will be most anxious to receive, and who have already indicated their intention to take part in the debate. This housing programme which we have presented is the biggest effort of social reform which we have yet undertaken, and probably the most difficult. It is an attempt in practice to harness the energies of a great industry and its many tributaries to social conscience in place of private gain. That is the fascination and the risk. This problem would not arise in the United States of America, where good homes can be built by unfettered private enterprise, or in Russia, where the same thing can

861
be done by a rigid system of State control; but we in the United Kingdom have to bring private and public agencies into partnership in a common enterprise to help their fellow-countrymen. This will demand a strong conviction shared by all concerned, whatever their capacity, however humble or exalted it may be, that it is at any rate worth trying to make a success of a fine experiment which, if it does succeed, will add immeasurably 10 e reputation of the country and to the happiness of the common man.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, we are most grateful to the most reverend Prelate for having inaugurated this discussion, and for having given us a forceful and well-considered speech. We are grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Woolton for the many and pertinent questions which he has put to the Government. We have all reason to lie grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for allowing us to continue this discussion tomorrow, because that Will enable the noble Viscount, who I understand is going to bring the debate to a close, to answer some of those questions regarding which the noble Earl said that it would put him into a difficulty to reply to them at such short notice. That, of course, we quite understand; but there are one or two questions which he did answer in a way that left us, on this side of the House, I think, somewhat astonished.
For instance, he refused to let us knew what is the target at which the Government are at present aiming. if my recollection serves me rightly, that is very much contrary to what Mr. Ernest Bevin said in his Election speeches, I am immediately following the noble Earl, and I hive nothing but my memory to rely on, but I have the impression that Mr. Bevin certainly fixed targets for the Labour Party to aim at if they were returned to power. Instead of being given information on this we are kept in the dark as regards the Government's targets. But we are informed that local authorities are being given targets, which we hope they will be able to reach. I would like to know, and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Woolton would also like to know, when these local targets will be fixed, or if they have already been fixed. If they have already been fixed, will they
862
be published; or will they be published when they are fixed? I think it is most necessary that we should know what these targets are. There should not be any secrecy about the targets with which local authorities are being furnished.
Then there was another statement—not perhaps such an important one—by the noble Earl to the effect that it was hoped to get variations of the types of houses on the building sites and in the building estates. I should like very much to know what it is hoped to do if municipalities are going to build houses only for the lower income-earning group. It seems to me that we shall have more of those long and rather ugly lines of local authority houses to which we have been much too much accustomed in the past. I am not going to say anything about the speeches which we have already heard, except to supplement a statement of Lord Woolton, to the effect that in travelling all over this country he has only seen one new house in a state of completion. I think that that was in a military barracks. can go further than he did. In my opinion workers are being used to build houses or edifices which really are not in the first priority. I can state that from my own personal knowledge. Not so very long ago—I think it was about a year ago—the Admiralty bought a certain number of acres belonging to myself near the village of Dalmeny. They have now proceeded to set a very large number of people to work on this land and they are building an enormous edifice which, I believe, is to be used for the purpose of a warehouse. I am not quite sure what is the full purpose for which those people are there. I have not asked. All I know is that I see them there. I think that everybody is agreed that they should really be engaged in the building of houses for the people and not in building a warehouse for the Admiralty.
Surely when there are all these empty aerodromes that one hears of all over the country, the Admiralty might use one of them to warehouse some of their material and allow the workmen who are now building for them to build houses for the people. I put that to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, with the suggestion that there might perhaps be some closer communication between that part of the Government which is concerned with housing and the Services. It is, I believe, common knowledge that

863
the Services—I think that even Lord Nathan will not disagree with me about this—always try to get whatever they can and give up as little as they can. That is all I wish to say on that subject.
