Lords Sitting of 14 November 1945

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON.
The Right Honourable John William Charles, Lord Bishop of London Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER.
Douglas Henry, Lord Bishop of Chester. —Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER.
Christopher Maude, Lord Bishop of Rochester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
2.45 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDION): My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of informing the House that we propose to meet next Tuesday, November 20, at two o'clock, in order to arrange for the introduction of four new Peers without encroaching upon the time of the House for dealing with the various Notices on the Order Paper for that afternoon. The business on the Order Paper, other than the introductions, will be entered upon at the customary hour of meeting—namely, half-past two o'clock. I hope that your Lordship will agree to this arrangement. It is, I find, in line with the old arrangements for the meeting of this House before the war, when the House met earlier on Wednesdays to give time for introductions without encroaching on the time available for debate.
Your Lordships will perhaps also forgive me if I draw your attention to the
878
fact that a great number of noble Lords are wishful to speak on the two principal Motions before the House to-day. I hope you will not think that I am exceeding my authority if I suggest that our speeches should be as brief as possible.

DEFENCE: POST-WAR ORGANIZATION.
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD VISCOUNT TRENCHARD rose to ask, in view of -previous debates in this House on post-war organization, whether His Majesty's Government would indicate a broad outline of the organization to be adopted for the three Fighting Services; and to move for papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, a year ago I asked His Majesty's Government if they would indicate the broad outline of the organization to be adopted for the three Fighting Services and whether what is called the short-service system will be maintained in the Royal Air Force and extended to the other Services. I also asked what form of conscription or national service was going to be adopted, and I sought information on various other points. I have again put down a Motion of a similar kind for to-day, and may I say that, to me, this is a vitally important matter. I cannot help feeling that it is also of importance to a good many people in the nation outside, and I think that many of your Lordships also will agree as to its importance. I hope that the suggestions which I have to make will be considered entirely upon their merits; that they will not be regarded in any Party spirit, but, as I say, judged on their merits alone. As I look upon it, it is vitally important that we should have put before us a general outline of the scheme for the organization of the three Fighting Services at the earliest possible moment.
Now I am not in any way blaming this or any other Government in relation to this subject. I know what a long time has to be given to dealing with a matter of this sort, because I went through it after the last war. But, quite apart from anything done and said by the Government and in Parliament, I already see signs in the Press, in quarterly magazines, in pamphlets and in various other publications that we are not looking upon the organization of the Fighting Services as

879
being of as great a degree of importance as the organization of other Services. I note that to some extent sight is being lost already of what the Fighting Services have done in the war which has just ended. I have also noticed that a great amount of thought and discussion has been devoted to the organization of the Civil Services both at home and overseas and the Colonial Service. But even though the atomic bomb has come, I still feel that the three Fighting Services are of vital importance to this country, in view of the unrest which is manifest in the world to-day.
Having had no part in the work of the Fighting Services in the recent war, I feel that I can frankly look upon it as an outsider with, of course, a natural affection for, and even a bias in favour of, the Fighting Services. We do surely know now what caused the war, and undoubtedly, one of the most important factors in that connexion was our total neglect of the Fighting Services and our failure to keep them on a proper organization or adequately manned, trained, and equipped. Everybody knows the result. Do not let that happen again. Regrettable as it may be, human nature takes centuries to change. Talk does not change it; speeches do not change it. Much as we may avoid facing the facts, the facts still remain. It has been recently said that if the war had gone on for another few months the many implements of war which the Germans were making would have dealt a devastating blow at the Allied war effort. In fact, I have even heard people say, "How lucky it was that the war finished when it did, or"—and then they stop, meaning, I suppose, that they think we might have been defeated. Bad as was our start, I think we were capable of looking into the future and also capable of taking care of the present when the war started, even if we were not capable of that before the war. The Germans used their energy and efforts in making wonderful plans for the future and they made some wonderful weapons. But they did not pay enough attention to the present, and the result was that we won.
There are certain questions I want to ask this afternoon. The first is: Are we going to have a National Service Act for two or three years? This is again a matter which should be dealt with as a
880
non-Party question. I know the difficulty of deciding whether the Act should continue, and for how long, or whether in the future there should be what may commonly be called conscription. It is difficult to see how it should be introduced and the form which it should take. I believe it has been said already that the National Service Act is going to be continued for two years. Can anything be said of what is going to happen after two years? I should like to see that blessed term which everyone argued about the other day—five years. But let us know when it is going to be decided what the conscription is going to be.
There is another question I want to ask. Are we going to have a Combined Staff or only the Chiefs of Staff as in this war and the Combined Staff College? How are we going to choose our officers in the future? That is a matter which I look upon as very important. Then there is the question of the short-service system. Are we going to have a short-service as well as a long-service system? I outlined my idea over a year ago in a speech I then made. When will the conditions of service be issued? I mean the conditions with regard to pay, length of service, promotion, the permanent conditions for long-term service, the permanent conditions for whatever medium service there may be, and the permanent conditions under the National Service Act and conscription. Do the Government intend to keep the three Fighting Services separate, as I hope they will do? With regard to the National Service Act I am not going to argue the pros and cons of conscription; I am only asking for some indication of when a decision will be given, and what form it will take, so that the country shall know what is going to be done.
My next point is that of the Combined Staff. Surely we all appreciate what the Chiefs of Staffs have done in this war. They were wonderful and all the subcommittees under them worked smoothly and well. It was actually a form of Combined Staff. Do not let us remain stationary. Should we not develop the arrangement further as a Combined Staff? Should we not take selected officers from the three Services after passing through Staff Colleges and send them to a Combined Staff College, not quite like the Combined Staff College which existed before the war but one

881
which is a living College. It should be a college in close proximity to the three Service Staff Colleges and the course should certainly be for eighteen months if not two years. They should live together. The people selected to go to that Combined Staff College should be chosen for their ability and good service. To enable them to give of their best it should be made quite clear when they are selected for this that they will not be passed over for promotion by anybody in tad it own Service; that would give them freedom to express their views, even though they might be antagonistic to the views of their own Service, as has hap pened in the past. I can give instances. I can tell you of instructors chosen as the best men in their Service who when they have been to the Combined Staff College have found there was no further use further services. I am sure that that matter will be looked into and considered.
Then, how are we going to select our officers in the future? I think it will be agreed, or I hope it will, that selection should be on the broadest possible basis I know that one or two noble Lords may, not agree, but if I may say so there is some measure of agreement by the Labour Party with what I am saying on this point. Officers should not be all selected in exactly the same way. They should no all be educated in exactly the same way they should not all be drawn from the same type. I should like to see them come from every type in this country. I feel that we should have those who have passed through the ranks, maybe for short periods or for longer periods. We should encourage others who have passed the examinations to go to colleges like Sandhurst and Woolwich for the. Army, Cranwell for the Air Force and a similar college to Sandhurst for the Navy—Dartmouth. We should take from the universities others at a different age who have got degrees.
We should also take many from the great technical schools, like Halton, which many of your Lordship know, and Aber-field for the Army, and let them go to Cranwell and Sandhurst in the future. Finally, we should select some who have done well without examination, and who, in their early years, up to the ages of 23 or 24, want to change, and send them before a Selection Board. By this means you will get officers of all types. If they
882
were all taken by the one method, all from Sandhurst, all from Cranwell, or all through the ranks—one type, moulded in one group—they would have a narrow outlook on life and their profession. That is why I am keen on a broad basis. The activities and duties in the Services require that one can put one's hand on all the different types of men that one wants for different types of posts, and not all from one type of man who has undergone one type of training. Then we can get the round peg in the round hole, instead of a square peg in a round hole.
Now I come to what I have called the "short-service" system, and linking it with the life of the nation. I repeat that I look upon this system as one of the most important. It was the "short-service" system that did so much to help the Air Force, and I like to feel that the Air Service, because of its "short-service" system, was linked more intimately with the life of the nation than any other Service. On December 6, 1944, I outlined what the short-service system really consisted of, and I will give your Lordships an outline as briefly as possible now. I would like to see matters so arranged that men, whose main business in life is going to be in some profession, like teaching or the Civil Service, or as architects, after they have passed their book examinations, could serve in one of the Fighting Services for two, three or four years, and so rub shoulders with their fellow-men before taking up their professions.
I am emboldened to press this short-service arrangement as strongly as possible for all the professions in civil life. Since the last debate on this subject, there has been an advance on these lines. I refer to the Teachers' Superannuation Bill which was before your Lordships' House on February 13 this year, when an Amendment was introduced in regard to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said:
"The Second Schedule of the Bill enables teachers to be seconded for other work for a period of up to five years and yet to retain their pension rights. That, I think, is a feature which will commend itself -to my noble friend Lord Trenchard."
That is a great step forward.
Men who are going to settle down after passing their book examinations, can now, instead of going straight into the teaching

883
profession, join one of the Fighting Services for two, three or four years, and lose no pension rights by doing so. Think what a valuable thing this would be for teachers if it could be done more universally; if young men could be told that if they wanted permanent positions as teachers they would get them more readily if, after passing their book examinations, they did two, three or four years with one of the Fighting Services. What I am saying now is in conformity with some suggestions I made in your Lordships' House not long ago. What could be done for teachers could be done also for civil servants, in both the senior and lower divisions. Surely, it could be done for the Colonial Service, too.
I will not weary your Lordships by repeating what I said last year, but is it too much to ask the Government to read again the speech which I made in December, 1944? There is nothing in the Fighting Services which has not a counterpart in civil life. A great many of the professions in the Government service, and outside, could adopt a system by which they could say to future candidates for these professions: "You must get through your book examinations, or certificates from school, and your degrees at the university. At the same time you must do one more thing if you want to get a permanent position in our profession, and that is serve for two or three years in one of the Services." Of course, the Services will then have a greater responsibility, as was thrown on the Air Service with the short-service system. For one who intends to join, say, the electrical profession, every effort should be made, while he is in the Service, to give him every facility for studying his profession in civil life. This could be done also with regard to the spiritual profession. Would it not be an advantage for those who enter the spiritual profession, first, to pass their book examinations, and, then, before they are ordained, to do two or three years in one of the Services prior to taking up their curacies? I feel that the result would be to improve the spiritual life of this country. Think what a link it would be between the nation and the Services. Surely, it would improve the citizen as much as it would improve the Service, and I hope we can be told
884
that the Government are going to adopt some sort of short-service scheme.
My next point concerns pay and promotion. Surely, it is of the utmost importance for all in the Services at present, and all those who will go into them in the future, that the conditions of pay, promotion, equipment, emoluments generally, and what examinations they must pass, should be laid down for the three categories of Service—under the National Service Act, under what I call the short-service system, and under the long service or permanent career system. If these important conditions were laid down now the demobilization problem would be eased. I see that this has been done for many of the professions; for instance, nursing and the banks. We may think and hope, and believe, that major wars are over, that a major war is not probable now; but look at the world, look at Palestine, look at Tripoli, look at Greece, look at Burma, and look at the Dutch East Indies. 'There, anyhow, the Services are on active service. I would say to the Government that they have had three months in which to do something. I wanted this matter looked at a year ago.
Finally, I hope the Government are going to say that they will definitely keep the three Fighting Services separate, linked together by the Combined Staff. I also want to ask a special point about the Auxiliary Air Force. The auxiliary squadrons were magnificent in this war; nothing could have been better. Can we not have it stated very early that the Auxiliary Air Force squadrons are going to remain and are going to be doubled, in numbers at least? Some people go so far as to say that they would like an increase to 30 or 50 per cent. of the total strength of the Air Force. I do not go as far as they do, but I should say the number could easily be doubled. It is the cheapest form of insurance this country has ever taken.
Now as to the Colonies and Colonial troops. Cannot we really employ many more troops from the Colonies, at any rate for the ground services? I am thinking particularly of the Air Service. Could we not put up a Halton in Nigeria and a Halton in Singapore, train the young boys there and get the Halton spirit out there which we have in this country? Those boys could do five, six, seven or ten years in the Air Force, the Army or the Navy.
They will be trained in mechanics and mechanical appliances, and when their time of service is over they will be of much more use in their Colonies. They will help to develop their countries more quickly. And the Colonies would take a. pride in doing this. We should have colleges like Halton and Aberfield—I do not want to leave the Army out in this matter, either. I have tried to cut down the lengtin of this speech, I am not good at putting speeches together, as your Lordships know, but I feel I have asked nothing that cannot be settled long before the size of your Forces is decided upon. You need not wait until you know whether you are going to have 2,000,000, 1,000,000 or 500,000 men. A lot of these points could be decided upon, and a decision would give comfort to all, now. I beg to move for Papers.
3. 12 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Viscount has done a service to your Lordships, I suggest, and also to the nation by initiating the first debate on defence in either House in the new Parliament. There are, of course, good reasons for that, and they are not only the general neglect of Service questions which follows on every war. That has been true in this country for the last two or three hundred years; as soon as war is over, the one thing most people want to forget is all about the war and about Service questions. Nevertheless, I think the noble and gallant Viscount will agree that when this war did break out—and I consider we need a sense of proportion here—the Royal Navy was, for its size, in a grey t state of preparedness, and was most efficient. So, too, was the Royal Air Force, largely due to the noble and gallant Viscount's great organizing abilities when he held his high office on the Air Council. Ai to the Army, I want to follow the noble Viscount's example and to cut my remarks; therefore I will economize in my remarks upon His Majesty's Army.
The noble Viscount spoke about the Auxiliary Air Force. I think we should not, for a moment, lose sight of the extra-Ordinary development in this war of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. During the height of the war I am told that only one officer in six and one rating in ten was a long-term Service officer or man, and that all the rest were temporary officers and ratings, in this most highly
886
specialized Service. I mention this, following on what the noble Viscount said about Auxiliary Air Forces, in the hope that, although we have no direct representative of the Admiralty in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Viscount Stansgate will be sympathetic, as I am sure he will, and that we may keep up the organization and the nucleus of the Royal. Naval Volunteer Reserve in the future.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is not unreasonable in asking for a statement of policy, following on a similar request which he made a year ago. I only hope that in a year's time he will not have to stand up again from that Bench and make another request for information on policy. But, after all, the Government have some very great problems to settle, directly concerned with defence. Again I plead for a sense of proportion. There are three great unsolved problems to be dealt with before many of the answers can be given to the very proper questions put by the gallant Air Marshal. The first is that we have not set up yet the defence side of the United Nations Organization, and that is going to be a most complicated and delicate matter. We are going to form part, with our Armed Forces, of a universal police service for carrying out the obligations and responsibilities of the United Nations Organization and for preserving the future peace of the world. Until that matter is settled, it will be most difficult for this Government, or any Allied Government, to decide on the exact strength and composition of the Forces. I see that our good friends the leading Generals and Admirals on the other side of the Atlantic have put forward astronomical figures for the American Army and Navy of the future. That is, of course, the way of the professional chiefs of Fighting Services—they pitch their demands very high. I venture to say, however, that the American Government and the American Congress cannot settle this question at all until more is known about the defence side of the United Nations Organization.
Secondly, and for reasons which we all appreciate, we have unfortunately not begun the general peace settlement, either in Europe or in Asia. The noble Viscount referred to the trouble spots in the world and read out a catalogue of them. There they are. It is very unfortunate that they should exist. But they are nothing compared with the major problems which have

