Sitting of 27 September 1944

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  ANGLO-AMERICAN PETROLEUM AGREEMENT
  Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement on the British-American Oil Agreement; and if he will indicate the substance of the undertaking given by His Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States on future co-operation with respect to oil between the two countries.
  Mr. Colegateasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations with the United States as to the future exploitation of oil resources have been concluded; and whether he can make a statement.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I would call the attention of my hon. Friends to the White Paper which is being laid to-day and which contains the text of the Anglo-American Petroleum Agreement and a statement agreed between the two delegations.
  Sir P. Hannon: Is my right hon. Friend quite satisfied that these arrangements will be entirely fair to this country as well as the United States?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, but I would like my hon. Friend to read the White Paper, when I have every hope he will find it to his satisfaction.

  CANADIAN PRISONERS OF WAR, NORMANDY (MURDER)
  Sir P. Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make a further statement on the protest made
  212
  to the German Government through the Protecting Power on the murder of 19 members of the Canadian Forces by a Panzer division in Normandy in July.
  Mr. Eden: The Protecting Power made, on behalf of all His Majesty's Governments and the Government of India, strong representations to the German Government on 5th August demanding in their names an immediate and searching investigation, the punishment of all German officers and men responsible for this flagrant violation of the laws and customs of war and the issue of strict orders which will prevent the repetition of such an occurrence. No reply to these representations has yet been received and at our request the Protecting Power are pressing the German Government for an answer.
  Sir P. Hannon: Is it not a fact that protests of this kind are repeatedly made, and have had no decent reply from the German Government at all at any time?
  Mr. Eden: I do not think I can go as far as to say that. In this particular instance, however, I have made the position clear.
  Sir P. Hannon: Does not that indicate the quality of the German people to some of their friends?
  Mr. Eden: I do not think anybody anywhere has any doubt about that.

  TANGIER AND SPANISH MOROCCO (GERMAN AGENTS)
  Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Spanish Government has now complied with the terms of the agreement concerning Tangier and Spanish Morocco announced on 2nd May, 1944.
  Mr. Alexander Walkdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that the situation in Tangier has improved; that all enemy agents have been expelled; and what steps have been taken to require the Spanish Commandant to have them expelled.
  Mr. Eden: The German Consulate-General in Tangier has been closed and its entire staff withdrawn. Furthermore, as a result of urgent and pressing representations by His Majesty's Ambassador in Madrid to the Spanish Government and

  213
  by His Majesty's Consul-General in Tangier to the Spanish High Commissioner for Spanish Morocco, nineteen German agents have so far been expelled from Spanish Morocco and Tangier. The High Commissioner has promised that a further two agents will leave before the end of this month.
  Information in the possession of His Majesty's Government, which has been communicated to the Spanish Government, shows, however, that there are still at least four German agents in the Tangier Zone and a greater number at large in Spanish Morocco. I can assure my hon. Friends that the Spanish Government are being left in no doubt that His Majesty's Government do not regard this partial fulfilment of their undertakings as satisfactory and are insisting upon the rapid and complete disposal of this question.
  Mr. R. J. Taylor: Why is such delicacy being shown? It has taken a long time.
  Mr. Eden: There is certainly no delicacy on our part, but there is dissatisfaction on our part that it has not been dealt with more quickly.

  WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY (DUMBARTON OAKS CONFERENCE)
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the Conference at Dumbarton Oaks.
  Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the United Nations Conference at Dumbarton Oaks.
  Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he proposes to make any statement to the House on the Conference at Dumbarton Oaks.
  Mr. EdenThe conversations at Dumbarton Oaks between officials representing His Majesty's Government and the Governments of the United States, the Soviet Union and China are still in progress. It is expected that the first phase of these conversations between the Delegations of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Soviet Union will shortly be concluded. The United Kingdom and American Delegations will then
  214
  hold discussions with the Chinese Delegation.
  The object of these conversations on the official level is to reach agreement on recommendations for consideration by the four Governments. Later, we hope that after such further consultation as may be necessary, it will be possible for the four Governments to lay a set of proposals before the Governments of the other United Nations, to form the basis of discussion at a full Conference of the United Nations.
  Meanwhile, the reports which I have received from Sir Alexander Cadogan, the Head of our Delegation, show that much useful and indispensable preliminary work has been accomplished at Dumbarton Oaks in a friendly and co-operative atmosphere.
  These talks between officials cannot, of course, be expected to find a solution of all the complicated and delicate questions involved in the establishment of a new world organisation. But I believe that the report of the Conference will provide a valuable plan for the structure and machinery of the new body, which it will then be the task of Governments to complete before circulating it as a basis for consideration by all the United Nations.
  I hope that it will shortly be possible to issue, in agreement with the other Governments concerned, detailed information about the results of the conversations at Dumbarton Oaks. As the Prime Minister informed the House yesterday, His Majesty's Government intend to give the House full opportunity to consider the draft proposals for the new organisation before anything is finally settled.
  Miss Ward: Is Mr. Cordell Hull in informal conversation with certain members of Congress as he was before the Conference started? If so can we have the same privilege in this country?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Lady knows that our constitutional arrangements are not the same. So far as we are concerned, I cannot have consultations with a few Members of this House. What I have just said shows that the House, as a whole, will have an opportunity of expressing its views.
  Sir Herbert Williams: Would my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of having a few of these conferences here instead of at strangely-named places like

  215
  Hot Springs, Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks? What about Purley Downs for a change?
  Mr. Eden: If I may say so, I share my hon. Friend's view that the attractions of this country should not be overlooked.
  Mr. Vernon Bartlett: In these discussions will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the danger that would arise if there were to be inequality before the law for the four great Powers, however clear it is that, politically, they must have a dominating influence?
  Mr. Eden: I would rather not go into those details at this stage.
  Mr. Petherick: Is it intended to place draft proposals before the House of Commons before they are submitted to the Governments of the Allied Nations, in order that the House of Commons may have an opportunity of expressing its feelings before we are even in a fair way to being committed?
  Mr. Eden: The Government's position is that we, naturally, want to consult the House at each stage, and to carry the House with us. I would rather like to see what has emerged—I have not seen Sir Alexander Cadogan yet—before being committed further. My hon. Friend may be quite sure that the House will be very fully consulted.
  Mr. Woodburn: Would it not be an advantage for the House to have an informal discussion on the whole affair so that before the Government go into conference they may have the advice of the House?
  Mr. Eden: I think it would. There is no question of going into conference yet. We have not come out of this one yet.

  LIBERATED FRANCE (CIVIL ADMINISTRATION)
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now give details of the Agreement reached between Great Britain, the U.S.A. and the French National Committee.
  Mr. Eden: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the Agreement of 25th August regarding arrangements for civil administration in liberated France. At
  216
  the time of signing the Agreement an official communiqué on the subject was issued to the Press, a copy of which I will send to my hon. Friend. The Agreement is a confidential document concerning military operations in progress, and I cannot at present add anything to the communiqué. In any case, His Majesty's Government could not disclose the text of the Agreement without the concurrence of the United States Government and the French authorities.
  Miss Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in answer to a supplementary question previously he told me he hoped to be able to give me details of the agreement before the House rose for the Recess? Has he altered his mind?
  Mr. Eden: I think I must have been referring to the communiqué which gave an account of the agreement. None of the agreements of this kind with the French or the Dutch or the Belgians have been made public, because they contain military clauses.
  Mr. Cocks: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a request from the Foreign Minister of the French Provisional Government asking for full recognition and a seat on the Allied Commission? Is he going to consider that?
  Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down. It is quite a different question.

  INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS (DEPARTMENTAL MACHINERY)
  Miss Wardasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is considering the establishment of interdepartmental machinery at a high level for devising ways and means for solving the political, economic, and social problems which call for international settlement.
  Mr. Eden: I am not clear exactly what my hon. Friend has in mind. But I can assure her that we already possess valuable inter-departmental machinery, on both the Ministerial and official levels, to ensure that each Department of the Government plays its full part in framing policy and action on international problems. This machinery is developed or modified as circumstances require.
  Miss Ward: Has my right hon. Friend had the experience of going, for instance, to the Board of Trade and asking what the Government policy is with regard to trade with China, and being told that it is some other Department's affair? Will he give an undertaking that he will go into this matter, because really the machinery is not satisfactory, although he, in his very high position, may think that it is?

  RUSSIA AND POLAND
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reason was given by the Government of the U.S.S.R. for their refusal of permission for R.A.F. planes to land in Soviet territory after dropping munitions and supplies for the patriot forces in Warsaw.
  Mr. Eden: There has never been any question of aircraft of the Royal Air Force undertaking such shuttle flights to bases in Soviet territory for these operations. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated yesterday, in reply to questions, the Soviet Government have now agreed to the use of Soviet bases, and on 18th September a strong force of United States aircraft carried out a supply operation to Warsaw, in collaboration with the Soviet High Command.
  Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that on 30th July the Soviet Government, by repeated broadcasts from Moscow, urged the Underground Army to rise, to facilitate the passage of the Vistula by the Red Army, and that by 14th September, six weeks later, they had not given permission for Allied aircraft to land supplies in Warsaw and to land in Soviet territory, and that, therefore, they rendered the position of the Polish Forces in Warsaw tragic?
  Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider, in view of the very specific efforts which were made by the British authorities, and especially by the Royal Air Force, to make the statement which the Prime Minister made yesterday very widely public, because there is a very erroneous impression in this country about what has been done by our Forces?
  Mr. Eden: I think there is very good cause for my hon. Friend's supplement-
  218
  ary. In fact, the Royal Air Force did everything in their power to assist in that way, and I think I can also say that His Majesty's Government did everything in their power to bring about unity and understanding in this matter between our Allies.
  Sir A. Knox: Is it not a fact that the Soviet Government refused to give permission until 14th September?
  Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant Friend is asking me why one of our Allies did not give assistance to another of our Allies. That is a question which might well be discussed in this House, but I would rather give consideration to my reply.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that members of the Polish Underground Army, who, acting under orders from the Polish Government, have co-operated with the Soviet forces in the liberation of their country, have been arrested and deported by the Soviet authorities in Tarnopol, the province of Lublin, and other districts; and if he will make representations on the subject to the Government of the U.S.S.R. in the general interest of Allied relations.
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. My attention has been drawn to the reports to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and I have brought them to the notice of the Soviet Government. The latter have now informed me that they do not consider that these reports give a true picture of events in the areas in question. They state that almost all Polish army detachments found in Poland when the Soviet armies advanced are now fighting beside the Russians against the Germans.
  Sir A. Knox: Is it not true that several individuals have been arrested and deported because they refused to take the oath of allegiance to the so-called Committee of Liberation?
  Mr. Eden: As I have said, as soon as these reports were brought to my notice, J brought them to the notice of the Soviet Government, as I thought it my duty to do. The House will understand that there is no matter which causes mole concern to His Majesty's Government at this time than the relations between our Polish and our Russian Allies.
  Earl Winterton: Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend cannot be responsible for differences of opinion between our Allies, and that it is not for this House to say how they should be resolved?
  Mr. McGovern: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that there is anything to be gained by covering up the fact that an Ally of ours is both deporting and shooting Nationalists and Socialists in Poland?
  Mr. Eden: The hon. Gentleman talks about covering up matters, but I must tell the House that not only are these affairs of delicacy between Allies, but also that there is some difficulty in ascertaining the facts. Therefore, we should treat these matters with caution and with reserve at the present time.
  Earl Winterton: Could my right hon. Friend not make it clear, in reply to my question, that His Majesty's Government can be responsible only for the conduct of His Majesty's Government, and cannot be responsible for the conduct of other nations?
  Mr. Eden: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is why I explained that I was asked a question about affairs which concern two of our Allies, for which my responsibility is not direct.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southby: While it is true that these are matters of delicacy, are not matters concerning our responsibility to our Ally, Poland, also matters of principle?
  Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, and our responsibility has been fully, and I might add gallantly, discharged.
  Mr. Astor: Are there not liaison officers on the spot, from whom the Government get information?
  Mr. Eden: We have been supplied with information from Warsaw; but perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.
  Commander Bowerasked the Prime Minister, whether, having regard to the conflicting reports which have reached the public concerning the rising of General Bor's forces in Warsaw, he will make a full statement on the matter.
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer my hon. and gal-
  220
  lant Friend to the statement which was made yesterday in reply to Questions on this subject.
  Commander Bower: While fully appreciating the statement which was made yesterday, does my right hon. Friend realise that the public so far have heard a great deal of rumour, very few facts and an absolute spate of extremely tendentious Communist propaganda; and is it not necessary and desirable that a very full and frank statement should be made?
  Mr. Attlee: I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend's description of what information has been given to the public and I am quite certain that full opportunity will be taken to give any information that is possible on the very gallant defence of Warsaw.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that, instead of a campaign of Communist propaganda, we have had a tendentious campaign of anti-Soviet propaganda?

  RUMANIA (BRITISH PROPERTY)
  Captain Gammansasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is yet in a position to make a statement regarding the reparation terms for the loss of British assets and property in Rumania; and the approximate value of the losses which have been suffered.
  Mr. Eden: The armistice with Rumania, the terms of which have been published, provides, in the case of Allied States other than the Soviet Union, that compensation will be paid by Rumania for losses caused during the war to the property of such Allied States and to their nationals in Rumania, the amount of the compensation to be fixed at a later date. It is impossible to estimate the approximate value of the losses to British property which have occurred in Rumania until an examination can be carried out on the spot.

  GERMANY (CONTROL MACHINERY)
  Mr. Martinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether arrangements are now ready for the establishment of a central control committee for Germany; and what functions it will perform.
  Mr. Eden: Arrangements for establishing machinery such as my hon. Friend refers to are being made. The question of its functions is under consideration.

  INDIA (UNITED STATES ENVOY'S REPORT)
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has made inquiries of the United States Government as to the circumstances in which the Report of the U.S.A. Envoy in India to his Government came into the hands of unofficial Senators; and if he is satisfied that the secrecy of British codes has not been vitiated.
  Mr. Eden: I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave yesterday on this subject in reply to two Questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne), which, with the permission of Mr. Speaker, I would propose to read:
  "Suggestions that his Majesty's Government or the Government of India had informed the United States Government that Mr. Phillips was persona non grata have already been denied by Mr. Cordell Hull and by His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington. His Majesty's Government are not in a position to confirm the authenticity of Mr. Phillips' report, which was addressed to the President of the United States. It naturally never passed through British hands, and there is, therefore, no question of its leakage from British sources, and I am satisfied that there has been no compromising of any British code or cypher in this connection. As to the criticisms of the Indian Army in the report, I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of His Majesty's Government of paying that Army the warmest possible tribute. Every Indian in it is a volunteer, and its fighting record over five years in every theatre of war has not been surpassed by any army in the field."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 26th September, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 50.]

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Women Personnel (Equipment Issue)
    Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Air how much money was spent on equipment for R.A.F. personnel of which he has been informed; will he give a list of that equipment; to what use has it been put; and what is its present condition.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The equipment in
    222
    question, which consisted in the main of beds and bedding, was supplied to provide sleeping facilities for members of the W.A.A.F. and A.T.S. engaged on intensive operational duties in connection with flying-bomb attacks. The cost of the equipment, which was drawn from stocks, is estimated at about £850. The whole of it has now been withdrawn, and I am informed that, apart from some articles unavoidably affected by damp, it is in good condition.
    Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. Friend give a general undertaking that any waste of public money will be the subject of strong disciplinary action?
    Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly. But in this case there was no waste. Provision was being made for women engaged on dangerous and important duties, plotting the flying bombs, so as to give them good safe conditions for sleeping at night.

    Parliamentary Franchise (Register)
    Mr. Hugh Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Air the approximate percentage of R.A.F. personnel who have now registered as parliamentary electors.
    Sir A. Sinclair: A further review of the progress of registration in the Royal Air Force is now being undertaken, and I will let the hon. Member know when it is complete.
    Mr. H. Lawson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that this is a matter of the very greatest urgency and that the way the registrations are being made is causing very great dissatisfaction in the Services?
    Sir A. Sinclair: The reply to the first part of the supplementary question is "Yes, Sir," and to the second part," No, Sir."
    Mr. H. Lawson: I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

  AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

    Red Cross Fair, West Bromwich
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Minister of Aircraft Production why the request of the Mayor of West Bromwich for the loan of an aeroplane to be exhibited at the Red Cross fair held at West Bromwich on August Bank Holiday was refused.
    The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): A request was received for the loan of an aircraft for one day. This could have been met only by the diversion of an aircraft from the production line. It was decided that this diversion and the expenditure of man-hours in dismantling, delivery and re-assembling for so short a period were not warranted.
    Mr. Dugdale: May I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman why one fighter and three troop-carrying planes were diverted to a fete, held under the auspices of the Regional Commission and known as Lady Dudley's Red Cross Fete, opened by Mrs. Winston Churchill shortly before?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

    Caustic Soda
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, not far from the works of Magnesium Elektron, Ltd., which is running waste caustic soda out to sea from a pipeline, which cost £86,000, there is a paper mill which uses approximately the same amount of caustic soda; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the continuance of this waste.
    Sir S. Cripps: For the reasons stated in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith) on 3rd May last, measures to recover this caustic soda (which is a weak solution with an appreciable percentage of common salt) would have involved capital expenditure of an order which, in view of the supply position of caustic soda, would not have been justified.
    Mr. Wootton-Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if most of the caustic soda in this country is not made by an electrolytic process, and if he is aware that soap makers actually put salt with caustic soda in their soap?
    Sir S. Cripps: Perhaps my hon. Friend will address the question to the Minister responsible for caustic soda manufacture.
    Sir H. Williams: Why have they not been supplying it to the paper mills?

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Corporal Punishment
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why corporal punishment is still inflicted on British
    224
    subjects in the Colonies for offences not so punishable in the United Kingdom; and if he will take steps to put an end to this.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 20th July last.
    Mr. Dugdale: Is it intended that this form of punishment shall be meted out to Africans but not Europeans?
    Colonel Stanley: I gave the hon. Gentleman a long and considered reply on our policy just before the House rose, and nothing has changed since that day.

    Civil Servants (Pay and Allowances)
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has given further consideration to the pay and allowances of colonial civil servants, particularly the junior grades, and the difficulties brought to his notice in Africa arising from war strain and rising costs of living.
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. As I stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member on 5th July, the effect of the increase in the cost of living on the position of public servants has been kept under continuous review. Since my visit to the West African Colonies and to some of the East African Colonies a year ago, this practice of review has, in fact, resulted in some measure of revision or adjustment in war-time allowances to civil servants in all the eight Dependencies I visited. The details naturally vary according to local circumstances.

    German Post-War Activities
    Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will cause regulations to be introduced to debar Germans from acquiring commercial or agricultural interests in any British Colony for a substantial period after the war.
    Colonel Stanley: I am in complete sympathy with my hon. Friend's purpose. The matter must, however, be dealt with as part of the general policy of the United Kingdom and the United Nations towards Germany when the war is won.
    Sir L. Lyle: May I ask whether it is not a fact that, after the last war, when we had similar restrictions, they were completely evaded, for instance, in Tan-

    225
    ganyika, where the Germans put up dummies to hold property for them until they were ready to go into it again; and will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that this does not happen again?
    Colonel Stanley: We will try to learn from past events.
    Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that Germany adopted this same sort of policy against us very strongly when she held colonies in Africa itself?

    Armed Forces (Demobilisation)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether plans for demobilisation applicable to Colonial troops have been considered; and when they are likely to be published.
    Colonel Stanley: Plans for demobilisation of the Colonial Forces are under consideration by the respective Colonial Governments and have reached an advanced stage. Now that the plans for the British Army have been settled it will be possible to complete the plans for each Colonial force. In view of the wide variety of the conditions which govern the Colonial formations it will be appreciated that no single uniform scheme will be appropriate. I hope that the plans for each force will be completed and published before the end of the year.
    Mr. Sorensen: May we take it that, broadly speaking, the method we have provided with regard to Colonial troops will follow the British plan?
    Colonel Stanley: I could not give that assurance. It might very well be that under the local conditions, the plan would be quite unsuitable.
    Mr. Turton: May I ask whether age and length of service will be the basis for the priority of demobilisation?
    Colonel Stanley: That will no doubt be taken account of.
    Mr. John Dugdale: Is there likely to be any extra grant for Colonial troops who are asked to remain for a longer period such as is to be made to British troops?
    Colonel Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down that question.

    PRISONERS OF WAR AND CIVIL INTERNEES, FAR EAST
    Major Sir Jocelyn Lucasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will appoint a representative committee to consider the problems which now arise in connection with the return of prisoners of war and civilian internees from Malaya and Hong Kong.
    Colonel Stanley: I have already instituted a representative conference to examine these problems. This conference has been at work for some time and progress has been made in the preparation of plans.
    Miss Ward: May I ask for the names of the people on this committee? Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Colonel Stanley: I shall be glad if the hon. Lady will put that question down.

    PALESTINE (COLLECTIVE FINES)
    Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons justifying the continuance of the system of collective fining on communities in Palestine and, in particular, what was the justification at Givat Shaul, when it was admitted that this community was not accessory to the attack on the High Commissioner and gave no passive or active assistance to the attackers or harboured them, but strongly condemned the outrage.
    Colonel Stanley: The system of collective fines is justified by the present state of public security in Palestine. As regards the fine on the Jewish settlement of Givat Shaul, this was imposed on account of the failure of the settlement to render all assistance in their power to discover the criminals who attacked the High Commissioner on 8th August. After the attack, several men were seen running from the engagement and entering the Jewish settlement of Givat Shaul. This was later confirmed by police dogs. Preparations at the scene of the crime had apparently beta made under cover of bogus survey operations. Two surveyors' levelling poles were found on the site of the attack and a similar pole was found in the precincts of a house marked by the dogs at Givat Shaul. Police cordoned the settlement immediately, but no one in the settlement volunteered or gave any useful information.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that this penalty inflicts hardship upon many innocent persons and is, in fact, a repressive method sometimes pursued by the enemy?
    Colonel Stanley: Here is a case where, in a small settlement, the presence of potential murderers must have been known. Not one single inhabitant assisted the law in bringing these criminals to justice, and I think that, in these circumstances, the penalty is fully justified.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the right hon. Gentleman note that these are the sort of arguments used by the Herrenvolk in Germany?
    Colonel Stanley: I am not interested in the arguments they use. I think the arguments I have used are good arguments, which I am prepared to justify in any assembly.

    UGANDA (DEVELOPMENT SCHEME)
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement as to the nature of the development scheme in Uganda estimated to cost approximately £2,000,000.
    Colonel Stanley: The scheme comprises a comprehensive six-year programme of development under the headings of Education, Health, Natural Resources, Social Welfare, Communications and Research at a cost of approximately £5,000,000. Of this, application will be made for £2,300,000 under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. A copy of the scheme is being placed in the Library.
    Mr. Riley: May I ask how the policy is going to be carried out? Is it by a special committee or by the Colonial Government?
    Colonel Stanley: No, Sir. The Colonial Government will, of course, carry out the scheme.

  JAMAICA

    Banana Crop
    Mr. Rileyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are
    228
    being taken to enable the banana growers in Jamaica to replant their banana groves after the recent destruction of the banana plants by a hurricane in August of this year.
    Colonel Stanley: I have recently informed the Governor that His Majesty's Government will, subject to the House voting the funds required, provide financial assistance to the banana growers by grants and loans for replanting and by extension of the guaranteed purchase scheme, on lines recommended by the majority of a representative committee which the Governor set up to consider the matter following the hurricane in August last. As the details are necessarily long, I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. E. Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman also arranging to see that we have the banana boats available; and can he say when we are likely to see a banana here?
    Colonel Stanley: The question regarding shipping, I am afraid, must be addressed to the Ministry of War Transport.
    Following is the statement:
    (a) Guaranteed purchase of fruit.
    Period of operation extended from 30th June, 1945, to 31st December, 1946. During this period, His Majesty's Government undertakes to finance the purchase of fruit of high-grade exportable quality up to a maximum of 24 million stems of bananas spread over the whole of the extended period, subject, however, to adjustment in the light of actual circumstances. The funds required for this guarantee will for the present be met from the Vote of Credit.
    Receipts from sales of bananas during this period will be wholly at the disposal of His Majesty's Government.
    (b) Guaranteed price of fruit.
    Present price of 3s. 6d. per count bunch plus 3d. per count bunch for leaf spot control measures increased to 4s. 6d. and 4d. per count bunch respectively with the object of providing additional encouragement to growers to resuscitate or replant their plantations and of covering recent wage increases.
    (c) Grants and loans for resuscitation and replanting and for new plantings.
    Assistance on the following scale will be available to growers from a free grant and an interest free loan from United Kingdom funds which it is proposed, in due course, to ask Parliament to vote to the Jamaica Government.

    Percentage of Damage to Plantations.

    Assistance to be made available in form of:

    Grant

    Loan

    Total

    Resuscitation and Replanting:

    Per acre

    Per acre

    £

    £

    £

    Over 90%

    6

    6

    12

    75% to 90%

    5

    5

    10

    66% to 75%

    4

    4

    8

    50% to 66%

    3

    3

    6

    40% to 50%

    2

    2

    4

    25% to 40%

    1

    1

    2

    Under 25%

    No grant

    2

    2

    New Planting:

    Loan for new planting

    No Grant

    12

    12

    On irrigating land the scale of assistance will be 50 per cent. higher.
    Issues of both grants and loans will be made in instalments on the certificate of a suitable inspecting officer. The loans will not be obligatory but payment of grants will be conditional upon a performance of work for which growers will be eligible for both grants and loans. When the work is done the growers will become eligible for loan as well as grants, but the acceptance of the loan is optional. Initial advances on account of either grant or loan will be given when necessary.
    The period of the loans will be for a term of three years (with extension at the discretion of the Agricultural Loan Society Board), repayable after 15 months with interest at the same rate as that fixed for other hurricane loans, namely, 2½ per cent. per annum of which 2 per cent. is required to meet local administrative charges and ½ per cent. is allotted as a reserve for bad debts.
    Registration of damage and periodical inspection will be carried out by the Food Controller Banana Purchasing Organisation who will also issue the grants. Loans will be issued by the Agricultural Loan Banks and the Agricultural Loan Society Board.

    Land Valuation Commission
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recommendations were made by the Land Valuation Commission appointed by the Governor of Jamaica and presided over by the Collector General, the Hon. Simon Bloomfield; and whether copies of the Report and the evidence are available in this country.
    Colonel Stanley: No copies of this report have yet reached me, but I have asked the Governor for them and for a copy of the evidence, if it was published. I will communicate again with the hon. Member when I have the Governor's reply.

    GIBRALTAR EVACUEES
    Captain Pluggeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Gibraltarians remain in this country and Northern Ireland; and what are the objections to the rest of them being sent home.
    Colonel Stanley: Approximately 6,500 Gibraltarians remain in Northern Ireland and 1,000 in this country. More than 6,000 have already returned. The return of the remainder is delayed by shortage of accommodation caused by bombing, demolition, dilapidation, increase of naval, military and air force establishments, the provision of an aerodrome and loss of accommodation in La Linea.
    Mr. H. Lawson: May I ask if the Minister has given the Gibraltarians an opportunity of remaining in this country if they so desire?
    Colonel Stanley: Some are staying for the moment; nobody has been deported.

    NIGERIA (OPOBO AWARD)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the negotiations for the settlement of the award to the people of Opobo arising out of the Ja-Ja case have now successfully terminated.
    Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. The Houses of Opobo have now agreed to the procedure proposed by the Nigerian Government whereby payment is to be made to the Houses concerned, each House being left to distribute its share among its members as they may decide between themselves.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, after this successful termination of discussions, the papers will be laid in a very short time now?
    Colonel Stanley: That is a matter for the Houses concerned. I gather that some delay has been caused by the question of the lawyers' fees.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that the fees will not be greater than the award?
    Colonel Stanley: I am afraid I cannot answer that.

    AFRICAN COLONIES (FOOD SUPPLIES)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements to avoid food shortages in African Colonies are now in operation; and whether the supply of labour for local food production is adequate to the need.
    Colonel Stanley: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. This is a matter which all the Colonial Governments watch very closely and I have asked them to keep me fully informed. In reply to the second part of the Question, my information is that where shortages have occurred in the past they have been due not to shortage of labour but to adverse seasons. In any case I can assure the hon. Member that steps will be taken by importation, if necessary, to deal with any shortages that occur.