I would now like to say a few words concerning housing in Scotland. I asked the noble Earl just now if he would repeat some figures and he hurriedly disclaimed any knowledge of the situation in Scotland. I am afraid that that lack of knowledge extends to all the other members of the Front Bench at the present time in this House. My noble friend Lord Westwood is an exception to that, but not even Lord Westwood is able to be in two places at once.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment as I think I may be able to say something to help him? I have a whole sheaf of statistics about Scotland which I shall be very glad indeed to show him at the end of this debate.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think the noble Earl misunderstood me. I do not want any statistics. I have some statistics which he gave me, and on reading them I thought that they reflected quite creditably on the last Government. I do not particularly want any more because I do not care for statistics—I prefer performances. What I was going to suggest is that it is rather a pity that when we have a debate as important as this is to Scotland as well as to England, there should not be someone here to speak who is an expert in the different laws and customs that we have in Scotland. I am quite sure that members both of the House of Lords and of another place must be tired of hearing that we have customs and laws in Scotland altogether different from those which you have in England, but I can, at any rate, assure your Lordships that you are not half as tired of hearing this statement as we are of having to make it. We have in Scotland entirely different laws and customs from those in England, and it is very largely due—as I will show a little later—to those different laws and customs that housing in Scotland is in such a very much worse state than is housing in England.
In the regrettable absence of Mr. Westwood, whose many friends hope he will soon be back at St. Andrew's House,
864
housing in Scotland has been taken over by Mr. George Buchanan. I read with great care the speech which he made in another place. He started by saying that he is accustomed to giving hard knocks and that he would make no complaint at receiving them. I think that if he makes more speeches of the kind which he made on that occasion he will receive them. It was largely an electioneering speech which I think he must have used a good many times previously in Glasgow. He also makes a statement which is fundamentally untrue, and it seems to me it is almost incredible that he did not know it was without any basis of fact. I have brought it here because I did not wish to quote him wrongly. I think when I read this out to your Lordships that you will agree with me that it is not the kind of thing that any responsible Minister should say without being absolutely certain of his facts. He says—he is talking of housing in Scotland
"I found when I took office, that under the control of a noble Lord, certain well-equipped, beautiful specimens of men were occupying houses. I do not want to say what their nationality was—"
He at once says, however, that they were Polish soldiers, and he goes on:
"The problem had been neglected by my predecessor.…"
Eventually they went and he had other people put in those houses. That is the sort of statement which can only be put in for Party political purposes, or one might say, class against the masses. You will notice the emphasis placed by Mr. Buchanan as against a noble Lord.
That statement is without foundation of any kind. The Poles were in these houses. Far from my wanting to keep them there, I entered a protest and took it to the highest possible quarter to see if these Poles could be turned out. But at that time we were in a state of war. Quite rightly, the Services had a priority over building and the Army insisted on keeping them there. I was simply unable to get them moved. The records are in St. Andrew's House, and it is perfectly easy for him to find out that I made every effort to remove those Poles. I really think that this statement is of a sort of soap-box style which is more suited to Hyde Park than to the Houses of Parliament. Such a statement should not be made by responsible members of His Majesty's Government on a matter like

865
this which, as a former Prime Minister sail, should be treated entirely like a military enterprise. We want to get away from Party politics, and we want to get on with more housing as quickly as we can. In Scotland it seems to me that the effort to build houses has been very largely allowed to be undertaken only by public enterprise and not by private enterprise. In the last Government we were going to announce the fact that we were going to make grants in respect of small private houses built for sale or letting and these grants were going to be up to £100, subject to a maximum from the Exchequer of £150. These grants were really for purposes of assisting the purchaser or tenant of the house by contributing to the present high cost of building rather than helping the private builder or the speculative builder. The moment this Governrment came in that was at once stopped an I the idea was firmly put an end to.
Let me mention for one moment the rural housing repairs repeal. The noble Earl has given lengthy, but I do not think they are convincing, reasons why this subsidy should be repealed. This is a subsidy which was used far more in Scotland than it was in England by reason of our different methods of farming. Our farmhouses are spread out at great distances. More than 60 per cent. of the cottages which were rehabilitated by these grants were in Scotland. The noble Lord talks of other measures for increasing the cottages in villages. That is no good to us in Scotland because the noble Earl is probably unaware, and possibly the whole of the Front Bench opposite is unaware, that in Scotland the farmhouses are not in villages. They are situated round the steadings of the farm. It would obviously be impossible for cottages to be built six or seven miles away from the farm. At any rate in Scotland these cottages are round the farm, and this subsidy was of the utmost assistance to farmers in keeping their farm labourers happy and contented and properly housed.