887
yet to be settled, both in Europe and in Asia. Until that is done, I do not think this Government, or any Allied Government, or any Dominion Government, can really decide on the strength and nature of their Armed Forces. Perhaps you could settle on a minimum and say, "This should be the minimum strength of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force," and could offer conditions of service upon which officers and men could re-engage up to that number. But you may need more or you may need less, and until these great questions are settled I do not see how many of the detailed matters upon which the noble Viscount dwelt can possibly be decided by this, or indeed any Allied Government.
The third great enigma is what is going to happen about the use of nuclear explosives, or the atom bomb as ordinary people describe it. That is obviously going profoundly to affect the whole problem of the defence of this and every other country. That matter is. now under discussion by our Prime Minister and the American President, and until it is settled I do not see how we can decide whether we are to have three separate Services, or a combined Chiefs of Staff Committee in permanent session, or a Combined General Staff. I would have supported the noble Viscount on those points, with great diffidence, a year ago, but a great deal has happened in the last year, and the most important thing that has happened, from the noble Viscount's point of view and from that of myself and of your Lordships, is this extraordinary new discovery of a devastating explosive that makes all other weapons obsolete or at least obsolescent.
There is a risk of over-simplification even here. The noble Viscount spoke of there being no great war, so far as he could see, in the future. He does not believe there will be one or at least hopes not. But there may be these minor wars or areas of disturbance, and this is a matter upon which I think we must keep our ideas clear. When, many years ago, I began my futile studies of stategy I was advised to read the works of a great German military author, von Clausewitz, who is well known as a writer to the noble Viscount and to your Lordships. Writing many years ago, he drew a distinction between what he called limited and unlimited wars. Limited wars are wars like the
888
Crimean War in the last century and the Russo-Japanese War at the beginning of this century. That description might also apply to the disturbances in the Dutch East Indies at the present time, the trouble in which we have unfortunately become involved in Java, about which the noble Viscount spoke. Examples of unlimited wars are the First World War, the Second World War, the Napoleonic Wars and so on. In unlimited wars of the future it they occur you will find the atomic bomb used, because obviously its secret cannot be kept for more than a few years. Those are the wars that the noble Viscount, I presume, referred to when he spoke of the "major wars."
Now we come to limited wars, the smaller areas of disturbance. There I cannot imagine the new nuclear explosive being used, because it can only be used indiscriminately. At the present moment, unfortunately, we have our forces engaged in fighting in Java, in Surabaya. Even if we had atomic bombs which could at the present moment be launched from rockets or from aeroplanes, it would, of course, be absurd to suppose they would be used there because we should be destroying our friends as much as our enemies. For those limited wars, Colonial wars or disturbances which may arise—and in that connexion I would include possible future police action by the Armed Forces of the United Nations Organization—obviously the older weapons will alone be used. By that I mean the weapons with which we have become familiar during the last five or six years in the European war, before the devastation of the Japanese cities by atomic bombs which brought about, very largely, the Japanese capitulation.
I apologize to your Lordships for this digression, but I think it necessary to say that there should be a distinction between the kind of weapons used for a certain type of war, the unlimited war (which all of us hope and pray will never come about), and the kind of weapons used in what I may call a police operation or in limited wars, using Clausewitz's definition, where the older weapons will be used. It is for that latter type of war that we need what I may describe as national armaments, very largely of a super-police kind. His Majesty's Government are no doubt addressing themselves to that problem at the present time.

889
The noble Viscount mentioned conscription. There again, obviously the answers must be given in the future when we can sec more clearly the problems that face us. My information is that the Admiralty are perfectly confident that they can get all the volunteers they want for the Royal Navy, and I imagine the same applies to the Royal Air Force. There remains the Army. In that connexion I understood the noble Viscount t) suggest long-term service by highly specialized and well-paid men, presumably a comparatively small force, stir-ported by some form of reserves. These are immense problems. I regret very mach that we are not spending one day on them only. There are many of your Lordships who ought to be taking part in this debate and I hope the noble Viscount will agree to return to the subject in the near future.
3.25 p.m.
LORD CROFT: My Lords, when I had the honour, as a humble representative to stand at that box and defend one of Lie Service Departments, my noble and gallant friend Lord Trenchard used occasionally to chide and criticize, very gently and very courteously, some of the things we had clone or had not done. It is very pleasant for me, therefore, to-day to say how cordially I appreciate the fact that he has tabled this Motion and caused your Lordships to look upon these great problems, because there are matters arising out of this Motion which appear to me to be not only important—which is, I think, the word he used—but of extreme urgency. Failure to announce the broad lines of post-war policy is, I submit, having an adverse effect. I think I can say that delay in indicating that policy is causing a great deal of unnecessary expenditure, and therefore t throwing a burden upon the taxpayers. It is causing inefficiency in the preparations of the Services for the future and is causing hardship to those of our officers and non-commissioned officers who would desire to remain in the Forces if they were permitted to do so.
I recall that some nine or ten months ago, when the end of the war with Germany appeared to be in sight, there were already exhaustive preparations in the Services—I believe I am right in saying in all the Services, but certainly in the Army—in order that we might have
890
a plan of the size of the separate forces, what were their land requirements, how many officers and non-commissioned officers were needed, what were their prospects and under what conditions applicants might serve. At that time we had the whole burden of the war with Germany on our shoulders as well as the Japanese war; but in spite of that an immense amount of preparatory work was clone and, I believe I can say, completed so far as was possible having regard to the information which the Services then had. So long as the war with Germany was not over, and so long as we still did not know where we were in the West, I think it may be agreed it was not reasonable to demand a cut-and-dried scheme; but once the major enemy had been defeated and the Japanese War was finished then, I think your Lordships will agree, a Cabinet decision as to the main broad lines of policy was of supreme urgency.
The noble Viscount has mentioned that time goes on. July is long past; August is gone; September and October are no more with us, and we are well into November. Yet there has so far been no pronouncement, as far as I am aware, and not one of the Fighting Services knows where it stands. Each Service is suffering from complete uncertainty, with results that may seriously affect the efficiency of our national defence. Frankly I feel this failure on the part of the Government to make up their minds on the question of post-war Services is needlessly having a deplorable effect. The problem can, I think, be roughly divided into the material and the human sides of the question. In the material side, I would include land, training grounds, barracks, fortifications, ammunition, stores, equipment and all such matters. The second side, the human side, affects personnel.
With regard to the first side, I submit that until decisions are made there will be a great and wholly unnecessary waste of public funds, running into millions of pounds each month. What are our requirements for stores of ammunition? Unless you decide on the size and character of the Forces, how can those responsible for planning say what equipment and ammunition are required? Until a decision is made, how can the Services know just how much

891
storage space is required—and storage space is a vital problem at the present moment, as all members of His Majesty's Government know—or what barrack space is required? If you do not decide, for instance, whether you will require x armoured divisions or x armoured divisions plus 2, you cannot possibly abandon any tank training areas. The same is, I presume, true of ships and docks and other naval installations and of aircraft and aerodromes. Until you know the layout and the location of your Army, how can you tell just what training areas are required, say in the Middle East, in the Far East, or here at home? Until that decision is made, it would, I think your Lordships will agree, be disastrous for any Service Department to yield up training areas, equipment or barracks which might be wanted a year or two hence and the cost of which would probably have greatly increased in the interval.
The tempo of modern war has so increased that we cannot rely any longer on surviving the first round of the fight and settling down to build up our Forces after the struggle has begun. We have gambled on that twice, and we got through only by the skin of our teeth; the third time may be fatal. We all hope, as the noble Viscount says, that there will not be another serious war; but, as he said, hope is not enough. We cannot again take the appalling risk of unilateral disarmament, which proved so disastrous in its results in the years between the wars, and which accounted so largely for our unpreparedness.
The President and people of the United States of America appear to be quite convinced that they must maintain great Forces on sea, on land and in the air. General Marshall's realistic outline of defence needs demonstrated the vital necessity for all three Services, and was apparently acceptable to the people of that great country. Although I agree broadly with what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said with regard to defence demands in the United States of America, I think it must be admitted that President Truman has made it very clear that the United States is going to have very large forces in the days to come. Why cannot we too make up our minds and cease this masterly inactivity, which has persisted as if these problems did not exist? I submit that we
892
shall have to be very careful that the Big Three of the United Nations, who are the power behind that great Organization of which we have so many hopes, do not become the Big Two, with ourselves as a little third, because of the complacency and inaction of the Government, in our contribution to the world's security organization.
I would also remind your Lordships that industry which is associated with war equipment and munitions is crying out for a decision as to what the military requirements are. I need only recall the very serious position we were in during the earlier part of the war, when we searched the world for supplies. There are equipment problems calling every day for the application of science, but, whilst we are drifting, men of science have no problems given to them and no target in front of them, and some of them are leaving, though they are men whom we should be wise to retain. If the business of this country is to be run on these lines of inaction, I think we might despair of economic recovery; but we know that that cannot be so.
I want to come for one moment to the human factor. In all the three Services, I believe I am right in saying that there are large numbers of officers and noncommissioned officers of outstanding merit, who have excelled as leaders and whose retention in the Fighting Services may make all the difference to the efficiency of the Forces when they are reconstructed and built up for peace duties. Imagine the situation of all these officers to whom I am referring, whose demobilization is now taking place or is about to take place. They have made good in the science of arms. Many of them are most anxious to continue in a career in which they are already far up the ladder; but no one can tell them whether they are wanted and are to remain on, and whether a grateful nation is prepared to accept their service on reasonable terms. They see their brother officers and non-commissioned officers already in civil life, some of them getting the best jobs going. Are they to gamble by continuing in the Services for one year, as I understand is permissible in some cases, which may leave them worse off in the end, or should they take a civilian job while the going is good?
It is really with the flower of the Fighting Services that I am concerned. Are

893
we to retain them, or will they, in desperation, because we cannot make up our minds, leave the career for which they are best fitted? I need not give instances, because instances will come to all our minds of brilliant young men who six or seven years ago, at the age, perhaps, of nineteen, joined up because they saw that war was coming. They were in it from the beginning, and since then by sheer merit they have attained the rank of Major or Lieutenant-Colonel, or perhaps even higher rank. They may have had the command and control and care of perhaps a thousand men, and many of them have been decorated for fine leadership in the held. Failure to make use of their services will mean the loss of the very me a that the Army needs most, and those men will go into civil life, where they will have no qualifications because they had no chance of starting in civil life before they went to fight for their country. These men—men to whom we owe so much—will in civil life have to begin again at the bottom of the ladder. Many of them have no private means whatever, apart from their gratuities. If they dare not wait, aril therefore leave the Service, they will have to start again, whereas if we can retain them in the Service and tell them what we are prepared to do, they have the chance of a great career. I believe that what I have said of the Army is equally true of the Royal Navy and of the Royal Air Force.
What, then, do I suggest that Parliament should ask the Government to do? We ask, as Lord Trenchard said, for a broad policy for the Services. We realize that it may not be possible to forecast the actual final numbers required, but surely we can, as the noble Viscount and Lori Strabolgi have suggested, give a minimum and say, "This is the minimum which we must have." It is not for me to say whether it should be a million and a half, or a million, or three quarters of a million, but let us decide on a minimum and teal the Army Council, the Admiralty and the Air Force what that minimum is. If the Government will do that, I think it will be a very great help to those who are engaged in planning our future Services. The Government may not have made up their minds finally on actual conditions of service, rates of pay and pensions, though delay in that respect is, I submit, no longer justified; but they can tell these
894
officers whom they will, I hope, try to retain that existing terms will be continued, and that any improvements thereafter will be extended to those who sign on now.
There is much more that I should like to say, because the same arguments apply to our Territorial and other Auxiliary Forces. Hundreds of men are coming out now and going back to civilian life because we have not made up our minds how many officers we want to retain. If the Government can end this dalliance and give a broad outline of their policy, as has been suggested from three different quarters in this House, I think they will be doing a great service to the country. Then we may have a choice of having the kind of Fighting Services in peace that we had in war—unsurpassed, and I think we may without boasting say almost unequalled, in discipline, training and warrior qualities.
3.40 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Viscount Trenchard has put these questions and I trust that the Government will be able to satisfy him. I must say, though, that I am a little concerned lest he should find himself "ridden off"—if I may so phrase it—by reason of the easy answers that Viscount Stansgate can give to the effect that it is quite impossible for this or for any other Government to give a definite statement as to what Forces we require in view of the extraordinary and complete upheaval of every military doctrine which has resulted from the discovery of the possibility of the release, in a form in which it can be, and has been, applied, of the vast power of atomic energy. I do not know if all your Lordships realize how completely military thought has changed in places where they appreciate to the full the power of this new weapon.
General Marshall has been quoted. I do not know if your Lordships are aware of the kind of force that General Arnold, another equally distinguished General of the United States Army, suggests that the United States should have, and presumably that we should have. He suggests something altogether novel, something having no relation at all to what we have hitherto considered to be appropriate. His suggestion is that first of all

895
it is necessary to have, shall we say, twenty-five installations each one of which can destroy a capital city—or, indeed a number of them—spaced over the world in countries over which the United States now has control. That is the first big thing he suggests. Then, of course, he says, you would require a huge Secret Service force, running presumably into many millions of people, in order to find out if the other fellow was doing something of the same kind. If it needs only twenty-five of these installations to destroy most of the world, it is obvious that you will need a very vigilant force to watch what the other man is doing.
Thirdly, as we have all foreseen, there will be needed a great force—one can hardly say of all arms because the whole thing will be novel and completely new—which can go to the place where, through your Secret Service and by other methods, you have ascertained that the other fellow is working mischief and quickly stop it before he has completed his arrangements. That is General Arnold's suggestion which has been submitted to the American Government and the American people. I am afraid that Viscount Stansgate is nodding his head, and agrees that these things are undoubtedly true. If he says that, and goes no further, he will, of course, get the best of the argument. I must concede, and I think that most of my noble friends in this quarter of the House would concede too, that you could not lay down now, the forces that you would want. But if the noble Viscount says simply that, we shall not have advanced a bit.
In the second part of the proposal put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that you should continue, as he puts it, a form of conscription, I am with him. I think that you would find, too, that this same General Arnold, who proposes the fantastic military equipment which I have described, would also join with him. Why? It may well be that Lord Cherwell—who I suppose is the man who knows most about this subject of anybody in this House—is right in saying that if anyone start; going to war with this new weapon the effect will be world disaster. I do not know if your Lordships remember, but in a speech in which Lord Cherwell began by writing down the atomic bomb and saying that a lot of non
896
sense is being talked about it and that people are exaggerating its power and importance, the noble Lord ended, speaking very quietly—so quietly that only those near him could hear what he was saying—with words to this effect: "Still I must admit, if the nations of the world decided to go to war with the atomic bomb the result would undoubtedly be the complete end of civilization." I suppose it is true that that is what would in fact happen. The late Professor J. J. Thomson was of that opinion and he told me before he died, that, in his view, a war in which the atomic bomb was used would probably result in bringing to an end all life on earth, vegetable as well as animal.
In order to avoid that, what can we do? We can do some of the things which General Arnold has proposed. We can have a great force which can go in and put a stop to the machinations of a war-minded country before mankind is destroyed. But where does that lead one to? I think it leads one straight to this: that you cannot abandon all the means of enforcing your will on your neighbour either in relation to the human factor, which has just been referred to by Lord Croft, or in the mechanical realm and still less in the other aspects of human society. You must maintain a nucleus in all these respects, but from the point of view of the people of this island the sky is the limit of what you want in the matter of man-power. You want every, single male in the country to be taught, as soon as he is capable of learning it, that he can only live, and his neighbours can only live, through ceaseless vigilance and through being ready in body and mind, not only to serve his country—that of course goes without saying—but to serve the cause of mankind as a whole. So I would plead with Viscount Stansgate to accept the general thesis put forward by Viscount Trenchard, that the youth of this country should be taught the necessity of doing everything to maintain health in body and mind and that there should be, if conscription on the Continental model is not thought to be desirable, a great school of morals and social virtue and, above all, of self-sacrifice. Our people should be prepared to join with, it may be, and no doubt it would be, the United States and others—with Russia, if she is willing—in going in and taking measures to stop an extermination policy which, if unchecked will, without a doubt, destroy mankind.