    RAILWAYS (WINTER SERVICES)
    Mr. Rostron Duckworthasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether the railway companies will be able to improve their passenger train services this winter, in view of the course of hostilities on the Continent.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): As from 2nd October, the railways will run the same services that they provided last winter. The companies will still have to contend with difficulties over man-power, locomotives and rolling stock, and they must still give priority to the large volume of essential traffic that is passing. My hon. Friend will understand, therefore, that it will not be possible to restore normal peace-time passenger services in the early future.
    Mr. Duckworth: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything with regard to the restoration of the restaurant car service?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid that I could not make a statement yet.
    Colonel Greenwell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if, at any rate, it will be possible, first, to improve the running time of the long distance trains, and secondly, if he cannot restore restaurant cars, will he, at least, consider putting on buffet cars, as the need is very greatly felt by the travelling public?
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I recognise that, but we have tried to improve restaurant facilities on stations, and we will certainly restore the restaurant cars or buffet cars as soon as we can, but it is really now a choice between seats for passengers and buffet cars.

  MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

    British Military Achievements (Publicity)
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Minister of Information what steps he is taking to make known to the world, including our Allies, the achievements of British troops in every part of the world.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Information (Mr. Thurtle): The reporting of the exploits of British troops is the task of nearly 700 Allied war correspondents attached either to Supreme Allied Headquarters or to British Forces in Western Europe, Italy, South-East Asia and the Middle East. The Ministry of Information provides numerous services all over the world which supplement the work of these correspondents.
    Sir T. Moore: While that is an eminently satisfactory reply, why is it that, in the mass of United States papers reaching this country, it is almost to be gathered that British troops are not in the field at all?
    Mr. Thurtle: It may well be that the correspondents supply the necessary material to the papers but the papers are not able to find space for it.
    Mr. Astor: Is the Parliamentary Secretary, for instance, satisfied that the American public realise that the great majority of General Montgomery's troops for a very long time were British?
    Mr. Thurtle: We are not satisfied with any impression that exists which is an incorrect one, and we do our best to correct those wrong impressions.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is it possible that, with this vast army of war correspondents, only a very minute part of their despatches get through because of their hold-up by the military authorities, on grounds which are not security grounds?
    Mr. Thurtle: I do not think that there is any ground for that suggestion at all.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Americans are complaining very bitterly that, while their own correspondents are entitled to send free news from the American sector of war, in their view the achievements of the British are hidden by the strictness of the Army, Navy, and Air Force censorship in this country?
    Mr. Thurtle: I was not aware of that.
    Sir Percy Harris: Will the Parliamentary Secretary treat this matter seriously and follow up the investigation, because it is causing a great deal of concern in this country, and the Ministry of Information is responsible and it cannot get out of its responsibility?
    Mr. Thurtle: I would like to assure the right hon. Baronet that the Ministry of Information is very concerned indeed to see that the achievements of the British troops are given full recognition all over the world, and we do our best to that end.

    Polish Rising, Warsaw (Reports)
    Commander Bowerasked the Minister of Information to what extent restriction on publication of the reports of the Polish rising in Warsaw at the beginning of August was imposed by the Ministry of Information either by prohibition or request.
    Mr. Thurtle: No restriction was imposed nor any request to this effect made by the Ministry of Information.
    Commander Bower: Are we then to assume that by some peculiar feat of telepathy almost the entire Press of this country held up this extremely important information for several days?
    Mr. Thurtle: I do not know what assumptions my hon. and gallant Friend
    234
    makes, but it is the fact, as I say, that we have nothing at all to do with it. We did not impose any restrictions on its publication nor did we make any request to that effect.
    Mr. Petherick: Has the Ministry of Information made no such representations to any of the Service Departments?
    Mr. Thurtle: I am unable to speak for the Service Departments.

    LOST MAIL BAG (RECOVERY)
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Postmaster-General what reward was paid by his department to Mr. E. C. Jenvey, Brockenhurst, Hampshire, for handing over to the police two postal packages containing £3,700 in notes, which he found under the hedge near the church, and which were afterwards found to be part of the contents of a stolen mail bag.
    The Postmaster-General (Captain Crook-shank): The facts are not quite as stated by the hon. Member. Mr. Jenvey found and handed over to the police a mail bag containing unregistered postal packets only, for which he was paid a reward of £1. Two registered postal packets containing £3,250 in notes were recovered by the police during a search on the following day.

    GERMAN SATELLITES
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Prime Minister whether the United Nations have fixed any final date before the conclusion of hostilities with Germany prior to which a former enemy country is permitted to change sides and enjoy the benefits of doing so.
    Mr. Attlee: No, Sir.
    Sir T. Moore: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the present policy coincides or can be reconciled with the policy of unconditional surrender?
    Mr. Attlee: His Majesty's Government have always made it plain that the conditions would be harder the longer the satellites remained with the Germans, but I would point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that I really cannot understand how it is possible to fix a date on which action must be taken, by reference to some unascertainable date in the future.
    Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is there any time limit within which Ministers of the Crown are permitted to change sides?

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS (SERVICE CANDIDATES)
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the desirability of granting temporary release to men and women of the Armed Forces for the purpose of contesting vacancies on local authorities in the same manner as personnel are temporarily released to contest Parliamentary by-elections.
    Mr. Attlee: Local Government elections are not now held. When these elections are resumed the Service Departments will consider what facilities should be granted to Service personnel who wish to contest for vacancies.

    COAL CHARGES ORDER
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to move the Order confirming the Emergency Powers (Defence) Coal (Charges) Order (S.R. & O., No. 881, of 1944).
    Mr. Eden: I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would await the usual Business statement.

    SOCIAL INSURANCE (WHITE PAPER)
    Mr. Kirbyasked the Prime Minister when the Government proposes to issue the promised White Paper on post-war Social Security; and will he make a statement.
    Mr. Attlee: The first Part of the White Paper, dealing with the general scheme of Social Insurance, was published yesterday. The second Part, dealing with Industrial Injury Insurance, will be available to hon. Members later to-day.
    Mr. Kirby: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not appreciate that I put this Question down some weeks ago before the White Paper was issued? May I further ask him whether the Government are giving every attention to the future of the approved society staffs who will become redundant under the new
    236
    scheme? Can he promise on behalf of the Government that those staffs will be taken over by the State organisation or, alternatively, given compensation?

  MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

    Railings Removal (Suspension)
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Minister of Supply if his Ministry is still collecting iron railings and if in view of the stocks still unmelted, he will give directions to discontinue any further collecting.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Minister of Supply if he can make a statement now on the removal of iron railings from churches, parks, etc., and give an assurance that no more will be taken unless he is of opinion that the stocks he has are likely to be exhausted.
    The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): The scrap from railings has made a very valuable contribution to iron and steel supplies in a time of acute need. Only small, scattered quantities of railings now remain and as their removal would involve disproportionate labour and transport I have decided, in consultation with my Noble Friend, the Minister of Works, to suspend further collection.
    Captain Plugge: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will make it quite clear, when removing these railings—[HON. MEMBERS: "He has stopped removing them."]—that although the general public are using the open spaces, this use does not constitute or create in any form a right of way, and that the railings will be substituted by his Ministry as soon as metal becomes available?
    Sir H. Williams: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposes to collect the miles of railings which now decorate the beaches of this country?

    Penicillin
    Mr. Saltasked the Minister of Supply whether all restrictions have now been removed from the publication in this country of complete information about methods of manufacturing penicillin; and, if not, whether he will arrange for this at the earliest opportunity.
    Sir A. Duncan: The methods of producing penicillin have been described in the technical Press and complete information is, of course, freely exchanged between manufacturers producing under Government auspices in this country and America.

    Ex-Service Personnel (Civilian Clothing)
    Mr. Evelyn Walkdenasked the Minister of Supply whether he can make a statement as to the progress made with the scheme and production of suits and the full range of clothing to be supplied to men demobilised or discharged from the armed Forces; and if he can announce a date when such supplies will be available for issue by the respective Service Ministries.
    Sir A. Duncan: Contracts have been placed for the whole range of clothing to be supplied to men released or discharged from the Army and Air Force and supplies are coming forward in substantial quantities. The second part of the Question is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air.
    Mr. E. Walkden: Could I ask my right hon. Friend, as there are three Ministers involved, whether he was not responsible for that excellent exhibition at Olympia to Members of Parliament; and will those arrangements about fitters and measurers and all other people who are necessary, be put in operation by his Department or by the other Ministries, far the demobilised men? Good-fitting clothes are very important. These are good clothes and we do not want them wasted. Will he be responsible?
    Sir A. Duncan: That would have to be considered.
    Sir Herbert Holdsworth: Arising out of the original reply, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient staff to make the number of suits which will be wanted in the immediate future and are the supplies adequate?
    Sir A. Duncan: Of course labour is one of the very great difficulties at the present time and every attention is being directed to making sure that we get the labour we need.
    Sir H. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman admit that there are tens of thousands of workers in his factories doing nothing?
    Commander Agnew: Will he see to it that there is no undue regimentation in the form of headgear so that a man is free to choose a soft hat, a bowler or a cap?
    Sir H. Holdsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Ministry of Labour regarding the adequate supply of labour to make these suits?
    Sir A. Duncan: We will get into touch with the Minister of Labour.
    Major Woolley: Could I ask my right hon. Friend how many suits are available now, and at what rate they are being turned out?
    Sir A. Duncan: Obviously I could not give that information.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Could the Minister say this to the men who will have to wear these suits—is he satisfied that they arc clothes in which he himself would be proud to parade the streets?
    Sir A. Duncan: I would be most happy to go out in the clothes that I saw.
    Mr. E. Walkden: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Commander Agnew: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has not yet given a reply to my question.

    Factories (Redundant Personnel)
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Supply whether he will take immediate steps to secure the release for other work of idle personnel in factories engaged on contracts for his Ministry.
    Sir A. Duncan: Arrangements already exist for notifying the Ministry of Labour and National Service of personnel becoming redundant through the termination of contracts. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. A. Edwards: Is the Minister not aware that key people in other industries at present speeding up the post-war work are still being taken and posted to factories where they will be redundant? Can he not speed up the inevitable new regulations which must be being prepared at headquarters? People are being taken from essential work and sent to nonessential work at the present time.
    Sir A. Duncan: That is really not a question for me but for the Ministry of Labour.

    Sawn Timber (Storage)
    Mr. Priceasked the Minister of Supply whether he will now consider permitting a certain amount of sawn timber to be stored in the neighbourhood of docks and centres of transport in order to facilitate movement and reduce cost.
    Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. A certain amount of sawn timber is now being stored in dock areas and the possibility of extending this arrangement is under consideration.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Statutory Rules and Orders
    Mr. Liddallasked the Minister of Food why, in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Food (Home Grown Grains: Barley) Order (S.R. & 0., No. 787, of 1944), human food is defined as including groats, pearl barley, etc., other than beer, spirits, malt or products of malt.
    The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): The definition quoted is intended to make it clear that where the words "human food" occur in this particular Order, beer, spirits, malt or products of malt are not referred to. It has no other implication.
    Mr. Liddall: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend not aware that whilst bread is the staff of life, beer is life itself?
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Food why, in the Emergency Powers (Defence) Food (Home Grown Grains: Barley) Order (S.R. & 0., No. 787, of 1944), food for human consumption is defined, not by its nature, but because of the persons to whom it is sold.
    Colonel Llewellin: Because, Sir, the persons referred to acquire it for human consumption.
    Sir H. Williamsasked the Minister of Food what are the statutes referred to in the words, All other powers him enabling, contained in the preamble to the Emergency Powers (Defence) Food (Pickles and Sauces) Order (S.R. & 0., No. 865, of 1944).
    Colonel Llewellin: None, Sir.
    Sir H. Williams: May I ask why these words are put in the Orders issued by his Department, and not in the Orders issued by other Departments? Is it not rather a piece of bluff on the public?
    Colonel Llewellin: I do not think it is that, but these words were first used in in an Order in the time of Mr. Gladstone's Government, in the year 1862. I have not yet been able to see whether he made any reference to them.

    Imports (Argentina and Australia)
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickhamasked the Minister of Food whether any proposed arrangement regarding the supply of meat from Argentina is now under consideration; and whether special regard will be paid to the expected large increase in the export of Australian beef to this country.
    Colonel Llewellin: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. Agreement has been reached between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia for the sale to the United Kingdom of the whole of her exportable surplus of beef, mutton and lamb for the next four years. I am circulating a full statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether similar arrangements exist with regard to dairy produce?
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir. We are buying all Australia's exportable surplus of butter and cheese until 30th June, 1948.
    Following is the statement:
    Agreement has been reached between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Australia for the sale to the United Kingdom of the exportable surpluses of Australian butter and cheese until 30th June, 1948, and of beef, mutton and lamb until 30th September, 1948. In addition the United Kingdom will purchase the exportable surplus of pig meat up till the end of September, 1946, and thereafter such quantities as may be agreed. Further, the United Kingdom will purchase the total exportable surplus of Australian eggs for the seasons 1944–1945 and 1945–1946 and a quantity not exceeding one million cases of eggs for the season 1946–1947.
    The final details as to the prices to be paid for meat and dairy products are still

    241
    under discussion. Prices as well as other provisions of agreement are subject to review at the end of two years on the grounds of substantial changes in conditions.
    The United Kingdom Government are making these arrangements as part of their policy for safeguarding food supplies for the United Kingdom during the next few years. The supplies which will thus be made available will, of course, meet only a part of the United Kingdom's needs and, so long as combined planning for the international distribution of meat, dairy products and eggs continues, will be subject thereto.

    Honey
    Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the Minister of Food what steps he has taken, following upon the recent representations of the hon. Member for East Fife, regarding the failure of this year's honey crop, and the difficulty experienced by beekeepers in obtaining necessary appliances.
    Colonel Llewellin: In regard to the first part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Colonel Carver). In regard to the second part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, as Minister of Food, use his strongest influence to ensure that these necessary appliances for hives are available?
    Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, I certainly want to see them made available, and I will do my best to make the necessary representations.

    Milk (Statistics)
    62. Brigadier-General Clifton Brownasked the Minister of Food what were the numbers of registered producers selling milk by wholesale and the numbers of licensed producer retailers in August, 1942, and in August, 1944, respectively; and what was the total gallonage of liquid milk sold in those two months, respectively, through the Milk Marketing Board.
    Colonel Llewellin: By wholesale in England and Wales in August, 1942, 122,700; in August, 1944, 130,000; producer-retailers at the same dates, 61,178
    242
    and 55,102. The total gallonage of milk sold through the Board in the same period was 82.96 million gallons and 83.64 million gallons respectively.

    BUILDING COMPONENTS (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES)
    Mr. Liddallasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, in the case of how many firms his Department have insisted upon the Government being supplied with fittings for buildings at 7½ per cent. below the rate at which such goods are supplied to private firms.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): The rebate of 7½ per cent. applies to 18 firms in one industry producing one class of building components, in respect of all Government business, direct and indirect. It was accepted by the industry as a convenient and suitable way of controlling prices of the material of which Government was the principal purchaser. The figure was arrived at after consideration of the industry's general costs, but obviates detailed costing of individual contracts.

  HOUSING

    Temporary Constructions
    Sir Irving Alberyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry Of Works what types of temporary housing have now been approved in addition to the Portal bungalow.
    Mr. Hicks: Three other types of construction, which have so far been found to have the qualities necesary for an emergency house, are available for inspection by hon. Members on the Tate Gallery site.
    Mr. A. Edwards: What are the other types?
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is my hon. Friend aware that I presented myself at the Tate Gallery site two days ago and was refused admission?
    Mr. Hicks: I very much regret that. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) the names of the other types are the Arcon, the Uni-Seco, and the Tarran.
    Sir Oliver Simmonds: Must all these emergency houses be completely demolished? Cannot they be added to with permanent structures?
    Mr. Hicks: They are intended as temporary buildings, and it will be for the Government to decide their future use afterwards.

    Building Repairs
    Mr. Keelingasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware that a few days ago six workmen were chipping off the faces of shops in Evesham in preparation for covering them with stucco; and whether he can give an assurance that all men in the provincial building trade doing other than urgent work are being given the opportunity of coming to London to repair war damage.
    Mr. Hicks: The work referred to consisted of cement rendering the brickwork of two shops in Evesham, which had become defective through damp, at a cost of £70 and £5 respectively. One plasterer, one handyman and three labourers were employed, all of whom were either medically unfit or over the age for direction by the Ministry of Labour to work outside their home areas. The firm concerned brought 31 men to work on first-aid repairs in London.
    Mr. Keeling: Would my hon. Friend give me an answer to the second part of my Question?
    Mr. Hicks: The answer to the second part is, "Yes, Sir."

  ROYAL NAVY

    Africa Star and 1939–43 Star
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether sailors serving ashore in places where Army personnel are entitled to the 1939–43 or Africa Stars are themselves entitled to these awards.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Captain Pilkington): Naval personnel appointed or drafted for service ashore or in harbour and who served between the appropriate dates in the areas of operations which qualify the Army are eligible for the 1939–43 or Africa Star under Army rules varied by the priority of award given to the 1939–43 Star in the Navy.
    Mr. Astor: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that not one Africa Star has yet been issued to the Navy and that this long delay has caused considerable discontent?
    Captain Pilkington: I am not aware of that entirely, but my hon. Friend will realise that in the Navy the 1939–43 Star takes precedence over the other medal. That is the cause of the delay.

    Mail Delays
    Sir A. Southbyasked the first Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to complaints from officers and men serving in His Majesty's ships and in merchant ships regarding receipt of mails; and whether any maritime mail service exists comparable to the Army postal service.
    Captain Pilkington: My right hon. Friend is aware that the difficulties which were experienced in the early stages of the current Continental operations caused delay in the receipt of mails by Naval personnel serving overseas. Energetic steps were at once taken to improve matters with satisfactory results. The delay is only now making itself felt on the more distant stations, but it will be transitory. Owing to the widely different circumstances for which it has to cater the Naval mail system is not in any way comparable with the Army Postal Service. My right hon. Friend is, however, satisfied that the present system is sound in principle, though we are continually seeking to make improvements in practice. Mails for the Merchant Navy are a matter for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport.
    Sir A. Southby: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the complaints are not only due to delays in the mails where operations are actually taking place? It is world-wide. Is he not aware that there is general dissatisfaction in the Navy at the way their mails are dealt with; and is there any reason why their service should not be at least as efficient as the mail service in the Army?
    Captain Pilkington: I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's statement that there is general dissatisfaction. When he says that dissatisfaction is felt in areas where operations have not been taking place, he will realise that operational areas affect the wider areas.
    Sir A. Southby: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    BRITISH TROOPS, INDIA (WELFARE)
    The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): With the permission of the House I should like to make a short statement on a matter connected with the welfare of British troops in the India Command. The Government of India have been, and are, making great efforts to improve and expand welfare arrangements for British troops in India. There is no doubt that a great deal more can be done if further supplies, equipment and personnel can be provided from outside India. Recent improvements in our general situation are now making this possible. In order to assure myself that everything possible will be done and that the further assistance which is now becoming available is applied to the most urgent needs, I have asked my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for India to proceed to India to examine conditions on the spot, to consult with the Government of India, and to report to me personally. His visit will be of short duration and confined to the purpose I have described.
    Mr. Bellenger: Has my right hon. Friend considered a suggestion which was made to him during the Debate on Indian Welfare which took place just before the House rose for the Summer Recess, namely, that independent Members of Parliament should proceed to India for the purpose of seeing what is happening out there? Many delegations have been out to the Colonies and the Dominions. Has he considered that?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. I have carefully considered that suggestion but my anxiety is to get deficiencies remedied as rapidly as possible and, from that point of view, I feel that there will be great advantage in a report being made by someone who can follow it up at once in the India Office, and continue to follow it up.
    Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the Minister consider sending to India General Sir Colin Jardine, Director of Army Welfare, who seems to have done an excel-
    246
    lent job in the Middle East, in Italy and in the North West European theatre of operations? In view of the knowledge and experience of this man would not the Minister let him accompany the Under-Secretary?
    Mr. Amery: Any decision as to Sir Colin Jardine is a matter for the War Office and must rest with my colleague my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. Sir Colin was in India not so long ago.
    Mr. Muff: Is it not a fact that Sir Colin Jardine returned from India four months ago? Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department be solely responsible for the welfare of these troops? I hope there will not be a shuttlecock and battledore affair between his Department and the War Office.
    Mr. Amery: As I explained in the Debate not long ago, it is obvious that in a great many of these military matters there must be immediate contact and cooperation between the troops in India and the War Office. On the other hand, Parliamentary responsibility for the condition of troops in India, British and Indian, rests with the Secretary of State for India.
    Mr. Muff: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department responsible for finance?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, that is to say the expenses of the troops in India are paid by the Government of India and to that extent I am responsible.
    Mr. J. J. Lawson: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect an early report on this matter?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, I hope that my Noble Friend will not be away in India for more than a few weeks and that I shall have his report immediately on his return and I will make use of it.
    Mr. Astor: Will the report be made available to Members of the House?
    Mr. Amery: I should not like to commit myself definitely as to whether the report itself will be made available, but in any case I hope to lay before the House, soon after my Noble Friend has reported, a full statement of all that has been, and is being, done by the Government of India in connection with welfare.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND MEMBERS' SPEECHES (TIMING)
  Mr. Speaker: In view of the Government's decision announced yesterday, that it was no longer necessary, for security reasons, to keep secret the times of meeting and rising of the House, it seems to follow that we should revert to our previous practice of recording the hours of meeting and rising of the House in HANSARD. The practice will also be resumed of putting in the time at the commencement of every speech. In Committee, owing to the commendable brevity of many speeches, it is proposed to replace the time of the commencement of each speech, by the regular indication of every quarter-hour, without regard to speakers. If this arrangement commends itself to the House, I will give instructions that it be put into effect forthwith.
  Hon. Members: Agreed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Sir H. Williams: I should like to raise the question of the incident yesterday evening when the House was counted out at a time when Government Business had already proceeded for two hours and ten minutes longer than anticipated and when the black-out had already been running for 50 minutes. The count-out, I am certain from what has appeared in the Press, has caused great confusion in the mind of the public. They think that Members of Parliament have been idle. The Motion to suspend the Rule was not moved until 6 o'clock and a very large number of Members of Parliament had no idea whatever that it was proposed to extend the Sitting. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that, when it is intended to make a Motion late in the Sitting, proper intimation will be given, so that Members will be aware of it?
Mr. Eden: My hon. Friend is quite justified in what he says about not having been given previous notice of the continuation of the Sitting. It had been our hope, originally, that the Business would be finished by six o'clock. My hon. Friend will understand the difficulty in which the Government are placed when they have important Business to get through and there is a long list of subjects which the House is anxious to debate
248
and which we want to fit in before the end of the Session. I agree however that we must be careful to give the maximum notice to the House of our intention. I am grateful for the opportunity of making plain that this was an exceptional occasion, and that the House had no long notice of what was contemplated. That may help to put right the erroneous impression given by the Press.
Sir Percy Harris: About to-morrow's Business—for how long is it proposed, to suspend the Rule?
Mr. Eden: I am not quite sure for how long the Prime Minister is going to speak. It may be that he will ask the House for the indulgence which was shown once before when a brief interval was allowed him but I think it is likely that he would be grateful if indulgence could be given to him. As regards the hours, I thought we would sit for an extra two hours tomorrow, to give the maximum time for Debate, and the normal time on Friday.
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's statement is quite clear. Assuming that we suspend the Sitting in accordance with what he says, does he mean that the House will sit for two hours longer, or that it will continue for two hours later, which will in fact mean that the House will sit for two hours less the period of the suspension of the Sitting?
Mr. Eden: I do not know that I can follow the right hon. Gentleman in his mathematical elaborations but, if I simply say 8 o'clock, I think it will be clear.
Mr. McGovern: Reverting to the previous question, whilst agreeing with the statements made, may I ask if it is not also true that it is the duty of the Government to keep a House for Government Business and that there are enough Parliamentary Private Secretaries to see that a House is kept?
Mr. Eden: The hon. Member is entitled to any jubilation that he may feel, or any censorship that he wishes to express. This was a Scottish Bill. I regret what has happened because I think it will be misunderstood, but we will take what precautions we can to see that it does not happen again.
Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that the Government have the advantage of having a Scotsman as Chief Whip?

BILL PRESENTED
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (INCREASE OF BENEFIT) BILL
  "to increase the rates of benefit payable under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1935 to 1940"; presented by Mr. Ernest Bevin, supported by Mr. Attlee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. R. S. Hudson and Mr. McCorquodale; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 45.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Eden.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION) [MONEY]
  Resolution reported:
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for temporary housing accommodation, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient:

  A—(i) To authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums not exceeding one hundred and fifty million pounds to defray expenses incurred by the Minister of Works in connection with the manufacture, construction or erection of structures to be made available to housing authorities for the provision of temporary housing accommodation.

  (ii) To authorise the Treasury to raise money for the purpose of providing sums to be issued as mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph in any manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939.

  (iii) To authorise the repayment into the Exchequer, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the sums issued as aforesaid, together with interest thereon.

  (iv) To authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as mentioned in the last preceding sub-paragraph and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.

  B.—(i) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred in the removal of structures, fittings

  265
  or materials made available to housing authorities for the provision of temporary housing accommodation.

  (ii) To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of proceeds of disposal of articles removed as mentioned in the preceding subparagraph.

  C—(i) To authorise the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State from housing authorities in respect of structures made available as aforesaid.

  (ii) To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State in making contributions towards expenses incurred by housing authorities where land provided by them for the erection of structures to be made available as aforesaid is land of exceptionally high value."

  Resolution agreed to.

  HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOM MODATION) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair.]