Let me point out that the farmers in Scotland have to fight the elements far more than they have to in this country. They want to keep the farmhands near at hand and properly housed. They had been accustomed to this subsidy, and for the last six years they have not been allowed to do anything for these cottages. They have been looking
866
forward for six years to having some help in putting these cottages right. I think that Mr. Greenwood said in another place that this subsidy was to be finished and that something else was to take its place. I felt very unhappy last week when I thought that what was to take its place was the skyscraper. We have heard a lot about the Tennessee Valley being brought to the Highlands. I am glad to hear that this was only a suggestion and that it will not be carried into effect.
At this late hour I do not want to take up your Lordships' time much longer, but I want to tell you exactly why housing in Scotland is so very much worse than it is in England. It is because private enterprise is stifled in Scotland, and it has been stifled for many years. I am not blaming the former stifling of private enterprise on any Government. It does not rest with any Government; it comes from the time of the union. It comes from the old laws of rating. I do not want to go too deeply into the question, but perhaps your Lordships may not all be aware of the fact that rating in Scotland is quite different from what it is in England. Roughly speaking, the rates are paid by the owner and not by the tenant; in England they are paid by the tenant. Therefore it is impossible for the speculative builder, and there again I take it from the—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: It is from the report of the Committee on the Rent Restrictions Acts.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I gathered that. I am talking of the speculative, builder and the builder with every right to speculate. He sees a certain number of acres and he will build a certain number of houses. In England you build those houses and they will gradually be filled. But while the houses are empty he will not have to pay rates because the ratepayer is the tenant, and there is no tenant. In Scotland, if a man builds a house in the hope of letting, the moment it is built he is responsible for the rates. Therefore a man might build 200 houses and have only 30 to 40 of them inhabited and he would have to pay the rates on the other 160. That makes speculative building in that sense quite impossible. Equally, supposing you build a house in a place where the rates go up by leaps

867
and bounds. You have built that house, let that house at a certain rate to bring in a certain income, and you find you have to maintain that house for a tenant and get no income yourself. That can easily happen in a place like Glasgow.
This was realized by my predecessor, Mr. Tom Johnston, who initiated a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Sorn. This Committee produced a report which was a very interesting and complicated one. If the Government had not been changed, I was going to bring in a Rating Bill for Scotland which would have been more equitable, and would have helped private enterprise and been of service to the country. But the moment the present Government came in, we were informed that nothing was going to be done to ameliorate, or alter, the method of rating in this country. I submit that so long as the rating in Scotland remains as it is at the present time, so long will the houses in Scotland fall far behind the number they should reach, and far behind what it is in England.
Mr. Aneurin Bevan, in another place, made a statement which I believe was loudly cheered. He said:
"If you wanted land for an airfield during the war, you did not have protracted negotiations with the landlord. We are going to have no protracted negotiations with the landlord for getting houses. It is a form of control we are going to remove."
He went on in that vein, amid great applause. So far as I can make out there is nothing in the contention that it is the wicked landlord who stops the building of houses in this country. I do not think anybody can stand up and say it. is the landlord who is stopping building, either by asking for more money or for anything else. I will quote from Mr. Tom Johnston's speech, which he made in another place on March 15 of last year. This speech was not controverted by any member of the House, and he is a man who knows more about housing than almost anybody in the country. He said that in his part of the country the average price of land for housing was about £200 per acre. Mr. Johnston went on to say:
"Two hundred pounds per acre—ten houses to the acre—means Lao per house, and the current Public Works Loan Board rate is 3¼ per cent. Sixty years' annuity at 3¼ per cent. is L3 16s., giving a cost per house of 15s. 2d.
868
Per annum, or, including interest, 3½d. per week."
So this great diatribe against the landlord is represented by 3½d. a week. I do not think it is worthy of any Minister to try to make out that housing is being stopped by such a paltry sum as that. I only hope that the present Government will do more than just give lip-service to the idea that this is going to be as universal and as national as a military operation. I hope they will have listened to the very earnest words of the most reverend Prelate this afternoon.