897
And now to come down to a detail Here are all these officers and N.C.O's who want to know if they are wanted The answer is: "Yes, we shall want all of you who know how to keep pod sound discipline based on the simple relations o man to man and the ordinary necessity for having discipline. We want you to help to teach the young people how to make sure that their bodies as well the as minds are strong, and, above all their souls." That, I submit, can be done. You can teach these young people that they must love their country more than sell and the cause of mankind more than both. If the Government could say "Well, while the atomic bomb problem makes it all too difficult for us to make pronouncement on the Armed Force now, we do pronounce in favour of the idea that the whole of the nation shall be schooled in patriotism, in morals anti social virtues, and above all in sacrifice if need be sacrifice of their own lives in the cause of others;" then I think all the rest will follow and we can go forward in this uncertain world secure in the knowledge that even if the world is to be destroyed we shall have played our par and shall have been ready to serve the cause of mankind.
3.50 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I crave that traditional indulgence which is so kindly and cordially extended to those who address this House for the first time, I esteem it a great honour to speak to a Motion Initiated by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Trenchard, so long a champion of the Forces. I hope I shall receive indulgence if I cover a little of the ground which has already been gone over, which I do when I strongly echo what has been said and what has been said particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Croft, regarding those officers and men of His, Majesty's Forces now serving who wish to make a lifetime career in the Forces. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has told us, regular Commissions and regular employment in the Services are naturally contingent upon the size and composition of the peace-time Army and the peace-time Forces. It is a question of translating strategic commitments into strategic requirements.
As regards their size, that is not a matter which can be settled by ourselves alone, but it will be materially affected by the
898
arrangements which we enter into with those great Powers with whom we are in alliance. As regards its composition, that is a decision for the Government and their advisers to make, based on six years experience of war and the advent of the atomic age. This is a decision which affects the future of the whole world and it is not a decision which can be taken in any hurry; but meanwhile grave doubt and uncertainty exist in the minds of those now serving who aspire to a career in these peace-time Forces. I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I understand that in the Royal Navy a certain number of permanent Commissions have been granted already in certain branches of that Service. In the Army and the Air Force Boards have been set up to examine candidates for Commissions and a certain number of Commissions have already been granted, but a large number, a much larger number, who were thought suitable for Commissions at a later stage have been placed on waiting lists.
There are also, I understand, various schemes in operation by which serving officers can prolong their service for a time or re-engage for a short period of years. It is at this moment, and from now onwards, that this matter becomes more pressing. These young men, with six years of war behind them and all their future ahead, are the future military leaders of Britain. The longer they have served the sooner the date of their demobilization falls due. If, as that date approaches, they have no guarantee as to the terms of service which they are going to find and, in fact, no guarantee whether they are going to get a Commission at all, they will turn to a civilian career. For, my Lords, the spectre of unemployment is not confined to any one class. If these young men find that the prospects of employment in the civilian world are good, they will turn their thoughts from the Forces. If, however, they find no immediate prospect of a civilian job, and if, in fact, they do not find themselves well suited to one, they will be liable to return to the Forces. By the present uncertainty the Forces are the loser.
I do not seek to embarrass His Majesty's Government in this matter and they are quite well aware of the extremely prejudicial effect on the morale of the Forces which this present state of doubt

899
is having. The great majority of noble Lords on both sides of the House have at one time or another served in His Majesty's Forces and they know that there is no greater foe to morale, either in peace or war, than uncertainty in any form. It is not just a question of a concrete assurance; even the promise of a concrete assurance at a later stage would do much to remedy the present evil. Our Dominions and Allies are faced with very similar problems, but this problem has been settled in the Canadian Army in which I have held a Commission for close on six years. Their problem is simpler; a much smaller number is involved. When you consider that that great Dominion, in spite of her vast territories, has a population no larger than that of Greater London, and when you consider the size of Canada's Armed Forces in ratio to her man-power, you will realize that my example does not present too extreme a parallel. The Canadian Government has promised to publish the terms and conditions of service of her peace-time Army on, or before, 31st March next year, about four and a half months hence. Meanwhile, in order to provide personnel for her peace-time Army and in order to provide replacements for her Forces in Germany, she has got what is called an Interim Force. Any officer or man who wishes to join the Regular Army joins the Interim Force and, if accepted, serves in it under the same conditions of pay and allowances, and conditions generally, as those which obtained during the war. When that date —31st March next year—comes round, or perhaps before, the terms of service will be announced, the Interim Force will cease to exist and these officers or men will be taken straight into Canada's peace-time Army. Thus those who, when their conditions of service are declared, find that they do not care for them, have the option of withdrawing without further obligation.
The Canadian plan, of which I have given your Lordships the gist, has been public for nearly one month. It is a perfect guarantee in that it ends all that doubt and uncertainty which is a problem which has faced the Canadian Army as much as it has our own. I want to ask His Majesty's Government if I may, whether, although they cannot at this moment give us a concrete assurance on the terms of
900
service of our peace-time Forces, they will give us a date, even if it is fairly distant, when these terms will be announced and whether on that same date, or perhaps earlier, they can give a firm answer to those on waiting lists for Commissions. That would do much to dispel that doubt and uncertainty which is proving so prejudicial to the future of the Services.
3.59 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think all your Lordships would wish me to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on a very able and well-considered speech. No doubt many of your Lordships knew his father when he was in this House, although I believe he was not often in attendance here because of the excellent work he was doing in the Dominion of Canada; but a number of us were proud to serve with John Buchan in another place and I suppose there is not one of your Lordships who has not read one or more, or perhaps all, of his brilliant books. So because of his father and because of the speech the noble Lord has just delivered, I think we should all welcome his first appearance in this House and wish him well in his public and private affairs.
I intend to keep the House for a very few moments only this afternoon. I really rise to say one word about the Territorial Army. The noble Viscount, who initiated this debate, spoke about the good services of the R.A.F.V.R., and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, spoke about the R.N.V.R., and I thought it would be right for a word to be said about the Territorial Army as well. I served in it during the whole of the last war and until just before this one began, so, perhaps, I am in a position, after twenty-four years' service, to say one word on its behalf. But before I do so, I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord who has just sat down so ably said, and what was referred to by my noble friend Lord Croft, in regard to the great necessity for letting officers and men of all three Services know where they stand. At the moment, except in very exceptional cases, if an officer or a man applies to his Commanding Officer as to what his terms of service would be if he stayed on as a regular soldier, sailor or airman, he is told that he can be signed on for just one year, and no more. That, of course, gives him no security of tenure.

901
He finds that if he stays on for that time, a large number of civilian jobs have gone, and that he is rather later in the field than his contemporaries. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the Government should, at the earliest possible moment, make an announcement that the Services can retain a certain number of people. Otherwise, you are going to lose all your best young men. And once these go out of the Service and settle down into a different way of life, it is very rarely that they will come back. You do not get your best men back again.
I hope we shall soon hear what the Government's decision is in regard to national service. I very much hope they will keep it on, not only for the sake of national security, and so that, once again, we are not caught unprepared, but because I believe it does a lot of good for the young men who serve eighteen months or two years of their lives in one of the Armed Forces of the Crown. You can see the recruits going in, and you can see them after six months' service; they are physically very much better men after that six months' training, and because of regular hours and meals. Secondly, I believe it is a very good thing that men from all walks of life should serve, side by side, in the ranks, and get to know one another. Thirdly, I hope that, in the future, we shall be able to send some of our drafts abroad much more quickly—probably by some form of air service—than we could in the past. That may mean that, in the future, many of the young men of this country will have the opportunity of seeing other parts of the world and getting that wider outlook which service abroad gives them.
Whether or not there is going to be national service, I am one of those who believe that we shall still need to have a Territorial Army. The Territorial Army in this war, as in the last, performed a valuable service to the country. Of course, here and there, there was a bad unit and, here and there, Commanding Officers who were not up to scratch, but, by and large, it was a considerable contribution to our Armed Forces at a time when we wanted men. If any of your Lordships listened to a broadcast not long ago on the Wessex Division—which happens to be the division with which I am largely concerned —and their wonderful efforts to relieve the
902
airborne forces at Arnhem, or have followed, both in this war and the last, the doings of that great Highland Division, the 51st, I think we can claim that the Territorial Army has sent forth some extremely good units.
Even if we have national service, I believe it is a very good thing to get the men, either voluntarily or compulsorily, to serve on for four years afterwards in the Territorial Army. I should like the Government to consider whether that Army should be re-formed so that the Commanding Officers have to take 80 per cent. or some such figure, of these men, keeping the remaining 20 per cent. for those who wish to serve on longer as non-commissioned officers, and whom the Commanding Officers themselves wish to retain. Eighty per cent. would be doing it for a short period after their military service, and a small percentage, 20 or 25 per cent., would be doing it for the longer period necessary for noncommissioned officers. I am quite certain that that would make an extremely good force. I well remember the time when I was asked to re-form a battery immediately after the last war, and I remember, six or seven years later, that, when the Territorial units were, just for a year or two, every bit as good as their regular opposite numbers, the reason was that we still had N.C.O's who had served in the war, and N.C.O's in the regular unit whose time had expired. But the units had not got that background of training which was given by continuous service during the days of the war. I believe, if we have national service, that we can still go on with the Territorial Army. A lot of people will be glad to keep up the association by going to an annual camp for a fortnight each year, for the extra four or five years, and we shall be able to keep those Territorial units going which have been such an asset to our Forces, both during this war and the last.
My last words are that I believe it is most important, as in the case of the conditions of service in the Regular Army, to take whatever step you are going to take soon. It ought to be taken within the next three or four months, because, if you are going to start re-forming units at the beginning of next summer, you will get the fellows who are just coming out. As your Lordships are no doubt

903
aware, the groups that are being demobilized now, are, in the main, the pre-war Territorial officers and men. if you leave it for longer than that before you make any effort, you will not get that continuity which you would get if you made the decision within the next three or four months. I appeal to the Government to let these officers and men know what they have in mind, if they are going on with the Territorial Army. As an old Territorial soldier who still takes an interest in the Force, I would plead that the decision might be given when there is a chance to get the men to go on, and once more to re-form that Army into the great fighting weapon it has been to this country in the past.
4.19 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I should like, very warmly, to support the Motion moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I think it is most opportune. We all know it may be difficult for the Government to answer the question he has asked them to-day; but we also know that, although they may not be able to do so, this is a period when the Departments are working out the future and must have some general instruction as to how they are to proceed in that work—some guiding principles, and it is the guiding principles in this matter that have been so ably expressed by the noble Viscount who moved this Motion. I very much hope that the Government will take seriously the opinions of this House on those points which have been so very well expressed this afternoon. I know that in my own Service there are many young officers who are to-day anxious about their future. They are far away, out of touch with the run of things and with people whom they can consult and who would help them and give them assurance or guidance. It is very important that they should have some indication as to their future as soon as possible.
Not that I am particularly anxious about my own Service, because, as has already been said, the Navy was increased in the war particularly by reserves from the wonderful R.N.V.R., who did so magnificently. Seventy-five per cent. of the whole naval personnel was of the R.N.V.R., and when the Navy shrinks again to its peace size, whatever that may
904
be—if there is to be one—it will be the reserves who will go. There will not be too many officers left in the regular Service for what will be required. In fact, in my own opinion, the reverse is likely to be the case, and we may want to keep some of the R.N.V.R. officers in order to augment the regular Service.
There is really only one point I wish to speak about concerning the Motion the noble Viscount has moved, and that is the question of comradeship and unity in the Service. Before I come to that matter, however, I should like to make a few remarks about the atom bomb. We have heard a great deal about it this afternoon, but really most of us are not qualified to discuss such a matter. Certainly we older members of the Services, like the noble Viscount and myself, have not got the technical knowledge, not having taken part in the fighting or the administration of this war. We are able to give only our broad views as to what should be done in regard to policy, and that we are qualified to do from our past experience. When we come to think of the possibilities of atomic energy, and whether the three Services should continue to exist, all we can build on is the fact that the Government have said, as have the Government of the United States, that, despite the possibilities of atomic energy, their present intention is that the three Services shall remain in being. It is with that instruction that we have to deal.
It may be—in fact it is certain—that every Service will have its use for atomic energy, because the main difficulty in the Services is to get the greatest energy in the smallest space and with the least weight. If you can produce means of moving your ships or your aircraft with less weight and with greater power in a small space, it simply means that your ships and your aircraft become better fighting machines and more efficient for their purpose. It may be that the experiments that are, I understand, to be carried out in the Pacific, will show that if an atomic bomb is dropped a hundred miles off the Fleet, the bottoms of all the ships may be blown in and they may be of no use. It may be shown that if you explode a too lb. atomic shell from a gun, 20,000 feet up in the air, all the aircraft within fifty miles will be destroyed. We do not know these things. It does not matter. We are not any worse off as regards

905
defence than anybody else; we are very much on the same footing. If the three Services are no longer required, we need not mourn them. We can bury them decently as old warriors who have played their part in the history of the country and clone very well, and then get on with the work of defending the country in some other way. That is the spirit in which we mint look at it.
The only matter I wish to raise at this stage of the debate concerns the very important point Viscount Trenchard made about having a Combined Staff College. I was very impressed that he should have brought that point out, because it is of the greatest importance. I refer to a college where the more senior officers of the Services will meet, get to know each other and live together while they are doing their studies. Because to my mind it the comradeship and the unity of the Service which is the most important thing we have to preserve to-day. That comradeship has grown up and developed in the war, and we have to be careful that we do not lose it in times of peace. I have often spoken on this subject, not only in your Lordships' House. I think we have got to get the Services as united in spirit, in peace-time, as they were united in action in war-time.
But "unity" does not necessarily mean "uniformity"—that is quite a different thing. If you are going to have any body united, you want the separate elements of that body to be as efficient in themselves as possible, whether they are personalities on a board or whatever they may be. Therefore you want the three Services to be united but, at the same time, to be as efficient as they possibly can be in using their own element, the land, the sea, or the air. You must do all you can to build up their esprit de corps. Each Service must have its own special efficiency. It must have its own means of entering its personnel and providing for their early training. Thai trailing must all be specialized according to the E element in which the Service has to work. There is one overriding thing the Services will require, however, and that is the ability to combine together. You must remember that in a highly technical Service—and I may mention that in the Navy, for instance, before the wan 80 per cent. of the officers had gone through highly specialized technical courses and were specialists in some form
906
other of the Navy's technical arts—you must be able to develop, to the utmost, tactical efficiency with your own weapon, and be able to bring the most efficient weapon to the combination of which you are going to form a part and to which it should be recognized you belong—a united service in defence of the country. Therefore I very strongly support this idea of a Combined College which will tend to foster comradeship and unity and to do away with any evil feelings which may lead to rivalry and jealousy among the three Services.
There is one point we have to bear in mind about which I want to warn you. If you are going to ensure unity and comradeship among the Services, that unity and comradeship must not only be among the lower ranks; it must also he at the top. If you want to get unity at the top, you have got to remove the causes which have prevented that unity in the past. What are those causes? The Services were made to fight each other for the money they wanted to develop their own arms. You cannot do that without splitting them one from the other. Let me give you a classical case, the case of the naval base at Singapore. As a naval base its proper defence was of vital importance to the Navy and each of the three arms, the land, sea and air, could only primarily be effective in a certain way; no one arm could do all that was required to defend Singapore. But the discussion, unfortunately, was forced into a violent controversy between the Services as to whether they should have guns or aircraft. It was the most deplorable thing that was ever done. We had the unedifying spectacle of the Chiefs of the Staffs being forced into arguing with each other before statesmen as to whether it was more important to defend Singapore with guns or with aircraft.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Or with battleships.
LORD CHATFIELD: That does not come in so much; it was the guns against the air. What was the real answer? The answer was that they were all wanted, guns, ships and aircraft, but the Government were not prepared to spend the money. Therefore the wretched Services were made to argue with each other as to which they should have. Can you imagine Imperial Defence being conducted efficiently in such a manner?