  CLAUSE 1.—(Provision for making structures for temporary housing available to housing authorities.)
  12.10 p.m.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "temporary," to insert "and prefabricated."
  During the Debate yesterday, I gave notice that I would place an Amendment of this character on the Paper. I had not then heard the speech of the Minister of Production, and I want to say now that that speech afforded me very considerable satisfaction upon this question of prefabricated buildings. Prior to that, it is true, one had heard the Scottish Secretary's speech but there remained in my mind principally the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works in the Debate in August, when he conveyed the impression to me that he had only one type of house in his mind, namely the Portal house. He went so far as to tell us that 100,000 of those houses in the first year would employ so much steel, and so on. He rather chided the House for criticising the Government upon their concentration upon one type of house. He said, "Where are the others? My Department is open to anyone to come but there are not any others." It was that concentration on one-
  266
  house to the exclusion of all others that troubled me and induced me to place this Amendment on the Paper. I had in my mind then the expert view on the matter. May I read a few lines from the "Architects Journal" of 22nd June, because it represents clearly what seems to be the right view on the matter and expresses admirably the view that I have tried to express more than once.
  "We believe that several serious errors of a general kind have been made. For instance, to repeat a former criticism, it has been wrong to concentrate on a type of, house rather than on a flexible system. Such a system would make possible a variety of plans, and the later addition of units or rooms when a family is increased in size."
  It goes on to meet a point, which was raised at Question Time to-day, about the amazingly dull uniformity that the house is going to present.
  "It will also prevent a dull uniformity. A major advantage of standardised mass production lies precisely in the power of flexibility of combining in a variety of ways a limited number of basic units."
  It is just that variety that was partly in my mind; but my chief plea yesterday was that the Government should not concentrate too much upon the temporary as opposed to the new, quickly-erected, prefabricated type of house. Until I heard the speech of the Minister of Production I had not felt satisfied that the Government were adequately seized of the amazing opportunities now presented to us. The Minister of Production, however, gave a very cheering message. He said:
  "Since this housing problem has engaged the closest attention of the Government … two things have happened—
  That is, recently happened. One was the flying bomb blitz and the other was the emergence of this new kind of quickly and cheaply erected prefabricated house. The Minister went on to say:
  "I want to say, straight away, that … if we can bring the man-hours and the cost of a permanent type of building down nearer to the cost of the temporary house, then that is an alternative which the Government would embrace with the greatest willingness."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th September, 1944, Vol. 403, C. 165–6.]
  I welcome that statement. As was pointed out in a letter in "The Times" yesterday from Sir George Burt, I take that to mean that, having accepted the in ciple of new types of prefabricated houses so admirably displayed at Northolt, the programme of temporary houses will,

  267
  therefore, be drastically reduced. I welcome that, and that being the Government's object I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Before the Amendment is withdrawn let us get a confirmation of that statement from the Government.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): Did the hon. Member move his Amendment?
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I want to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move the Amendment.
  Mr. Molson: Would the hon. Member be in Order in making a speech and afterwards asking leave to withdraw the Amendment?
  The Deputy Chairman: I assumed that the hon. Member was going to move his Amendment. It is rather difficult; we have to see what happens if we do not know what the hon. Member is going to do, but I conclude that he has now moved the Amendment.
  12.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hopkinson: Should we be in Order in discussing whether this Amendment should be withdrawn or not? The hon. Member has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. Are we in Order in discussing the Amendment? I hope the Committee will insist that the hon. Member gets a specific statement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works that his interpretation of the statement by the Minister of Production yesterday is a correct interpretation. I hope that we shall have no shilly-shallying about it, but that we shall get a definite and direct statement which can be quoted subsequently instead of having any prevarication.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Before the Minister replies it seems to me that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member is in direct contradiction of what he desires to secure. He desires that permanent buildings as well as temporary buildings should be erected under this Bill, but he has moved an Amendment which says that the buildings must be "temporary and prefabricated." Surely he should have said "or prefabricated." Otherwise his Amendment would mean that the buildings must not only be pre-
  268
  fabricated but temporary, whereas his argument was that he was against the erection of a large number of purely temporary buildings and that we should devote attention also to more permanent buildings.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: Before the Minister replies can be give me an answer to a question which I asked yesterday? Can he say whether prefabricated houses of a permanent type put up by local authorities come within the compass of the grants and the policy which the Government have laid down in this Clause? I wish he would give a definite reply, because a large number of local authorities are considering putting up something like semi-permanent houses.
  Sir Percy Harris: This issue is an important one, and I agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) that the Amendment which has been moved is a most unfortunate one. The fewer temporary houses we build the better it will be for the country. The erection of temporary houses is a wasteful way of using labour and could only be justified by the emergency. If, at the same cost, and using the same amount of labour, it is possible to build as quickly prefabricated houses, I am sure it would be the desire of the whole Committee to do so. We have the impression, though I have no doubt it is a wrong impression, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works attaches importance to the word "temporary," that he prefers houses of new design and using new materials to be purely temporary. Our experience after the last war was that many of these unsatisfactory temporary houses were made to exist for a very long time. I am not quite sure which is the hon. Member's constituency in Woolwich, but I could take him to parts of Woolwich where some of these temporary houses built after the last war still exist and are inhabited. That is what we are really alarmed about. Although I do not like the character of the Amendment I think before we proceed much further we ought to know that there is not a prejudice in favour of temporary houses as against prefabricated houses of a permanent character.
  Mr. Leach: On a point of Order. If an Hon. Member, called

  269
  upon by you, Mr. Williams, to move his Amendment did not do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]I never heard it moved.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member did move it.
  Mr. Hugh Lawson: I have an Amendment upon the Order Paper, but I understand that it is not the intention of the Chair to call it—
  page 1, line 8, after "accommodation," insert "or housing accommodation of a permanent factory made type."
  It seems to me that if my Amendment were put into the Bill it would do what the Committee desires, and that is allow the Government to build prefabricated houses of a permanent and also of a temporary character. I think that was favoured in 90 per cent. of the speeches made during the Second Reading Debate. Although my Amendment is not to be called I think we ought, at this stage, to have a specific assurance from the Government that they will insert words in the Bill some time before Third Reading to make it possible to build also permanent houses. There is, of course, the objection—
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot discuss his Amendment. It is not being called.
  Mr. Lawson: The intention of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment which is before the Committee was an intention that I would support. Under this Bill it should be made possible to build both temporary and permanent prefabricated houses. The words which it is proposed to insert are "and prefabricated." It has been suggested that "or prefabricated" would be better, and it seems the best thing would be for us to get a specific assurance from the Minister that he will insert the words "or prefabricated," or similar words, before the Bill passes its final stage.
  Mr. Stephen: It seems to me that the question before us has become a little confused. Since the intervention of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) there has been an attempt to get some clarification, but I am a little doubtful as to what exactly it is we are discussing. It seems to me that most of the speeches have been speeches in support of the Amendment of the hon. Member
  270
  for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) which is not to be moved, and that there have been no speeches in support of the Amendment before the Committee. I do not know how it will be possible for the Minister, if he is to keep within the bounds of Order, to deal with the point which the Committee evidently wish him to deal with, and I would ask you, Mr. Williams, whether it would not be possible for us to depart from the present Amendment and take the next Amendment so that the Committee should be able to discuss what Members really wish to discuss.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: I have been under the impression all along the line that this is a temporary Measure, that its purpose was to get these Portal houses put up as quickly as we can, and, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has said, the Amendment is wrong and it is not one that can be accepted by the Government. The hon. Member moved it and withdrew it and then moved it again. He might as well say "We want the temporary and permanent buildings at one and the same time." What we have been discussing is the provision of temporary buildings, because of the emergency, and we cannot have them as permanent buildings and we ought to face that fact. I hope the Minister will say "I want the temporary buildings and at present I am not prepared to accept the proposal for prefabricated permanent buildings."
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I think, at least I hope, that I can clarify this matter a little. It is certainly the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has suggested, that the Government could not possibly accept this Amendment. It is, with all respect, confusing—temporary and prefabricated houses. Our proposal is for temporary houses which are prefabricated, and the language of this Amendment would be confusing to the last degree. In the second place it is hardly fair for my hon. Friend to say what he did after what was said on ist August. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I said:
  "At this moment alternative materials for the hull are being considered, and I am advised that they are now likely to be capable of manufacture at a price no higher than the prototype which hon. Members have seen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1260–61.]

  271
  Investigations proceeded during the Recess and four types have now been approved by the Burt Committee on Materials and Construction. This is a Bill to make provision for temporary housing accommodation. The developments in prefabrication for permanent houses will have an effect on the ultimate scale of this temporary programme but, after all, the prefabricated houses, if I may so call them—the term is one of some ambiguity—which have excited so much admiration, have only been put up as an experiment. I hope very much that in our permanent housing programme too we shall make great strides in new methods of construction.
  12.30 p.m.
  We are satisfied—and it is really the principle of the Bill—that in our present situation the particular need we have to meet is for something smaller in scale, with two bedrooms only, something mass-produced, of a type not designed to last for 60 years, but for 10 years. That is an essential element in meeting our need. That is what I have found in seeing those who have suffered most. They feel that we need to proceed concurrently both with permanent and temporary bungalows of various types. That is the scope of this Bill.
  Mr. A. Hopkinson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please give us a specific answer to the question which I raised at the beginning? It almost seems as if there is something here to be hidden. The Minister of Production yesterday made a statement and my hon. Friend opposite asked the Minister of Works to confirm the statement. The Minister of Works' representative sitting there will neither confirm nor deny it, and I think that is treating the Committee very badly indeed. He has only to say that the hon. Member has interpreted it rightly or wrongly. The other point on which perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can inform us is this. Supposing a new system of housing is proposed and a house can be put up for less cost and in less time than those selected by the Minister of Works, is the fact that it is going to last more than 10 years to debar it under this Bill, because I understand that unless it is only for 10 years, it is not to be considered?
  Mr. McGovern: There are some of us who are convinced that owing to the developments which have taken place there is now a house which can meet the needs of the community, not of a purely temporary character, which can be mass produced and become a permanent house. If such a house is available, and there is expert opinion on it from people drawn from the building trades, would that not be a reason for the Government and the Minister revising the plan for putting up a large number of these temporary dwellings Which are going to be scrapped in 10 years, and giving us the benefit of a mass produced house that could be permanent?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the discussion has got very wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. McGovern: I am asking only because of the difficulty regarding the Bill. I want to know whether the Government are taking stock of this development.
  Mr. Willink: I think I can give the assurances asked for. In the first place there is no restriction whatever on the proposals of local authorities with regard to the type of permanent house they shall erect. All sorts of experimental construction are being considered, but I would impress upon the Committee that the time for experiment with regard to our immediate business is past. It is time to take decisions with regard to homes that will be made available in the course of next year, and where there are types which have been passed and can be produced in the right numbers they should be produced.
  As to confirming what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Production, a Member of the War Cabinet, it is almost unnecessary and, indeed, unseemly, for a request to be made for such confirmation. I would only say that it is for the Minister of Health to provide these structures and what was said by the Minister of Production is entirely another matter.
  Mr. Hopkinson: I must protest against the right hon. and learned Gentleman regarding it as unseemly. I insist upon getting a definite answer to that question, and, further, if the representative of the Ministry of Works refuses to reply, I shall move to report Progress.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): It is certainly a matter of policy for the Minister of Health to decide. It is not for the Minister of Works to decide upon policy. When my hon. Friend moved his Amendment to-day, he referred to the fact that on 1st August I devoted a large portion of my time to the Portal house. That was the only one, at that time, before the House and, therefore, I had to devote my speech to it. I indicated at the same time that the Government were not opposed to any other proposal for temporary houses, and, at the request of the Ministry of Health, my Ministry has erected three other types of temporary houses, the names of which I have given this morning. There are other types coming in and if they pass the Burt Committee and the prices are right—the prices of none of these other temporary houses have been decided Upon—and if their production can be made available, then the Ministry of Health will give us, after consultations with the local authorities, the types to be constructed. I thought the position was perfectly clear. I am sorry if my language was unable to communicate that to the House. I did not think there was anything wrong about it, but it appears that my hon. Friend thinks there is.
  The other point is that at Northolt there has been some other types of houses put up of a permanent character—nothing to do with the Bill at all—and the Ministry of Works has been responsible for demonstrating the use of other materials for building houses of the traditional type.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think we had better follow that any further.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I must apologise to the Committee for a technical slip made at the beginning which has led to some confusion, but perhaps I may claim that it has caused an interesting Debate and got from the two Ministers, if not a confirmation, at least an explanation of the pronouncement made yesterday. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Hutchinson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after "authority," to insert:
  "or on land of which such authority are entitled to exclusive possession for a period of not less than five years."
  274
  This Amendment deals with a different aspect of this matter from the one which the Committee has discussed for the last half hour. Its purpose is to enable local authorities to erect the Portal bungalow upon sites which are not intended to be used permanently as sites for permanent houses. I venture to submit to the Committee that, if this Amendment is accepted, it will very considerably enlarge the scope of usefulness of these temporary houses. I regard the Portal houses as a temporary expedient which has been introduced to meet a temporary emergency. It is an expedient for which my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Works are, in my judgment, entitled to considerable credit. But if the Portal houses are to be restricted to the sites which are destined to be the sites for permanent houses, then their usefulness will be considerably restricted. The principal vacant sites available for housing development, in London at any rate, are the sites of blitzed houses scattered about in small groups in different streets, and in different parts of the London area.
  The purpose of my Amendment is to enable the local authorities, if convenient, to erect these Portal houses on those blitzed sites scattered in small groups in different parts of their localities. The Committee will readily appreciate that there are certain definite advantages in using the Portal house in that way. The roads are available and other services are available at the site which could be connected to the houses in a short space of time. I am told by those who have technical knowledge of these matters—a knowledge which I do not profess to possess—that the preparation of sites for Portal houses is a comparatively simple matter, and that it might even be possible to prepare these sites by using the organisation of emergency first-aid repair labour which has been brought into existence throughout London by most of the local authorities. If that is so, it means that the local authorities, if they had the power to place these houses upon sites of this sort, would be ready to begin the work of erection as soon as the houses became available. It may be, if they have to wait until permanent sites have been acquired, and until the services and roads have been made available on them sites, that they may not be ready to use these houses as soon as the Ministry of Works is able to deliver them.

  275
  On the other side of the picture, I recognise that there are certain difficulties. No doubt my right hon. Friend will point out that the frontage of a Portal house is greater than the frontage of an ordinary terrace house. That, of course, means that if the Portal house is used in the way suggested, it would overlap the normal site frontage of the terrace house. But on most of these sites four, five or six, or even more houses have been destroyed and there is available a vacant frontage which extends very considerably beyond the frontage of a single house. It is really only a matter of arrangement to place these Portal houses in a suitable way upon sites of this nature. In some of the local authorities' areas, where Portal houses might usefully be used in this way, it may be possible to put the Portal house—
  The Deputy-Chairman: I should point out that this is not a question of the value or otherwise of Portal houses, and we should not go any further in that direction. This is a narrower point, concerning an authority's exclusive possession of land for a period of not less than five years. That is the point, and we cannot go into a full discussion of the value or otherwise of Portal houses.
  12.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hutchinson: With respect, Mr. Williams, as the Bill stands, local authorities are restricted to the erection of these houses upon land which is acquired or is to be acquired for the purposes of housing. My Amendment proposes that their power to erect Portal houses should be extended to land of which they can obtain exclusive possession for a period of not less than five years. That would mean that they could go to the owners of blitzed sites and make arrangements with them for the local authorities to have possession of the sites for this purpose for not more than five years. The matter goes a little further than you indicated. It enables the local authority to erect these houses upon sites which do not belong to them but of which they have obtained possession for a limited period. Therefore, I submit that it is relevant to consider whether it is a practicable proposition to place these houses upon sites of that sort. It was for that reason that I began to discuss the comparative
  276
  frontages of the Portal house and the terrace house.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That could be used as an illustration. But it is not possible on a narrow Amendment of this sort to have a full discussion on frontages. I was merely trying to limit the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument and warning him that the discussion should not be taken on to the value of Portal houses in general.
  Mr. Hutchinson: I will pass from that aspect of the matter. There is one other objection which my right hon. and learned Friend may bring forward. If the local authorities are to get the right of exclusive possession of these sites for only five years, it means that at the end of the five years the house would have to be taken away. My right hon. and learned Friend may say that these houses are so constructed that once they have been erected it is not practicable to take them down and re-erect them elsewhere. I can readily see that the number of times which a Portal house can be taken down and erected somewhere else is limited, but I should have thought that, if these houses are of a purely temporary character and are really sectional buildings, as I understand them to be, it ought to be possible to take them down at least once during their lifetime and re-erect them on a second site. If that is not now practicable, then the usefulness of the Portal bungalow would be considerably increased if it were possible so to alter its present construction that it could be taken down at least once during its lifetime and built elsewhere.
  I do not anticipate that, if the local authorities have power to act in this way, they will encounter any great difficulty in obtaining sites. In the case of sites which have been occupied by houses more than 40 years old, which come within the class of pre-1914 houses, it would be a considerable advantage to the owner of the site that it should be occupied in this way for a period of, say, five years as against the alternative of having the site unoccupied altogether perhaps for two or three years, until a building can be erected upon it. The local authorities would have no difficulty in obtaining vacant sites of this character for five years. But if. difficulty in obtaining an adequate number of sites is encountered, some powers of requisition might have

  277
  to be given. It does not seem to me that the owners of the sites would suffer any great injury by reason of their sites being requisitioned. I would not agree to any power to requisition sites of which the owner or his family were in occupation before the building was demolished; but subject to that and to proper safeguards, I see no reason why local authorities should not be granted the power of requisition.
  I have no wish to press this Amendment upon the Minister unduly. I have put it down in order to enable the Committee to discuss what seems to me to be one of the most important aspects of the use of this temporary house. If my right hon. and learned Friend in reply says that he, in conjunction with the Minister of Works, will give consideration to the matter and make some provision in the Bill at a later stage to enable local authorities who desire to do so to make use of these bungalows in this way, I shall be satisfied and will ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: After being very definite about the matter, the hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) says that he may withdraw his Amendment. I hope that he will not waste his time in moving the Amendment and then withdrawing it, because I hope that the Minister will accept it. I want to support it from a different point of view. I want to speak for some little authorities all over the British Isles—the urban district councils. There are scores of local authorities who own bits of land which they cannot use as estates for permanent houses. They have a patch of land in one place that would take four houses and a patch of land in another place that would take 10, but they will never be able to use them for permanent buildings. The sewers, water and other services are already laid on, and the erection of temporary houses will be cheap from that standpoint. I asked the Minister of Production yesterday whether it Was true as the Press had stated that the Minister would not sanction fewer than 50 Portal houses in any district. He told me that that was not correct, and I am pleased that it is not.
  I am chairman of the housing committee of my urban district council and we have given consideration to these tem-
  278
  porary houses. Outside the blitzed areas there is a great need for them. I have had letters galore and people interviewing me begging for these houses. I had a most distressing case the other day of a soldier's wife, and I am not ashamed to put it before the Committee. Her husband has been a soldier for four years, she has a little boy six years of age, and she came to me and said, "We are going to have an increase in our home. I am living with my-mother-in-law, and she told me, 'We cannot have any more babies in our house and if you are going to have a baby you must go'." I was astounded. There are three bedrooms in that house. The woman said, "If I could get hold of one of these houses I would go on my knees and thank Almighty God that I have a home of my own, I have a bit of furniture and I would jump at the chance of having one of these temporary houses." We have land in our urban district at three different points where we could fix 12 of these temporary houses. I had a letter from a soldier only the day before I came to London begging and praying to be put on the list for one of these houses. All I am asking is that where we have the land and do not have to buy land and are able to put these houses up in fours or sixes, we should be allowed to do so. If the Minister does not give a favourable reply, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Ilford will stiffen his back and go into the Lobby.
  Mr. Molson: I am not surprised, Mr. Williams, that you did not fully appreciate the scope of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment, because when I saw it on the Order Paper I did not fully realise what he had in mind. After listening to his speech, I understand that he is dealing with the point that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) raised on Second Reading yesterday, to which I referred afterwards. It referred to the large number of sites where houses have been demolished in London recently by flying bombs and where the ordinary services are readily available, and it would appear that it would be both economical and speedy to use those sites for the erection of Portal houses. In most cases it would not be desirable or convenient for the local authority to acquire the freehold of the land, but where a number of houses had been destroyed in

  279
  a street, if the site could be made available for Portal houses, it would result in temporary accommodation being made available without the need for long and costly work having to be undertaken. I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment.
  1.0 p.m.
  I pointed out yesterday that I understood there were many places where there are bombed sites, where the houses have been destroyed, and where it might be possible to make use of the services which exist. Although the Portal house is by no means ideal, when we consider the appalling conditions under which many Londoners will have to live for months to come, and the Government proposal that huts should be put up this winter, in order that those people should have just mere shelter, it seems as if the Portal house might, very usefully, be erected on a large number of those sites.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: I must say I feel sympathetic towards the Amendment which has been so ably moved and supported, but there are one or two objections to it to my mind. It seems quite obvious on first examination that houses should be put on these vacant sites which, as has been pointed out, are already supplied with water, drains and so on, and especially in London where there are already large gaps where houses have been destroyed and sites cleared, but to do so might very well obstruct in the long run the development plan of the local authorities concerned. Once temporary houses are placed on the site and if local authorities are to have control of those sites for five years, interference might very well affect the new development of the area. That point must be borne in mind. There is another factor, a human factor, which comes into this matter. Suppose the local authorities say that after two years they will take these temporary bungalows down; they would have to be very ruthless and determined. After all there is a human side to this. They would have to make up their minds at some period, perhaps within the five years, to scrap the Portal houses and move all the people out when, perhaps, permanent houses would not be ready for them. That would be very disturbing to the people concerned, and might prevent them from following their occupa-
  280
  tions, for instance, in any easy manner. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) made another point with which I cannot altogether agree and I think it should be examined a little further. It sounds alright. He said that if sites are conveniently situated in regard to services it might be well to take the opportunity of using the workers whom the local authorities have mobilised for first aid repairs and to put them on to the work of erecting Portal houses on these sites.
  Mr. Hutchinson: I said that I had been advised by people with experience in these matters that the labour gangs now being used for first aid repairs, might be used for the purpose of erecting Portal Bungalows. I did not suggest that the gangs should be taken off first-aid repairs. If I did not make the suggestion clear, I will do so now, and it was that when the work of first-aid repairs has been completed, or has proceeded to a reasonable and suitable point, the organisation brought into existence for that purpose might be used for the purpose of erecting these Portal houses.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for clarifying the matter, although I do not think it makes very much difference to the point I am trying to express. We know that 900,000 houses can be reconditioned in London, and that it will take a very long time to get them into ship-shape order. To my mind it is better to get houses into habitable condition as far and as quickly as possible, than it is to go on even with temporary housing on bombed sites. I hope that the Minister will not be tempted in any way and will not draw his workers off for this purpose. It will be a long time before these houses can all be reconditioned and it is hoped to erect temporary houses very shortly. I quite accept the explanation of my hon. and learned Friend. What he has in mind is a matter on which I take, perhaps, a long view. We should see whether houses which have been blitzed can be put into order first—
  The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing that point.
  Dr. Russell Thomas: No, Mr. Williams, but I am objecting to the point which was made by my hon. and learned Friend. As I said when I began I have

  281
  considerable sympathy with the Amendment but before we accept it we should consider very carefully its far-reaching effects.
  Mr. Cocks: The Amendment illustrates one of the general criticisms made against the Bill, and which has never been clearly answered, which is that so long as the temporary building is in position a permanent building cannot be put in its place. I do not know where the temporary houses can be erected so as not to prevent permanent building.
  Mr. Willink: If I were to be absolutely strict in keeping to the Amendment, perhaps I could not cover all the points which have been addressed to me. I believe that, within that strict view, I could define the Amendment as one which first raises the question of the land on which these bungalows are to be placed, secondly asks the nature of the interest in the land which the local authority is to have, and, thirdly, raises a question as to the duration of that interest. I would, first, express my appreciation of the very thoughtful observations which have been made, both by my hon. and learned Friend and other Members who spoke about what is a particularly difficult problem—that, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) has stated, of finding appropriate sites for the temporary structures. It is a problem on which I am already having assistance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Panning. Circumstances differ in every place. Where there is a big housing site, part of which can be devoted to the purpose, or where there is an area so heavily blitzed that the programme over or years sill not cover the whole of the area, a quarter, say, or a fifth of the area can quite properly be covered with temporary houses during that period.
  I cannot accept the Amendment, and I want to give my reasons. In the first place, I am advised that it is, technically, unnecessary, as a matter of law. As the Bill stands, houses can be erected on land acquired or appropriated for the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act by a local authority. Here I would answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). The sort of land to which he referred, which is in the owner-
  282
  ship of the local authority but did not come into their ownership originally for housing purposes, comes within the Bill and can be appropriated to this purpose. The hon. Member need have no anxiety upon that score. I am advised, in regard to the point raised by my hon. and learned Friend as to leases, that a lease is sufficient to bring the land within the meaning of the word "acquired" for the purposes of Clause 1. The point is of some little complication. It is probable the necessary power is given by Sections 73 and 74 of the Housing Act, 1936. The language of those two Sections distinguishes between acquisition by agreement and by compulsion and with regard to the latter uses the word "purchase." This seems to indicate that the acquisition of a lease-hold interest is acquisition of land for the purposes of the statute. If, however, that view is wrong the matter is not concluded. Under Section 157 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1933, a local authority may
  "for the purpose of any of its functions under this or any other public general Act, by agreement acquire, whether by way of purchase, lease or exchange, any land. …"
  and so forth, though that section should not be relied upon for the purposes of the Housing Act if the Housing Act itself gives sufficient powers. In the absence, therefore, of the necessary powers in the Housing Act, Section 157 of the Local Government Act would operate and give those powers. Consequently, on that technical point, the Amendment is unnecessary. On the Bill as drawn, these houses can be erected on land acquired by the local authority in the sense that it has been leased.
  On the other hand, turning to my hon. and learned Friend's second point, there is no power for the compulsory acquisition of a lease. The only form of compulsory acquisition is by purchase. Any legislation bringing in a mode of compulsory leasing of land would be complex, possibly controversial, and anyhow not within the scope of the Bill as drawn. It would give rise to delay and difficulty. In so far as local authorities can obtain by agreement land by lease for these houses, they are free to do so, but I ought to tell the Committee and warn my hon. and learned Friend that I Should very seldom, if ever, be able to approve a site which was safe to be able to approve a site which was safe to be in the possession of a local authority for only five years. The types

  283
  of bungalow so far approved are what the experts call "demountable"—an unpleasant but technical word. That means that they can be taken down and, in theory, put up again. Though the process is technically practicable, the best advice I can get is that it is not really a practical proposition because of the damage that would be done, which might be of a very substantial character, and because of the expense which would arise. It would not be an economic proposition with this temporary accommodation which is to last, at the best, only ten years.
  The real purpose I understand my hon. and learned Friend to have in mind is that land, the houses on which have been destroyed, should be used for three, four or five years, until the owner has an opportunity of rebuilding. It is an object which, I am afraid, cannot be achieved. Owners are unlikely to take the view that voluntary leasing of their land for ten years is the right course, and I believe that the right policy is for the land to be acquired. So far as speed is concerned, my hon. and learned Friend supported his Amendments partly on the ground that voluntary leasing might be more speedy than compulsory acquisition; but we believe that the right policy is rather to make sure of rapid acquisition, a process which, as the Committee knows, I am going to ask the Committee to facilitate later in the day.
  Mr. Hutchinson: I am very much obliged to the Minister for the explanation which he has just given to the Committee. Before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to put two points to him. May I ask him, first, whether he will be willing to amend Clause I so as to make it plain that the expression "acquired" includes acquisition by leasehold as well as by freehold interest? I would remind him that in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill it is stated that the purpose of the Bill is to enable housing authorities to place these houses on sites
  "on land belonging to them or to be purchased by them."
  If my right hon. and learned Friend is now advised that the expression "acquired" in Clause 1 includes acquisition by lease, would he, on the Report stage, amend Clause 1 so as to make it
  284
  quite plain that the expression does include leasehold acquisition?
  The other point is this: whilst I quite appreciate what he said, that there may be technical reasons for not taking these houses to pieces and re-erecting them, I should like some assurance that; before these bungalows are put into production, the Minister of Works will ascertain whether the difficulty of demolition and re-erection to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred can be overcome so that the houses, at least once during their lifetime, can be removed from their first sites and placed in a second position.
  1.15 p.m.
  Mr. H. Lawson: I would like to ask the Minister one question before he replies. He has told us that this Bill is going to give permission to local authorities, or that it will be possible for local authorities, to erect these Portal houses on any land in their possession. I hope that will not be taken by local authorities to mean that there can be a wholesale erection of houses on public open spaces, allotments and places of that nature. I agree that may have to take place in a few very exceptional cases, but I would like an assurance that the Minister is not going to allow that to happen, that he will discourage it and make it perfectly clear to local authorities that they shall preserve their existing local open spaces.
  Mr. Molson: I appreciate the force of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument in so far as it applies to the erection of temporary houses on sites that are going to be held for, say, a short period such as five years. I gather that under the Local Government Act, 1933, it would be possible for these houses to be erected upon land which was leased for a longer period than that time. I think it would be useful from the point of view of local authorities if the Minister could say what his real intentions are on that matter. If the practical difficulties are insuperable to the suggestion which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) has put forward, I would like the Minister to deal with this point. There may be much more extensive areas which, perhaps, are not likely to be used for permanent building for some considerable time, something like ten years, the contemplated life of these temporary houses. In circumstances of this kind, would my right hon. and

  285
  learned Friend view sympathetically the proposal that Portal houses should be erected on a site of that kind, where a local authority has a lease for something like ten years?
  Mr. Willink: With regard to the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend that there might be an Amendment to this Bill, making this point clear, I hesitate to promise to do that in the course of to-day. But it is my clear intention that where the local authority has a satisfactory leasehold interest it should be possible to build these temporary houses on that land. I can undertake to make quite sure of the existing law, which I believe to be as I have stated. If I am satisfied on that, the position as regards leasehold land will be made clear to the local authorities in the circular which will follow the passage into law of the Bill. If the legal position remains obscure, I will consider whether an Amendment can be moved in another place.
  With regard to open spaces, no local authority will have a completely free hand as to where these bungalows should be placed. All the projects for the lay-out of the sites and so forth will come before both myself and the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Although the circumstances will vary so much and there may be very exceptional cases where possibly a fringe of an open space might be strongly pressed for by the local authority itself—I have no such particular case in mind—I think the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Lawson) can rest assured that, under the control exercised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning, there is no reason for apprehension on that score. On the question whether further technical investigation should be made to see that the houses are as easily movable as possible, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Works says that shall most certainly be done. It is, of course, of importance from the point of view of ensuring the maximum of salvage if not for other reasons.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: I take it from what the Minister says that he is not going to the the local authorities too tightly in this matter. I am very pleased, and I beg the Committee to understand what we are asking these local authorities to do. We are asking them to acquire temporary sites
  286
  as well as sites for permanent houses. That is a big job for a local authority to undertake, and while I think that nobody would like them to take wholesale, say, a playing field or anything like that, certainly nobody would like to tie them too tightly in the matter of temporary houses, when we are also not only asking them to undertake permanent housing schemes but we are asking them to plan—
  Dr. Russell Thomas: Not only that; is it not really worse—asking the local authority to use a site temporarily when it might well be building permanent houses on that site?
  Mr. Lawson: I think a good deal of this arose from the point raised yesterday regarding the London area. That is an area by itself. Taking the area of the country as a whole, London is a strictly limited part of the country. The rural and urban areas have very big problems indeed, and I am very glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not undertaken to tie the local authorities too tightly.
  Mr. Hutchinson: I am very much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for his assurances, which entirely satisfy me, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"
  Mr. Cocks: Do I understand, Major Milner, that you are not calling the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart)—
  In page 1, line 14, after "structures" insert "of various designs."
  The Chairman (Major Milner): No, I am not.
  Mr. Cocks: While the Government are considering different types of construction why must they all conform to the lay-out and design of the Portal prototype? I asked that question yesterday, and the Minister of Production replied that the reason was that they had to be of a design which could take the standard fittings, the kitchen unit. That being admitted, and the fact being that standard fittings can be used in permanent houses as well, what is the objection, if a firm

  287
  can produce another bungalow at a lower price, or a price which is not higher, of a different design, say, for example, with a third bedroom? That will not affect the question of standard fittings and the kitchen units.
  Mr. Willink: I think I can satisfy the hon. Member with regard to that. If he visits the four types at present erected, he will find that even among these four there are variations in design. The kitchen must be something very much of a uniform size and shape to take this kitchen unit, which is not only a kitchen unit but a bathroom unit at the same time. With regard to the other rooms, we are very anxious—although the house is sub-standard in certain respects in regard to the number of bedrooms and height of rooms, for instance, as compared with the Dudley house, if I can so name the house recommended by Lord Dudley's Committee—that the size of the rooms should be in accordance with those recommendations. Another limiting factor is that we take the view that the temporary house should be one for the small family unit. We picture this as a house for the young married couple in the early stages of their family life. Consequently we think two bedrooms the right number to provide in the temporary house.
  Lastly, and I think this is the most important point, the preparation of the sites will be going on simultaneously with the manufacture and production of the houses, and it is most desirable that the lay-out, the foundation, the bed on which these structures shall be put, shall be capable of taking whatever type may be most readily available at the time when these sites have been prepared. Consequently there is to be an interchangeable system, and the area and shape of a number of these types, certainly all those to be put into production in the first instance, must be roughly identical. Subject to these limiting factors—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works is here—I can assure the Committee that we shall encourage variety as far as possible.
  Mr. Cocks: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that a young married couple in ten years can produce, say, five children?
  Mr. Willink: My belief has always been that the proper occupation of one of these
  288
  bungalows is for three or four years, and that then the family will move into a permanent house, and another young married couple will move in for the second half of the period of life of the temporary house until they require a permanent house.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to make some very strict rules if he wants to keep to that. We have seen that laid down before, but we have never seen one such rule that was kept.
  Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 2.—(Removal of structures made available under S. I.)
  Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page line 29, after "agreed," to insert:
  "and shall do so on being requested to do so by the local authority at any time after the expiration of ten years from the passing of this Act unless it appears to the Minister that housing conditions require that it should remain."
  This is an Amendment of which notice was given by the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday. The effect of it is to place an obligation on the Ministers concerned to remove the bungalows if the local authority at the end of ten years asks the Government to do so, unless in the opinion of the Minister concerned in Scotland, or in England and Wales, housing conditions at that time still make it necessary to keep them up. The object of this Amendment is, I think, obvious. Anxiety has been expressed that in the guise of temporary houses local authorities and other people might be saddled with bungalows for longer than they thought was right. It is the intention of this Government, at any rate, that no considerations of finance should result in the retention of the bungalows once housing conditions allow them to be dispensed with, and we desire to make that intention clear in the Statute. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 3.—(Terms on which structures may be made available under S. I.)
  Mr. Willink: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, at the end, to insert:
  "Provided that, in the case of a structure made available for erection on land of excep-

  289
  tionally high value, the said terms may either—

  (a) not include any such provision, or

  (b) not include any such provision but on the contrary provide for the making of a contribution by the Minister out of moneys provided by Parliament towards expenses incurred by the local authority in connection with the provision and maintenance of housing accommodation in the structure."