5.14 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, the noble Earl who replied for the Government dealt with many of the points raised by the most reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, but he did not succeed in answering them. It must be admitted that his conciliatory tone was a reasonable reply to the request of the most reverend Prelate to regard this debate, not as a Party question but as one to bring relief to the urgent anxiety of the country as a whole on this matter. That is the spirit in which I think every speaker will approach the subject. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, put in simple language what the position in the country is—that there is great anxiety because houses are not springing up. There is no doubt, too, that among the many difficulties in the past has been the confusion between the various Ministries. The noble Earl tried to give the assurance that in this case there are only two Ministries. That is some support to the assurances given by the Lord Privy Seal whose eloquent speeches in the past, in denunciation of the slowness and tardiness of the Coalition Government on housing questions, certainly had much sympathy from me. To-day, he has given support to the noble Earl to simplify this matter, but it does not convince the country that that is truly the situation. Of course, it may simplify things a little that there are only two Ministries to be dealt with, but, in point of fact, obstruction can come from many others, and delay from other quarters.
I approach this question on the basis—to use the noble Earl's own words—that we want all forms of building, both traditional and non-conventional. We want private enterprise, we want local authority enterprise, and every other method that can be applied. In many debates that

869
have taken place in this House in the past, with regard to housing, it has been emphasized that there is an anxiety that conventional practice will not produce the houses required. The figures given by the noble Earl to-day do not allay the anxiety felt or the admitted disquiet as to whether the labour force in being, or in prospect in the measurably near future, is anything like sufficient to satisfy the minimum requirements regarding the shortages of houses in the country as a whole and to remove the misery, unhappiness and appointment of demobilized men over their possible accommodation.
In the past we have heard it argued that conventional practice needs supplementing by non-conventional methods. That means the industrialized side of building, employment in the factory, and that has fallen under two heads, the short-life house and the long-life house. The short-life house policy certainly received the very vehement disapproval of the present Minister of Health, but, nevertheless, he recently issued a White Paper on the temporary housing programme, in which he showed that the average increase in the cost of the various types of houses ordered was in the neighbourhood of £268. That shows a very large increase above what was budgeted for.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, disclosed a very convincing possible policy, but it was based, in the main, as I understood it, on the theory of collective purchase and low cost through volume production. Low cost cannot possibly he achieved in any conventional way; it can only be achieved by volume production. I think the noble Earl said that there are only 4,000 temporary houses at present occupied in England. We have been on that temporary housing proposal—far good or bad—for a very long time. I have seen it widely stated that the factory production of the houses is very much in excess of what is going on to the sites currently. It suggests, therefore, that the programme is this as in many other things, instead of going on in orderly alignment, is going on by echelon. You have the production of shells but you have not the sites, and if you have the sites you have not available the other supplies which the makers of the shells have to depend upon the Government to produce. Permit me to revert for a moment to the cost of these short-life houses. This reported increase seems to be unfair to the
870
builders of those houses, in that it did not give any of the information with regard to other services which the Ministry must provide. There is the aspect also of site work, of foundations, roads and so on.
The next point I want to deal with is a digression for the moment on the question of terminology. I appeal to the noble Earl to impress upon the Minister of Health that there is a great deal of confusion in the country about what really is meant by "the factory-made house." He himself used the word "permanent" house. Some others use the term "conventional type of building" Certainly the term "prefabricated" has been applied to short-life houses and long-life houses. There is confusion in the minds of many who think that a prefabricated house must necessarily be a short-life house, when he himself has given us the information that the Government have adopted at least five types of steel framed, long-life, non-conventional constructions. I would appeal to him to recommend to the Ministry of Health that they should adopt the terminology "factory made house," and not "prefabricated." I am dealing particularly with what I call the shell, although the Government, in their White Paper, prefer the term "hull." Whatever it may be, it is the outside construction of the house. As regards the long-life non-conventional type of house, there is here the question of the word "permanent." To me personally "permanent" suggests—I do not know what the dictionary says but I hope some noble Lord will correct me if necessary—very long duration; that is to say, centuries. It suggests something like the pyramids. Are not permanent houses the very reason why we have all these slums? If those houses had been built to be less permanent, we would not have the rows of dwellings which the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has referred to as desecrating the countryside.