907
I do not want to go into these things in detail except from the point of view of their effect on Service unity. If you are going to adopt that sort of method of treating the Services, so that their own great chiefs, who have fought their way to the top and are trusted by their personnel, have got to argue with each other as to whether one Service is to have the weapon that it wants or the other Service is to have the weapon it wants, you will not get comradeship and unity among the Services. If you get disunity at the top it will spread right down and cleave the Services to the very bottom. I want to warn the Government, as I have so often advised in this House before, that they must try to obviate that very serious failing we have developed in the past. I very much hope they will be able to assure this House—I do not mean tonight but at some time—that they are going to create another Minister for Coordination of Defence who will have under him a Council, such as we created in 1939, of the three Service Ministers, the three Chiefs of Staff and the Foreign Secretary to deal with all the great problems of defence and to bring the three Services closely together by getting them to sit together and to argue out their points with each other.
The Service Estimates should be combined. The position should not arise where each Service, in its own building and unknown to the others, asks for so much money to do so much. They are all part of a team; it is just as important to the Navy that the Air Force should be strong as it is to the Chief of the Air Staff, and it is just as important to the Air Force that the Army should be sufficiently strong for the combined tasks they may have to do as it is to the Army itself. The Service Estimates must be combined; they must be discussed together and they must be fought together. The three Chiefs of Staff and their Ministers must go arm in arm to Parliament, in such way as they are constitutionally able to do, to explain that it is one Defence Estimate representing all the requirements of the three Services. If you do that, then you will get the three Chiefs of Staff, and all those under them in those great buildings, working together. If you get them working together you will find that will spread to the bottom and you will then get
908
in the three Services in the future that comradeship and unity which is so desirable. Though I know he cannot possibly answer this question, I hope the Government spokesman will anyhow assure this House that the Government will take this debate seriously and that they will take due steps to see that the points that have been brought before them are very reasonably—or shall I say seriously?—considered.
4.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, rising to address your Lordships at this somewhat late hour I do not desire to detain you for any length of time. The sole reason which impels me to address your Lordships is that I have had the privilege of commanding a great number of these very officers, N.C.O's. and men over a considerable period in this war. To-day they are continuously writing to me and I am seeing them when they are home on leave. They are asking me for advice as to what they are to do in the future, within a few months. I desire to make the plea to His Majesty's Government that the issue of a plan is urgent because these young fellows, who have come from all classes, many of them from the working classes, and who by their ability and their efficiency have got themselves into positions of high rank, considering their ages at this moment, are now wondering what they are to do in the next few months because no plan has been announced by the Government.
I am only going to give two examples and I give those two examples because they are personal ones. As I see it, the first thing that must be done in any plan (I put this forward with diffidence) is to ensure that the post-war Army is brought up at least to its pre-war strength. I fear from reports that I have received that that is now very far from being the case. Then must follow, of course, the creation of Auxiliary Forces, and possibly conscription. If it is true that the Army is very much below strength, surely the Government can announce some plan whereby these gallant fellows can serve on in the Regular Army and bring it up to its pre-war strength. I know of an Adjutant home from Central Europe who is in the most galling position. His N.C.O's and men come to him to ask for advice. Not only can he not give them advice but he cannot

909
find out what he is to do himself. The other day a Regular officer commanding a demobilization unit had members of a most distinguished regiment, the Glider Pilot Regiment, passing through his unit. They would not have gone out had they been given any terms to stay on. I am sure, after what Lord Croft and Lord Tweedsmuir have said, that this is having only one effect on these men; it is lowering their morale and decreasing the spirit of desire to carry on for their King and country in the British Army after the war is over. I hope that the Government will act with every expedition. I am sure that great difficulties confront them but surely any plan is better than no plan. If they can only get a plan out I am convinced they will receive wide support from all ranks now serving abroad and elsewhere.
4.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to say one word at this late hour. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, did not mention the juvenile organizations behind the Armed Forces. These bodies take a very long time to build up, and I should particularly like to refer to one of them, with the origin of which I had some slight association, the A.T.C. At the time that that was formed there was a deep anxiety that if it was a success a vacuum might be created if the Air Ministry allowed their interest in it in any way to diminish at a later date. This has been an immensely successful organization, making a contribution of the utmost value to the initial training of R.A.F. personnel. It has been built up by voluntary workers, who have given a great deal of their time to it and have made a mat valuable contribution to the methods and procedure of Air Force training.
These bodies are uncertain about their future. They have been built up with Painstaking care, and it has been a slow Process. I would ask the Government to give some encouragement and reason to hope, if they can, that this body will go on existing not simply as a pre-training organization for the Royal Air Force, but as a youth organization for general purposes, for which there is now an urgent need; in other words, for its own value. It will be of value for training in aviation subjects in general—not simply for the Royal Air Force, but for
910
civil aviation and the aircraft industry. I would ask the Government to give some indication, if they can, of how that stands. I would add one small point. I do not wish to enter into matters of high controversy, but when the Services come to discuss what is to be done, I hope that care will be taken to see that the Cinderella of the Services does not go to the wall.
4.32 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (VISCOUNT STANSGATE): My Lords, I need hardly say that my own feeling, which is one of the deepest respect for this House and for the opinions expressed by so many senior and distinguished officers, is shared to the full by the Government. I need hardly assure Lord Chatfield that eveything which has been said to-day will be given the most careful consideration. It has been a very interesting debate. On the one hand, we have had from Lord Mottistone a speech sketching out a dreadful future, and on the other hand we have had from other speakers remarks which I thought devoted a little too much attention to better ways of winning the last war. What we have to consider is the situation as it is, and I hope I shall be able, though I am aware that my material is not all that Lord Trenchard would desire, to answer some of the questions which he put, and which were put also by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I am also going to speak about co-operation between the Services. I cannot deal with the necessity for complete harmony at the very top; Lord Chatfield's attempt in that direction did not seem to have quite the result for which I am sure that he hoped.
It is not necessary for me to tell this House, and especially it is not necessary for me to tell members of the late Government, that all the questions which have been discussed to-day have been very urgently under the consideration of expert bodies for many months. Lord Croft and Lord Llewellin must know that. No one, I hope, is suggesting that the Government have not given a great deal of thought to all these matters. What I understand the debate to be about is whether the Government should not have put the pieces of the jig-saw together and presented this House with the pattern. It is with the difficulties of doing that that I propose to deal in my few remarks.

911
In the main, the speeches have been directed to getting men on the one side and organizing men on the other. My illustrations will for the most part naturally be drawn from the Service which I know best, the Royal Air Force, but any points of military interest have been noted by my noble friend Lord Nathan and can be dealt with either here or at another time. First of all, a certain number of men are needed for the active Forces So far as the Air Force is concerned, for permanent enlistment you must have volunteers, and for the aircrews you must have volunteers. I would point out to my very old friend the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that there is not one aircrew who is not a volunteer, so that talk about conscription is not necessarily the way to evoke a fine patriotic spirit. These men are all volunteers, and the permanent Force must be drawn, of course, from voluntary enlistment. Naturally, the people who are considering becoming voluntary members of this Service want to know the terms and conditions of service.
I thought that the most effective point in this debate—I say this very respectfully—was the necessity for some early decision about rates of pay and conditions of service. I do not know about the camps, but I do know about the airfields; you cannot go to any airfield without this point being brought to your notice. You find brilliant men, heavily decorated, who are being driven in despair to find a job elsewhere when we ought to be keeping them in the Service. We shall have to replace them, if they go, by inferior men later on, which we do not want to do. At the same time, to bring out a schedule of pay and conditions for the three Services—because you must assimilate them; I do not say make them identical—is a formidable task. Lord Croft must know that from his experience at the War Office. I would remind the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that he was a member of Mr. H. A. L. Fisher's Committee after the last war, which was doing the same job. The last war finished on November 11 1918, and the Committee's Report did not appear until September, 1919. I am not saying that by way of reproach, but I have cross-examined the people who are doing this work, and I know that it is a most formidable and detailed job. I can assure your Lordships that this matter is not merely under active consideration,
912
or any ridiculous jargon of that kind, but is being worked on day by day most industriously.
When you have got your pay and conditions, and have your people volunteering for the job, the question arises of whether there are enough of them, and, if not, how you are going to get more. That brings me to the question of compulsory service, which in any case is a drain on your productive cadre. It is not to be supposed that by bringing a certain number of conscripts for a year or so into a Service you are increasing the value of that Service at once. Far from it. I was told in the Navy, for example, that if you had compulsory service in the Navy, you would positively have to increase the regular personnel in order to train them. Where you would get your value would be in reserves, because, once the people have been trained, they go back into Reserve and can be called on at a later date. On this matter the Government have no decision to announce at this moment, but it is one which is constantly in their thoughts, and will fit into the general picture when the general picture is complete.
The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, raised the question of the A.T.C., and I would make his remarks the excuse for some general observations upon the question of the reserves for the Air Force on which we hope to draw. As there are some matters of decision here, which your Lordships will be glad to know, I have had what I am going to say committed to writing, and I shall read from the document which I have in my hand, because these are important and clear decisions. The post-war system of organization, control, and training, and the conditions of service of the non-regular Air Forces, are now under active and 'detailed consideration in the Air Ministry—I apologize for that; I have fallen into my own trap! But until a number of major questions concerning defence policy are decided, and in particular the size of the Defence Forces to be maintained, it will not be possible to reach final conclusions on these matters. I can give, however, a general indication. As regards the Air Training Corps, I am glad to be able to reaffirm what has been said on other occasions, that the Air Training Corps will continue as a volunteer cadet organization under the control and with the financial support of the Air Ministry.

913
The pre-entry training afforded by the Corps is of great importance, and it is proposed that the Corps shall be the main source of recruits both for aircrews and ground services in the regular and nor-regular Air Forces. That applies also to the Fleet Air Arm, and I suppose it might apply to the Army. I do not know, but normally they would be air-minded boys. Its size will accordingly he related to the future strength of those Forces and cannot be definitely fixed until that has been settled.
Now as to other pools of reserve which are regarded as important sources of supply of officers both for flying and for ground duties in the regular and non-regular Air Forces, it is intended to revive and establish a number of University Air Squadrons. The squadrons of the Auxiliary Air Force—to which the noble Viscount referred and to which he paid a well-deserved tribute—are in process of reverting to their auxiliary status and plans are being considered under which they would form a substantial part of our first-line air defence within an operational Command. As and when Squadron Commanders have been appointed and headquarters opened, announcements will appear in the Press. I cannot give the answer the noble Viscount would like as to the number of these squadrons. I only say that their position is assured.
Plans envisage also a general reserve on the lines of the R.A.F.V.R. comprising reservists who have completed their regular engagements and other volunteer reservists. This reserve and the organizations for providing pre-entry training —.namely, the Air Training Corps and the University Air Squadrons—will be the responsibility of a R.A.F. Reserve Command organized in regional groups. There was always the possibility the y would be put in Flying Training Command, but it has been thought that inasmuch as they are a reserve pool, it is better to give them the regular headquarters of the Reserve Command to look to. It will, I trust, be somewhere in the same neighbourhood as Flying Training Command Headquarters—namely, in the Reading district.
This arrangement should assist the close integration of these Forces with one mother and with the Regular and Auxiliary Air Forces. Consideration is being given to the formation on an auxiliary
914
or reserve basis of specialist units for ancillary duties on the ground. Now I would like to read this passage: "I should like to take this opportunity of emphasizing that the success achieved in the past by the Forces to which I have referred is in no small measure due to the great assistance given by civilian instructors and supporters, civilian committees and organizations, and I am considering how this support can best be maintained and increased through county organizations" —of course the Air Force and the Territorial Associations go together in the county associations—" and otherwise in the days ahead. In this same connexion, I am hoping to secure the help in one way or another of as many as possible of those officers and other ranks who are now leaving the Air Forces and returning to civil life." One hopes that a good many who served in this war will do their bit in this direction.
So much for the matter of recruitment. Now as to the selection of officers. In the old days they were selected from Cranwell, from the University Air Squadrons or from the other ranks of the R.A.F. It is our intention to go on upon that basis. We consider that that gives us the variety that the noble Viscount demanded. I think it is right and natural. We are as anxious as anyone in the Service to get as many fellows to take permanent Commissions as possible and we have put out a paper asking who would like to take them. Of course we are handicapped by not knowing how many, in the end, we can give. But we have had 23,000 applications for permanent Commissions which shows how keen the men are to go on in the Service. The method used for making selection from this vast amount of material is really very interesting. So many of your Lordships have had military experience that I would advise you, if you want to see a Selection Board really efficiently and scientifically managed, with regard to the physical, psychological and human elements, to go and inspect the arrangements which we have made at the offices in Kingsway for this purpose.
We are trying to get over the difficulty, due to our not knowing our final figure, by means of the extended Service scheme. We are offering four years more service to officers, except to those who are regular rankers and have got a Commission in the war, to whom we are offering an extension