  This Amendment is in relation to the financial Clauses of the Bill and the arrangements to be made under them. The Committee will realise that in the Bill as drawn originally provision is made for payment by the local authority in every case where there is a bungalow. In the course of our consultations with local authorities it became clear that there were cases, particularly in the Metropolitan area, but it may arise elsewhere in which it will be right, in the emergency we are facing, to erect bungalows on land of a very high value, and that unless some alteration to the Bill was made there would be an intolerable burden on the local authorities.
  1.30 p.m.
  Consequently this Amendment provides that it shall not be universally the case that a payment shall be made by the local authority—indeed that the terms on which the bungalows are made available by the Minister to the local authority may provide that there shall be no payment annually either way, or alternatively that the Minister out of the moneys made available by Parliament shall contribute towards the expenses incurred by the local authority in connection with the provision and maintenance of housing accommodation. That leaves the matter flexible, as in my opinion—and I hope the Committee will agree—it should be. The circumstances will be infinitely various as I have said on more than one occasion. The prices of the land will vary from the ordinary site outside of a small town to the very expensive site somewhere about the middle of the Metropolis. In the circumstances I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment.
  Mr. John Wilmot: I am very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken the course of putting down this Amendment. It is, I am sure, the desire of all of us and the desire of the country, that those areas which have been most heavily damaged by enemy action should not have the greatest financial burden thrown upon them for this temporary accommodation,
  290
  which, in no way, in the long run, will relieve them of the duty of providing permanent houses for their citizens. But the Amendment is so widely drawn and, as the Minister says, leaves such flexibility, that I ask him to consider whether within the wording now proposed he cannot go a good deal farther in this direction than he seemed to indicate both yesterday and to-day.
  It seems to me, upon examination and consideration, that the method of financing this proposal which has been devised is really not worth all the trouble. There are various provisions for the acquiring of land. There is a kind of normal cost over which the Minister is proposing to make certain exceptional arrangements, and rather than have these payments, one way or the other, grants to the local authority for the purchase of the land, and then the collection of rents and the payment back to the Exchequer of moneys collected, would it not be very much better if this temporary housing, and the land upon which it is going to stand, were acquired by the Minister, and the houses lent to the authority, and if the local authority performed the function merely of a manager and collector for these temporary houses, leaving the local authority to its proper task of the provision of permanent housing for its citizens? It seems to me that, upon examination, all this contra accountancy is not worth while.
  What is the basis of local government finance? It is that the citizens within a town or borough shall be wholly or partly responsible for those public services over which it has authority of volition. In this matter it has very little volition. The houses are being made by the Government, the sites are being acquired by the Government, the price is being fixed by the Government. Everything over a the Government. certain limit is to be paid by the Government. Is there any case for avoiding the obvious conclusion that the best thing would be for the Government to acquire the site, or to lease the site, to pay the owner of the site the proper compensation or rent, as the case may be, to manufacture the houses, to allocate them to the local authorities on loan, and for the local authorities to manage the estates, collect the rents and pay over the moneys to the Minister? That would save encumbering the arrangements or finances of both parties and would make clear

  291
  what it is very important to make clear, that this temporary housing is in an entirely different category from permanent housing. It is something provided by the Government to meet the emergency. that will go as soon as we can put permanent housing in its place. That is the function of local government. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether, within the terms of this Amendment, he can come down to that method, which is the right one as I see it.
  Mr. Willink: The point which has been made and so forcibly suggested by my hon. Friend is, of course, on its face, attractive. But I would remind him, in the first place, of one point, and perhaps the Committee as a whole of another. He and I are both Members for parts of the Metropolitan area, and we see problems arising, with regard to these expensive sites and with regard to damage done, both by the earlier blitz and by the flying bombs, more clearly when we see the main purpose of this Bill, which is to make a general contribution to meet arrears of housing all over the country. There would be very grave difficulty, and I believe very grave confusion, if, with regard to the bungalows erected all over the country, local authorities were to be asked by the Government to accept, the mere position of managers, or agents, of the central Government in housing their people. Is the manager or the agent to decide how many houses he is to manage? Is he to decide what will be the appropriate rent, not only generally but in special cases? We felt, and I am under the strong impression that our feeling was shared by the associations of local authorities whom we met, that there should be as much discretion, as much responsibility, with regard to management in this field as there is in the field of permanent housing. That is the basic difficulty in regard to the proposal which my hon. Friend makes. It is not within my personal recollection, although it may be within the recollection of many Members of the Committee, that the policy immediately after the last war, whereby the central Government shouldered everything in excess of a 1d. rate had unfortunate administrative results. I think that a basis of partnership is the right policy if the local authority is to have the sense of responsibility which is neces-
  292
  sary, when it is drawing very largely—and in this particular service more largely than ever—from central funds.
  Mr. Silverman: The local authority will have no real power.
  Mr. Willink: It will have the responsibility of fixing the rents and of deciding the burden which, under the financial arrangements of the Bill, falls on each tenant. It will have a very wide discretion. On the other hand, we heard yesterday a forceful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key), who is particularly familiar with the problem with which my hon. Friend has just been dealing. I think that, on this Clause, I should make the view of the Government as clear as I can. We feel that the deficit should be dealt with, as all other housing matters are dealt with, on the basis of partnership between the Exchequer and the local authorities—which is the basis of this Bill, as of all housing Bills. But it is our intention to protect the local authority against excessive losses, which may otherwise arise when it is necessary to erect bungalows on expensive sites, or when the expenditure on development which has been referred to is likely to be largely wasted in future. The actual terms will be laid down in agreements to be made under the Bill. We feel that it is only in that way that we can take into full account the circumstances of individual areas.
  May I make the matter clear by showing how it will work out in certain cases? In discussing these matters with the local authorities, we took into account the cost of building and the probable level of rents, and in the proposal which has been put to local authorities the position is this. May I take two classes of cases? In the normal case the average loss falling on the local authority will be £4 a year, plus site charges averaging about another £4 a year, for each bungalow, and the corresponding charge on the Exchequer will be £45 a year for each bungalow. The Committee will observe the difference from the ordinary ratio, which is two on the Exchequer to one on the local authority. In the normal case, it will be £45 on the Exchequer and £8 on the local authority. But where the cost of the land is very high or there is unavoidable waste in development and there is an excess over the

  293
  normal charge, we propose that the local authority shall be asked to bear only 20 per cent: of the additional charges, the Exchequer bearing 80 per cent. We believe that the burden on the local authority will be kept to a reasonable figure, but, to cover any cases which may not be met, I suggest that in the agreements there should be a provision that if the local authority can show that in fact the rates have sustained, by reason of excessive or unremunerative cost in providing the site, a greater loss than the normal, the sum payable should be adjusted further.
  Now I come to the third class or category. It is really the case of Bow and Bromley and West Ham, and places of that sort, which need an excessively large number of these bungalows by reason of the blitz, and where the general level of the price of land is particularly high. They will be needing a disproportionately large number of the total bungalow programme. That very fact will throw an unusual and heavy demand upon them.
  Mr. Wilmot: With a depleted rate fund.
  Mr. Willink: Yes, depleted not only in this respect, but in many other respects. As the Committee is aware, Exchequer assistance is being given at present to the extent necessary to keep the rates stable in such areas, and, after the war, the financial position of such authorities will, of course, have to be reviewed with a view to determining what Government assistance will be necessary to enable them to carry out their essential functions, and I can give an undertaking that expenditure incurred in the execution of this scheme will be taken into account with those other factors.
  1.45 p.m.
  I believe this is really one with the specific assistance provided under the Bill, with the promise I have given with regard to the terms of the agreement, and with the undertaking that special circumstances regarding this programme would be added to the other special circumstances, which are manifold, under which these particular authorities are suffering. I believe that that is the proper administrative method of dealing with this problem, rather than making so sweeping an inroad in our whole structure of housing matters as between the central
  294
  and local government, as my hon. Friend suggested.
  Mr. Silverman: I cannot think that the Minister has given a very satisfactory reason why the proposition of my hon. Friend should not be adopted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said in his last sentence that it was not advisable to make so sweeping an inroad in administrative practice, but the sweeping inroad has been made, and made by the enemy.
  Mr. Willink: No.
  Mr. Silverman: I do not know why my right hon. and learned Friend says "No," but it is because it is so sweeping that the Committee is faced to-day with a special problem, which has very little bearing upon the general housing problem of the country and its administration. That is why you have this Bill—because you need to do something quickly, and in a temporary way, and you need to do something exceptional. That is the justification of this Measure and of dealing with this problem in an exceptional way. All that my hon. Friend suggested, as I understood him, is that, if you are dealing, in an exceptional and temporary way, with an exceptional and temporary problem, you need not fear to use an exceptional and temporary financial expedient, even if that expedient is simpler, more workable and not less equitable than the. complicated system which you are proposing.
  I think the Minister made a mistake when he said that you ought not to alter the general administrative system in this way. That could be a sound observation to make only if what were contemplated by this Measure were not a temporary and exceptional thing, but were to become a permanent part of housing structure and administration. But the hypothesis on which we are proceeding is that that is not so. If that is not so, let us look at this proposal on its merits. You are entitled to do that in an exceptional case which is intended to disappear in a few years.
  If we look at it on its merits, everybody sees that it is practicable, and I do not think anybody sees why it cannot be adopted. The Minister referred to how much the local authorities are to do. In practice, how much choice have they got? The Minister talked about agreements, but he is not going to negotiate separate

  295
  and distinct agreements with every local authority. They have got to take what he gives them. No doubt he will listen sympathetically to suggestions they make, but, in the end, it is not an agreement, but an agreement under duress. The local authority cannot do anything but take it, and it cannot decide how many of these houses it is going to have. In a technical sense, it can decide, but, in a practical sense, it cannot.
  Mr. Willink: It can decide not to ask for any.
  Mr. Silverman: I am talking about legal rights. Under the Bill, they may decide to ask for none, or they may decide to ask for the lot. In fact, what they will get is their ration, or the equitable proportion of the production as it comes into being, and every local authority will, presumably, get that. What it needs will not be determined by the local authority; it has been determined by the enemy. What it can get is not determined by the local authority, but by the rate at which the houses can be produced.
  I think that what my hon. Friend suggests is a practical way of dealing with it. It is a plan for a temporary purpose, and, if you adopted the suggestion you would avoid a great deal of unnecessary bookkeeping and cross-accounting and save the work of a good many civil servants. If the Minister has to do the kind of calculating which he has been describing, in a great many instances all over the country and for a great many years, he will need a great many of his temporary houses, not to house tenants but to house officials going in to the accounts. Why bother about it? If it is to be done only for the academic purpose intended in the last sentences of the Minister's speech, I think I have suggested a reason why the academic purpose need not apply. If you can do it more simply, why not do it?
  Mr. Willink: I forgot to mention one point in my speech. If my recollection is correct, the suggestion was that the whole operation should be conducted by the Government, including the acquisition of the land.
  Mr. Silverman: Yes.
  Mr. Willink: Well, my hon. Friend will observe that we are at once in a difficulty, because local authorities are proposing to
  296
  use land which is now their own, and, surely, the essence of this must be that management must be in the discretion of experienced housing authorities, where all experience of these matters lies. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), has suggested that it is a perfectly simple matter for management to be delegated by a large number of local authorities. I shudder at the prospect of arguing with local authorities, who have no financial interest in this suggestion, as to what rents should be charged for every bungalow provided by the Government. I see that the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is in his place. My own experience, in dealing with local authorities, is that they desire the same type of management and the same rights and responsibilities with regard to these structures which will be built as housing provision for their people as they have in regard to permanent houses.
  Captain Duncan: I wish to ask a question in regard to the position in London. The London County Council is the local authority for the purpose of housing, but the Metropolitan Borough Councils have some agreement, under the 1936 Act, for doing some of the housing themselves. What is going to be the position under this Bill between the Metropolitan Borough Councils and the L.C.C.? I have no doubt that it has been settled, but I think it ought to be on record in this Committee what the terms of the agreement are. I ask the question for this reason. On the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) spoke as if the L.C.C. was going to do it all, but the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Key) made a speech yesterday complaining of the difficulties he might have to face in Poplar. It does not seem too clear on the opposite side of the House what the position is, and I do not know myself. I should be very grateful if the Minister will clear the whole thing up once and for all.
  Mr. Willink: The hon. and gallant Member may not have noticed that I am, later, moving an Amendment relating to the powers of the London County Council with regard to housing in London. It is a technical Amendment, and I must not refer to it now.
  Mr. Wilmot: I wonder if I might make another appeal, with the indulgence of the Committee, and put forward some considerations, which I refrained from doing earlier because I rather thought the Minister would accept the suggestion? If he does accept it, I do not think there is much validity in his point that the local authorities would be in an inferior position as to management. The management will be just the same, the same people will be doing the job, and, as a matter of fact, these temporary houses are going, in the main, to the blitzed areas. They will have to go wherever there are the most homeless people, and, in those areas, the demand will be so great, with people clamouring for a house, that the local authorities will have to apply for them. They have got no option. These houses are all they can get in which to shelter their people. The consequence is that this choice, and the ability to choose, is, as has been suggested, really not there. They are bound to take these houses, as many as they can get, and they will only get a ration in the end. The point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Collie (Mr. Silverman) is absolutely clear. What sort of an agreement can be negotiated in each separate case between the Minister and each separate authority which has got thousands of homeless families, whom they must house? The terms, in fact, will be dictated by the Minister, and the local authority will have to take what it can get and let the houses at rents commensurate with the locality.
  I beg the Minister to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage, because there is something else involved, besides convenience and simplicity and the avoidance of a tremendous waste of clerical staff. There is this—that, if we are not careful, we shall load upon these stricken areas such financial burdens for housing that they may become permanently bankrupt. Their estate is being administered all the time in Whitehall, and they are living upon doles made from the Exchequer on all manner of complicated and weighty formulas. That is not the way to build up a new civic spirit in these stricken areas. You want to get the right kind of people coming forward to shoulder the new burdens of local government. If we dole out money as municipal relief, we shall not get these people, who want to feel responsibilities
  298
  in which they have some choice and which they can properly shoulder. If we really want to get back to a healthy relationship in local government, we have to tide them over this temporary period of repairing damage by straightforward Government assistance, and in getting the land to provide the houses for the working people while the local authority gets on with its proper job.
  I beg the Minister not to continue this bankruptcy of local authority finance. The whole position will have to be reviewed as to the relations of the central Exchequer and local authority finance before we can really embark on our postwar programme. In the meantime, we ought to clear away these pettifogging formulas, and I beg the Minister to consider again the suggestion which I make in all humility that these temporary houses should be provided and loaned by the Government in order that the local authority may get on its feet and shoulder its own burdens in a proper way.
  Sir William Wayland: May I add a few words in a special appeal for the devastated areas of the South coast, where the position has been worse than it is in many towns in the interior, which have been blitzed? These towns are facing practical bankruptcy, unless they have help and priority in rebuilding, because these coastal towns rely in great measure on the tourist and holiday traffic.
  2.0 p.m.
  The condition of these houses at the present time makes it impossible for the occupiers to accept any visitors. Most of the houses require repair, and some quite a lot. They have been empty for the last five years. These people have had help from the Government but, as the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Wilmot) said, they do not want to have to rely on doles all the time. They want practical help to rebuild what has been devastated and destroyed. The Government should consider that the population of this country are looking forward to holidays next year and if they go to these places and find there is no accommodation, or accommodation that is not nearly as good as that which they have at home, naturally the people now looking forward to holidays will be very bitterly disappointed. The coast towns, especially the South-East coast towns, have in one way suffered even more than London, because

  299
  they have been blitzed ever since 1940. Although flying bombs have done an awful amount of destruction in London, it has to be remembered that hundreds of these bombs were shot down and fell in the countryside and in seaside towns. If one goes to these towns to-day one realises the unfortunate position of these people in not having been able to carry on their trade since the Germans started the blitz. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the position of seaside towns and give them priority to rebuild their houses so that they may carry on their trade for the reception of holiday-makers.
  Mr. Silkin: I take it that the Amendment is intended to assist local authorities where the cost of land is exceptionally high and they would not, but for a provision such as this, be in a position to use this expensive land for the erection of temporary houses. The Clause is delightfully vague, but it certainly does permit the Minister in some cases actually to make contributions to the local authorities instead of vice versa. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend but I do not want him to go quite as far as my hon. Friend suggested. There will be cases where it will be difficult for the Government to undertake the whole of the work themselves and it may be possible in such cases to undertake the work. They are already doing a great deal by putting up the structure but it might be of advantage in some cases if they also acquired the site. But this should be lef4 to the local authority. If the local authority is prepared itself to undertake the task it should be allowed to do so, but where it wishes the Ministry of Health to come in to do the whole job, I hope it may be possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to undertake it. That probably is the best solution of the problem.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  Mr. Cocks: I support the proposal of my hon. Friend, but taking the thing as it is now, it was suggested yesterday that the normal rent of these bungalows should be 10s. Could the Minister say, apart from the question of the value of the land,
  300
  what proportion he is proposing to charge for the structure itself to the local authority? Presumably the cost to the Exchequer is £600. What is the annual charge at which he proposes to let them to the local authority, apart altogether from the question of site value and land and so on?
  Mr. Douglas: The Clause, as now amended, is certainly a great improvement. It gives the Minister the power to deal with cases in which the cost of land is very high and that particularly will apply in London and the neighbourhood of London which has suffered so severely during recent months as a result of flying bombs. It must be clear that to erect temporary buildings of a bungalow type upon land which, normally, would be used for building flats or even three-storeyed houses, is not an economic proposition. I would ask the Minister, in operating this Clause, whether he will not make it a rule that no local authority shall be compelled to bear greater expense because of the higher price of the land which has to be used for this purpose. A temporary house is necessitated because of the circumstances which have arisen out of the war. The destruction of property by enemy action is an incidence which ought to be financed nationally and it would be very unfair if districts which have suffered heavily by bombing—London, Hull, Plymouth and Coventry—were compelled to bear a very much heavier charge than the rest of the country by reason of that fact. The temporary house is not a permanent solution to the problem. It is to be replaced in due course by permanent housing and that presumably will entail exactly the same burden upon the local authority as if the permanent housing was provided now. It is unfair that these districts which were hit so severely should have a very heavy burden put upon them by reason of the necessity for the erection of temporary houses. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear that no loss or burden shall be inflicted upon local authorities beyond that which they would be expected to bear in cases where the land is such as would normally be used for bungalow construction, and that where the land is more expensive than that, and is used for that purpose, the Government will bear the whole of the deficiency.
  Mr. Willink: With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), I think he will be in a position to-morrow morning to see the very clear statement which I have made with regard to the three classes of cases which both he and I have in mind. That statement is comprehensive and clear and I will not at the moment go beyond it, either in amplification or explanation. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) perhaps the position has not been made sufficiently clear, but may I give what is the normal cost where the question of expensive land does not arise. The average cost of site and development will be about £75 a house, giving rise to annual loan charges of say, £3 10s to £4. Let me take £3 10s. as the estimated cost—and this is a provisional estimate—of providing, transporting and erecting the temporary houses, involving the Government in loan charges for 10 Years of £68 11s. May I take the figures as £3 10s. and £68 10s. which together make £72. The payment contemplated in such a case by the local authority would be £23 10s. Against this, they will, we anticipate, be receiving on an average 10s. a week by way of rent—£26 a year—less an estimated annual maintenance charge of £6 10s.—£19 or 10s. net. We are thus proposing that they should make a net contribution of £4 a year from local authority income, while the Exchequer will bear £45.
  Mr. Silkin: There is nothing allowed for the cost of management.
  Mr. Willink: The estimate of £6 10s. is for repairs, maintenance and management.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  CLAUSE 4.—(Adaptation of certain visions of Principal Act.)
  Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end, to insert:
  "provided that no land shall be acquired for temporary housing which it is not intended to use ultimately for permanent housing."
  The Minister said that he recognised that difficulty is likely to arise for the local authorities in finding suitable places for the erection of the temporary houses, without getting in the way of the erection of permanent houses and without interfering with general planning considerations. In an earlier Amendment, which
  302
  I supported, we were suggesting that, in cases where there are already the services available, it would be convenient if the temporary houses were erected upon these sites. In the Second Reading Debate on 1st August, my right hon. and learned Friend used words which I would like to have explained. He said:
  "Action must be taken to secure the necessary sites, whether they are sites eventually to be used for permanent houses or sites which will be used only for these bungalows."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st August, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 1269.]
  Obviously it is an extravagance of manpower, labour and material if roads and sewers and services are to be provided for sites which it is intended only to use for the temporary houses, which perhaps in 10 years' time or so will be replaced by permanent houses. It is for that reason that I move the Amendment. I do not wish unduly to restrict the necessary discretion and liberty of the local authorities in order to make all reasonable and practical use of the powers given to them by this Bill. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the House of Commons could not light-heartedly agree to any proposal which would mean that costly roads and services should be provided merely for the use to be erected temporarily.
  2.15 p.m.
  Mr. Willink: I am very happy indeed to have an opportunity of giving certain assurances with regard to the matters mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). As I think he anticipates, however, I am bound to resist this Amendment phrased as it is. It is, of course, severely restrictive of the discretion of local authorities, as he well realises, and we feel that local authorities should have the opportunity of making their own proposition with regard to the sites to be used, which would then be for approval on my behalf in agreement with the Regional Planning Officer to cover the principles of town and country planning. We do expect that the majority of the sites selected and approved will be such as will eventually be used for permanent housing, but there may well be exceptions. The extravagance to which my hon. Friend refers, of course, does not arise with regard to a site which has been used in the past for housing but at the end of the ten years

  303
  may not be, and that may well be a type of site which will be proposed in urban areas to a quite reasonably substantial extent. We certainly have it in mind that extravagance with regard to sites, servicing, drains, sewers, and everything of that kind shall be taken into account to the fullest possible extent. My own Department, with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Ministry of Works, have been considering these matters and, when the Bill becomes law, guidance on these points will be circulated to local authorities.
  Mr. H. Lawson: I hope that the point of view the Minister has put will not preclude the use which local authorities can make of this Bill to try and reclaim open spaces in towns. It seems to me there is a proposal that bomb-damaged sites should be used very largely for erecting these Portal bungalows, and one of the things we should try to do in our development of towns, particularly blitzed towns, is to try to use bomb-damaged sites as a nucleus for reclaiming land from building for open spaces inside our towns. I think all town planners agree that it is necessary. So I am glad the Minister has resisted this Amendment, and I hope he will give local authorities every encouragement to use these bomb-damaged sites for temporary houses so that in ten years' time they can be reclaimed as open spaces or, if necessary, used for the erection of public buildings or factories which it is proposed under the new Town Planning Bill they should be given power to do. So I do not want to feel that the Minister, even if he does not accept the Amendment, will accept some part of the spirit of the Amendment. I think we should use this necessity for the provision of bungalows, which are going to use a lot of land and only accommodate a few people, as a means towards starting that very desirable process of acquiring and reclaiming open spaces in the centres of our big towns.
  Mr. G. Griffiths: I would like to look at this Amendment. I want to be quite clear about it. I was sorry that an urgent message prevented me from staying to hear the reply of the Minister, and I hope he did not think me discourteous in leaving. The Amendment says "acquired for temporary housing," and the mover does
  304
  not want the Minister to use any land for building temporary houses, no matter to whom that land belongs, because local authorities have the land and they do not intend putting permanent buildings on it. I was wondering whether. the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) wished that no land should be used unless it was to be used in future.
  Mr. Molson: It does not say so; it says "acquired," and in the case of the local authorities, to which he referred before, they already possess that land and this Amendment would not affect that in any way.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to hear that, because otherwise that land would be derelict in a sense.
  Mr. Molson: I would like to express my gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend for having cleared up this matter and having promised that in the guidance which will be issued to the local authorities in the administration of this Bill, the importance of economy, and so on, will be emphasised. I am entirely satisfied with the assurance he has given, and I beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Willink: I beg to move in page 2, line 36, at the end, to insert:
  "(3) In paragraph (b) of the proviso to Subsection (4) of Section one hundred and three of the principal Act (which provides that, without prejudice to the powers conferred on a metropolitan borough council by that Act with-respect to the provision of housing accommodation within their borough, the London County Council shall be a local authority for the purposes of Part V of the principal Act as respects any part of the administrative county of London, other than the City of London, for the purpose of providing such housing accommodation as is mentioned in subparagraphs (i) to (iii) of that paragraph the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted, that is to say—
  "(iv) temporary accommodation in structures made available under Section one of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1944."
  The purpose of this somewhat complicated Amendment is to enable the London County Council to put up bungalows under this Bill within the county of London. The present powers of the London County Council would cover the erection of bungalows under the Bill outside the county, but their powers within