May I come back to the question of these long-life non-conventional houses? The Ministry of Health has just "passed the buck" to the local authorities. If it is to be a low-cost job it must be volume production, and it cannot be volume production on a small programme. As everybody knows, industrial programmes, to be of low cost and mass-produced, must be planned on a long-term scale

871
What has the Minister done? He has sent a circular out to the local authorities and has asked them to reply by December 15, stating how many houses they want and of what particular type, as though it were a mail order business and they were to be chosen from a catalogue. In that he has not helped the local authorities, because they are not given any guide in the circular as to what is the cost of the house. The noble Earl has said that it is expected that the non-conventional type will not exceed the cost of the long-life house. I appeal to him to remember that, be it short life or long life, the cost of the house must depend upon the volume of production, and the manufacturer cannot give volume unless he has a long programme of production.
I would revert to the appeal made by the most reverend Prelate, which was reiterated by Lord Woolton and not answered by the noble Earl, as to what is the real target of production. The noble Earl has suggested that it was going to be the aggregate of what the local authorities say they are going to produce. How can a local authority know what it is going to do when it does not know whether the non-conventional or the conventional type is the dearer or the cheaper, nor what sort of a delivery it can get on the mail order business which is suggested and which must be provided by large-scale purchase by the Government?
5.28 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I refuse to refer to "this late hour" when we meet at half past two, so I am not going to apologize. I wish to refer to something which the most reverend Prelate called the greatest domestic problem which faces this country. It is a matter of the most vital importance, and it was well realized by members of the Government at least a short time ago. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that they believe in deeds and not promises. I just want to quote you two things. One was a statement made by Mr. Ernest Bevin in June, 1945. It was as follows:
"If returned to power, I would tackle housing just as I would tackle the supply of aeroplanes and shells for war. I would make housing a national emergency."
Mr. Bevin was returned to power. Then Mr. Aneurin Bevan said this:
872
"Labour is convinced that the job of providing houses should be tackled on a national scale, like the nation went about the task of making Spitfires."
What I want to do to-day is to call upon the Government to implement those declarations. They are not doing it at present. Lord Woolton referred to a change of opinion when a man held office in one of the Ministries. I think there has been a very big change since Mr. Bevin and Mr. Bevan made those remarks.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who spoke just now for the Government, frankly did not convince me in. the least, and I am afraid that he will not convince the ex-Service man who comes back and is looking for a house. That man will not be in the least bit impressed with the fact that the Government are increasing the necessary floor space to 900 sq. ft., instead of 800 sq. ft. or whatever it was before. What he wants is a roof and a house—somewhere to live, and not ideals of that kind. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, with great pride, gave us a lot of figures (which I did not take down and which I am not going to quote) about houses which had been built in the last three months. But no target was indicated, and a man coming back from the Forces who has not got one of these houses that have been built in the last few months is given no hope of getting one in the future. Of ourse the labour position is the big question. We know that. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, tried to comfort us to a certain extent on that point. He said labour was coming back from the Forces very shortly, and that when it came a certain amount of it would be diverted, guided or directed in some way into the building of houses. We have been hearing that for quite a long time, and I think we shall probably go on hearing it. Is that the way to face a national emergency? Is that the way the Spitfires were turned out? On the subsidy question, the noble Earl again said he thought he could be rather comforting. He said they were moving very rapidly and he hoped that after consultation with the local authorities some announcement might be made in the future. That is not the way to face a national emergency.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I apologize to the noble Lord for interrupting him. I am quite certain he does not

873
want to misrepresent me. I said the associations of the local authorities were about to be consulted by the Ministry in order to determine, in discussion, the teams and conditions of the new subsidies. TT at is actually going to happen in a very short space of time. I did not say that they might be consulted.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I was riot quoting the noble Earl directly, for I did not take down what he said. I am sure that that will not be of great comfort: to the man who is looking for house. He is not going to get one great way. On the question of the number of Ministries, we were comforted by the statement that the Minister was well aware of the difficulty and that he was applying his mind to the question. Then the noble Earl referred (I am not quoting exactly) to the great experiment that was being conducted in bringing private enterprise and Government effort into cc-operation. He said it was one of the bite great experiments that had ever been made. That is what won the war, the bringing together of private enterprise and national effort. It has been clone for six years and it is the method that we want to produce these houses. If this is a national emergency, then let us use national methods. Surely it ought to be possible for Messrs. Bevin and Bevan, after their promises, to deal rather inure strongly with the supply of labour, to take a stronger line than just saying, "We hope that some people are coming out shortly." I do not want to get on to the question of demobilization, because that is coming up later this week, but I do say that this is no way in which to deal with a national emergency.