915
of seven years. That is something which we can do and I may say that we have got a considerable number in hand. That will get over the difficulty in most cases. But as to the ordinary short-service Commission, which was a very great success and to which the noble Viscount referred, he has laid before your Lordships again his scheme for making this a sort of integrated part not only of industry but of the Church as well, I understand, and the Civil Service. I have read and reread the very interesting speech which he made in this House in December last. From the Service point of view it is a tremendous advantage to be able to say: "Take a short-service career and your service is assured. Whatever profession you adopt it will be all right." From our point of view that is splendid. But you must look at it from the other point of view. It would be interesting to know what the right reverend Prelates in this House think of the proposal to draw upon the pool of possible padres and take away three years of their life which would otherwise be spent in training for their vocation, by putting them in the Services when they might be at work in the parishes.
Then take the case of the Civil Service. The first five years which a man spends in the Civil Service, I am told, is a period of training. He needs that time to get used to the work. If you put him to serve in the air for a period which would normally come within that period of Civil Service training, you can hardly regard him as being fully qualified for the Civil Service, although it is true that for pension rights you might well add the period of his services with the Air Arm. But the fact remains that while he has been away from the Civil Service he has not been spending his time at his profession.
I do not know about the case of industry. I am not at all sure whether it is possible, in view of the necessity for us to have the most up-to-date industrial production which we can get, that industries would be prepared to say: "We will take the man and will allow him to go away and do his period of air service and when he comes back he can come to the same job." The industrialist in such circumstances has got to think "Can he do the job as well as I require it to be done?" There is a further difficulty. If you take a man and put him through
916
the Service and then into the Civil Service or industry, if the Civil Service or industry had too many reserve officers in key posts a difficulty would arise in case of war. That is one of the troubles which beset the Territorial Forces in the past. In a word, there is but a limited manpower in this country and we have to consider what is the optimum use that you can make of it. Of course if a man takes a short-service Commission he gets a healthy and interesting life and experiences the general "rub shoulders" business which has value in qualifying a man for civil life, though I think that sometimes, perhaps, that is over-exaggerated. He can get a training which will be of considerable assistance to him in civil life, and through the Appointments Boards and by other means of that kind we should do everything in our power to assist the short-service man in getting back into a civilian job. I think the noble Viscount mentioned last year that in fact very few short-service officers—I think he knew of only one—had failed to get satisfactory employment on going back to civilian life. That is very good and one would desire to do everything possible to encourage it.
I do not wish to keep your Lordships too long; the noble Leader of the House has given us a solemn warning about the length of speeches. There is, of course, no intention of integrating the three Services. It is not the time for things of that kind nor at the lowest levels is it useful to bring the airman, soldier and sailor together. I believe that Leonardo da Vinci knew all the professions and all the arts but we are not in the fifteenth century; we are in a very much more specialized time. With regard to the Staff College level we have got our college at Bracknell and we have a satellite college at Bulstrode Park. At Bulstrode Park we have foreign officers, not all from Western Europe, on the Staff College level. In addition to that we have a School of Air Support at Old Sarum, run by a Combined Staff of the Navy, Army and Air Force, which studies air support. We have also a Central Fighter Establishment with Army and Naval officers on the staff. I believe its main job is fighter support, as for example with the landings in France. That is the practical type of work which I believe the Admiral of the Fleet referred to in his

917
speech. The Staff Colleges have combined exercises but they are not together. I wish it were possible to bring them together, but it will be realized that at this particular time it would be very difficult, even if finance allowed, to bring them together. At the Staff College they get combined exercises and they get to know one another. That is the Staff College level.
Now we come to the really combined level, that of the Imperial Defence College and your Lordships will be glad to know that it will be reopened next year.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: As a living college?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: We cannot get the accommodation—
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: At present.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is desirable that it should be a live-in college but I do not know if noble Lords have looked round for accommodation in the neighbourhood of this House. They will not find that living accommodation is as easily come by as all that. The R.A.F. instructor at that College will be a distinguished officer and if there is one man who knows something about the three Fighting Services, it is Sir Hugh Lloyd, who commanded the R.A.F. in Malta in the toughest time of the attack upon that island. I speak with great diffidence in the presence of senior officers, but all these matters arise from the experience of the war; and I should like to read three or four lines from a very remarkable interview given by Field-Marshal Montgomery about the experiences of the Eighth Army and the Desert Air Force. He Said:
"There used to be an accepted term of 'Army co-operation.' We never talk about that now. The Desert Air Force and the Eighth Air Force are one. We do not understand the meaning of ' Army co-operation.' When you are one entity you cannot cooperate. ff you knit together the power of the Army on the land and the power of the air in the sky, then nothing will stand against you and you will never lose a battle."
They are enthusiastic terms and that type of experience is specially that, I believe, of the Eighth Army and the Desert "Rats," but it is a sort of framework upon which we can build.
Above this there will be the Chiefs of Staffs Committee. I can never know as much as the Admiral of the Fleet about
918
these matters but the Chiefs of Staff Committee meets daily. There is also the Defence Committee to which anyone can go who is required on a special issue, and above them all is the Prime Minister who is Minister of Defence. This apparatus has worked during the war quite successfully.
LORD CHATFIELD: Is the noble Viscount able to say whether the Prime Minister will remain as Defence Minister or whether he will have another Minister to help him?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The present Prime Minister is Minister of Defence but I should have thought that the Chairman of the Defence Committee was, in effect, the Minister of Defence. However, the noble Lord knows far more about it than I do. I have tried to make it clear that this matter has not been neglected but is being worked at, but that we cannot give the final answer. Unknown factors have been referred to by many speakers, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is a troubled world. You can hardly find a map in the atlas where there is a spot without potential trouble. We do not yet know what part we are to play in the United Nations Organization. The Commission is to meet on November 23 and we hope the Security Council will be set up next year. It will be a great thing when we are all invited to take part in this world organization. Then we have to consider the economic capacity of this country. We must export or we cannot live. We also have to consider the financial burden this country can bear. Those are all unknown factors. The noble Lord has referred to the types of weapon and reference has been made to numbers. Colonel Paul Tibbets, Captain Parsons and Major Ferebee with eight other men obliterated Hiroshima. I am certainly not qualified to make deductions but a matter of that kind makes you realize that the problems are not entirely to be solved by retrospect. We have to proceed by stages. I do not suppose that the Government can say in six months "This is where we have got to now." I do not believe we can say at any time "Here is the set picture for all time." What we want is a healthy manhood, a solvent State, a scientific outlook and a moral background in which we realize that we are all citizens of one world.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Has the noble Viscount answered the one question he can answer? Are the Government in favour of universal service?
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I thought I had answered the noble Lord's question. A decision on that point has not been reached.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Does that apply to training of—
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The answer is that universal service is being considered by the Government and that I cannot answer at this stage.
4.59 p.m.
LORD TRENCHARD: My Lords, as regards the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who said that none of these questions could be decided until the size of the whole forces had been settled, I distinctly said that they need not be settled.
LORD STRABOLGI: Playing for safety.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, who made his first speech here to-day? I welcome it for many reasons. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, said, that we shall hear him again. His knowledge of the Services during the war is unique. I would also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for introducing the A.T.C. I did not have time to go through everything, and I am glad he introduced the subject, and that we got a satisfactory answer. I am more than amazed at the noble and gallant Admiral, Lord Chatfield, raising a controversial subject of long ago, especially the subject of Singapore, in which he spoke of guns and aeroplanes. He will remember, as he was responsible, and was there, that he got his guns, and he also got his dock for his big ships, and yet, without firing a gun or using the big dock, Singapore fell.
LORD CHATFIELD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I was not present when the decision was made.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: Singapore fell without a gun being fired and without the dock being used. I will leave it at that. I would like to thank very much indeed the noble Viscount who answered for the Government on the points raised.
920
But I would like to read the speech in print before I make any comment on one point he mentioned, the point on short service. I do not quite understand it, and I hope he will give me a chance to see him about his objections to some of the things in connexion with that service. I do not want it generally accepted, straight away, that every man would have to undergo this service in order to get a job in civil life, but a great many could do it. I am not certain that I understood the noble Viscount's objections to it. I hope he was not against it as a whole. I am glad he gave the answer he did about the Auxiliary Service and A.T.C. He said that when the last war came to an end in 1918, we produced our White Paper only in September, 1919. I agree, but the noble Viscount must remember that we were making an Air Service then in opposition to a lot of people; we had not got one. To-day, the Government are continuing an Air Service which, I hope, is an easier matter. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

RESTORATION OF DEREOUISITIONED PROPERTY.
5.3 p.m.
LORD MESTON LORD MESTON had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether, on the de-requisitioning of properties, such as private houses, they will take as speedily as possible all practicable steps to restore the properties to the condition in which they were in before being requisitioned or pay adequate compensation for damage sustained during the period of requisitioning, as the case may be.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the question which stands in my name. This question has nothing whatever to do with any of the problems which may arise under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. I am also aware of the fact that, under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, the amount of compensation, in cases of this description, is limited to the value of the property. This question refers to what you may call the straightforward case, where a building, such as a private house, has been requisitioned by a Government Department, and then, subsequently, derequisitioned. I am sorry to say that,

921
in a great many cases, the damage done during the period of requisition is fat in excess of any ordinary fair wear and tear. Banisters have been cut down and used as firewood, walls have beer used as dart boards, parquet and other exquisite flooring has been burned, fixtures and fittings, such as kitchen ranges baths and basins, have been removed and lost, the plumbing system has beer deranged, the electric light and gas systems have been deranged, and garden:, have been ploughed up, or allowed to become a wilderness.
A schedule of conditions is always made of the property and contents at the beginning of the requisitioning. Therefore theoretically, there should be no difficulty in arriving at the measure of damage done. In point of fact, however, owners and occupiers meet with a great deal of difficulty in agreeing the damage with the appropriate Government Department or Departments. An aggrieved owner or oceupier has the right to put his case before a tribunal, but, in the ordinary course of events, this costs money, such for example, as solicitors' and surveyors fees, and also entails a certain amount of delay. I may say that this question involves no criticism of the Government' at all. I am not suggesting, for a moment that the Government would ever authorize, or acquiesce in, any excessive a improper use of property. But there has been a great deal of excessive and improper use of property. In some cases the Government Departments who did the requisitioning actually carry out the repairs themselves. I should like to know, in those cases, whether the repairs carried out are substantial repairs, or whether-they are merely designed to cover up obvious defects. For example, if a house requires to be painted, is the house painted, or is it merely covered up with some inferior kind of distemper?
I understand that the owner or occupies sometimes left to carry out the repairs himself. In the latter event, I sincerely hope that the owner or occupier will receive his compensation without any unnecessary delay, and without having to have recourse to the tribunal. Where art owner or occupier does the repairs himself, I would ask whether there is any chance of his receiving compensation by instalments, or is it necessary for him to complete the rep-airs before he receives a single
922
penny piece of compensation? If his property had been damaged by enemy action, and he had become entitled to a cost-of-works payment under the War Damage Act, 1943, he would, in a proper case, have received that payment by instalments. I would respectfully ask the Government whether such a procedure—being paid by instalments—could be applied in the case where an owner or occupier has to carry out repairs to derequisitioned property.
5.8 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his kindness in letting me have beforehand a clear statement of the main points he wished to raise. It is most helpful. He referred to various other matters of which I have not had notice, and, if he desires, those might receive fuller reply on a subsequent occasion. As I understand him, the noble Lord is not dissatisfied with the statutory provisions governing the making good of damage to requisitioned property. He is, rather, concerned with the possibility that the owner may, in one way or another, either be put to unnecessary trouble or expense, or may not get his full rights. On this general proposition, I can only assure him that Departments are approaching the problems which arise on the quitting of requisitioned property with a full sense of their responsibility to owners. The House may like to be reminded of them. The hour is late, and I will try to do it quickly.
Compensation, in respect of the making good of damage done during requisition, is governed by Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 52 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945. The former provides that the compensation payable in respect of the taking possession of any land should include a sum equal to the cost of making good any damage to the land which may have occurred during the period for which possession was retained, except in so far as the damage has been made good during that period. This section, however, limits the compensation payable to a sum not greater than the value of the land at the time when possession thereof was taken, no account being taken of appreciation in value thereof due to the emergency. Section 52 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act provides that if, in the opinion of a

923
Minister, it is expedient, in the public interest, that the land should be restored to its original condition, the Minister may make good to any person interested in the land any expenses incurred by that person in restoring it, in so far as those expenses exceed the compensation payable under the Compensation (Defence) Act.
In the case of properties such as dwelling-houses (in which Lord Meston is particularly interested), the practice is to pay compensation rather than for the Government themselves to make good the damage. Payment of compensation is, however, not delayed until such time as the owner has made the damage good. The procedure is that, as soon as practicable after the date of derequisition, the Department endeavours to arrive at an agreement with the owner as to the estimated cost of making good the damage at current prices, and as soon as the agreement is reached the agreed amount is paid to the owner in settlement of his claim. He is then left to do such repairs as he thinks fit in his own time and in his own way. No doubt, in any case in which difficulty is experienced in reaching agreement on any particular item of a claim, the Department concerned would be prepared to make a payment on account. That, I think, particularly helps the noble Lord.
As regards the adequacy of the payment made by Departments under these provisions, some thousands of claims have been settled by agreement, and in only a very small portion of cases has the claimant applied to the tribunal to which any dissatisfied claimant has a right to appeal. Moreover, where it is reasonable for a claimant to employ a surveyor to assist him to negotiate his claim, it is the practice of Departments to refund to the claimant the fees of any surveyor so employed. As I have said, it is not the; practice of Departments to make good damage done to dwelling-houses, but if in any case the Department attempt to do so, the owner would have the right to claim monetary compensation for any defects not, in fact, made good. It should perhaps be mentioned that small dwelling-houses—that is, those with twelve rooms or less—are placed in Group I for priority of release, and where building work on dwelling-houses will provide new dwellings of the small type the work is given the same priority as new houses. I hope Lord
924
Meston and your Lordships' House will feel satisfied that these arrangements provide for a reasonable meeting of the just claims of the owners of properties which have been requisitioned.
LORD MESTON: I am tremendously grateful to the noble Lord for his reply.

M.Ps. LETTERS TO DEPARTMENTS.
5.12 p.m.
LORD REA LORD REA had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether the announcement that members of the House of Commons are entitled to send post free letters on official matters to a Government Department, marked "O.H.M.S.," applies also to members of this House.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Paper.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, His Majesty's Government have considered very carefully whether they could extend to members of this House the concession whereby members of another place are allowed to send post-free letters to Government Departments provided such letters are on official matters. The noble Lord will appreciate that almost all letters addressed to Government Departments by members of another place arise directly from matters concerning or affecting their constituencies or constituents. The position is, of course, quite different with the members of this House, who have no constituents, and for this reason we regret we do not feel justified in extending this post-free concession to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, may I say a word on this subject? It seems to me rather an extraordinary decision. A large number of members of this House have great public duties to perform, and they do them without remuneration of any kind, let alone expenses of travel from the places where they live. Noble Lords—Lord Lieutenants, and so forth—come down here to do this duty, and have to write to the War Office on various matters. It is not only the local Members of Parliament who help the people in their areas; there are other people as well, and many of them are members of this House. I do not suppose there is anybody in this House at

925
the present moment who has not had to write to Government Departments on matters of business. It seems to me very finicky on the part of the Government that they will not let this very paltry concession come to us, so that we may have the same courtesy extended to us as is extended to those in another place.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I may say the other matters affecting your Lordships' House in this respect are being considered.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am glad to hear it, and I hope they will be more favourably considered than they were on the last occasion.