  305
  the county are closely restricted to the provision of houses for slum clearance, the relief of overcrowding, or for redevelopment. The Amendment has this effect—which is quite simple whether or not it appears complicated—that it will enable the London County Council to erect bungalows within the county as well as outside. The functions of the Metropolitan boroughs, of course, include the erection of bungalows within their own boroughs.
  Mr. Silkin: It seems extraordinary that this Amendment should have to be put down at all. I take it that it was always contemplated that the London County Council would play a great part in the erection of these bungalows. I presume this is an oversight on the part of my right hon. Friend, that he has forgotten to give the necessary powers, and I am very glad he is putting it right.
  Mr. Willink: I am afraid it was such an oversight.
  Captain Duncan: I am not quite sure about this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving the London County Council power to erect bungalows within the county, but the borough councils have power to erect them, too. Is that likely to be a satisfactory arrangement? For instance, suppose a borough council has earmarked, but not yet acquired, land for permanent post-war housing in accordance with the development plan of the London County Council for permanent houses themselves, and the London County Council come along and say that they want this land for the erection of their quota of the Portal houses. I cannot help thinking that it may give rise to friction in the borough council areas where the County Council wishes to come in and build Portal houses. I intervened before on this matter, but then I had not read this Amendment. It is starred, but it was not on the Order Paper yesterday. I should like to know what conversations my right hon. Friend has had with the Metropolitan Boroughs on this subject to see whether they are satisfied with this arrangement which has been made. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has seen this Amendment before. I do not know whether there have been any consultations with the Metropolitan Boroughs to see whether this system which is suggested now will, in fact, work.
  Mr. Willink: I think I can give all the assurances which my hon. and gallant Friend will wish to have in this matter. It is, of course, the fact that the dual responsibility within the county of London of the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs has long existed over a wide field—the field, in fact, that I have already mentioned of the London County Council within the administrative county. The experience of my Department has been that it does not, in fact, give rise to the difficulties which the apprehensive might expect. A modus operandi has been reached as between the London County Council and the Metropolitan Boroughs in this matter, and it is within my own knowledge that the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee and the London County Council have discussed this matter of the relative burden and the concurrent powers of the two authorities within the county. To my mind it is particularly desirable that the London County Council should have this power within the administrative county. The burden falling on individual metropolitan boroughs has varied very greatly in scale, and any extent to which the London County Council can, under such agreement as is reached between them and the metropolitan boroughs, contribute in this respect, will, of course, have the effect of sharing the burden to which some of my hon. Friends opposite were referring a short time ago over the whole county, instead of leaving it lying upon a particular borough council. I am not apprehensive about difficulty arising, and I hope the Committee will agree that the London County Council should have these powers. I am only sorry there was such short notice of the Amendment.
  Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give this assurance, that in the event of an application by the London County Council to build bungalows in any borough being objected to by the borough in question, he will take into serious consideration such objection on the part of the borough?
  Mr. Willink: Most certainly.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  CLAUSE 7.—(Financial provisions.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
  Captain Duncan: Sub-section (3, b) says:
  "the said aggregate shall be repaid by ten equal annual instalments, of principal and interest combined, …"
  The fact that this money has to be repaid to the Exchequer by ten annual instalments does affect the rent which has to be paid for the Portal house, and as this £150,000,000 is being raised out of the Consolidated Fund and handed over to the Ministry of Works, it would seem that it would be better to give that money away in order to reduce the rent, instead of getting some of the money back by ten equal instalments of principal and interest combined. I do not know what effect repayment will have on the rent, but it is bound to have a fairly considerable effect and as this should be, in my opinion, a grant from the Government to the local authorities for doing a purely temporary emergency job, it would seem much better not to ask for the money back at all, but to use that money for making the rent more reasonable. Could my right hon. Friend explain the finance of the scheme and show to what extent that could more easily be done?
  Mr. Willink: I think it is sufficient on this rather difficult matter which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised, to say that the provisions of this Clause represent something that is a purely book-keeping transaction, and will not affect the rent to be paid, or the payments to be made by the local authorities in any way whatever.
  2.30 p.m.
  Captain Duncan: Is that really so? I am sorry to press this, but the whole success of housing, as I see it, after the war, both temporary and permanent, is the rent that will be charged. The statement by the Minister of Production yesterday, and which went out through the B.B.C. last night, was that the rent of the Portal house would be 10s. a week, exclusive of rates. That will kill the Portal house from the point of view of the public. In London, we are used to higher rents but country people are not and local authorities will not get any applications for Portal houses if the rent is to be 15s. a week or more. This bookkeeping system is bound to have an effect.
  308
  We are giving art emergency grant to Jamaica in order that growers there can replace their banana groves, following the hurricane which blew away their crops. Why not give an emergency grant in order to reduce the rent of Portal houses? In that way the demand for temporary houses will be greater, and we shall be able to do something substantial to meet the terrific housing shortage not only in London but in other parts of the country.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: We admire my hon. and gallant Friend's enthusiasm about these rents—
  The Chairman (Major Milner): I am not sure that that question arises on this Clause.
  Mr. Lawson: But may I point out that the hon. and gallant Member opposite was allowed to make his speech?
  The Chairman: That may be but that is no reason why the discussion should be continued. The hon. Gentleman can make his remarks on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Muff: I want to console the hon. and gallant Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan). If he will look at the Clause he will see that it states clearly that money can be borrowed at 2½ per cent. I have vivid recollections of local authorities having to borrow at 5 and even 6 per cent. after the last war. To-day, many are still paying 6 per cent. for their past housing programmes. I say that in order to dry the hon. and gallant Gentleman's tears.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NEW CLAUSE.—(Temporary powers for obtaining possession of land for erection of structures to be made available under S. I.)
  (1) During the period between the passing of this Act and the end of the year nineteen hundred and forty-five the provisions of the next succeeding Sub-section shall have effect for enabling a local authority for the purposes of Part V of the principal Act to obtain possession of land for use as a site for structures to be made available under Section one of the Act,

  (2) A local authority for the said purposes may enter upon and take possession of land as to which the Minister is satisfied that it is required for use as aforesaid if authorization

  309

  in writing in that behalf has been given to them in accordance with the following requirements, that is to say—

  (a) the authority must have served, in manner mentioned in the next succeeding Sub-section, on every owner and occupier of any of the land in question a notice in writing stating that they have made or intend to make an application to the Minister for an authorisation under this Sub-section as respects land described in the notice, being land consisting of or comprising the land in question, and that representations which any of the persons required to be served desires to make must be made to the Minister in writing within fourteen days from the date of the service of the notice on him; and

  (b) the Minister must, before giving the authorisation, have considered any representations made to him as aforesaid by any of the persons aforesaid.

  (3) Such a notice as is mentioned in the last preceding Sub-section shall be deemed to be duly served—

  (a) on a person being an owner or occupier of any of the land in question if such a notice, addressed to him by name, is delivered to him or left at, or sent by post in a prepaid letter to, his usual or last known place of abode;

  (b) on a person being an owner or occupier of any premises comprised in the land in question which appear to the local authority to be separately occupied, if such a notice, addressed to "the owner and the occupier" of the premises (describing them), is delivered to some person on the premises, or, if there is no person on the premises to whom it can be delivered, is affixed to some conspicuous object on the premises;

  (c) on all persons being owners or occupiers (if any) of premises comprised in any part of the land in question which appears to the local authority to be unoccupied, if such a notice, addressed to "the owners and any occupiers" of that part of the land (describing it), is affixed to some conspicuous object on that part of the land.

  (4) Where a local authority have taken possession of land pursuant to an authorisation under this section they shall by virtue of this section have power to acquire the land compulsorily as if they had been authorised so to do by an order under section seventy-four of the principal Act, made, submitted and confirmed in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule thereto, incorporating the enactments required to be incorporated in such an order with the modifications and adaptations appropriate to such an order, and the authority shall as soon as may be after taking possession of the land serve notice under section eighteen of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, of their intention to take the land and shall in all respects be liable as if such notice had been given on the date of their entering on the land, except that the power conferred by subsection (2) of section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw such a notice shall not be exercisable.

  310

  (5) A power to enter on and take possession of land conferred by an authorisation given under this section may, save as hereinbefore in this section provided, be exercised without notice to or the consent of any person and without compliance with sections eighty-four to ninety of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, but subject to payment of the like compensation, and interest on the compensation agreed or awarded, as the local authority would have been required to pay if those provisions had been complied with.

  (6) While a local authority are in possession of land pursuant to an authorisation given under this section,—

  (a) the land may be used for the erection thereon of structures made available under section one of this Act, and all works required for that purpose may be executed thereon;

  (b) the land may be used for the provision of housing accommodation in such structures erected thereon, and the authority may make contracts for the occupation of the land and such structures erected thereon by the persons for whom housing accommodation is to be provided therein;

  (c) any right of way over the land, or other right relating thereto enjoyed by any person whether by virtue of an interest in the land or otherwise, shall, in so far as the exercise thereof would interfere with the use of the land as aforesaid or the execution of any such works as aforesaid, not be exercisable.

  (7) In this section the expression "owner" has the meaning assigned to it by section one hundred and eighty-eight of the principal Act.—[Mr. Willink.].

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Willink: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time.
  I move this new Clause in fulfilment of a promise made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his speech yesterday, with a view to enabling, during an early period after the passage of this Bill, the speedy acquisition of sites for bungalows. I am sorry to say that there is a technical fault in the Clause as drafted in that it does not apply to Scotland. There are two references in the New Clause to the principal Act—The Housing Act, 1936—and there are also two references to the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, which do not apply to Scotland. An Amendment to put this right will be moved by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Report stage.
  Mr. Silkin: Is the Minister statisfied that it applies to London?
  Mr. Willink: Yes. The Clause is, inevitably, long but it has a simple purpose and effect. It is to avoid, so far as

  311
  possible, the complications of procedure which arise in a particularly tiresome form where the land to be acquired belongs to a number of people, and where there may be a number of different interests. There is a precedent for that procedure. It is on the lines of a similar provision, as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, in the Unemployment (Relief Works) Act, 1920, which was passed at a time when very rapid acquisition of land was desirable. The Committee will observe that the first Sub-section of the New Clause limits the period when the Clause will operate to the time between the passing of the Act and the end of 1945. It applies to land of which possession is obtained under the Clause within that period, that is, 75 months from now. It was felt that that was the period during which we needed to be particularly certain that land was acquired so that it could be serviced for the reception of the bungalows without any unnecessary delay. Sub-section (2) gives local authorities power to take possession of land on an authorisation from the Minister of Health, subject to the requirement that the local authority serve on the owners and occupiers of the land a notice of their intention to apply for that authority, and the Minister, before granting the authorisation, considers any representations which those owners or occupiers may make. In Sub-section (3) there is provision for a simplified method of service of a notice. If there is no one on the land on whom the notice can be served it may be posted up on the land and it will be unnecessary to give a separate notice to each separate ownership, provided that the notice states that it applies to all the land. Without such simplification there is a long and difficult process of ascertaining the exact interests, and in bombed or cleared sites there will be cases where there will be no visible sign of the old boundaries so that the business might well become impossible.
  Sub-section (4) provides that where a local authority have taken possession of a site under the Clause they have power to buy compulsorily, the rest of the procedure being just the same as if the land were being acquired under a confirmed compulsory purchase order, including settling the price by arbitration in default of agreement. Sub-section (5) makes it unnecessary to comply with the provisions of Sections 84 to 90 of the
  312
  Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, relating to deposit of security, and gives power to make compensation and interest thereon run from the date of entry. Subsection (6) gives the local authority power—and this is another accelerating provision—to prepare the land for development, to erect temporary structures and to let them as soon as they are in possession without waiting for the completion of the purchase. Sub-section (7) merely defines the term "owner" as having the same meaning as under the principal Act, namely, the Housing Act, 1936. In my discussions with local authorities, who are facing a great problem in this matter, I found that one of their most serious anxieties was with regard to the speedy acquisition of land. I have great sympathy with them, because it is for the local authorities and myself to see that the Production Departments and manufacturers are not in a position to say, "We have produced the bungalows and now you have not got the land." Therefore, I approached the representatives of the local authorities with great sympathy. The suggestion was made that requisitioning for the whole period was the right thing, but we came to the conclusion that that was not the right course. We thought the right course was to accelerate acquisition of the sites. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will agree that we have chosen the wise course in bringing forward this new Clause.
  Mr. Oswald Lewis: I do not suppose anybody would do anything calculated to hinder the provision of these temporary houses, but I want to ask the Minister to consider whether the provision of 14 days' notice is really adequate for persons to offer an objection in the event of its being desired to take their land? It seems that the period suggested is extremely short. If there is a delay due to delivery of notice, because the owner lives in another part of the country, he may have no idea that it is proposed to use his land. He may have other interests to consult; he may want to get professional advice, which in these days takes some time, and he may want to discuss the matter with representatives of the local authority, which may also take a little time. I suggest to the Minister that it would be wiser to make the period four weeks which, in all the circumstances, would not, I think, be unreasonable.
  Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend has just said. There may be men in the Services who are interested in this matter and who could not possibly receive a letter within 14 days. Some extension would be only fair and equitable. Perhaps 28 days might suffice. We are desirous of having no delay, but we ought to give as much notice as we can. Furthermore, a notice can be fixed on to a conspicuous object on the land. An absentee land-lord would not see it, nor might his agent see it. Why not give notice in the local Press? That I think would be a better way of letting owners know that their land was about to be taken. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will consider carefully what has been said.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: Further to the point which has just been raised, I wonder whether the Minister will consider a slight modification of Sub-section (3), to provide that paragraphs (b) and (c) should be brought into effect only after paragraph (a) has been tried. Surely, it should be the duty of the local authority, first to communicate by letter, if possible, and then if that is not possible to adopt the other method.
  2.45 p.m.
  It cannot be the intention of the Government that local authorities should use the method of affixing a notice to some conspicuous object on a piece of land when they could communicate with the owner. It is desirable that, wherever possible, the method adopted in (a) should be employed and (b) and (c) should only be used where (a) fails. There is also the case of a notice being served on any person on the premises. That person might not be in any way in communication with the owner, or he might be an ignorant person who did not know the nature or the importance of the notice, and by inadvertence it might never reach the person for whom it was intended. Both provisions are surely only to be used in the event of the failure of the first. It might be possible at some stage to incorporate that in the wording of the Bill.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: Of course this Clause is very necessary in order to expedite the acquisition of land, and I think the Committee generally is glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken the
  314
  necessary steps. I do not think he need be appealed to very much as far as Servicemen are concerned. The Serviceman would not be unduly pressed for time but as a rule he would have a legal agent and, while I agree that his affairs ought to be taken into serious consideration, I hope the Minister will not yield too easily on the point without making sure that the amount of land is so small that the owner has no legal agent. Then there is the point about notice if the owner cannot be found. Anyone in public life soon comes up against that problem. It is astonishing how much land belongs to absentee owners, who are very difficult to find until someone wants to build within the vicinity of the land. Then they suddenly turn up. It often turns out that the land is worth only a few shillings an acre, but it leaps to perhaps hundreds in double-quick time. I do not think there will be very much difficulty about finding owners if there is going to be some building, but, in view of the fact that sometimes they cannot be found, I think it is a necessary step to nail up a suitable notice.
  Captain Duncan: I should like to make a small protest about the large number of additions to the Bill which did not appear, even yesterday, on the Order Paper, to give us time to consider our attitude. I quite realise that the 14 days has been taken from the 1919 Act and I can see the reason for it. We do not want to hold up the acquisition of land for this urgently-needed purpose longer than is necessary or fair, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the representations that have been made from both sides. Another point that occurs to me is that Sub-section (6, c) gives the local authority the right to extinguish any right of way over land so acquired. That is all right for an ordinary footpath, but is it the intention underlying this power that local authorities and others should be given permission to build on commons or on public open spaces? I hope not. We have not very much open space in London and we are always after more. But if, in the dire emergency we are in, we are going to resort to putting up Portal houses for 10 years in our parks and open spaces, I should be against it. One might put up with temporary huts but to erect Portal houses for io years would be a retrograde step.
  Captain Strickland: In Subsection (3, b) it is stated that a notice is deemed to be served on the owner or occupier provided it is handed to some person who is on the premises. Could we have an assurance that that does not mean some casual person who might be there? According to the actual wording it seems to me that it might include someone who is there to read the gas meter or any of a hundred and one other things. He might not have any right to be on the premises at all. I cannot think that that is ordinary commonsense to put into an Act of Parliament.
  Mr. Willink: To some extent I share my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety in regard to the phrase to which he has called attention, and I undertake that attention will be given to seeing that any one of 22 boys who are playing football on a blitzed site is not considered a suitable recipient of the notice. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kensington North (Captain Duncan) first that the Bill does not affect or weaken in any way the present law in regard to open spaces, which is somewhat complicated.
  I can also tell him that I should be quite as reluctant as he to see any interference with urban open spaces. I have indicated that there might be exceptional cases and I could not give an absolute assurance with regard to every bit of land which comes under the definition of open space, but my general approach to the matter and the instructions that I give will be on the lines that he has mentioned. I apologise to the Committee for the shortness of time they have had to consider this proposition and the terms of the Amendment. It has been difficult to find our way through this question how most rapidly and most fairly to acquire urban land, which is really the question here, and for some time we were considering the possibility of requisitioning. I can assure the Committee, first, that this Clause has a precedent in the Act of 1920, except that in two respects the severity of the earlier provisions is modified. In the Act of 1920 the time for representations was limited to seven days. In similar circumstances I propose that it should be extended to 14, which is the normal period in relation to Compulsory Purchase Orders under the Housing Acts. It is not that the whole case has to be made and the matter finally dealt with within 14 days,
  316
  but representations are to be made and objections registered within that period.
  With regard to owners who may be serving abroad, I will certainly ask local authorities to be careful in such cases. The matter will, of course, come before my Department in every case and I will see that my hon. and gallant Friend's apprehensions, which have to be balanced with the needs of the situation, shall be borne in mind. I hope the Commitee will feel that this is the right way out of a difficult position. Our proposal is limited in time and is based upon what was considered right by Parliament in very similar circumstances after the last war.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

  CLAUSE 6.—(Application to Scotland.)
  3 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): I beg to move, in page 3, line 43, to leave out "and."
  I have also a manuscript Amendment in line 47. Shall I read it now?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): The right hon. Gentleman had better move the first Amendment. If necessary we can have a discussion on the two together.
  Mr. Westwood: The first of these Amendments, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is to extend to the local authorities in Scotland the same enabling powers that the Committee has already granted in the new Clause moved by the Minister for Health to the English authorities, and is solely and wholly consequential upon the decision of the Committee to extend these powers to England.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 47, at the end, add:
  "(f) in Section six for references to Section seventy-four of the Housing Act, 1936, and to the First Schedule thereto, there shall be substituted respectively references to Section fifty-one of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, and to the Second Schedule to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1930; for references to Section eighteen and to Sections eighty-four to ninety of the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, there shall be substituted respectively references to Section seventeen and to Sections eighty-three to eighty-eight of the Land

  317
  Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845; and for the references to Section one hundred and eighty-eight of the Housing Act, 1936, there shall be substituted reference to Section forty-nine of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930."—[Mr. Westwood.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  3.3 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen: I want to say a few words on the Third Reading of the Bill. Unfortunately I only got a few minutes when the Second Reading was before the House. I put two questions to the Minister of Production yesterday. I asked what the rent of the Portal house was going to be and I was told that 10s. without rates was the figure being proposed. The point I would put to the Government in this connection is that the Portal house in various parts of the country will have a different rateable value owing to the difference in rating systems so that one of the things which is worrying me is that in Glasgow the rent of the Portal house will work out at 17s. 6d. or 18s. a week while in other parts of the country the figure will be 12s. 6d. or 14s. a week. I would like the Scottish representatives in the Government to look into this matter because it will be obvious to Members of this House that if Scottish occupants of Portal houses are to pay 18s. a week while in other parts of the country people will only have to pay 125. 6d. or 14s. it will cause a lot of trouble in Scotland.
  One other point I wish to make is as to the cost of this temporary house. I have never yet been able to get a detailed account of how the figure of £600, which has been estimated as the cost of the Portal house, is made up. I cannot for the life of me understand how it reaches this enormous figure, and I would like a Member of the Government to give the House a detailed statement. Surely some estimate can be given of the various items that total up to the figure of £600. I think it is very important that the House should have this information. Unfortunately, I could not ask it on the Second Reading when possibly it would have been more appropriate and more useful, but before we depart from the Bill. I would like either the Minister of Health or the Under-Secretary for Scotland, or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, to give us the
  318
  cost of the items comprising this figure. Many people in the country cannot understand why an erection of this type is going to cost so large a figure, and before the Bill passes from us I would like the Government to give us an explanation on this point.
  When I was travelling to Glasgow, I discussed the question of this house with some of the people in the train. They said that they would like the Portal house because, for one thing, it had a bath and the houses in which they were living had no bath, but they thought that if they had to pay 16s. 6d. a week for it they would not be able to afford it. Take the man with a wage of £4 14s, a week who, after paying Health Insurance and Unemployment Insurance and other outgoings, has four guineas left. If he is to pay £1 a week for this house plus, say, 10s. a week Income Tax I do not see how such people are going to be able to occupy these temporary houses at all. The housing need is greatest with regard to the poorer sections of the community, and it seems to me that all this Government have been able to do in this connection is to try to make things easier for the people who are better off instead of for the poorer classes. I wish to make that protest and to ask for that information before the House departs from the subject.
  3.7 p.m.
  Mr. Oswald Lewis: I want to make a plea on behalf of those areas which have either not suffered bomb damage at all, or have suffered only slight bomb damage but, nevertheless, have a problem of overcrowding. I am sure that people in those areas would agree that the first call on these temporary dwellings must be for those areas which have suffered severe bomb damage. I do not think anybody would dispute that, but the inhabitants of the areas for whom I am trying to speak feel that if, after substantial deliveries have been made to severely bombed areas, it is the intention of the Government to go on and complete all the needs of such areas before dealing with the needs of those who have suffered no damage at all, then that is not fair. I submit to the Minister that after substantial deliveries have been made to badly bombed areas, all areas where overcrowding exists should rank together and get some deliveries. Otherwise, the position will be exceedingly difficult. Owing

  319
  to movements of population superimposed on the absence of building during the last five years, there has been very severe overcrowding in many areas, which cannot claim precedence on the grounds of bomb damage. It is for such areas that I desire to plead, and I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that, after the first substantial deliveries have been made to badly bombed areas, those areas which have not been badly bombed will rank for consideration with the bombed areas.
  3.11 p.m.
  Mr. J. J. Lawson: We on this side congratulate the respective Ministers concerned upon reaching the Third Reading of this Bill, end we will gladly give it to them. I only wish to say that I hope the Ministers will strike a note of urgency in the country for the building of these houses. The country is in a very bad state indeed from the housing point of_ view. Up to the period of the war many areas were in a bad condition for want of houses. Some of the most pathetic tales used to be told by young people who had got married and others who had been waiting for years for houses. This temporary housing question, which we must remember is only temporary, underlies the greater question that is in everybody's mind. We mobilised all our forces In material and men to meet the situation in 1940, and it is just as necessary to concentrate all our energies on the provision of houses. In the main we are providing temporary houses and the more permanent ones that will be built afterwards for men who have been married since the war began and have never had a house of their own. We should remember that we are building them for the men who have made it possible for us to remain here, and the Government should use extraordinary means, as they did in 1940, to bring home to everybody—I do not care whether they are workmen, or interests or whoever they are-the urgency of the need for making these temporary houses. They should also impress on the people and the local authorities the urgency of the greater problem which lies behind the temporary one.
  3.14 p.m.
  Captain Strickland: I want to emphasise what has been uttered by
  320
  my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) as to the dire necessity for prompt and strong action being taken now that the Government have got this Measure. I hope they will also speedily deal with the larger question of town and country planning. The need in some of the bombed cities is so terrific that I doubt if even Members of the House who are not as closely connected with such centres as I am realise what the housing shortage means. My hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) spoke about rent, but even the rent is of secondary consideration. People in Coventry are paying much more than my hon. Friend mentioned to live with a whole family in a single room. Many people in Coventry do not know what it is to have a home. Every week when I meet my constituents, young married people come to me who are living in rooms with their small families and who are not wanted because they have babies or because babies are coming. They are often faced with being turned out into the street, and they come to me and say, "Captain Strickland can you find me a house in Coventry?" Coventry's centre has been blitzed and hundreds of workers' dwellings have been swept out of existence. A host of people from all over the country have been poured into Coventry, and we shall shortly be faced with the return of our soldiers, and particularly the return of disabled men from the Services, The position is pitiable. I hope that the Government will realise that local authorities are terribly hampered because they do not know what is going to happen and how much support they will get-from the Government. This Bill is about to pass through the House, and I am sure that from every quarter there will be a feeling of joy and gladness that, at any rate, a first step has been taken towards meeting the housing problem.
  Can we have an assurance from the Minister that from now on this will be regarded as an A.1 priority. concern of the Government, even to the extent of drawing people into the building trade, even if they are dilutees, and of getting whatever help can be obtained from any part of the country so as to cope with this terrible and horrible situation? I hope that the Government without delay will let the local authorities know where they stand and what the Government propose to do in town and country planning.

  321
  I hope, too, that they will give an assurance that in every step that the local authorities take to deal with the housing situation they will have the support of the Government and the Ministers concerned. Some difficulty is created by so many Ministries being concerned with a single subject, and the ramifications of the housing problem are so wide that one gets confused and bewildered as to the best means to take to bring this matter to the attention of those in authority. I am glad that this Measure has reached its Third Reading, and I hope we shall have an assurance that the local authorities will be well armed to go forth in this big fight. I am certain that the salvation of our country will lie in the establishment of happy homes. People want a home which they can regard as something which belongs to them, as something which is their own little place. If after ten years we have to dispose of these temporary houses, let us be ready to put the people in proper homes of their own.
  3.18 p.m.
  Mr. Logan: I am pleased that the Government have brought this Bill forward, and as one who has lived among my Liverpool people for 60 years I am glad to speak for them and for the people in the Scotland Division in particular. I have been a member of the Liverpool Housing Committee, but I have been easy during the Debates on this Bill because I thought that things had gone on nicely. I rise now only to bring forward one point, which I think is of the utmost importance. A Minister can make or unmake a reputation, but we do not want any reputations to be lost in this matter. We want reputations to be made by many houses being produced. He will be a well-blessed Minister who is able to bring houses to those who have been on the waiting lists for 12 or 14 years, even if it is only something of a temporary character. I know that some comment is made about houses that are to last only 10 years, but 10 years is a long time to be without a house. Many of our men will be returning after having fought to retain homes for us, and the least a grateful nation can do is to speed up the erection of houses, even though they be of a temporary character. Life itself is only temporary. Some of these houses may last longer than others, because of the more considerate way in which they are used.
  322
  That is a point to be taken into consideration. If the Minister will give me 40,000 houses for Liverpool there will be 40,000 more homes immediately, and people will bless the Minister, even though he does sit in a Coalition Government. Any Minister who is able to produce the goods for the public will sit on the Government Front Bench.
  We are very much handicapped in Liverpool. We have been badly blitzed and many streets are vacant of houses; but we do not cry about it. We want, however, something more than speeches. We want houses to be built in order to get our people back into the city. We want our great port to be used for the purpose for which it was intended. If we have a war to wage in the Western world, we want to be able to sail the Seven Seas. It is essential that our great ports should be regarded, because the life of the nation depends upon them. I want to see temporary houses built not on the outskirts of Liverpool, but near the former homes of the people, and where the houses were situated before. I want the evils of land and property speculation to be stopped, and I ask the Minister to keep an eye on this aspect of the matter, and to nip any such operations in the bud.
  We do not want it to go forward that the housing directors of our great cities cannot use their brains and their ingenuity in disposing of the sites they have. If they can put 20 or 25 temporary houses on little strips of land here and there, they will be conferring great benefit upon pepole, and gladden their hearts in a way that we are not able to do today. The Minister should urge the municipalities to get going and to put some vigour into the machine. Let us have houses built, even though they are temporary, and then we shall bless the day when the Bill was passed.
  3.25 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I reinforce the words of my horn and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland). I represent a city exactly like his. It has been through a most desperate time and it is estimated that a fifth of the city's houses have been destroyed. If we are to wait for a Town and Country Planning Bill we have to wait a long time before there is accommodation for the people to live