On the question of the experienced priviate builder, I rather gathered from the noble Earl that the Government were not averse from allowing him to take his plate and that he would be required. I ten your Lordships, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, when he was in office that unless you make full use of the experience of the private builder you will not get the houses. He knows his job; he has done it for years. He is really the only person who can recruit, organize and look after labour. He is the man who has got sites ready, in many cass with roads, sewers and all that kind of thing made. He is ready to go ahead straight away. On the question of houses
874
to let, I am going to cross swords with the most reverend Prelate. It is not true to say that the private builder only builds houses to sell. I am going to quote the figures of houses to let built by private builders from 1938 to the middle of 1939. During that time private enterprise built 163,000 houses to let, at no cost to the taxayer or the ratepayer, and in the same period local authorities built 194,000 at a very big cost to the ratepayer and the taxpayer. I do not believe the story that private enterprise is incapable of building houses to-day. It is ready and willing to do it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I did say that according to the 1937 Report of the Rent Restrictions Committee, one-twelfth of the total they built was for letting.
LORD CHESHAM: I quite agree with the most reverend Prelate. I was not quarrelling with him; I was rather quarrelling with some of the statements which have been spread by some of the Socialists who are now in office. We realize the difficulties with which the Government are faced. What is worrying so many people and causing such a dangerous position to arise in this country at the moment is the fact that we do not think the Government are facing up to those difficulties. The Government have said that we are faced with a national emergency and that they are going to use every means of dealing with it. The Government may be doing that behind the scenes and hiding it away. There is, however, a quotation to the effect that justice must not merely be done but must appear to be done. I ask for more vigorous efforts on the part of the Government to meet these difficulties and to let the public know what is being done. If the Government treat this as a national emergency and adopt drastic measures they will have the whole country behind them. If they do not do that, they will not.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(The Lord Bishop of Sheffield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

WOOL CONSUMPTION.
5.37 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, in order to increase consumption of wool of which they hold such a large accumulation, and to help the Dominions, they consider stimulating consumption of wool wherever possible in substitution for cotton, which involves expenditure of dollar exchange; and will review and amend the coupon pointing of related apparel.]
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, a joint organization is being set up under an agreement between the United Kingdom and Dominion Governments to secure the orderly liquidation of the accumulated stocks of wool. This, concurrently with the marketing of new clips, will encourage the consumption of wool. There is ample room for the expansion of both the wool and the cotton industries in this country. There would, however, be no purpose in stimulating the consumption of wool in substitution of cotton, since the output of both the wool and cotton industries is at present far below the requirements of the home and export markets and is likely to remain so for a
876
considerable period. In particular, the down-pointing of woollen garments would not be possible at present since the existing output is only just sufficient to meet the demand at the present coupon pointing.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, I would point out to the noble Lord that the whole purpose of the question was to dear with the exchange point. The noble Lord has not answered the question at all. Cotton requires dollars and wool is bought with sterling.
LORD PAKENHAM: Your Lordships must be the judges of whether the question has been answered. Arising out of the last point made by the noble Lord, your Lordships will be glad to know that in 1945 about one-third of our cotton consumption involved dollars. More broadly, the real difficulty at the present time is that neither the wool nor the cotton industries can supply us with all we can purchase. I do not know whether this is in order, but if the noble Lord can tell me where I can obtain boys' woollen pyjamas I shall be deeply in his debt.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.