HOUSING.
5.15 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved yesterday by toe Lord Archbishop of York—namely, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the steps taken by His Majesty's Government to provide the large number of houses urgently required for the health and happiness of the People.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, at this late hour I feel more than ever that this is a subject for action rather than for speech. If all the speeches made on this subject in the last year could be transformed by a wave of the wand into bricks and mortar, how happy would the people of England be! I will be brief. We have heard a good deal in the course of this discussion of the various obstacles in local authorities and at the centre, which prevent things moving as fast as we should like. What an outsider asks—a great number of people ask this—is, if these obstacles do in fact exist, is it not possible, in view of the urgency of this subject, and of the fact that the need for houses cannot be exaggerated and that all Parties are agreed as to the urgency, for these obstacles to be removed, and for the whole matter to move forward more strictly to time-table than it usually does? After all, under the pressure of war, it was possible to have magnificent coordinated enterprises like "Mulberry," and things of that sort. Can we not really get these obstacles removed, so that we can go forward and get: our houses quickly and effectively?
926
I do not think the difficulty is entirely at the centre. There are also these obstacles in local authorities. If there could be some kind of combined pressure to get the whole thing moving as though it were on a sort of unseen conveyor belt from the first stage of site clearance to the last stage of the completed house, it would be a most desirable thing. Another point I want to make—I will not develop it at this late hour—is that in spite of this immense need for quick building and for many houses, I hope we shall not lose sight of the need for quality in building. After all, many of our badly built slums were constructed under pressure of rush building to meet an emergency. We should leave an unfortunate heritage to our successors if we allowed ourselves to be so influenced by the need for speed that we sacrificed wholly or too largely the need for quality in building. It ought to be possible to combine both quantity and quality. We were not wholly successful in doing that between the wars. I have lived and worked in areas where an immense amount of building was done in that period. Some of it was good and some of it was extremely bad. Much of it was ill-designed and poorly constructed. Surely, with the resources we have available, with good architects and so on, it ought to be possible, if the thing is well planned, not to sacrifice quality to quantity, either in town or in country. I leave that point there, although I could say a good deal more about it.
My next point refers to the way in which tenants are selected and accepted. I should like to put in a plea first of all for the newly married. I hope it may not be thought necessary or wise to insist that they should just take their places at the end of the waiting queue. People are concerned these days, and rightly, about the breakdown of home and family life. A risk of breakdown is there when you ask young people to start married life with no home of their own or possibly just an odd room or so. Another point I want to make with regard to the selection of tenants is one which was partly made yesterday. Several of your Lordships, speaking yesterday, said it was very important that in these new estates after the war we should not repeat the mistake made before the war and have estates which had no mixed population in them. Various phrases

927
were used to that effect. Any of us who have worked and lived in such places know how many of the estates built before the war lacked the ingredients of a true community and a good neighbourhood. It is very easy to say that we do not want to segregate classes and so on, but I have great sympathy with any local housing authority when it comes to the matter of selecting who in fact shall live on a new estate.
They may themselves realize that a good neighbourhood is in fact a mixed grill, that it must have upon it professional people, people of various wage levels and so forth, and also that it should have facilities for community life, both indoor and outdoor; but actually it is extraordinarily difficult for any local housing authority in a given locality to select on any other than a rather well-defined and obvious basis of selection. They are very open to charges of favouritism if they do not. If we believe it is most desirable in the interests of the social life of this. country that these new estates should be in fact cross-sections of the community, then it seems to me that the local housing authorities must have the very strong backing of some impartial and sympathetic central authority to enable them to face this obvious risk of criticism.
The last thing I want to say raises a very simple point, but it is, I think, important that from time to time we should remind ourselves of first principles. We would do well to remember that our anxiety to get good housing for the people is not purely a utilitarian one; it is not merely that we are all believers in good modern plumbing; but because basically we believe that good houses, good neighbourhoods, gardens and open spaces normally create the physical conditions necessary for good homes, good families and healthy children.
5.23 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in rising to support the Motion of my noble friend the most reverend Prelate I have only one matter to which I wish to refer, a matter which has not previously been referred to in this debate. Before passing to that I should like, if I may, to refer to the very excellent
928
speech which the right reverend Prelate has just delivered. If I may say so with great respect, I thought it was a very thoughtful and well-balanced contribution. I would like to support what he said about the need for estates being cross-sections of the community. I would also like, if I may, to support what he said about recently married couples. I would like to tell him that in the report referred to by my noble friend who spoke yesterday for the Government there is a recommendation, number seven, that a proportion of tenancies should be allotted to recently married couples without children. I hope that will please the right reverend Prelate.
The point to which I wish to direct attention is the present position of what are known as housing associations. I have given private notice to the noble Viscount who leads the House of my intention to ask the question, and I hope, therefore, he will be in a position, when he replies, to give us a definite answer. Housing associations are generally known as nonprofit-making bodies. They are registered, as a rule, under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, and sometimes under the ordinary Companies Act. Before the war there were as many as 250 of these associations, and they made, I think I may say, a substantial contribution to the solution of our housing difficulties. They dealt in rehousing of various kinds; they rehoused tenants from slum clearance schemes; they rehoused people to abate overcrowding; some of them specialized in the reconditioning of old property and others made a speciality of housing elderly people. All of them, however, concentrated on the poorest classes in the community and all of them, I think I can say, made a particular point of skilled management. In connexion with management, I would like to mention the name of Miss Octavia Hill, who, I think I may say, did a service in awakening the social conscience of the nation with regard to housing comparable with what was accomplished by Lord Shaftesbury in connexion with factory legislation.
These housing societies, or housing associations as they are now called, have always been subordinate to the local authorities, but I claim (and I do not think anybody will contradict me) that they have been a valuable ally to the local authorities in the task of providing

929
a pool of low-rented housing accommodation. In the 1936 Housing Act expression I was given to that by a provision mach for the creation of what is now tin National Federation of Housing Societies. The question I want to ask the noble Viscount is: What is going to be the future of this movement? Local authorities up and down the country are I can say wit: confidence, increasingly aware of the value of these housing associations. In all political Parties there are people who share the view, which I confess I hold, that the relationship of landlord and. tenant is not always very suitably combined with the relationship of local authority and ratepayer. That is a very big question. Of course we are committed to the plan that local authorities have I do the bulk of the rehousing of the poorer people, but nevertheless there are advantages in a less direct form of property ownership. Perhaps I may give as I simple example a case where a housing site overlaps the areas of two or more local authorities. In that case a very convenient method of administration is through the formation of a housing association.
This is the main point I want to bring to your Lordships' notice. These housing associations have been working away quietly during and since the war, preparing themselves for future activities have been given figures which show there are in existence to-day fifty more associations than there were before the war and that those associations have present programmes which will provide no less that 100,000 dwellings; that is 100,000 dwellings to be provided by those fifty new associations alone without counting any programmes which may be contemplated by the 250 old associations which existed before the war. These associations have funds available; they have access to funds provided by the Public Works Loans Board and other people. Many of them have sites actually ready; they have plans prepared; they have technical assistance ready to do the work; there are builders ready to enter into contracts as soon as it is permitted. The whole of this movement is in suspense and they want to know what is going to happen. That is the question which I am asking the noble Viscount to answer.
Up to the time of the change of Government, this movement was always sure e f a welcome at the Ministry of Health.
930
Since the change of Government we detect, we fear, a note of hesitation. I am hoping that as a result of the noble Viscount's remarks that hesitation will be dispelled. Whether it is a reproach or not, it cannot be said that this movement is whole-hearted private enterprise. It is not whole-hearted private enterprise, because private enterprise in the full sense of the word goes for the maximum profit.
LORD WOOLTON: No, no.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: These societies are in many cases registered as charities and do not make a profit at all.
LORD WOOLTON: I dissent from the statement that private enterprise goes for the full, maximum profit.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Well, some forms of private enterprise go for the maximum profit. I am grateful to my noble friend for the correction. He is perfectly right. It would not be fair to say that private enterprise always goes for the maximum profit, but private enterprise does go for profit. Many of these societies are charities and do not make a profit at all, while others go for a limited profit. There is about the movement, however, a definite aroma of private enterprise, which to me at all events is a very agreeable one. I hope it is not the case, but I am wondering whether in the Socialist nostrils of the present Minister of Health that agreeable aroma is nothing less than a bad smell. I hope that that is not the case, but I do seek reassurance on that point.
I listened with great attention to what fell from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, yesterday, and I derived a good deal of reassurance from his remarks. I thought that his speech was redolent of sincerity and everything we could wish. He said that we in the United Kingdom have to bring private and public agencies into partnership in a common effort to help their fellow-men. In the full sense of those words, I hope we shall get reassurance on the point on which I ask for it tonight. I am not asking on behalf of this movement for a bored and indifferent toleration, which, indeed we are bound at the lowest to get, because we are enshrined in the Housing Acts. What I am asking for is enthusiastic co-operation, and the fullest possible assistance.
5.33 p.m
THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, you have already heard several eloquent speeches on this most important subject of housing, and, inasmuch as I have never yet trespassed upon the time of your Lordships' House, it is not my intention now to take up more than a few minutes. There are, however, some things which cannot be said too often, and one of those is that the Government cannot at the present time afford to despise and neglect the help which private enterprise is willing and ought to be able to give. His Majesty's Government remind me very strongly of a man who has two hands and a great deal of work that he urgently needs to do, and yet who insists on doing it with one hand tied firmly behind his back, owing to some prejudice against using two that he was taught long ago.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, gave us some assurances and mentioned some small achievements. I fear, however, that he said very little that will give much reassurance to the men coming out of the Forces, or to other people who are seeking for houses in this country. In spite of what he told your Lordships, the fact remains that any private person at this time who wishes to do something towards alleviating the dreadful shortage of houses is so firmly tied that it is almost impossible for him to move. This, I know, is the experience of owners of land, of building contractors, and of the local authority itself in my own county, and I feel convinced that it is so in other districts as well. With us, this situation is inexcusable. It is very much more inexcusable in those areas where enemy action has made the shortage of houses a thousand times more acute than it is with us.
A would-be builder must first of all limit his over-all costs, including land and services, to £1,200 per house. That is the figure laid down in the instructions issued by the late Government last July. Those instructions had the great merit of allowing the local authority itself to sanction building without any reference to Government Departments. Hope that something would at last be done began to revive. There was, indeed, some doubt whether it would be possible to obtain permits for the timber and slates and other controlled materials required if a licence to build was in fact issued by the local authority.
932
So far as I am aware, that doubt still remains, but it is entirely academic, since the building licence itself remains tantalizingly beyond our grasp. In the first place, fully two months after the instructions to which I have referred were published in the newspapers, the local authorities had not received any of the necessary forms and documents required to enable them to give information to would-be builders or to do anything about it at all. No change of Government, I submit, can excuse this delay. In the second place, the outside limit of £1,200 has proved to be entirely inadequate, owing to the continuing rise in costs. Even by using a plan specially prepared to meet these very circumstances by a professional society, it has proved impossible for an honest contractor to reduce his estimates within the required limits. It looks very much as if these houses cannot be built, much to the disadvantage of everybody, including not least the local authority itself, who would be very glad to be relieved of some part of the large burden cast upon it.
This limit of £1,200 ought to be removed, and that quickly. Even a small rise would make all the difference. Though I hope that the limit may be made much higher, I am informed that even £1,500 would enable a large number of useful houses to be commenced at once. Admittedly many of these—not all—would be built by and for persons of a certain standard of wealth. What does this matter? The situation is so bad that any relief at any point can only help the housing position as a whole. Further, in this case it is possible to catch a large fish with a small bait. The case in favour of granting a reasonable subsidy for the building of rural houses is overwhelming if it is looked at from a practical angle. At a comparatively little cost to the Exchequer, a much larger number of houses could be built in rural areas. None of the present subsidies available really meets the case. The Housing (Rural Workers) Act, now, alas, expired, used to enable existing cottages to be reconditioned. So far so good; but the need of people who have no houses at all is much more acute than that of those who have houses with no bathrooms or sanitation. The Agricultural Population Act gives a subsidy for replacing houses for the agricultural population when these houses are worn out, not for building entirely new houses that replace nothing.

933
Let us have a simple, comprehensive and comprehensible subsidy scheme. That would enable those who are anxious to alleviate the housing situation to do their part. It may be said that all this will raise costs. My Lords, costs Lave already risen and very few houses have been built. His Majesty's Government have many times assured us of their determination to break price rings and monopolies and the expression of this determination has been loudly applauded. Surely there is enough experience in the Ministries and the Departments concerned in the handling of prices, controls and priorities. Let them use this experience for the good of the nation and they will receive the full support of a house-hungry people.
5.42 p.m.
LORD QUIBELL: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will extend to me the usual consideration that is extended to a member speaking in this House for the first time. I do not apologize for saying a word or two on this occasion, for I suppose that I am, perhaps, the only builder and contractr who has had the honour of sitting in this House and also of receiving, as I have received here this afternoon, a good deal of advice as to how the members of our trade should carry on their business. I happen to have been a bricklayer, and I may say that I had expected that the poor old bricklayer would have come in again to-day for some criticism. Bat he has been left severely alone. I believe that housing and demobilization are the two most vital of the immediate problems confronting us at this moment They are vital because unless they are tackled with greater speed an energy than have been shown in dealing with them in the past, serious unrest is likely to be caused in this country.
The causes leading to the present unfortunate shortage of houses do not arise from the actions of this Government or from the war. When I have listened speeches delivered by noble Lords 41 criticism, shall I say, of the Government's so-called inaction, my memory has carried me back over the years to my boyhood days. I was brought up in the country and until I was seventeen years of age, living as I did in a village, I never had the pleasure of seeing a new house built.
934
A newly-built house was a very rate thing to find in those early days of housing in any of the villages in our County of Lincoln. And, indeed, on revisiting the village after an absence of twenty years, I could not discover that one new house had been put up in that area. Now to what was that due? It was due to the fact that the average labourer had been earning wages so low that he had been quite unable to pay an economic rent for any kind of new house that could be built. It was, in fact, the result of poverty, low wages, and low prices for local produce. The consequence was that, so far as the villages were concerned, no one could, or would, build new houses to let because they could not be let at an economic rent.
And what we are suffering from in this matter of housing is not the result of lack of action on the part of Socialists Governments. There have been successive Liberal and Conservative Governments in power almost continually since I can remember—and I have been active in politics for over forty years. When I first went to work I became a labourer—a hard carrier. Then I graduated as a bricklayer, and later I became a builder and contractor. I think I should be right in saying that there are few who have had a more varied experience than I of the building trade. I am afraid that in some of the villages the housing problem has arisen because of the attitude of the local councils. In many rural areas the political complexion of the rural district councils and the county councils has been overwhelmingly Tory. Let me describe one of the houses that I was in my early days. It was an absolute disgrace in those times, and it is still in existence. The accommodation consisted of one bedroom, a little parlour, and another living room, and I remember that the beam crossing the ceiling in this room was so low that when I was a full-grown man I had to lower my head in order to pass under it. There was no water supply and the sanitation was of the most primitive kind.
Now that sort of habitation exists in nearly every village, and the problem which is presented by such places can, in my view, be solved by only one means. I am not so enamoured of subsidies as some of your Lordships seem to be. I believe in the man who lives in the countryside being paid wages which will