  323
  in. If we do not get houses for the people, and for the returning soldiers, we may have a situation in this country little short of revolutionary. I see from the Press that Plymouth has been declared a city to which returning evacuees may go, but there is no room for returning evacuees. How can they go back if there are no houses for them? Is it not possible for the Army, Navy and Air Force authorities to derequisition as many houses as possible in Plymouth? I know of houses held by Service Ministries although nobody is in them. That applies not only to Plymouth but to many other places throughout the country. The Bill is a stepping stone to what we must do in the most general way possible. We must not allow anything to stand in the way of getting temporary houses up as quickly as possible so that our people can get shelter.
  3.27 p.m.
  Captain Duncan: As a Greater London Member, I would congratulate the Minister upon getting the Bill through and would wish him to use his greatest personal endeavours to make it a success, not only in London but in all other places. The question is frightfully difficult. There seem to me to be two main difficulties which will come along as a result of passing the Bill. The first is that too many Ministers are involved. The Ministry of Works will manufacture the structures but will not be able to get materials except through the Ministry of Supply. The Ministry of Health will deal with the local authorities. A multitude of authorities will have to be consulted and that is one of the great dangers. I hope that the Minister of Health, who will be held primarily responsible, whoever else may in fact be responsible, will watch this matter and will see that other Ministers and subordinate authorities get on with their work without friction.
  The second danger I see in the Bill is that the short view may prevail over the long view. The urgent need for temporary houses of the Portal bungalow type will be very great, not only among evacuees and local populations but among returning Service personnel after demobilisation. The pressure will be very great that land which ought to be used for permanent houses should be taken for temporary
  324
  houses. Land is very short in London. When local authorities make their suggestions the Minister has to do the deciding, and I should like him to warn them that, when thinking of temporary housing, they should not overlook the paramount need of land for permanent or semipermanent housing of prefabricated manufacture. I hope that the Minister will watch these two dangers so that they do not ruin the scheme which he has put forward.
  3.29 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): The Government—and I personally—are very grateful for the help which we have received from the Committee and from the House to-day and in winding up this Third Reading Debate I need not take very long. There are two points which I want to clear up, and they both arise from what was said by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). The first is in regard to the price. I can do no more at this stage than refer the hon. Member to the speech made on 1st August by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works—the column in HANSARD is 1310—in which the figure of £600 is given. This of course is very provisional and is based upon various elements, many of which are not in a normal house at all.
  The second point he raised, to which others also have referred, was with regard to rents and rates. This question of the fair level of rents and rates affects, and is equally relevant to, any discussion on permanent houses in this country; it is not something special to this Bill. What is clear is that the rents to be charged for temporary bungalows must be wisely and sensibly related with the rents of their permanent houses by the local authorities who will be managing them. The impression seems to have been given that the Government would take a more rigid line with regard to these temporary bungalows than has been the practice with regard to permanent houses. Might I, to satisfy the House that that will not be the case, state what has already been indicated to local authorities in Scotland and what certainly will be indicated to local authorities in England and Wales? The actual rent to be charged for the houses will be left to the local authority to determine in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Acts. We anticipate

  325
  that it will be appropriate that the rent should be roughly in line with that charged for a permanent house; but there will be no rigidity and there is no special problem with regard to rates or rents arising on these bungalows.
  A number of hon. Members, particularly those whose constituencies have suffered heavily at the hands of the enemy, of whom, I may say, I am one, referred to the general housing shortage and said that no undue concentration should be made on those most recently damaged. As I see the position, the main purpose of the Bill is to make a contribution to the accumulated housing shortage of the whole country, but the blitzed areas will have a special claim to priority, and the most recently blitzed areas will have a still higher claim to priority, both because of the exceptional amount of damage that has occurred in London and Southern England this summer, and also because many of the earlier blitzed areas had arrived with whatever difficulty at some measure of stability. The tremendous damage to house property in the Metropolitan area this summer indicates that a large proportion of the earliest deliveries of these bungalows should go there.
  With regard to the relation between temporary and permanent housing, I can assure those who are anxious that it is very clear in my mind that what this House wants, and wants at the earliest possible date, is good permanent housing. Within the last few days I have been able to issue to local authorities Housing Manual, 1944, and with the issue of that Manual I have asked all housing authorities to take a step which will lead straight in the direction we all desire to go—I have asked them to submit lay-outs and house plans for the earliest part of their programme. I am encouraging them to go forward with that. We must at all times remember that it is no more possible to build houses this year than it was last year—we are still at the height of this phase of the war and I cannot promise what the demands of the war will be in 1945—but what I can promise the House is that I shall bend my utmost energies to providing our people with homes.
  3.35 p.m.
  Squadron-Leader Fleming: I would like to ask my right
  326
  hon. and learned Friend one question about the use of labour under this new Bill. At the present time, as everybody is well aware, there is a great deal of repair work going on in London. For example, my own flat was destroyed two months ago. I went to it this morning. Nothing has been done. The reason is because labour that was employed on that block some six weeks ago has been removed to another site. What I would like to ask the Minister is, When this Bill becomes law will the labour that is at present being employed on repairing damaged property be in any way removed or taken to set up these Portal houses?
  Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the acquisition and development of land for planning purposes, for amending the law relating to town and country planning, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the following payments, that is to say:
  A. (1 Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants to local planning authorities in respect of loan charges on moneys borrowed by them for defraying, or contributing towards, the cost of acquiring or clearing—

  (a) areas of extensive war damage, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years, together with a proportion of the charges for further years up to eight, or in certain cases thirteen, being a proportion fixed by reference to the extent to which land in an area of extensive war damage remains by reason of war damage incapable of being brought into use for a substantial purpose and so as to provide a substantial return;

  (b) land to be used for the re-location of population or industry from areas of extensive war damage or to be used as an open space or otherwise in an undeveloped state in substitution for land in such areas which is so used, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years, together with half the charges for a further two years;

  (c) land for highway purposes relating to such areas or to land to be used as aforesaid, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years.

  327
  (2) Payment into the Exchequer of any sums received in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session in repayment of any such grants.
  For the purposes of this paragraph—

  (i) local planning authorities shall be deemed to have incurred loan charges on moneys belonging to them which are applied by them for defraying, or contributing towards, such cost as aforesaid as if the moneys had been borrowed on terms to be fixed by the Treasury;

  (ii) land appropriated by local planning authorities for any purpose of the said Act of the present Session shall be treated as having been acquired for that purpose out of moneys belonging to them at a cost determined as mentioned in the said Act;

  (iii) payments by local planning authorities in respect of restrictions on the development or use of land acquired by them subject to the restrictions shall be treated as a part of the cost of acquiring the land defrayed out of moneys belonging to them;

  (iv) contributions towards the compensation payable on the refusal of the renewal of justices' licences in respect of land to be acquired by local planning authorities shall be treated as part of the cost of acquiring the land.

  B. (1) Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required to be paid into the Road Fund for the purpose of meeting the cost incurred by the Minister of War Transport of acquiring land for purposes relating to trunk roads as mentioned in the said Act of the present Session.
  (2) Payment into the Exchequer of any contributions received by the said Minister from local planning authorities in respect of such cost.
  C. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by any government department under the said Act of the present Session in paying compensation to persons (including statutory undertakers) in respect of the extinguishment or vesting of or interference with rights over land or apparatus on land, in complying with conditions imposed in connection with the use of burial grounds, or in making payments to persons displaced in the carrying out of redevelopment.
  D. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under section four of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session extending contributions under the said Act of 5938 to housing accommodation rendered necessary by displacements, occurring in the carrying out of redevelopment of land acquired under the said Act of the present Session, from houses unfit for human habitation.
  E. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances to members of any tribunal constituted under the said Act of the present Session
  328
  for the assessment of compensation under that Act to statutory undertakers."—King's Recommendation Signified.)—[Mr W. S. Morrison.
  3.37 P.m.
  The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr, W. S. Morrison): The Committee will remember that when we had the Second Reading of this Bill I undertook to have further consultations with associations of local authorities. I carried out that promise, and as a result I had a series of very helpful, co-operative conversations. As a result of these I shall propose certain Amendments to the Bill when we get to the Committee stage as regards the powers of local authorities, procedure to be followed for the acquisition of land and the finance. The Amendments on finance necessitate certain Amendments in the Money Resolution, and in this respect the Resolution on the Paper contains variations from the form of the Resolution which has haunted the Order Paper for the last few weeks. I am sorry it was not possible for me, under the Rules of the House, to put the varied form on the Paper until yesterday, so that it could not appear in its amended form until to-day. In this I ask for the indulgence of the Committee, and I hope I may receive it, seeing that the changes from the old form are all in the direction of widening the terms of the Resolution and enabling more financial assistance to be made available for the task of reconstruction in the bombed areas.
  The main scheme of financial assistance embodied in the Bill remains. Local planning authorities will meet the cost of acquiring and clearing the land in the bomb damaged areas, mostly by way of loans. As the Committee will recollect, the Bill provides for assistance from the Exchequer to be given in respect of the loan charges incurred by local planning authorities in carrying out this task. Roughly speaking, may I remind the Committee, the idea is that the loan charges incurred shall be discharged for the first two years, a grant equal to them shall be paid from the Exchequer, and thereafter the grants can continue for a further period of eight, or, in exceptional cases, 13 years, the grants being made proportionately to the extent to which the process of reconstruction has made the land available for substantial use and capable of making a return to the authority which owns it.

  329
  These main lines of assistance still stand. I would invite the Committee to look at the changes from the Resolution as it previously appeared. In paragraph A (1) (a) they will see that, in addition to the words,
  "brought into use for a substantial purpose,"
  there are the words
  "and so as to provide a substantial return."
  It was put to me by many local authorities that during the work of reconstruction they might find it very much in the public interest to let some of the land which was required for development at a very low or nominal rental for the present period of the occupation, in order to stimulate or to start development. It is true that that may happen. They were afraid that if they did so let it for a nominal rent they would be considered as bringing it into substantial use, and that, therefore, their grant for it would cease. The additional words in the Resolution foreshadow an Amendment to the Bill to provide that the grant, in a proper case, will not cease in such circumstances. The next change is in A (1) (b), where the Committee will notice that we have altered the definition of what we have called, for lack of a more beautiful term, overspill. The old definition was:
  "land to be used for providing accommodation for persons in the bombed areas."
  It was felt that this was a bit too narrow, and that that definition might be interpreted as envisaging these overspill areas as mere housing estates. That is not the intention. It is intended that when these overspill areas are to be developed they shall be developed on the basis of a neighbourhood unit, not only of houses, but of all the things, such as open spaces, that a community requires for its daily life. It is felt that the words that we now have give a better picture of what it is intended to attain. There is also in this sub-paragraph a further grant in aid of the acquisition of land in overspill areas in case of bomb damage. Under the previous Financial Resolution and under the Bill, the grant for acquiring land in overspill areas was limited to the first two years. The idea was that this land will, in the main, be cheap land, it is outside the cities, and does not carry the tremendous values that urban land generally does. But we feel that something more is necessary. Now the grant does not cease after
  330
  two years, but is continued at half the rate of the loan charges for the next two years.
  The following paragraph indicates a certain widening of the scope of the expenditure which may rank for grant. Sub-paragraph (i) widens the scope to this extent, that it includes any money expended by the local planning authority out of their own funds. It makes it perfectly clear that if they expend their own money it is deemed to be a loan under the provisions of the Act, and ranks for grant just as though they had borrowed. That is perfectly just, and they are entitled, in our view, to have the grant extended to that. Sub-paragraph (ii) brings in any land bought by the authority before the Bill for a purpose which is included in the purposes of the Bill. The local authorities have in many cases already acquired land for purposes of reconstruction and for overspill. In so far as they have done so, and the land is appropriated for the purposes of the Bill, that expenditure, even though it was incurred before the Bill, will rank for grant. Sub-paragraph (iii) brings in the cost of planning restrictions on land which is subsequently acquired. This point was brought to my notice by many local authorities, that they may have made restrictions and then have bought the land with the restrictions on it. We think that, in these circumstances, the money paid for the restriction should really be treated as an instalment of the purchase price and the two things put together to rank for grant as if they had been done at one time. Sub-paragraph (iv) is a small matter of compensation for justices' licences, the renewal of which is refused in the course of the project for redevelopment.
  3.45 P.m.
  Another thing about which I would like to say a word is a matter which did call for a lot of comment on the Second Reading, the question of open spaces. I would like to make it perfectly clear that it is the view of my Department that the proper provision of an adequate standard of open spaces is a vital object that we all ought to strive to secure in this task of reconstruction. I would only mention—not that I exclude the larger open spaces, such as parks and playing fields, which are very important—that there are also opportunities arising during the course of reconstruction in these

  331
  damaged areas where even a small open space can be provided here and there, a space where children can run in to play out of the streets and traffic, and where older persons can retreat to sun themselves and take a little rest in the middle of the city's traffic and bustle. All these things are highly desirable, and we ought to do our best to secure them.
  A fear was expressed by local authorities that in the formula for loan charges this object was to a certain extent frustrated, the argument being, "If we acquire an area of bomb damage and dedicate part of that to the proper provision of open spaces, we are putting it to a substantial purpose, and the grant in aid of that ceases, and we are the losers thereby." That is not how it will work, but no Amendment is necessary for it. If the Committee will look at the Bill—I do not ask them to take it from me—they will see that the matter of defining what land has been put to substantial use is left to regulations made by the Minister and the Treasury, after consultations with certain local authorities. The intention is to administer the formula for grant in aid in this way, that if land is dedicated for the purposes of an open space in one of these bombed areas the grant in respect of it does not cease, but the grants in subsequent years will take into account the rate at which the surrounding property is being developed, and only in so far as it is thought proper to taper down the extent to which the surrounding property is being developed will it be thought proper to taper down the grant which is to be given for an open space. That will be of material assistance in the acquisition of open spaces, which is such a desirable object. That can be done without any Resolution; it can be done by regulation.
  The only other thing I would like to say is that I can well imagine it being said that this assistance towards open spaces, although helpful, does not really meet the case of those local authorities, and, alas, there are some of them, whose resources are so small in relation to their needs that they cannot do much for the provision of open spaces. It is very often the very poorest of them that have the most crying need for some aeration in the texture of their bricks and mortar. Some people say that local authorities, as
  332
  a whole, cannot afford to make adequate provision of this kind out of their own own resources. The Government are not prepared to accept that as a general proposition. As already stated, Exchequer assistance, accordińng to the circumstances of the authorities, is already forthcoming for school playing fields, and the Government do not intend to supplement this by a general subsidy towards the cost of acquiring land for such purposes, but, in order to meet this case in built-up areas where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Government that a local planning authority could not, without undue financial hardship, conform to the requisite standard, Parliamentary authority will be sought to provide Exchequer assistance. Grants from the Minister of Education will, of course, continue to be paid under the provisions of Section 3 of the Physical Training and Recreation Act, as amended by the Education Act of this year.
  A general overhaul of the financial relations between the Exchequer and local authorities will have to be undertaken as soon as the data upon which it can be based become available, and this is a matter much larger than the purpose of the present Bill. The Government White Paper on Social Insurance has already pointed out a number of changes which will have to be considered, and there are others. This overhaul will, in the Government's view, have to be carried out with a definite bias in favour of the poorer authorities. It cannot be undertaken in the near future, and, meantime, as an interim measure and in anticipation of it, this assistance will be given in hard cases. It will be necessary to work out conditions under which it will be made available, and account will have to be taken of such matters as the extent of public open spaces and the cost of the proposed acquisition in relation to the financial resources of the authority, but as soon as these matters have been further explored and the necessary consultations concluded, an early opportunity will be sought of giving legislative effect to them. That is all I have to say about this Resolution. I hope the Committee will agree to pass it so that we may proceed to the Committee stage of this most urgent and most important Bill.
  Mr. Silkin: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to my right

  333
  hon. Friend for the very clear explanation he has given of the difficulties of this technical matter, and that we will readily give him the indulgence for which he asks in view of the special circumstances. I believe that my right hon. Friend is to-day a wiser man than he was some three months ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "We all are."]He has discovered that, when you are about to enter into partnership or other relations with other persons or bodies, it is not a bad idea to discuss terms fully with them and carry them with you before you reduce the matter to the stage of writing. The Minister would have saved himself a great deal of trouble if he had learned that in good time. It was necessary for me and others to indulge in some words of criticism on the Second Reading, but I am very glad indeed to say to-day that my right hon. Friend has completely redeemed himself. In the consultations that took place with the associations of local authorities the local authorities were treated with that courtesy, ability and charm which we in the House know and admire so much and which they, perhaps, experienced for the first time. I must say that, while the local authorities are not entirely satisfied with the result of the discussions, they are definitely satisfied that the representations which they made were fully appreciated, understood and considered by my right hon. Friend, and perhaps I might say that some of the representations which the Minister made to the local authorities were equally appreciated by them.
  As a result of these friendly discussions—and they were quite friendly—a number of very useful concessions have been made in the Bill which make it much more acceptable, and which are incorporated, so far as may be necessary, in the Financial Resolution before the Committee to-day. At this stage. I am bound to say, Mr. Williams, that I feel that there is an unfortunate tendency to draw Financial Resolutions so tightly that no Amendment of any consequence succeeds in passing your vigilant eye. My right hon. Friend has asked the Committee to make up its mind in advance as to how much money will be spent on this Measure, and a great many Amendments which might have been moved for the purpose of improving the Measure no doubt, find themselves out of Order. I wish it had been possible to deal with this Bill in the same way as the Educa-
  334
  tion Bill, where there was a certain amount of elasticity in the Financial Resolution which permitted of very valuable improvements being made in the Bill.
  Before I make any general observations I ask the Minister to consider, and to give me an answer to, the question why certain words which were in the original Resolution do not appear in the present one. The Minister did say that it was the intention of this Bill to provide grants retrospectively to local authorities who had already acquired land which they were going to prepare for the purposes of this Bill. In the original Resolution there were the words, under A. (1)
  "whether before or after the passing of the said Act."
  These words are omitted from the present Financial Resolution and I would be glad to have an explanation of that. While the concessions are appreciated, and it would be wrong to deny that they are, in many cases, substantial, it would be equally wrong to give the impression that the Bill is now a satisfactory Measure. On the occasion of the Second Reading, a number of fundamental objections were raised and two of them still remain. The first is that the Bill does not provide for comprehensive planning. Planning, under the Bill, will still be piecemeal. The Bill is still almost entirely a Measure for the reinstatement of war damaged areas, and that, many of us contended, was not real planning. It is just reinstatement, and that objection to the Bill still prevails. I know That my right hon. Friend will say, and has said, that the reinstatement of war damaged areas is a first priority, but, while that may be the case, nevertheless, that reinstatement ought to be carried out in pursuit of a comprehensive plan. I regret that the Bill, even to-day, as it was proposed to amend it subject to the Committee of this House, will still not permit of this comprehensive plan.
  4.0 p.m.
  The second fundamental objection to the Bill was that the financial provisions were inadequate. They are less inadequate wider the terms of the Financial Resolution than they were before. A little more grant is being given in the case of overspill areas and I readily appreciate that the definition of the overspill area has been widened, which is a tremendous boon to planning. But, generally, even the grants that are proposed

  335
  to be paid in respect of war damaged areas are still regarded, certainly by the local authorities, as inadequate, and even more complaint is made that no grant is being made in respect of blighted areas. That grievance and criticism still remains. If we are really going to re-plan our towns and the countryside and to rebuild Britain in the manner of which so many people have talked so eloquently in the past, there is no fundamental disfinction between an area which, for one reason or another, is unfit to live in according to modern standards, a blighted area, and an area which has suffered extensive war damage. While it my be necessary to make some distinction in the Bill between the two, comprehensive and proper planning would deal with the two areas, and a grant is equally necessary for the one as for the other. The right hon. Gentleman has said that in the case of overspill areas, the cost of land may be less than in the case of war damaged areas, but he will be the first to recognise that, in the case of the blighted areas, the cost of land may well be higher. It is unfortunate that many of the areas most in need of re-development are also areas where the cost of land is higher. It is in these areas that no contribution is being made by the Exchequer towards their re-development, and that is the serious blemish on the Bill.
  I was glad that my right hon. Friend recognised that the case for some kind of reorganisation of local government and a re-orientation of the incidence of local and national finance has become overwhelming. The burdens which Parliament is increasingly placing upon local authorities is making their task almost impossible. We have just been discussing housing. An immense burden has been placed upon local authorities in respect of housing. We have to face up to large expenditure on highways, public health, education and on social services, and if in addition to that local authorities are really to carry out what is the intention of my right hon. Friend and to deal with their blighted areas, then clearly the cost will become prohibitive. I hope that the examination to which my right hon. Friend has referred will take place as quickly as possible. The matter really is urgent. What is probably involved under present conditions may be nothing less than the breakdown of local govern-
  336
  ment and this Committee would regard that as a tragedy. Local government is, after all, the home and kernel of democracy, and nobody would wish that it should run that danger.
  There is one further criticism of the Bill which has not been met. There cannot be proper re-development without dealing with compensation and betterment and we are a long way from solving that problem. The Government have published a White Paper on the subject, but apparently they have so little confidence in it that they have not invited any discussion of it, although it has been published a very long time. A good many other White Papers published long afterwards have had discussion in this House. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that, without a solution of this problem of compensation and betterment, we cannot get proper planning in the blighted areas.
  In spite of its faults and defects, I feel that the Committee should be invited today to accept the Financial Resolution in its amended form. The concessions which have been made will be of value to local authorities and particularly to those who have suffered through extensive war damage. We on this side of the Committee will therefore accept the Financial Resolution, without prejudice, looking on it entirely as an instalment of what we hope will be a more satisfactory and comprehensive Measure in the very near future.
  Mr. John Dugdale: My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) has paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's charm of manner, with which I entirely agree, but he has also paid tribute to his conciliatory ability. He has certainly conciliated those people who live in bombed areas, but I would like to say a word or two about those who do not happen to live in bombed areas but live in what are now termed—I think it rather an unfortunate word—blighted areas. I myself happen to represent an area which has not been bombed but which is a blighted area. We have suffered war damage of a different character. We have been able to put up no buildings for five years. We have, further, incurred extra expenditure in connection with the war regarding air raid precautions, Civil Defence and a great many other things, all of which make it more difficult for us to spend money on housing after the war.

  337
  As the Government are not giving financial assistance to blighted areas in the same way as they are to blitzed areas, it will be impossible for blighted areas to go ahead with housing schemes which are needed just as badly in many cases as they are in the bombed areas. It would be impossible for them to go on with these schemes for five years may be, or it may be until the period of years is greater than that allowed in the Bill. I agree entirely that bombed cities come first. Everybody will agree with that, but are we to assume that if labour is not available for bombed cities, it will therefore not be available for blighted cities? Take, for instance, the North-West which has suffered comparatively little from bombing but a great deal from blight. It may be that while it is not available in London, labour may be available in the North-West which cannot be transferred to London. I cannot see why, even if London is to be rebuilt first, it is not possible to use labour in the North-West which cannot be brought down to London. Not only have these blighted areas suffered as a result of the war but everybody will agree that their contribution to the war has been just as great as that of the blitzed areas. I do not think that they can be left out simply because they have not, one would almost say, had the good fortune to be bombed. As a representative of a blighted area, I would like to make what plea I can that those areas may be considered, and that the Government will even now reconsider its decision to leave them out altogether, and bring them more into line with what it is already going to give to the bombed areas.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: I would like to associate myself with the plea that has just been made, and I do hope that the Minister, who is so sympathetic and who has been so willing in the past to hear points that have been put before him, will be able to reconsider that very important point. I hope also that he may see his way to hold out the possibility of wider powers than seem to be implied in the wording of the Resolution. Paragraph (b) of A (1) limits the use of the grant of money for land an open space by the words
  "to be used as an open space or otherwise in an undeveloped state in substitution for land in such areas which is so used."
  338
  That would seem to preclude the use of this grant of money to purchase an open space unless it is absolutely in substitution for a previous open space. There might be a densely populated area of working-class houses that has been bombed which every one agrees ought to have had an open space if it had been originally planned on sound lines. Yet under the terms of this Resolution it seems as if the Minister will be precluded from giving a grant to a local authority for making an open space for the buildings which are built in substitution for this bombed area because the original area had no open space. I do hope, therefore, that the Minister may be able to assure the Committee that he does not wish to bind himself and the Ministry in that way. If so I hope he may be willing, on Report stage, to omit the words from "state" in line 17 to the word "used" in line 18.
  Mr. Hugh Lawson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) I was very critical of this Bill on the Second Reading, but I am afraid I do not share my hon. Friend's change of attitude towards it. It seems to me that the Amendments which have been made in this Financial Resolution still leave the main objection, that a planner will not be able to consider, when drawing up a plan, only the suitability of any particular piece of land; he will still have to weigh the cost of that land and will still be bound by the fact that the local authority is not given power to purchase any land which is required for planning purposes in the area of that local authority. That fundamental objection still remains. The other fundamental objection to this Bill which will make it quite ineffective for real town planning is the fact that it does not touch the matter of compensation and betterment at all. I still think this Bill is extremely unsatisfactory, and it will not result in our using this tremendous opportunity which we now have to build cities, which are going to be worthy of the 21st century.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. S. 0. Davies: I must emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale). I have the misfortune, if I may put it that way, of representing an area that has been regarded for many years as a blighted one. I want to appeal

  339
  to the Minister to maintain some sense of proportion as between the long-standing needs of some of these blighted areas and those of the bombed areas for which the Minister has shown, and rightly so, so much consideration. The hon. Member for West Bromwich referred to the fact that development in these blighted areas has been held up by five years of war, as has been the case in most parts of the country, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that most of the blighted areas were largely areas that suffered most from mass unemployment in the inter-war period. Perhaps I may be permitted to make reference to the area I know best, my own constituency. In addition to five years of war, we had between 15 and 16 years of mass unemployment, during which period very little development could be carried on. I do not want to over-stress the blighted areas at the expense of the bombed areas—we are all most sympathetically disposed towards the bombed areas—but many of these blighted areas are the oldest industrialised parts of this country and have been blighted, in a sense, for half a century. That blight was horribly accentuated by the long years of mass unemployment in the inter-war period. My right hon. Friend has a very serious problem to consider, and I hope that the local authorities in those blighted areas will have his full sympathy and his practical co-operation.
  Mr. LoganI would like to ask the Minister one thing in reference to a case which cropped up a fortnight ago in the Liverpool Housing Committee. We know very well that small gardens or restful spots, to which the Minister referred a few moments ago, are very necessary, but is it possible for us to erect houses on a particular site, which is now an open space but which is not being used for that particular purpose at the present time to any great extent, for the temporary period mentioned in the Financial Resolution if it would relieve us of our housing disadvantages? And would it be possible for a grant to be given in such a case? We feel that such a grant ought to be given, because it would be-beneficial to the city and because it would better our housing situation. As we say in Liverpool, we want the "dough."
  Mr. E. J. Williams: If I were a representative of a bombed area I would welcome this Bill. Whenever I look at Bills of this kind I endeavour to visualise what must be taking place in London, Plymouth, Coventry and other parts of the country, and I should welcome the opportunity of not only telling my constituents but welcoming them back to their old homes as quickly as possible. But I represent a constituency in Wales to which a large number of people were brought for production purposes at the beginning of the war. Such areas are very overcrowded. The population in my home town has gone up by over 50 per cent. during the last three or four years. Throughout the country we have had no development whatever, and in that respect my constituency is comparable with all others. But this is putting a heavy strain on local authorities. I welcomed the Minister's statement that the time has come when there should, be an overhaul of local government grants. Who is going to do it? Does it come under the purview of the present Minister, is it a matter for the Minister of Health or the Treasury? If so, when is it to commence and when shall we have a report? Is a survey to take place? Is it to be done immediately? We realise from the White Paper on Social Security and the Education Act and many others things, the enormous burden that is to be placed on local authorities. They cannot bear it either equitably or properly. I should like the State to have acquired land and allow the local authorities to use it, but it would be out of Order to discuss that now. The point I would like the Minister to reply to is how this revision of local government finance is to take place and when we are likely to have a report in order that relief may come to the heavily burdened local authorities as soon as possible.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke>: I would like to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) and join with him in asking the Minister whether he is quite satisfied that local authorities will be enabled by this Financial Resolution to plan their areas with due regard to the position of open spaces and, to use the modern term, civic centres. According to line 17 land to be used as an open space is one of the conditions of the grant. That would seem