935
enable him to pay an economic rent for decent houses, so that he will thereby be put on a footing of equality with other industrial workers in this country. I believe that there is no other solution. You may give the agricultural labourers cheap houses by getting the State to subsidize those houses, but ultimately the value of what you give has got to come from somewhere—from rates or from taxation. Ultimately the problem which you must face up to is putting a price level on commodities and giving to men working in country villages a wage that will enable them to pay an economic rent, equal to that which is paid by workers in our urban districts.
I remember those subsidies during the last war. I, as a builder, was supposed to be receiving them. What happened was what does happen—and I will defy Parliament to prevent it—when the clever man, the man who is intent to find some means of getting round the law, gets to work. I myself was the victim of one such person. I built a house for a certain man at a time when there was a subsidy of £150 for one class of dwelling and £100 for another. The poor old builder was supposed to get the subsidy and he had got to sell houses of the class of the one which I built at £550. A certain gentleman came over from—well, from Wallasey we will say—and he saw my partner. He acquired the house and he found a way of selling it as I could not have done. He put a few curtains up and a little bit of canvas on the floor and he sold the place as a furnished house at a profit of £400 or £500. It was "furnished" at a cost of not more than £5. All could do was to look on at him doing it. That is the kind of thing that occurred at that time. The clever man, the black marketeer, if you like, simply took the subsidy and there was nothing in the law as it existed to prevent him from doing it. So far as subsidies are concerned I consider that it is necessary to be very careful in fixing the amount of them. But, in passing, may I say that if a local authority is going to have a subsidy then for the life of me I cannot sec why a man with courage, the capacity, the energy and the will to build a house himself should not also have the same kind of assistance.
As to materials and the price of houses, several of your Lordships have already
936
expressed the need for the Government taking steps to control prices. Let me give an illustration of one commodity that the Government have controlled. It is timber. As your Lordships will remember, St. Petersburg timber cost fifteen guineas pre-war, and that is where the high cost of prices has come in. This is a matter which ought to be gone into. At the worst part of the war the increase was clue to the heavy rates of insurance on timber because of the tremendous shipping risks involved. That is an illustration of how nearly four times the amount of money was needed for timber for a house. Not so long ago consent was given to still another increase in the price of bricks. Increases in the price of materials have been enormous. It might be said that, if only there were a freer market, prices would automatically come down. I am not sure about that, but materials are at a price which is a wicked price and I cannot see that the Government or any other person can justify the cost of timber as it is at present—timber which is of an inferior quality compared with what it was before the war.
I hope that the Government will consider, so far as the prospective purchaser of a house is concerned, that local authorities will appoint men as building inspectors so that the man who invests his life's savings in a house can be assured that his house is free from damp and that it is one on which he can rely. During the war I have seen damp courses put in which were little better than the Order Paper on that Table. Nor have modern by-laws been introduced. The authorities should insist on an effective damp course and insist that the house is a certain height above ground level. So far as the Government are concerned, they will be blessed by every man in the country if they will see that proper and modern building inspection is carried out, particularly in the interests of the small man who wants to buy his own house.
There is the question of the type of house, too. I have seen very great differences in that direction and many of your Lordships must have noticed the same thing in some places. Some of the council houses have been drab and uninteresting. Every one of them has been alike, house after house, row after row, which makes one sick to think that a civic authority lacked civic pride so much as to allow them to be put up. At Flint

937
in North Wales, some houses have be m built which had civic pride in their making. I cannot understand why, if one authority can get the permission of the Ministry to build a decent house, another a few miles further away cannot get it but builds, as I think Carlyle would have described it, "a brick box with a slate lid on it." I echo the sentiments of previous speakers that we want quality as well as quantity. Some of the houses which are built by private enterprise are no credit to private enterprise, but we want to harness the good will of the builder and of the local authorities. As I have said in another place, the little builder in my home district has made a tremendous contribution towards the solution of the housing problem. What we ant in this business is the good will of the local authorities and the energy and drive of the Minister of Health and his Department. If, as has been mentioned, any of the red tape which has been said to be prevalent in the various Ministries could be cut out, let us cut it out and get on and try to solve this very vital problem of housing. It is a great human problem. I have had men come to me and what they have said makes me feel that we should get on with the job.
I am not enamoured of temporary houses; I do not like them as a matter of fact. I went to see one place and the Lord Privy Seal had to stoop down to get in. They were terrible places and in my view they will not stand up to the hard wear to be found in some of the great industrial centres of this country. The temporary house has got a place, but it is in the most remote places, where houses are required for agricultural or forest workers. In such places it would take months for houses to be erected, but the temporary house can be erected in the course of a week. It is the remote districts, between village and village, which would, in my view, require these houses which would help solve the housing problem in those districts. So far as the general housing problem is concerned, I believe it can be solved. I believe that some of the bricklayers can lay 260 bricks if there is no supervision. I know, because I employ some of them, but I can give you illustrations of where men have laid over 1,000 a day and they have done it during the last few months. So far as that is concerned, the people who are criticizing
938
are those who have never laid a brick in their lives. Some people are actually doing it and it is not long since I did that sort of work myself. When stood for Parliament I went back to work and laid bricks. Help can be given in an advisory capacity so that an even greater move can be made. Housing is a great human problem and let us harness all the great resources of this dear Old land of ours in a supreme effort to solve this vital, urgent, domestic problem.
5.59 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in rising to address the House I should certainly like to say, as one of the older members of the House, with what interest and pleasure we have listened to the last two speeches. I think the whole House appreciates the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, and the excellent way in which he stated his case. With regard to the noble Lord sitting opposite, I am probably voicing the feelings of all your Lordships in saying how refreshing it is, and what an excellent thing it is, to have in this House what we have long wanted—practical people with an intimate knowledge of what they have dealt with who can make their voice heard in this House and give us the advantage of their experience and advice.
I am going to appeal, in a few words, to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, to deal more particularly with the needs of housing in rural areas. Nobody, I think, knows more than he does the necessities of that case. It is an intensely practical question, and those of us who live—at any rate, latterly—more in the country than in the town, realize that many of the problems that exist in the town also exist in the countryside. We have still, I am sorry to say, slums in the countryside, but in these days, I venture to say, it is extremely necessary, at any rate for an appreciable length of time, that every use should be made of all accommodation available, so that people should remain and be able to have a roof over their heads.
I was very much impressed by what: the most reverend Primate said, and we all know—from experience of his speeches and from knowledge of his work with regard to housing—that what he says is said with knowledge and understanding, and should be listened to by all of us. "I would not ask for the destruc-

939
tion of a single slum house because I know there is nowhere else where people living in such a house could live That applies just as much to the countryside as to the towns, and it is on that account that I would appeal to the Government, not merely to enlarge on the construction of housing as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the other day, but to reconsider their decision to stop the work of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. There is room for both. It is essential that we should do everything to retain such buildings as exist in a fit state, and it is on that account that I have consistently supported the suggestion already made by various noble Lords that the whole subject of the demolition orders, made under previous Acts, should be reviewed, so that houses, where they can be restored—at any rate, as a temporary measure—should be available for housing purposes.
I do not want to say very much more because I know that the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, is fully aware of the position; but I would remind your Lordships that, with regard to the countryside, owing to the conditions that have existed in the building trade during and before the war, there is a most deplorable amount of repair work necessary, not merely to farmhouses and farm buildings, but, also, to houses themselves. The estimated sum needed for this mere repair work that is really necessary is colossal. I expect that the noble Lord who preceded me would probably bear out that statement. All the more reason, therefore, that we should get this housing problem in the countryside tackled wholeheartedly and bring in, as he suggested, not merely the municipal authorities but also the resources of private builders and other enterprises which can co-operate in re-establishing housing conditions on sound lines.
6.5 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, it is an unwritten custom, or rule, in your Lordships' House that its members do not speak except on subjects on which they are well equipped to speak. The reason why I wanted to say a few words in this debate is that I think few of your Lordships could claim. 27 years' continuous service on the Housing Committee of the London County
940
Council, and, in addition, 25 years' experience of management of an agricultural estate in Scotland. That happens to be my record, and I venture to say that there are not many matters connected with housing that I have not come up against in these two spheres of activity.
There is no question that housing is the bottom foundation stone of our social system. It is no use talking about family allowances and social services if people have not a house to live in, or a house which is tolerable to live in. Therefore, it seems to me that, in this crisis—for it is a crisis, so far as housing is concerned—we should give every possible assistance to all those willing to help in the problem. It was suggested yesterday that people who are accustomed, to repair houses in their district or to improve them, should be taken away to do what most houses require, but I venture to say, in common with the noble Lord who has just spoken, that the housing situation in rural areas is, in a sense, almost more critical than in the town, from one point of view—from the agricultural and food production point of view. It is essential, if you are going to have your food production, that you must have your farm workers content with their housing conditions. Otherwise, they will take the first opportunity of leaving their present employment, and farmers will be left without labour.
Therefore, I wish to press very hard indeed that the Scottish Housing (Rural Workers) Act should be re-enacted with certain alterations as regards limits on the value of houses which are allowed to come under that scheme. I think your Lordships will agree that a limit of £400 as the value of the house is absolutely absurd these days, and yet that is the limit laid down in the Act. Anything over £400 is washed out. Another important point, with regard to the Act, is that it is the county council which has been the medium for sanctioning the work and the grants. As I understand it, the Government policy is to use local authorities on every possible occasion in their housing programme; yet you cannot get the sanction from your county council at the present time until—I am talking about Scotland—they have been to Edinburgh, and the delay is something fantastic. The result is that not nearly so many houses

941
were put up or reconditioned as would have been if there had not been this awful delay.
To give an example of how successful the Scottish Act was, I came south the ether night with a man who has tremendous experience as a farmer, both as an owner and a tenant. He told me that under the Scottish Housing (Rural Workers) Act he had brought 44 cottages up to first-class condition. One man had done that. Surely an Act that allows that should be re-enacted with the additions and alterations required to-day. Only this morning I received an extraordinarily interesting letter, a portion of which would like to read to the House:
"…The great point is that the from the country to the town will begin now if we do not provide first-class houses now With all the demand for building labour the cities, we are faced with a very great crisis the moment the restriction of labour conies off, and already every farm has al. empty cotter house or cotter houses."
That is a very serious statement to make, but I can vouch for the fact that it is true. If we are going to fulfil our duty, not only as regard housing but also as regards agriculture and food production, it is up to the Government to give every facility possible for bringing these farm workers' houses into proper condition and to lay down as few red tape provisions as possible. Red tape is killing enterprise, whether private or Government. Even county councils cannot get things done. I do ask the Government most seriously to consider the re-enactment of the provisions of the Scottish Housing (Rural Workers) Act at no distant date, for the very simple reason that the Act was a great success and there is no reason why it should not he a success again. That will help the housing situation in a very important part of His Majesty's dominions.
6.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, in rising to address you at this time of the night, I ask your indulgence which is usually so generously afforded to a member who finally screws up courage to take the plunge. I listened with very great pleasure to the magnificent speech made by Lord Quibell. I cannot claim that my own experience is like his, but for the past sixteen years I have been a member of the civil engineering industry (including three years in a technical unit in the
942
Forces) and that has given me the courage to make a few remarks to your Lordships. Before one embarks in a debate of this sort, I think it should be said, and with great sincerity, that I appreciate the magnitude of the problem confronting His Majesty's Government, and they have my fullest sympathy. If any remarks I make seem to be critical, as they are bound to be, I plead that it is my lack of experience and the fact that in the civil engineering trade we are somewhat outspoken and a bit blunt.
Housing is a national problem and I deplore any Party element being brought into it. I am not saying that as a criticism of the noble Lord opposite. It is not so. He gave us a very fair resume of the conditions which exist and the reasons for them, and I find myself in almost entire agreement with him. I aired some of my views among a few eminent members of the building trade before addressing your Lordships, and ascertained that my views were closely in line with those prevailing in quite an influential section of the building trade. The building trade holds strong views on temporary housing, but I do not share those views. I would like to point out that during my war experience as a member of an engineering unit, we had training in erecting three hundred Uni-seco and another type of temporary houses at Connel Ferry. The technical Forces are ideally constituted to undertake that work. It can be undertaken as a drill. Why not, when you have large numbers of men sitting around doing nothing, as at the moment, put them on that work? They will do it. I do not intend to say any more on that point but I would like to recommend those of your Lordships who are interested to read, if you have not already done so, the Report of the Joint Council of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and the National Federation of Registered House Builders. The members of those two organizations built 90 per cent. of the houses that were built in the period between the two wars. How much was good and how much was bad is a different matter, and I am not going to enter into it, but I do think that the views of those two bodies are well worth considering. The Report is called "Let the Builders Build" and is dated May of this year.

943
The field has been so extensively covered already that there is very little left for me to say, but I am going to try to make a few remarks on four points. The first thing that cannot be too strongly stated is that the key to the whole situation is a supply of balanced and free labour. I am coming to those two words later on. By "free labour" I mean labour that can work where it wants and for whom it wants. That is an important thing. Anybody who has had experience of the Essential Work Order will know—he may not say so but he will know—that that Order, necessary or not, never laid a brick. During the period it was in force one discontented man on a job demoralized all the others. Balanced labour is essential. May I amplify that point slightly? It is obviously useless to bring back a lot of building trade labour and suddenly to find you have not increased labour in the coal mines and the brick works and you have no bricks. There are, I believe, 733 brick works which normally employ 20,000 men out of operation at the moment, and if you suddenly flooded the country with bricklayers I think you will agree that in a very short space of time the 1,100,000,000 bricks which is, I am told, the present stock, would be used up, unless you brought on your brick works at the same rate as you brought on your building trade. I am sure His Majesty's Government are quite alive to all these points, but I think they are worth reiterating.
Another question, and an important one, is the type of brick. I believe we are short of facing bricks at the moment and of course you cannot use common bricks for the same purpose. One of the snags with labour—this is not very palatable and the noble Lord dodged it very skilfully, I think, by talking of timber and not of other building materials—is that it is the general opinion of most of the building trade that output—I am not talking of bricklayers particularly, and I am not going to say that a man should lay so many bricks in a certain time because I know nothing about it—has fallen to nearly half what it was before the war. I have examples here, but I am not going to quote them because they are very well known.
I want to be fair to the trade union delegates and the higher trade union
944
officials. At the beginning of the war I had cause to deal with those people and I always found them extremely fair. They have an unenviable job, but they do their utmost, and I think a great debt is due to them. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same thing—at any rate in my opinion—about the shop stewards. They are normally gift-of-the-gab orators and unfortunately they are the tails that wag the clogs. I think a lead from His Majesty's Government is necessary to back up the unions in their constitutional working, and then I am sure they will do a great job. In the early days of the war I found there was never any trouble, either in the quality or quantity or work, from union men when they were satisfied, and I think that will always be so. Building trade operatives are very sorely tried people. They have a lot to put up with. I know that, and most of your Lordships know it too. However, most of the troubles from which they have suffered have been of the Government's making. I do not mean this Government but the last Government. I am a sympathizer with the last Government but I still say they made those troubles. However, there was then a war on and now there is not and therefore I think that many of these narking, niggling, naggling restrictions which upset everybody should be removed.
I would like now to go on to raw materials. If you asked 90 per cent. or the people what the raw materials of the building trade were they would reply "Bricks and mortar." Well, they would be quite wrong. The brick is a prefabricated unit which is employed by the builder. It is quite interesting to note that prefabrication was current in Pharaoh's time. With very few minor exceptions building raw materials, excluding timber—and I will come to that later on; that was one thing the noble Lord picked on—are abundantly available in the ground at pre-war prices at this very moment. Building costs have risen. Why? Because, and only because, labour costs have risen. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that a reasonable wage is necessary, and in fact the higher the man's wage the. happier I am, provided it is equated to output. However, I think a high wage and low output is nothing more nor less than the very much bandied-about phrase of "inflation," or "inflationary tendencies." I do not know what the exact phrase is, but you know what I mean.

945
It does seem to me that if you got balanced labour back to the industry you could then free the industry of the bureaucratic strangulation from which it is now suffering.
Now I come to timber. The figures I have for timber are average figures. I think the average cost of timber has gone up by 176 per cent. per standard. However, you can, of course, pay what you like for timber, as the noble Lord has said. It is the opinion of the trade that were they given a free hand to deal with Sweden they could reduce the cost of timber considerably now. I think the present figure is £45 a standard as an average price and the trade think they could reduce that to about £38 per standard almost at one fell swoop if they were given a free hand, but they say they cannot do so with the timber control strangulation. I do not wish to throw mud at the members of the Timber Control. They have done a magnificent job and I think it should be recognized. However, they have got both hands tied behind their backs themselves and they cannot get away from their constitution. I could give instances to your Lordships of methods whereby, if you want timber, you have sometimes, with a small job, to apply to about four different people and to go through fifteen departments in order to get five or six different sizes of timber, which of course you require on a small job.
Of course, that is necessary for the working of the Timber Control because otherwise the Control would not work economically itself, but the control should, I think, be taken off. I agree, and I think everyone agrees, that price rings must be smashed and prices must be controlled. If you gave builders and contractors, timber merchants and furniture manufacturers (who were terrific stores of timber before the war) what they have already for home-grown timber—namely, a seasoning permit for imported timber—they could account for any timber they used against a building licence. It seems to me if you allowed those people to build up their stocks again so that they would have in their yards all the sizes and sections of timber they want, instead of having to run up and down London getting them in a lorry, which is the case now, you would not lose any form of control which is necessary at the moment.
946
The other point on timber is the question of German timber by way of reparations. Anyone who, like myself, has recently returned from Germany will know that there are available there large supplies of very adequate timber suitable for the building trade. Equally there is a large number of landing craft which cannot be described as being about their lawful occasions. Would not it be possible to utilize some of those landing craft of the larger type to fetch that timber here, utilizing personnel who are hanging about waiting for demobilization? We are told this is a national emergency. It is. Why not use national methods of dealing with it? I have detained your Lordships quite long enough and I think that, having made those two suggestions, I had better stop.
6.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am sure I shall have all your Lordships with me when I say how much we have appreciated the series of maiden speeches to which we have listened this evening. I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord who has just spoken for his suggestions and for the obviously close knowledge he has of many of the operations of the building industry. I did not quite follow what he said about how easily he could get timber here. I am afraid it is not quite as easy as it sounded from his speech. I understand that one of the big difficulties at the present time is that there is a great shortage of timber from these countries, some of which he mentioned, and that the reason for that shortage more than anything else is transport—ships to bring it here. I am afraid I should not expect (though it is not within my own particular knowledge) that he can reasonably anticipate much relaxation of the Timber Control whilst the present acute scarcity prevails. I am quite certain that every possible step that can possibly be taken, either in Germany or anywhere else, to get the supplies of timber we require should certainly be taken and I will pass on his suggestion to my friends.
I am sure everybody agrees that we are indebted to the most reverend Primate for his Motion. The number of Peers who have spoken in the debate and the fact that it has lasted two days is proof of the very wide interest it evokes, and of the very many-sided

947
matters that arise. There can be no question of any difference between any of the speakers as to the urgency of the problem, which is undoubted. I do not think that any member of the Government would fail to subscribe to the description which many noble Lords have given of the painful urgency of the subject.
Perhaps I may be permitted to say, however, that this debate reminds me very much of what I myself suffered twenty-five years ago; and I feel a somewhat selfish and narrow-minded relief that it is not my job this time! I was confronted then with local authorities who had never done any building at all; and I remember that after a year of struggle there were still many hundreds of local authorities who had not even acquired an acre of land. It was a heartbreaking business, and all the bricks were thrown at me! But I bear this in mind, that in 1922 the whole thing was brought to a sudden standstill because of the high cost, and the cost had at that time soared to about £1,000 a house. That was what brought it to a stop. We seem to be beginning now at £1,200! Where it will get to, I hesitate even to think. I noticed that one noble Lord in his maiden speech had the courage of his opinions and said that the present price was too low! I admire his courage, but I am quite sure that it is vital to success that the cost should be reduced. I am. sure that no Government—not even this Government, with its great majority in the House of Commons—could contemplate with equanimity the cost of houses rising in excess of £1,200 a house. I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health is as keen as anybody to use every possible endeavour, and to ask Parliament to give us the powers, if necessary, to get these costs down. I do not believe that they ought to be as high as they are. I am not going into the evidence, but we have to get the costs down, and we are fully seized of the necessity of doing so.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was very anxious that we should name a time. Let me say a word about that. Thinking back 25 years, let me say a word about this question of a target. I am very glad that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health has refused to state a
948
target. He is quite right, and so far as I give him any advice he will stick to that idea. There are so many unknown factors at the present time—shortage of labour, difficulties about demobilization and so on. I wonder whether many noble Lords have realized that what has happened in Java has made a considerable difference to the rate of demobilization of the troops.
LORD WOOLTON: I wonder whether the noble Viscount could tell us how many people have been delayed in their demobilization on that account?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I cannot, of course, give the number, but it has made a considerable difference in shipping movements, and demobilization at home is dependent on shipping, because you cannot demobilize men of a particular group at home unless at the same time you can demobilize men of the same group who are abroad. I am not speaking, of course, of exceptional cases, but you cannot demobilize men in material numbers at home while their fellows in the same group abroad are not demobilized. Otherwise, the men in the Services who are enduring the heat and burden of the day and all the unpleasantness of the jungle and so on will say "Why should these fellows at home have the first pick of the jobs?" You cannot justify that. You have therefore to take that into account when you arrange for your demobilization at home. It must be dependent, at any rate to a certain extent, on the shipping that enables you to bring men of the same class home who are still abroad. That is why I interjected that reference to what has happened in Java. All these things have a considerable effect upon the rate of demobilization.
LORD CHESHAM: May I remind the noble Viscount that there is a national emergency which has been admitted by everybody, and that the troops would take it?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Would they?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: All I can tell you is that, on the best advice which we could obtain, the scheme of demobilization has been fashioned to take account of the kind of difficulty which I have mentioned. I am quite sure that that was good advice, and that, if the noble Lord had had to deal with the matter, he too

949
would have accepted that advice. We have to take all these things into account, but what I want to deal with is this question of a target. There are all manner of uncertainties which enter into the ascertainment of the amount of building labour which will be available at a certain date. It is one thing to release a man from the Colours who is a member of the building trade, and it is another to see that he lays bricks. You may release a considerable number of men who used to be in the building trade, but there are all kinds of other attractive positions available when the men come home, and I do not blame them for making use of them. We do not want to harass these men more than we can help, and it does not necessarily follow that if you release building workers of one kind or another they will be available to build houses. That is another uncertainty which must be taken into account.
Then there is the uncertainty of special staffs. For instance, we are taking special steps—and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will, I am sure, applaud us for this—to get the skilled key-men who are necessary for drawing plans and specifications and so on out of the Services, sometimes in advance of the time when they would ordinarily come out, because local authorities cannot do anything at all until they have the necessary staff. That, however, is another uncertainty. Then there is the uncertainty of materials, which is very considerable. I am very glad that my right honourable friend has not stated a target and has not said how many houses he is going to build in the next twelve months. With the greatest possible respect, I think that the target which was mentioned in the Paper referred to by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Woolton, had no sufficient warrant. It was a paper target, and it will remain a paper target. I feel quite sure about that. I was induced to make a target in 1919 It was against my own advice, but I was foolish enough to give way, and I named a target. I did not attain it; it was physically impossible to attain it. And, therefore, so far as the target is concerned, we are completely unrepentant. We will do everything that we possibly can—if need be we will bring into use very considerable powers. That we will promise. But we will not say what that means in terms of numbers of houses twelve months hence. As I say,
950
we will do the best we can. I hope that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health will stick to that. If he takes my advice he will. We are quite unrepentant in the matter of the target.
LORD WOOLTON: A very good election speech.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My noble friend did say that the Minister proposes to give out targets to local authorities from time to time. That is to say he will do so as he finds out how they are getting on, how things are developing in the particular districts of the different authorities, and when it is clear that they can confidently look in a month's or three months' time to doing so and so, and so and so. That kind of target the Minister agrees to.
LORD WOOLTON: They will not be secret documents?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Not at all.
LORD WOOLTON: We may know the figures as well as the local authorities?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Certainly. The Minister will make a monthly report, I understand.
LORD WOOLTON: I think that is admirable.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: What the precise figures are going to be in those reports I cannot, of course, say in advance. He will make the reports as full and as informative as possible. We have nothing to hide, and we do not want to hide anything—not even our difficulties. Let that be clearly understood. I am not going to burke any difficulties. For instance, I have here before me a figure—it is a serviceable figure, and although it does not stir me very much, yet it certainly is a useful figure. I asked how many tenders were authorized in July. The answer was that to July 31 the number was 21,687. At October 31 the figure was 62,719. That is a respectable start; and that is all it is. It is quite a useful start for the three months.
Now, on this question of speed, we knew that this is a matter of urgency; of course it is. I remember I was asked to produce houses in 1919, and some people sec med to think that they were going to grow like mushrooms. Well, they do not grow like that. They did not do so then,

951
and they will not do so now. If my right honourable friend gets what I call a good move on in twelve months, he will have done exceedingly well. The figures from the noble Lord's paper leave me completely cold. I am speaking feelingly, as you notice. It is going to be a matter of getting plans ready, of having the people there to draw the plans, of getting the builders, the material, the tenders and all the rest. If the Minister succeeds in getting well into his stride in twelve months then he will have done exceedingly well. That is my honest opinion, as of one who has had to do the job. In 1922, when house building by local authorities was at its maximum after the last war—I am not talking about what it was later on—there were never more than 20 per cent. of the building operatives employed in house building. That may seem a surprising figure. Nevertheless it is true that the number of operatives who were employed in house building never amounted to more than 20 per cent. What were the others doing? For one thing they were building factories.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: Does that figure include those who were employed at that time by private enterprise which built three-quarters of the houses built during the same period?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes, it includes the whole of the building trade at that time. Twenty per cent. was the maximum percentage of operatives employed on building houses at that time. It grew to be more later on, but your Lordships will understand that I am just trying to get the picture right. At that time there was enormous need for building factories, for extending works and so on. That kind of thing was extremely necessary then; imagine what it is like now, compared with what it was after the last war! The situation is ten times worse now, with all these factories and works to be repaired, shops to be built, extensions to be carried out, and so on. Those things absorb much more building labour than the building of houses, as any competent contractor can tell von. And this other work must be got on with. So, when we speak in terms of gross numbers of men employed in the building trade, do not let us imagine that they are all going to be employed in building houses. It would not be desirable in the national
952
interest that they should be. You have got to have factories and other places at which people can work and make a living, otherwise it is no good having houses for them to live in. I am trying to present what I am quite sure are the realities of the situation, and I am presenting them for the purpose of justifying my right honourable friend's refusal to state a target.
As to private building to which reference was made by my noble friend sitting behind me, I quite agree that the housing associations which did so much good work must be made use of. At the present time, it is true, the arrangements are not in train for making full use of them, and I do not expect that, with the best will in the world, they will be for some time. But the willingness to make use of these associations is there, and I am quite sure that in various ways before we are through with this business we shall have to make use of practically the whole power of the building trade, whoever employs it, in one form or another. I believe that we are confronted with an enterprise as great and as serious as that which confronted us when we had to produce war supplies. My right honourable friend is certainly right in approaching this matter through the local authorities with the instruction to build houses for people of small means—houses that they can rent. That is the right objective, I am sure. I do not think anyone would question that. But it is evident that, as time passes, we shall have to adopt expedients for making the fullest possible use of the building labour of the country. That again, I think, no one would question.
Mention has been made of the urgent needs of the rural areas, and, as noble Lords know, I heartily agree about that. I will, of course, refer to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland what the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, said about the rural community in Scotland. I confess that I am not informed, at the moment, on that matter and I cannot give the answer which has been asked for. I was glad to find that the rural councils are evidently waking up and that there is beginning to be material improvement perceptible in the rural areas. I see that the number of tenders for rural areas in July was 3,662 which was very small, and in October it had

953
risen to 10,485. That is a very small increase, but it is promising. I am quite sure that nobody realizes more acutely than my right honourable friend the fleas-city, as we get the men and materials, for getting on with houses in the rural areas. There is another reason—I am not quite sure whether Lord O'Hagan mentioned it, but I think it was in his mind if he did not—that when we have got rid of prisoners of war, the provision of rural houses in the agricultural districts is essential if we are going to make a suitable contribution to our food supplies. No one realize:; that more acutely than we do, As to the many Departments of which the most reverend Primate complained that some local authorities have had to go through, I should like to say in the first place that if any noble Lord can give me or my right honourable friend particulars of cases where a local authority has had to consult: this multiplicity of Departments, the information will be very welcome. My right honourable friend is doing all he can to simplify the procedure, and I should like to give the most reverend Primate that assurance without qualification.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Sheffield, hoped that the time was coming when things would be moving in an even stream, as on a conveyor belt. I can only say that no one more heartily shares that wish than His Majesty's Government. I wish it could be so. I should like to say how much we agree with one thing which he said, and of which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh spoke—namely, that it is necessary that we should plan for communities. I sincerely hope that when the next generation comes to look upon the efforts of this one in that regard, they will speak better of them than we do of the efforts of those after the last war; that they will be better planned, of better quality and more mixed than was the case in times past. We have a better conception of planning for the future than we had then, and I sincerely hope we shall make good use of it. I have refrained, as your Lordships will have noticed, throughout, from making any promises. The only promise I make—and we will keep it, please God—is to do everything we possibly can to speed up housing.
6.54 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I am sure we all agree that we
954
have had a most interesting and valuable debate, and it would have been valuable and interesting alone for the three maiden speeches which we have heard. They were distinctive and most interesting. Each of the speakers made some valuable contribution to this particular subject which we are discussing. We hope we shall often hear them again addressing this House. The noble Lord who sits behind me made a contribution from, I think, quite unique experience, telling us that he had been through all the various stages of the building trade. That made me feel how valuable it would be if we had in this House some of those who work in the mines, the shipyards, the factories, in the fields and in other industries, and who could speak from their own personal experience.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have replied for the Government. Their replies were very sympathetic. When they were in Opposition they always showed the deep interest in this subject which they are showing now that they are in a position of responsibility. The noble Viscount who has just spoken gave a very clear and definite refusal about stating a target. I am bound to say I prefer a stringent refusal to a soothing draught. There is no doubt whatsoever of what the noble Lord meant by his reply; and although I should have liked a target—and I am glad to know that there are to be targets for the localities—I do not really mind so much whether we have a target or not so long as the houses are produced.
I feel just the same about this controversy over houses being provided by public authorities or by private enterprise. So long as the houses are produced good and sound houses at a reasonable rent and in the right places, I do not really mind who produces them. I gathered from both the noble Lords who have spoken for the Government that they intend to call for the full co-operation of private enterprise and do not intend to rely solely on the local authorities. I am very glad to hear that the Minister, with his energy, is going to direct his attention to the various Ministries to which the local authorities have to appeal. Gradually there has grown up something like a gigantic Circumlocution Office, one which would have astonished even Charles Dickens. I have no doubt that each one of those

955
offices will deal with the matter promptly—at least I hope so—but when you have a combination of offices dealing with the same problem there is bound to be loss of time. I am very grateful to the various speakers and for the assurances, which I accept, that the Government are going to do everything within their power to build as many houses as they can within the shortest possible time. I ask permission therefore to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
6.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, in rising to move the Motion which stands on the Order Paper in my name, I will explain to your Lordships that we are moving it simply and solely because we have been asked by the leaders of the Opposition in this House to return to the more easy method of debate and discussion in Committee rather than to adopt the more difficult method of the Third Reading. I am very willing to meet them, because I feel this. We have got a Bill. None of us like it very much, but we all recognize that such a Bill is necessary and we are all contributing to making it is good as we can. I am most anxious that with a Bill of this sort the floodgates of eloquence will not be let loose once more. I hope it will be the case that we shall adopt the advice of the Leader of the House to-day and try to get through the business as speedily as we can.
Moved, That the Order of the Day of Thursday last for the Third Reading be discharged, and that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I think the whole House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this extremely practical proposal. I am sure it
956
is to the convenience of the House that this Bill should be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, when, I am certain, our observations will be as brief and pertinent as we can make them.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NORTH DEVON WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.