  341
  to apply to the point made by the hon. Member opposite, but I am not clear that the local authorities will be enabled by this Resolution to plan their areas on the lines of a properly developed modern town or city. For example, may I cite the case of Cardiff? Those of us who have visited Cardiff must be fully aware of the magnificent statute that Cardiff City has reached as the result of the grand planning of open spaces and public buildings. We want to encourage local authorities everywhere, not only in the blitzed cities but in the new overspill areas, to plan something, not so pretentious and noble perhaps as Cardiff has been able to achieve, but something approaching the style. They will not be able to do so unless financial encouragement is given to them by the Government for that purpose. The simple question I wanted to ask the Minister is whether he is quite satisfied that local authorities will be enabled to secure land not only for open spaces but also for civic buildings yielding little financial return.
  Mr. John Wilmot: The Noble Lord opposite has certainly put his finger on the spot and I am afraid that the Minister can only reply that this Resolution, and the Bill with which it is connected, do not enable a local authority to do just the very thing which the Noble Lord rightly points out would be a possibility under the Bill if it were to justify its Title, "Town and Country Planning Bill." As the Money Resolution is drawn—much better than it was the last time—it does so limit the operation of the Bill that it is not really a Town and Country Planning Bill at all; it is a Bill for the rehabilitation of the bombed areas. Although it gives new powers to local authorities in respect of the acquisition of land for the replanning of areas of bad development, slums, and the like, it gives them powers which are quite illusory, because with their many other burdens they have no money with which to exercise them, and it is very regrettable that the Minister has not used the opportunity which has come to him at this formative time to produce a real Town and Country Planning Bill which would have enabled our towns to be re-developed along the lines which we all desire.
  Even in the matter of open spaces—a most fundamental thing, as the Minister pointed out—for a badly developed,
  342
  sprawling slum area, unless it is a war damaged area, there is no contribution, and even for a war damaged area there is a sort of means test. The Minister ought to have seen to it that, at any rate at the very beginning, there was provision to employ open spaces, so that the short-term policy would not be the enemy of the long. I regret that the Resolution has not been so drawn as to permit the meeting of all loan charges in respect of all the purposes that this Bill sets out to achieve. To that extent the Bill will be inoperative for a very long time to come, and when the money is available no doubt it will be too late, because places will have been rebuilt in the old patchwork and piece-meal way, and our hopes of replanning will have gone for a long time. Some of the things which I thought we should have found in the new draft are lamentably absent. I had thought that at any rate Vie Minister would have taken power to deal with the question of the 1939 value where there is clear evidence that someone has bought up the land since the war and is going to make a profit out of the public. I am sorry that that has not been provided for here.
  4.30 p.m.
  We also feel very strongly that nothing has been done to remove those two objectionable aspects, the power to order a local authority to dispose of its land. [Interruption.] Yes, it has to do with it. If we do not look at it now we shall be too late, because of the nature of the financial provisions. We think it is quite wrong that the Minister should be able to direct authorities to dispose of land and that he should be able to estop them from using part of the land to bring in revenues which will ease the burden in other directions. Would it not have been very much better if he had taken a bigger view of the problem and really created a Town and Country Planning Bill which would have made for proper planning as and when the development takes place, and that he himself had acquired the land that was necessary and leased it to the local authorities at a rental which had regard to the nature of the purposes for which it was to be used?
  He would have suffered no financial loss over it, because under the principles so well set out in the Uthwatt Report development would have taken place in the areas not used for housing purposes

  343
  and the rise in value would have been subject to the levy, which would have balanced it. I make this point now because it is obvious that the Minister has fallen short of what he might have done to make this a really great Measure. I hope it will be possible, in looking at it again and considering, as he said, the fundamental necessity of recasting the financial arrangements between central and local finance, to do something to offset the very marked objections that there are to the Bill even in its present form.
  Mr. W. S. Morrison: Though there is nothing in the Resolution about the 1939 standard of values nor about the power of the Minister to direct the disposal of land, there is nothing in it which prevents the fullest and freest debate on both matters in Committee. The hon. Member can bring them up for full discussion at a later stage. I thank the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) for the kindly words that he used. He asked why certain words in the older Resolution had been omitted. They were not thought to be adequate for the purpose, but they have been substantially re-enacted in better words. There was no loss but some gain. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) feared that the use of the words
  "to be used as an open space or otherwise in an undeveloped state in substitution for land in such areas which is so used"
  would limit the power to provide a proper open space in a spillover area unless, in fact, there was one in the area. That is not the position. The whole of the paragraph is covered by the words
  "land to be used for the relocation of population or industry."
  That means relocating it in accordance with the best planning we can devise to provide the community with all the open space required. The words
  "in substitution for land in such areas which is so used"
  are put in to meet a case which has occurred from time to time. Where it is necessary for the best reconstruction of a bombed site to absorb an open space, power is wanted to put another open space, if need be, outside the area being redeveloped to meet the needs of the population. I am grateful to the Committee for having received the Resolution as they have. The point made by the
  344
  hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) seems to me more a matter for housing grants than grants for the acquisition of land, because the case put was where a corporation already possessed the land and wanted to put houses on it. These grants are for getting the land and not for putting up houses. [Interruption.] I should like to consult the Minister of Health about that. The main criticism that has been made is that the Resolution does not provide money for blight. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale) was in error in thinking that shortage of labour might militate against a speedy attack on the problem of blight. The real problem is the shortage of houses. We shall be very short of dwelling accommodation, even of an indifferent type, for some years after the war. All our energies will be devoted not to pulling houses down but to building them up. I think it is a reasonable attitude for the Government to take in the lifetime of this Parliament not to pledge public money in advance for a matter of this kind when it will be necessary for the whole question to be looked at again. What the Bill does is to give new powers for the acquisition of land and to remove disabilities under which local authorities have been in the past. There is nothing to prevent the formulation of good planning on that basis, using the powers in the Bill as and when opportunity serves.
  Mr. MacLaren: Is there anything in the suggestion of a re-examination of local government finance?
  Mr. Morrison: I have stated that it will be necessary to examine the whole question of the relations between local and central finance. I was asked which Ministry would undertake it. It is so far-reaching that it is obviously a matter for the whole Government, not excluding the Treasury and the Ministry of Health who have always dealt with local authorities. It is a large question and it goes far outside the boundaries of the Bill. I am not in a position to say when it will take place, but it is clear that it will be necessary to have a considerable examination of the problem, and there will need to be very close consultation with local authorities before the matter can be dealt with, but the task must be taken in hand.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.40 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I do not think I need detain the House many minutes in explaining the minor Amendments to the 1935 Act included in the miscellaneous provisions of this Bill. The first Clause deals with the periodic renewal of the Upper Houses in those Provinces which have second chambers. These second chambers are, like the American Senate, permanent bodies renewable, in their case by one-third every three years. When the period for the second renewal of these chambers arose in 1943 it was possible to renew them in the case of Bengal and Assam, which have retained ministerial government, but under the disturbed conditions in the Provinces where Section 93 was in force, and with the danger of Japanese invasion, it was decided to suspend the elections. That fact would put the periodic renewal of those chambers out of gear, and the object of this Clause is to treat the period of Section 93 as non-existent, so that the renewals can take place in proper sequence. A margin of 12 months is provided in addition in order that elections can be held at a suitable period of the year.
  The second Clause clears up a doubt which had been expressed as to whether, under the provisions of the Act, a judge transferred in India from one High Court to another or to the Supreme Court might not be considered as still holding his position in his original court. In our own Judicature Act of 1925 that point is made clear in Section 10. This Clause simply adapts the Indian conditions to the wording of our own Judicature Act. Clause 3 deals with the number of my advisers. The House will remember that before the Act of 1935 the Secretary of State worked very largely in all his relations with the Government of India through what was known as the India Council. Under the Act of 1935 the Council was abolished, the advisers were retained, and, provisionally pending federation, it was held that these advisers should be of the same number as the old Council, namely, within a minimum of eight or a
  346
  maximum of 12. It was proposed that when federation came about the advisers should be reduced to a maximum of six and a minimum of three. As a matter of fact, federation has not come about nearly as soon as was expected, and meanwhile the war has created considerable practical difficulties in making certain at any one moment that the minimum figure of advisers is retained. Some of the men whom it would be most desirable to have as advisers are busily occupied with other war functions, and the difficulties of travel make it sometimes impossible, when an adviser is in sight, for him to reach England in time to prevent the statutory minimum not being reached. For that purpose I am asking the House to enable the statutory minimum to be reduced to five, not with any particular intention of reducing the minimum in the near future, but in order to give me a little more flexibility in securing the advisers I require.
  Clause 4 is introduced in order to bring the leave conditions of the Commander-in-Chief and the Governor-General into line with modern facilities for air travel. As things stand at present, neither the Viceroy nor the Commander-in-Chief can leave India for any purpose more than once during the whole term of office. They are entitled, for reasons of health or private affairs, to leave India for four months once only, but obviously to-day and under war conditions it is rather absurd that the Commander-in-Chief, for instance, cannot fly to Teheran for a few days to take part in a conference or to visit the S.E.A.C. at Kandy. Similarly, it might very well be advantageous for the Secretary of State to be able to have a few days' special consultation with the Viceroy over here or in the Middle East. The object of the Clause is to enable the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief to go outside the narrow bounds of India for the purposes of special consultation over and above and apart from the leave for health or private affairs reasons which they are still allowed to have once during their term of office. From that point of view Subsection (2) makes it clear that when they come home for a short period or go outside India for a short period for that purpose, their emoluments shall not be reduced. It is provided that when they come home for a long period and their places are taken by somebody else, they

  347
  should go from full pay to leave pay. On the other hand, when they come home, as an ambassador sometimes does, for a short period, it would be obviously unfair if their emoluments were cut down.
  Clause 5 is consequential and makes it clear that it is not necessary during one of these short visits outside India to appoint an acting Commander-in-Chief in the place of the Commander-in-Chief. After all, if he flies to Kandy for a few days he is no mare out of touch with his duties at Delhi than if he were visiting Madras. On the other hand, it is desirable in the case of the Viceroy that, however short his absence, there should be an acting Governor-General, and this Clause simply makes it clear that, while the position with regard to the Governor-General remains unchanged, it is not Obligatory to appoint an acting Commander-in-Chief.
  4.49 P.m.
  Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: After listening to the remarks of the Secretary of State, I am bound to say that there does not appear to be any terrible significance in this Bill. I notice that in another place, where the Bill was debated, no opposition was put forward to it. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in India there has been any substantial expression of opinion adverse in any way to any of the provisions of the Bill. There is such a black-out of information at the present time that ordinary Members of the House do not always know what is going on. In default of any such expression of opinion, the provisions of the Bill appear quite innocuous and seem to be rendered necessary by the peculiar facts of the times.
  The matter relating to the Upper Houses and the Provincial Governments in India naturally had to be dealt with in accordance with the practices which are going on as a consequence of the war. The proposal which the Government make is simply a sort of standstill arrangement, which would seem to me quite reasonable in the circumstances. With regard to the judges, I understand the proposal is merely intended to put beyond question what was certainly the intention in regard to them. That is, I understand, the only part of the Bill which is retrospective. It is simply to clear up doubts. I under-
  348
  stand that the matter of the number of advisers is only intended in case the statutory number should not be reached and that it is not the intention of the Secretary of State to reduce the numbers unless that should be actually necessary. If that be so, I do not think we should take any exception to it.
  Finally, with regard to this matter of the leave of the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of State himself said that conditions of leave today are totally different from what they were a few years ago. I do not know whether we all realise that fact, but it was brought home to us here when the Foreign Secretary left this country not long ago. He went out, and was back again within a week. Apparently he completed the business and came back, and if there had been no announcement that he was away, very few people would have known that he had gone. In reality, he went something like 3,000 miles from this country. Before the war it would have been several weeks before we could have had him home again. Conditions have changed so greatly that new provisions have to be made. A commander-in-chief can fly here, there and everywhere and still carry on his duties. It was essential that some provision should be made by which, in the absence of the Viceroy, someone could act, perhaps in a case of emergency. The provisions of the Bill in that respect should be enacted. Perhaps before we actually carry the Bill through its Second Reading I may be informed on the point which I have put to the right hon. Gentleman. The position may seem perfectly reasonable, but when one comes to examine it there may be some conceivable objection.
  4.53p.m.
  Mr. Amery: I can answer the questions put by my right hon. Friend to his complete satisfaction, I hope. No items of the Bill have been matters of political controversy in India: The question raised in Clause 1 was raised locally from the point of view of the Legislative Councils knowing where they stood. The second point was raised locally when a certain judge was transferred from one court to another. The point was whether, in fact, he was not to be considered still a member of his previous court. In the case of the advisers, my own experience includes the occasion when I was put in a

  349
  difficulty because an adviser could not come for a certain number of months. It was a question whether my minimum might not fall short during the interval before he could arrive. The question of the Commander-in-Chief was raised by Lord Wavell, in both his former capacity and his prospective capacity when he was home last. I do not think there is anything in the Bill which could arouse controversy in India.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Pym.]
  Committee To-morrow.

  INDIA (MISCELLANEOUS PRO VISIONS) [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Resolved:
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Government of India Act, 1935, in certain respects, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of revenues of India of such sums as may become payable therefrom by reason of any provisions of the first-mentioned Act."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Amery.]
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES (EXTEN SION) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.57 P.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The Bill deals with two or three different points, which I will explain to the House as briefly as I can. The House is no doubt aware that, under international law, nations recognise certain immunities and privileges as attaching to foreign Governments and their representatives. We enjoy those privileges in respect of our own Government and our own representatives abroad, and we concede them to foreign Governments and their representatives here. Clause I deals with the position where you have, not a single foreign Government, but a body which is an association of foreign Govern-
  350
  ments. One of the examples with which we are particularly concerned at the moment is the body which is called by its initials U.N.R.R.A. It may well be that, apart from Clause 1, our courts here would treat an association of foreign Governments in the same way as they treat a foreign Government; but it is desirable that the matter should be dealt with by legislation, first of all to remove doubts, secondly for reasons which I will explain shortly when I come to deal with the Clause in a little greater detail, and thirdly in order to enable us to apply to these associations a provision as to making a list of the privileged representatives, which has been done in this country with regard to foreign embassies ever since the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1708. If people are to be given the privileges to which they are entitled under international law it is very desirable that there should be an authoritative list of them. We can do that at present with the ordinary representatives of foreign Governments. One of the purposes of Clause 1 is to enable a list with statutory effect to be published of those affected and representing organisations such as U.N.R.R.A.
  The scheme of the Clause is this: Subsection 2 (a) deals with the immunities and privileges of the association, such as are enjoyed by foreign Governments as an association. The main immunities are, as the House knows, that a foreign Government cannot be sued in our courts unless it submits to the jurisdiction. It is also not liable to Income Tax, and the premises which it occupies enjoy certain immunity. Clause 1 (2) (a) of this Bill enables an Order in Council to be issued providing that an organisation, U.N.R.R.A. for example—
  Mr. Tinker: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman put U.N.R.R.A. in its proper terms? We are abbreviating everything now.
  The Attorney-General: It is the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association, hereinafter known as U.N.R.R.A. The organisation, which contains foreign Governments and ours, may enjoy such of the immunities and privileges as are specified in the Order. I would like to say something with regard to immunity from legal process in respect of contracts which may be entered into by a body such as U.N.R.R.A. as regards the future

  351
  policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter. To take U.N.R.R.A. as an example, by the nature of its activities it may want to enter into contracts in this country. It is desired by everybody that there should be no prejudice to persons who enter into contracts with it. In these contracts there will be clauses by which the parties will, if necessary, go to arbitration, and U.N.R.R.A. will not prevent access to the courts on a legal point, such as is available under our ordinary arbitration law. It will submit to the jurisdiction, if it is desired by the other party to take a legal point to the courts. If other bodies come along, which enter into contracts here, we shall see that similar arrangements are made for arbitration in case of disputes, and resort to the courts in those arbitration cases in the some way as the ordinary party contracts.
  Clause 1 (2, b and c) deals with the immunities conferred upon the representatives. The scheme is broadly this; the holders of high offices, other than British subjects, will have what are the normal full diplomatic immunities. It was thought right, indeed it has been agreed with those who have been conferred with about this organisation, that what one may call officials other than those at the top, instead of having the full diplomatic immunity should have an immunity akin to that which Consuls have, that is, an immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts but not otherwise, and no doubt immunity from direct taxation on their official salaries which they receive from a foreign Government or the organisation of Governments. That is the common practice. Our representatives abroad do not pay local tax on salaries they receive from us.
  Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South): But this applies to British subjects.
  The Attorney-General: Other than British subjects.
  Sir H. Williams: Under Clause 1 (2, c) it is British subjects as well.
  The Attorney-General: I may have been wrong. I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. It may be that the taxation exemption does not apply under (c). Perhaps I can have an opportunity of looking into that and deal with it at a later stage.
  Mr. Petherick: Is not (c) intended to apply to representatives of the Empire?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, they get immunity in respect of their official acts. I think it must be right that they should do that. I have already referred to Clause 1 (3). This enables a list to be drawn up of persons furnished with these privileges such as is now published in the London Gazette under the Act of Queen Anne. Sub-sections (3) and (4) deal with that. Sub-section (5) applies the provisions of the War Damage Act—
  Mr. A. Bevan: With regard to Sub-section (3) how can we challenge the list compiled by the Secretary of State? So far as I can see he can put almost anyone in that list.
  The Attorney-General: You cannot, but questions can be asked about it.
  Mr. Bevan: We should have to question each individual.
  The Attorney-General: It is a procedure which has been in operation for the last 230 years in respect of foreign Embassies. If anybody thinks that somebody has been put on who ought not to be, the matter can be raised in the ordinary way. The list is conclusive, that is the object of it, though naturally the Foreign Secretary's action in that respect, as in others, can be challenged in this House if anyone disagrees with it. [Interruption.] If anybody thinks that in this matter, or any other matter, the Foreign Secretary is not acting properly he can be challenged. The whole point of the list is that once it is issued that settles it. If people think it is a bad list—
  Mr. Bevan: May I put this point? In the normal case, the list will be supplied by the other Power to the Foreign Secretary. In this particular case, the list will be supplied by the other Powers acting in conjunction with the Government of which the Foreign Secretary is a member. It is not quite the same thing. If the representative of a foreign Power says "We would like immunity to be granted," the Foreign Secretary receives that application from the foreign Power. In this case it is partly through his own Government. In fact we may be excluding from our jurisdiction a very large number of British citizens.
  The Attorney-General: I should have thought that in some respects it was an advantage that we should have a say in the matter. I do not think there need be any controversy about the provision that these representatives should have immunity in respect of their official acts. I can deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). Officials dealt with under Clause 1 (2 c) will only get Income Tax exemption on their salaries if they are not British subjects ordinarily resident here. As the House will see, (c) gives a discretion to confer such exemptions as are specified in the Order provided that exemption is given in respect of the performance of official duties.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Might not the Order which specifies the privileges and immunities, specify them to be free from taxation and liable to pay duty in Customs and Excise?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, that is why I have given the House the assurance that British subjects ordinarily resident here will not be exempt from tax on their salaries. It is perfectly true that the Clause does give a general power. That is why I am stating what the intention is—the immunities normally given to Consular representatives. I think the advantage of (c) is that if you do not take this power to give what I call the lower stage of immunities it might be held that all the officials, under international law or ordinary principles, were entitled to the full privileges. It has been agreed that the full immunity shall be conferred only on the higher officials, and that the lower officials shall have, broadly speaking, only the Consular type of immunity.
  Mr. Stokes: In the event of a person normally resident not in this country but overseas, in the service of His Majesty's Government, returning here, would he be exempt from taxation because he was not normally resident here?
  The Attorney-General: Perhaps we can consider that later: it is rather a different point. The principle is that if a British subject is normally resident here and in the ordinary way pays British Income Tax, he should do so. If he were normally resident somewhere else and came here merely in the course of his duties, he should not do so. If he were here
  354
  year after year, of course, a different question might arise.
  Mr. Bowles: The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to read into the wording of the Bill what he was apprised of a few minutes ago. Can we be assured that the Bill will be amended so that he or I or anybody else can interpret it? Obviously, in the Bill the intention is not expressed.
  The Attorney-General: No, I think it is right to have the Bill in such a form that you can give the wider immunity, and leave it to the Order in Council to exempt British subjects from taxation in the way you would be bound to do in the case of those who were not British subjects normally resident here. But if my hon. Friend or anybody else has a point on which he would like the assurance of the Secretary of State, we will consider whether the assurance can be given. [Interruption.] The Order in Council comes before us, and if a Member thinks that exemptions are being granted that are wider than are reasonable he can raise the point when the appropriate Order in Council comes before us. There will be other organisations, and one does not know what their form will be. It is right that the Bill should give the power, and that the power should be applied by Order in Council. The Order in Council comes before the House.
  Mr. Bevan: It cannot be amended, unfortunately.
  The Attorney-General: No; the hon. Member knows that that is the case in respect of many matters. Clause 3 does not raise any question of principle. It deals with the diplomatic immunities of representatives attending international conferences. There is no doubt that under international law, which is recognised by various States, those representatives should have immunity, and it is convenient that we should be able to apply the procedure which we now apply to foreign Embassies to representatives attending these conferences. It is even more important that we should have such powers for these conferences, because people come suddenly to them in large numbers, whereas in Embassies they are often here for a long time. Clause 4 provides that the Act shall not preclude His Majesty's Government, if they are not having these privileges given to their

  355
  representatives in foreign countries, from taking counter-action here.
  Clause 5 raises no question of principle, but is necessary as a result of the wording of the Act, which Parliament passed in 1941, extending diplomatic privileges to members of the Allied Governments established in this country. At the time the Act was passed those Governments were established here. Some are now established elsewhere, although they have left one or two members here in London, and it is desirable that those members who are still here should continue to enjoy the immunities which the Act of Parliament intended to confer upon them. The wording of that Act makes it, at any rate, doubtful whether if the principal seat of the Government is removed elsewhere any Ministers left behind here can continue to enjoy the immunities. This Clause makes it clear.
  Mr. Austin Hopkinson: The Governments of Allied countries are to receive benefits under the Bill. Does that include both the legitimate Governments and the free Governments?
  The Attorney-General: The original Act referred to Allied Governments. It provided—
  Mr. Hopkinson: Very often there are two Governments.
  The Attorney-General: It provided for the publication of a list. I have not got the list here, but if anybody wanted to know whether any Minister of a particular Government was enjoying immunity under the Act he could look at the list and see. All the Clause does is to say that if you are on that list as a Minister you do not lose your immunity because the Government to which you belong are now principally established in another country.
  Mr. Bevan: Does His Majesty define the Governments to whom he desires these privileges to be extended?
  The Attorney-General: By looking at the list anybody can draw his own conclusions, because he will see certain individuals on it, and those who are familiar with the Government of that country will realise who are the representatives of that Government.
  Mr. Hopkinson: I may be obtuse, but I find this difficult to understand. Suppose that on this list there are representatives of both the legitimate Government and the free Government of a country, and they are occupying the same premises together, and suppose that a member of one Government happens to bump off a member of the other Government; has he diplomatic privilege?
  The Attorney-General: I think that if my hon. Friend is interested in the Government of some particular country he had better put a question, to the Foreign Secretary. What I can tell him is this. The Act deals with Allied Governments recognised by His Majesty's Government. He will find the names of the Ministers on the list. The only thing that this Clause does is to say that that immunity is not lost because the Government is not established here, although one or two who are on the list still remain.
  5.19 p.m.
  Mr. Creech Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a much ampler explanation of the Bill than was given in another place. But when I read the Bill in the first instance I was considerably puzzled by certain of its Clauses, and was not at all certain to whom the Bill would apply. There are still doubts in my mind. I would like to put them to the Attorney-General, in the hope that they can be removed. I know that there are certain safeguards in the Bill, but it is not at all clear why, at this very late hour, the Bill was necessary, how the discovery was made that such a Bill had become necessary.
  Further, it is not even clear, from the explanation already given to us, to whom the Bill is to apply. The Attorney-General said that it would operate in respect of associations of Governments, and he instanced the case of U.N.R.R.A. What is the position of organisations like the International Labour Office, which is constituted in a somewhat different way? Its representation is quite different. Is it, or would it be, in a position somewhat similar, say, to an organisation such as U.N.R.R.A., to which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention? Then, again, I would like to know what is the position supposing the International Labour Office were established in London, or if U.N.R.R.A. transferred its principal

  357
  office to London. Are we to understand that its permanent staff would be entitled to the immunities enjoyed by the normal diplomatic service?
  Again, many of the servants of these organisations will have their salaries paid by the funds of the association and not by the respective Governments which make up the association, and, therefore, it will be of interest to know whether, in the case of foreign subjects, other than British subjects, they would be entitled to the immunity from Income Tax to which the Attorney-General has referred. It is because there is some doubt in our minds as to the extent to which this Bill is going to apply, that we would like to have some satisfaction in regard to this point. In regard to the general principle of the Bill, we cannot, of course, take exception, but it would be of some interest to know what are the answers to the questions I have put.
  5.23 p.m.
  Sir Herbert Williams: The Attorney-General was not in his usual form in describing this Bill. I do not think he anticipated there would be so much interest in it, and he had not briefed himself as well as he usually does. He did not tell us why the Bill was introduced. Why should we confer upon these people these high advantages and privileges? You confer them on a foreign Ambassador because you treat him as the sovereign of another nation, and his Embassy as part of the territory of another nation. These people are quite different. They are traders, of a sort. What is the need for this Bill, and under what disability would these people suffer if they did not have this Bill? They will have a status far higher than that of Members of His Majesty's Government, far above the law, and can order things in his country, and need not pay for them.
  Mr. Bowles: They can go on the beaches and bathe.
  Sir H. Williams: That is a matter which the Attorney-General knows I am prevented from discussing. These people are exempt from rationing, and get all the food they want.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Hall)indicated dissent.
  Sir H. Williams: Does the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs suppose that British rationing applies to Embassies?
  Mr. Hall: I am not suggesting that British rationing applies to Embassies, but they cannot get all the food they like. There is a system of rationing applying to Embassies.
  Sir H. Williams: All I am saying is that Embassies get more food than British homes, and it is proposed that all these people, who are going to feed the starving peoples of Europe, are to be outside rationing themselves. They can have all the petrol they want, need not pay their bills, and can commit minor crimes and not be prosecuted.
  The Attorney-General: I did say, and I think it is probably right, that these people would have privileges as representatives of foreign Governments in any event. Being representatives of foreign Governments, they would have them. What this Bill does is to enable us to control them. [Interruption.]
  Sir H. Williams: Somebody who comes here not accredited as an Ambassador is in a quite different position, because an Ambassador represents the head of a State, and, because he does, you give him these privileges, but these are a lot of people, ordinary civil servants most of them, coming here to do a job, and you propose to put them outside the normal run of the law, enabling them to enter night clubs, drink after hours and all sorts of things. I should like that to be a very narrow list. I should like to be on it myself, for certain reasons; but that is another matter. Who will pay these people? If paid by the organisation they serve, they will be very happy, because they will pay no tax in their own country or here, whereas a diplomat here gets a salary which is taxable under the law of his own country, and he does pay tax at one end or another. Under this scheme, these people will not pay taxes to anybody. This is really the social revolution we have heard about, and all of us will want to join this club.
  The Government should think twice. What is the need for it? Is it to be extended to international organisations such as that of which the noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) is a member, dealing with international Jews? A whole crowd of

  359
  people are to be put outside the law. I think this is a most undesirable Bill, and the Government will have to make out a strong case for it. I hope also that they will make provision in Clause 2 that the Order in Council must be laid before the House, or it will be invalid, because we must not have the Foreign Secretary slipping up, as the Home Secretary did the other day. I hope the Government will not press this to a vote to-night. I think they will be surprised by the amount of opposition to this Bill, which seems to me to be totally unnecessary.
  5.28 p.m.
  Sir Irving Albery: Personally, I am very glad to see the amount of interest in this Bill. I have always understood that diplomatic privileges are already extended in several directions to a far further degree than is either necessary or desirable, and that anything we ought to do along those lines is rather to curtail the extent of these privileges than to extend them. I listened to the Attorney-General when he was explaining the Bill, but what I most wanted to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman never referred to. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say a single word, so far as I remember, to inform us in what respect the diplomatic privileges were necessary to the body or bodies to whom they are intended to apply. We all know that there is a tradition of diplomatic privilege given to representatives of foreign States, but, when it comes to extending these privileges to different kinds of organisations, then, at least, we are entitled to be given a definite reason and to have explained to us in detail why such diplomatic privileges are necessary. In the explanation we have heard up to the present, I really could not see any case for these diplomatic privileges, and it seems to me that if the Government did, in fact, find it necessary to make special provision for these organisations, they should have come to this House with a short Bill, drawn for that purpose, according them such privileges as are absolutely necessary for the proper performance of their duties, and not ask us to give to them a whole lot of diplomatic privileges which do not appear to be necessary.
  In the past, we in this country have given diplomatic privileges to Government trading organisations. I never was
  360
  able to understand why that was necessary. If any trading organisations come to this country, whether they be private or public, I cannot see for the life of me what need they have for diplomatic privileges. One cannot ignore the fact that however necessary certain degrees of diplomatic privilege may be when dealing with foreign relations, I can conceive that if an Ambassador wishes to express in unmeasured terms his opinion of our Foreign Minister it is something he would naturally desire to be confidential and be quite sure that that expression of opinion would not be conveyed to the Foreign Minister in question. That kind of diplomatic privilege and diplomatic security I can understand, but so far as trading is concerned, I cannot see what there is which would necessitate diplomatic protection.
  5.31 p.m.
  Mr. Tinker: I have listened to the Attorney-General, and I agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) that the Government are inclined to think that owing to its being, war-time, anything that comes before the House can be got through without any trouble at all. It makes one suspicious. We on this side have believed that what is called the extension of diplomatic privileges is something which belongs to a particular class and does not come down to the level of common people. I cannot understand that a Measure in the fifth year of the war, and when we are nearing the end of the war, should be used for this purpose and allowed to go through. This is a Bill which has come from another place, and I am always suspicious when they send anything down here, and I wonder what is behind it. It appears to me that it is for the benefit of a very particular class, whom they are trying to help forward in this matter. I hope that the House will take a stand on the matter, and I feel inclined to oppose the Bill. There is no need for it. More useful Measures could be brought forward at a time like this than patched-up Measures of this kind. There is the question of Income Tax and what should be paid, and once we start on that kind of thing we raise the question in the minds of our people, "Is there a special class that can evade Income Tax?" There are so many other things in this which appear to be given to certain privileged people while

  361
  ordinary people have to put up with the present condition of things. I am far from satisfied, and if there is a Division I shall vote against the Bill.
  5.35 P.m.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: I listened to what the learned Attorney-General had to say in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, and I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) that we should be extremely careful about granting any extension at all of diplomatic privilege. We do not know how many people will be taken outside the jurisdiction of our courts in some degree or other by the exercise by the Foreign Secretary of a power which this Bill seeks to impose upon him. I ask the House to consider the position of the people who are referred to in Clause 1, Sub-section (2, c). The employees of one of these organisations will not be on the highest level. They are to get immunity from legal processes so far as things done or omitted to be done in the performance of their special duties are concerned. Why? Is any civil servant in Whitehall given such immunity, and why should a British employee of U.N.R.R.A. working in Portland Place get that immunity? I cannot see any reason for that at all, and indeed no reason has been put forward by the Attorney-General.
  Let me go further than that. These juvenile employees are not merely to be given immunity from legal process in connection with their duties; they are to be given such privileges and immunities as may be specified by the Foreign Secretary. That may be something or nothing. We are told to-day—and it does not appear in the Bill—that that will not mean freedom from liability to Income Tax. Are there any other taxes? Will people be entitled to go into a shop and buy things without paying Purchase Tax? Will they be able to get petrol without paying part of the Petrol Duty? Will the petrol licence apply to them? Why should they be put into a class by themselves? They are British subjects. Why should they be entitled to drive cars, and to drive them so furiously as to be guilty of manslaughter and then be free from trial? I cannot see why the Bill is being applied to this class. We are extending diplomatic privilege beyond all limits previously granted. If the Government can make out a case for the heads of these
  362
  organisations having some degree of immunity, such a case has not yet been made out at all. So far as other classes of officers and servants of the organisation are concerned, I can see no reason at all for granting them any immunity from the jurisdiction of our courts, or any immunity from taxation, and I, therefore, think that, before the Bill is given a Second Reading, we ought to be satisfied that it really is necessary at this time.
  5.38 p.m.
  Mr. A. Bevan: The House was asked some years ago to pass a Bill for granting extra-territorial rights to certain nations in this country. We passed that Bill very hurriedly at the instance of the Government, and very many British people and very large numbers of Americans have repented the way they did it on that occasion. It would have been very much better if the House of Commons had spent a little more time in considering what we did then. A great deal of resentment might have been prevented, and a great deal of ill-feeling might never have occurred, if we had not given away our powers so hurriedly, and with so little qualification, as we did on that occasion.
  I do not want to enter into details because it would, perhaps, give rise to bad feeling at this stage to do so, but I know very many good friends in other countries who deplore the fact that the House of Commons acceded to the request of the Government to extend privileges and extra-territorial rights, which have in many parts of the country caused very considerable friction. The Government have been very bad leaders of the House of Commons in this respect. What is being done here? I can appreciate, as I think every Member here can, that we are in a state of affairs where it might be necessary to assemble in any capital city, a large number of nationals belonging to very many different countries having specific international tasks to perform. Maybe it is necessary for us in those circumstances to modify certain sovereign rights and to exempt those people from the law of the country in which they happen to reside at the moment. We are living under very exceptional conditions and we have exceptional tasks to perform, and I can quite understand that may happen. But if it has to happen, why should we not have the conditions and limitations

  363
  clearly defined, and the persons to whom they are to be extended described properly? For instance, I do not see any reason at all why a British subject, if he happens to be employed by U.N.R.R.A. in London, should be exempted from British laws.
  There may be a case, though I cannot imagine it, why an American citizen living in London and employed by U.N.R.R.A. should be exempt from English laws. I do not see why we should not extend to other nations the benefit of British jurisprudence. I am astonished that the Government should have such a poor view of our legal system as to confine its benefits to so few people, but apparently we think that our own standards of jurisprudence are uncivilised, and if large numbers of people happen to come to this country we immediately want to exempt them. Do I understand that if an assembly of American citizens are employed by U.N.R.R.A. in London, they are, therefore, subject in London to American laws? This is a very important matter. To what laws are they subject? They are exempted from the jurisdiction of our own law. Now to what laws are they subject? Just imagine a very large building in London, in which are housed some thousands of people, some American, some French, some Dutch, some Belgian, some Swedish—all the the nations of the world living in the same building. Now would the Attorney-General tell me to what body of jurisprudence all those persons are subject? What common standard is there? Obviously, although they are in London they are not subject to our laws because this Bill puts them outside them. To what body of laws are they subject? What codes of conduct govern their behaviour?
  I can imagine, and I think all the Members of the House of Commons can imagine it being desirable, if you are going to have international functions such as these people are discharging, that you should have international codes of conduct to guide them. Where are they? We have not heard a word about them this evening. They are obviously not going to be our codes of conduct because we specifically put them outside those frontiers. We are putting them outside, but into what are we putting them? We are putting them into a juridical vacuum,
  364
  because, even if it be assumed that each particular congeries of nationals is subject to the laws of the particular nation to which it belongs, in their common activities in that building and in that country they are under no common obligations at all. I speak as a person convinced that certain sovereign rights have to be taken away, that we have to limit certain sovereign claims.
  I admit, as I think my hon. Friend here speaking for the Labour Party admits, that these international obligations, if they are to be discharged sincerely, must necessarily be accompanied by limitations of sovereign rights. But if rights are to be taken away, there must be some official receiver, some one who accepts the rights which you have given away. Who is it? We know our part in the business. Our part is to give the rights away, but who receives them? Surely the corollary of this Bill is for the Government to have accepted the obligation of telling us what tribunal, what body of law, what system of conduct, what codes are to be superimposed upon the national codes of jurisprudence to which these people could be subject. But the Government have not told us anything at all. The Government have simply come along and asked us to abrogate our rights without realising that when we confer immunities upon certain people we take away rights from British subjects, because every time that we say to a person resident in London—or to a British subject employed by U.N.R.R.A.—that he is exempted from British laws, persons entering into contact with him are denied their rights. If they are denied their rights, to what tribunal do they appeal? Where do they go?
  The Attorney-General: I am sure my hon. Friend will remember that part of my speech which dealt with the arbitration clause contracts, and I give the assurance on behalf of U.N.R.R.A., that they would not use their immunity as an association of sovereign Governments to preclude access to the courts.
  Mr. A. Bevan: I am sorry, but I think the House is with me in this matter, when I say that I am rather tired of assurances from the Front Bench. Why are these things not put in a body of legislation? No one can take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's assurances to the courts. In fact the court is not defined.

  365
  The arbitration tribunal itself is not set up. The tests are not established. I am trying to show here that we are at the beginning of a developing series of events. This is not merely an ad hoc situation with which we are dealing, because it is perfectly obvious to any student of international affairs that you are bound to have these international activities cutting across national frontiers and interfering in national systems of jurisprudence. In those circumstances it is obvious that we must regularise the codes of behaviour to govern the people that are to be given these special privileges. Therefore, I suggest seriously to the House of Commons—not merely as an intellectual exercise but as a part of our duties—that we ought not to allow the Government to have this Bill until they have thought the matter out very much more carefully.
  May I say this, too, to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because I have been very worried about this in the last six or seven months? I can see very clearly that we are going to be faced with considerable constitutional difficulties. Over centuries we have known how to govern the behaviour of our own citizens. We have got control over our own representatives—not as much as I think sometimes we ought to have—but, nevertheless, when those representatives enter into relationships with other countries, we have not yet developed any constitutional way of having sufficient control over them. International relationships have gone very largely beyond the control of the House of Commons. Our representatives go to Washington, Quebec or to Hot Springs. They enter into obligations or understandings with representatives of other countries which we have not discussed beforehand. We do not know what they are going to be and they involve limitations. I am not quarrelling with it; I am saying it is absolutely essential. You have here some sort of world organisation in embryo and it is developing. But with this development the House of Commons must consider what constitutional adaptations it ought to make in order to extend its control over these representatives, and the obligations into which they enter in our name.
  Here we have the Government coming forward with a Bill which is implementing the arrangements entered into by persons to whom we have given no autho-
  366
  rity at all. We have not discussed them; we do not know the things to which they refer. They can enter into contracts worth millions of pounds and involving hundreds of thousands of our citizens, with no body of doctrine and no clearly thought out principles by which we ought to govern their conduct. These things always happen when new worlds are coming into being, but we ought to govern the birth pangs a litle bit. We ought to apply a little twilight sleep to it. It ought not to be necessary to go through these agonies every time, and I suggest that we ought to consider this matter very much further before we allow the Government to have this Bill.
  The Attorney-General said that we are to have an Order in Council which will define the lists of persons. Why should it be necessary that there should be an Order in Council? If it is proposed to confer immunity upon certain persons, or a certain category of persons, why cannot that be included in the Schedule to the Bill? Why should we have to wait for an Order in Council? When an Order in Council comes into force we cannot amend it. You put one reputable person in it, surrounded by a number of doubtful individuals, and we have to accept all the doubtful ones for fear of rejecting the reputable one. Why should we have to confer these powers on the Executive and then wait for the way they intend to exercise them in an Order in Council? Honestly, it is most undignified for the House of Commons to behave in this way. We are bringing down upon ourselves the contempt of other countries in parting so easily with the traditional powers of this House.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. Petherick: Being of a harmonious character, I dislike disagreeing with people and if I have to disagree I prefer to do so as little as possible. I am happy to say that I have to disagree with only one person, and that is my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. I am in most cordial agreement with every Member of this House who has expressed misgivings about the Bill to which we are asked to give a Second Reading to-night. I notice that at the moment there is no representative of the Foreign Office on the Front Bench—
  Mr. Stokes: He has gone for instructions.
  Mr. Petherick: Yes, I think he may be acting in the nature of a human S.O.S. to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Be that as it may, there ought to be a representative of the Foreign Office on the Front Bench during the whole course of this important Bill, particularly so as I would like to begin by asking a question to which I should have hoped he would have been able to reply. We have had during this year, a very large staff of representatives in the United States of America, shipping representatives, Ministry of Supply representatives and any number of others, and I want to know whether they have had, during the time they have been there, diplomatic immunity in the United States. It is very important that we should know that, because if they have been able to carry on all these years without diplomatic immunity then the reason for giving diplomatic immunity to representatives of U.N.R.R.A. is very much less than it otherwise might have been. Therefore, I sincerely hope that we shall get a specific reply on that point from the Foreign Office.
  I join with other Members in asking whoever is to reply to the Debate why this Bill is necessary now. The Attorney-General gave an explanation of what the Bill does, which we were very glad to have, and cleared up a good many points in answer to questions, but, with respect, and in friendly fashion, I want to tell him that he did not say why the Bill was necessary, why it was required and what exact purpose the Government envisaged. He did not say whether U.N.R.R.A. would have this immunity, or whether there are other organisations in view. I can foresee all kinds of difficulties. In the period of post-war reconstruction it is more than probable that other organisations of an international character will be set up, possibly sitting in London, to deal with different aspects of post-war reconstruction. I can foresee that many of those organisations may need, or think they need, very large staffs. Who is to decide how large a staff any organisation is to have? Is it to be the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Suppose country X goes to the Secretary of State and says "I want a further 200 typists or 200
  368
  officials". It puts the Foreign Secretary in an awkward position, similar to that of the Treasury here, if he has to say, "No, you shall not have any more." It might cause a certain amount of ill-feeling of an international character. The Secretary of State would be put in the awkward position of saying, "No, you have far too many officials already, and I really cannot add to that list".
  I can see, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) pointed out, a very large extension of the numbers of persons enjoying diplomatic immunity in London in the future, who may have great blocks of buildings and practically enjoy extra-territoriality, something like the Chinese ports. It might be something like a "Wei-hei-wei Westminster," and it may be extremely difficult to refuse an application on behalf of a foreign Government for an extra block of buildings in order that that Government may be engaged, not necessarily on U.N.R.R.A. work, but on pure propaganda. A number of countries may be so engaged. I think that is dangerous. I am not thinking of only one country, which some Members may think I have in mind; I am thinking of any country which may want a good propaganda service here, and may conceivably use this Bill in order to obtain diplomatic immunity. I would like to ask at whose instance this Bill has been introduced. Who asked for it? Who has been consulted? Have any international organisations such as the inter-Governmental Departmental Committee on Refugees been consulted?
  The Attorney-General: I ought to tell my hon. Friend and the House that the Governments which met together to form U.N.R.R.A. did agree that they would recommend to their respective Legislatures immunity on these lines. I apologise to the House that I did not make that clear. That is why the Bill has been brought forward.
  Sir Percy Harris: Is the United States Congress having a similar Bill of this kind?
  The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. The various constituent members of U.N.R.R.A. agreed that privileges on these lines should be conferred.
  Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Bill be strictly limited to U.N.R.R.A., or apply

  369
  to a large number of functional organisations which are growing up? Will it operate in connection with other bodies already existing, such as the I.L.O. and the refugees' organisation, and so on?
  The Attorney-General: That is why we thought, instead of coming back each time for a separate Bill, we would take power to deal with international organisations by successive Orders in Council.
  Mr. Petherick: I take it that the other Governments have agreed with the British Government that similar powers will be asked for. I do not know whether that includes all the Allied Powers and whether they have all agreed. It would be very interesting to know. It would also be interesting to know the reasons why these powers are being asked for. I should feel very disinclined to believe that they are really necessary. In normal times it was found that a foreign Embassy or Legation had to have diplomatic privileges as the representatives of a foreign Power had to carry on their job of representing their Power in certain capitals and it was difficut to carry it on without granting them certain privileges. They were confined to a narrow group for whom it was found to be absolutely necessary to enable them to carry on their job.
  We have not been told yet why such privileges are necessary to enable U.N.R.R.A. or any other organisation of a similar nature to carry out its job. They can work in this country in exactly the same way as the denizens of Whitehall, the civil servants. If they have to communicate with their Government they can go to the Embassy or the Legation concerned and ask them to transmit a cable. We are extremely grateful to see the Leader of the House arrive and we hope he will be able to give answers to the cogent questions which many of my hon. Friends have put. I hope he will regard it as advisable to take a little more time to consider whether these privileges are necessary and whether it would not be better to wait for a week or two before proceeding with the Bill so as to give time to the House and the Government to examine the whole matter very much more carefully.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Stokes: I join with others who have spoken in asking the Government not to proceed further to-night with the Bill. The Attorney-General has
  370
  explained neither the reasons nor the necessity for it. We are told that the United Nations have agreed to this. If that is so, why could it not have been proceeded with in the ordinary way and why should we not have been told, when the Bill was presented, the benefits that we are going to get out of it in exchange for the benefits we are giving to other people? I have not heard, except that there has been this subterfugeous arrangement with other nations, any reason given by the Attorney-General for the necessity for this Bill. I am perplexed still more when I hear from the Attorney-General about the high officers, whom he did not attempt to describe, who are referred to in Sub-section 1 (2, c). The paragraph is left quite wide, and we do not know to whom it refers. These people will be free of any Income Tax and in the same sort of position as our Ambassadors abroad. The Attorney-General is wrongly informed. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman who was until recently the Member for Chelsea, and has passed over to another place and now calls himself something else, was the only person of ambassadorial rank who was in receipt of a salary free of tax.
  The Attorney-General: What I said was that our Ambassadors abroad are not subject to local Income Tax in the countries in which they are Ambassadors.
  Mr. Stokes: I am referring particularly to persons in this country who are Britishers holding high office who are going to be exempt from Income Tax.
  The Attorney-General: Not if they are British subjects.
  Mr. Stokes: The Attorney-General said that the only people not exempt from Income Tax are the lower salaried people and that the higher officers would be exempt.
  The Attorney-General: Other than British subjects.
  Mr. Stokes: But that was not the explanation given. It is clear, then, that the high officers will be subject to Income Tax. Otherwise, we shall have the same position as exists in other organisations in the Government, where large numbers of wealthy people engaged in secret service are enjoying large salaries free of Income Tax. I do not understand how, commercially, some of us are going to be placed. With

  371
  whom are we to enter into contracts? It is probably within the knowledge of my right hon. and learned Friend that U.N.R.R.A. places orders in this country. Who signs the orders and what redress have we got against a man who signs and then refuses to pay? That has happened already—I do not mean the nonpayment, but that contracts have been placed. Several firms within my knowledge have received contracts from U.N.R.R.A. If the person responsible for placing the contracts runs out on his obligations, or someone says that he had no authority to sign, where does the commercial firm stand? Nowhere at all. Will the Government indemnify it, and, if so, with what? With the taxpayers' money? I do not think the Government have really considered that point. It seems to me that the Attorney-General came to the House without having really properly considered the Bill; certainly without having any foreknowledge of the kind of spontaneous opposition which would arise. I hope that in view of the continued and persistent opposition from all sides of the House the Government will not proceed further with this Bill to-day.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. Hutchinson: The House will be strengthened in its determination not to accede too readily to this Bill by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). The case against the Bill can be stated very shortly. I do not propose to enter into the question whether these fortunate gentlemen will be exempted from Income Tax, whether they will be excused from food rationing, or what other privileges they may acquire under this Bill. The real case against the Bill is that it constitutes a serious invasion of the rights of very many British citizens.
  Let us see what it is admitted that this Bill will do. These organisations will come to this country and they and their officers will drive about the streets in motor cars. They may knock down one of my constituents or a constituent of any Member of this House. In the ordinary course that individual would have a right to claim in respect of his injury and, if his claim was not satisfied, could go to the courts to enforce it. But he will not be able to do that if the driver is protected by diplomatic privileges.
  372
  If some good reason had been given us why British citizens should be put in this very unadvantageous position the House might have been more ready to agree to the Bill. But I am of the same opinoin as my hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick). No real reason has been given to us for making these considerable invasions into the rights of British subjects. Take the case just put by the hon. Member for Ipswich. Many of these organisations are going to be trading organisations. They will come to this country and will make contracts in the ordinary course of business. Suppose a dispute arises in regard to a contract. The person with whom the contract was made will be deprived of the right which he would otherwise have of going to court and presenting his claim and enforcing it, if he could, against the organisation. Why should British subjects be subjected to disadvantage? If we are asked to make what appear to be unreasonable inroads into the rights of our people good reasons should surely be given us why we should do so.
  No doubt my right hon. and learned Friend will say that one of the advantages which we shall get from the Bill is that the same privileges will be extended to our own representatives in the foreign countries to which they may go as a part of these organisations. I am bound to say that I have never been able to see that reciprocity is in itself a very great advantage. I see no reason why a British citizen, in an official capacity in the United States, should knock down an American citizen and not have to pay the compensation which the law of the United States would otherwise require him to pay. It may be a great convenience to the official concerned that that should be so, but I have never been able to see any public advantage in it. If a British organisation or a British official goes to some foreign country and employs a staff, and a member of the staff is injured, I could never understand why the member of his staff should not be entitled to recover compensation, according to the laws of the State in which he lives. Nor have I ever been able to see that there is any reason why, if foreigners come to this country and employ a staff, their servants should not be entitled to recover compensation in the usual way; but they may not be able to do so, if the Bill passes into law.

  373
  There is another point which I desire to bring to the attention of the House. We are not being asked to agree to this Bill as an emergency Measure. The Bill, if passed, will become part of the permanent law of this country. I can see that, in the conditions which will arise in the period immediately following the end of the war, there may be good reasons why this House should be asked to do exceptional things which we would not do in normal times. If the Bill were restricted in its operation to that period my objection would be much less strong than it is. But that is not the case. We are being asked to pass this Bill as a part of our permanent legislation and it will be open to the Foreign Secretary and his successors at any future time to make orders exempting officials of these or other organisations and the organisations themselves from the ordinary law of this country. I would remind the House that in 1941 Parliament extended diplomatic privilege to the members of those foreign Governments who had taken refuge in this country. That was done. But when that was done, it was limited to the period of the emergency. The Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1941, was restricted in its operation, so far as my recollection goes, to the period during which the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act is in operation. If this Bill had been limited in that way I should have felt much less strong objection to it than I do. But it is not. I put it to my right hon. Friend that the House ought not to be invited in this way to make a permanent alteration of our law. We ought not to be asked to give a permanent power to every Foreign Secretary who will follow my right hon. Friend to exempt persons from the ordinary process of law. At least before we do so we should have some indication of what is regarded as making this exceptional course necessary.
  6.17 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I apologise to the House for not being in my place for the earlier part of this discussion, but I have already heard enough to understand that this Bill is not being received with universal acclaim. I should be the last to complain, and I hope that any Minister at this Box would be the last to complain, of this House being vigilant in respect of the granting of power of this kind. I agree that we have to be care-
  374
  ful in any extension we grant at any time of diplomatic privileges. I would like to say at once to my hon. and learned Friend who has just spoken that it may be that it is desirable that we should limit the period of this Measure, but I would like, if the House would agree, to give some consideration to the speeches that have been made and to the arguments put during this discussion. It may be that as a result of that examination the Government will decide in some measure to redraft or recast the Bill, and then I would come back to the House and give, I trust, explanations which might be convincing for whatever power we shall ask for. Under those conditions I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  WAR DAMAGE INSURANCE (PRIVATE CHATTELS SCHEME)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. Hutchinson: I desire to call attention to an aspect of the War Damage Insurance, Private Chattels Scheme, which seems to me to involve a considerable hardship upon persons whose goods are insured under this scheme. The House may recollect that under the terms of the scheme a limitation in point of value is imposed upon any single article insured under a policy of insurance in which a number of different articles are comprised. There is a limitation of 5 per cent. of the total value of all the articles insured under the policy or a sum of £50, whichever is the greater.
  The effect of this limitation can be very shortly stated. Take the case of a person who owns household furniture of the value of £500 to, let us say, £1,000. It may well be that amongst the articles of household furniture is some article, such as a piano, which is an article of considerable value, no doubt costing considerably more than 5 per cent. of the total value of the goods which are insured under the policy, or more than £50, which is the maximum that he is entitled to recover if the sum is less than

  375
  5 per cent. of the total sum insured. Suppose that this unfortunate person loses the whole of the articles which are insured under this policy. There are many people who have had that misfortune, particularly in recent months. The result of the limitation is that in respect of the most valuable article which he possesses, he is not able to recover anything like the original cost of the article, and certainly nothing like the value of its replacement at the present time. Let me take another case to illustrate this point. Take the case of a person who owns a number of articles, not a complete outfit, of household furniture, but including an article of considerable value: it may be a wireless set or a fur coat. There are many persons who own articles insured under a policy 'including a fur coat. If those articles are destroyed the owner is restricted, whatever the value of the articles, unless it is very considerable, to a maximum of £50 in respect of the sum which he can recover under the War Damage Acts.
  Last July I asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade a Question about this matter, I invited him to reconsider this limitation and to substitute for it a limitation of a rather different kind, under which the owner of the articles insured would have been required, at the time when he took out the policy, to have an agreed valuation of the articles insured under the policy. My right hon. Friend was not willing to agree to that—if he had been, of course, I should not have been raising the matter to-night. In the course of his reply, he gave reasons Why it was considered that this limitation was a reasonable one. One of the things he said was:
  "The purpose of the limitation is to guard the State and the public from having to pay large sums of money to people who lose works of art and valuable objects as a result of enemy action. The better course is to place these objects in a safe place, which is not difficult to do. The purpose of this scheme is to reimburse people of moderate means for the loss of essential articles, and not of highly-priced articles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1944; Vol. 402, C. 17–18.]
  It is all very well to say that these objects ought to be placed in a place of safety. But is every owner of a grand piano expected to remove it from his house and put it in a furniture depository? Is every lady who owns a fur coat expected to put
  376
  it away in a place of safety and then to go to my right hon. Friend and ask for coupons for something to take its place? I venture to think that, When the Minister gave me that reply, he did not really appreciate the sort of hardship which arises from this limitation. I think he had in mind the question of works of art and articles of special value. This limitation does not, technically, apply to works of art, which no doubt ought to be placed in a safe place. There is another Clause, I think it is Clause 4, which imposes a limitation in respect of works of art and articles of special value, including furs. So that when the Minister gave me that reply, I venture to think that he really misconceived the grounds upon which I was asking for an amendment of the scheme.
  There is a further matter to which I desire to refer. This limitation does, in fact, recognise that a person who has insured a number of articles under a single policy may possess articles which will far exceed that which he will be entitled to recover under the conditions of this limitation, and, therefore, there is an exception in respect of motor cars, invalid carriages and yachts. If you happen to be the fortunate possessor of a yacht or an invalid carriage, you will be entitled to recover the value if it is destroyed by a flying bomb; but, if you happen to be the unfortunate owner of a grand piano or a radiogram wireless set than is worth more than £50, and the articles Which you insure do not exceed in value £1,000, you will not get more than £50 for your radio set or your grand piano, although you would have got the full value of an invalid carriage or a yacht or a motor car if you had happened to possess one. That really is a limitation which is not logical at all. If you are going to pay out on motor cars, invalid carriages and yachts, there is no reason why you should not pay on grand pianos, radiograms and ladies' fur coats as well.
  Let me make one further observation. When I asked my Question last July, I suggested that the right course for the Minister to take was to require the person who desired insurance for these valuable articles to lodge, with his application for a policy, an agreed valuation of the articles. Last July, I thought that was a reasonable thing to ask. A great many things have happened since then. During the

  377
  last few weeks—I think that I am not now giving away secrets or offending against security in saying this—as I climbed about the ruins of what was once part of my constituency, I certainly saw abundant evidence that a great many people are going to suffer under this limitation. I would ask the Minister, having regard to the losses from these flying bomb attacks, that these unfortunate people, whose homes are reduced to heaps of broken rubble and timber, should not now be expected to bear the additional hardship of not being able to recover the full value of some articles of special value which they happened to possess. I ask him to consider whether it might not be reasonable, having regard to the fact that we are approaching the time when there will not be much more damage, to reconsider the whole matter and not let the unfortunate people who have lost a grand piano, a radiogram or a fur coat, be in any worse position than the more fortunate possessor of a motor car, yacht or invalid carriage.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse): My hon. and learned Friend has raised a very reasonable point in a most reasonable way, but his argument is open to a certain amount of criticism. He has looked on this particular scheme as if it were a pure measure of insurance but in fact it is not an ordinary insurance scheme at all. An ordinary insurance scheme is a self-balancing scheme, whether it is a State scheme or a commercial scheme. It is a scheme into which people pay in accordance with the expectation of loss; one in which the premiums balance the amount which will ultimately be drawn in claims. That is not so in this particular case.
  When the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this Measure in 1941 we had no idea at all of the extent of the damage we would suffer. We just guessed a premium, and in fact the guess was not a very bad one. Although the premiums have gone some way to meet the damage, there is still, and there will remain, a margin which has to be found from the general taxpayers' pockets. Therefore, one can put some limitations on the amount of the claims which may be made on the scheme. It was made clear when the Bill was introduced that the com-
  378
  munity should collectively compensate sufferers, but not to the extent of replacing all the articles of value which they lost. It would be agreed—and I think my hon. and learned Friend would agree—that there must be a limit somewhere; that a very valuable picture or piece of furniture should not be replaced at the full market value. He has instanced pianos and wireless sets and has spoken of the damage in his own constituency in comparatively small houses there. Nobody realises this more fully than who have seen this damage, and nobody sympathises more than I do with those who have suffered from the damage, but I suggest there are comparatively few wireless sets in those houses which are even to-day worth £50. Many of the pianos in those houses, at the price at which one could buy a piano before the war, would not cost anything like £50 when new, and in a secondhand condition would, in ordinary circumstances, be worth materially less than £50. One has to realise that this Measure has been in operation for some 3½ years and I can tell the House that, although we have had certain complaints on this subject, they have been few. There has been no general complaint, and from that we can fairly deduce that there has been no general grievance, though that is not for a moment to say that there have not been individual cases of hardship.
  Mr. Hutchinson: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman forgive me a moment? If the cases are not large in number, may I renew my appeal to regard this limited number of cases with generosity?
  Captain Waterhouse: No, my hon. and learned Friend has quite misunderstood me. I did not say that the cases were limited in number. What I said, or what I certainly meant to imply, was that those who have put in claims which included articles of more than £50 in value have realised the equity of the provision which we made in putting on this limitation, and have accepted that limitation. After all, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, let us be clear on this—that this Measure came before the House of Commons in its present form and was accepted by the House with these limitations in it, and there have been no new circumstances at all which can justify this particular claim now. My hon. and learned Friend's case was just as strong, and indeed a good deal

  379
  stronger, in 1940–1941 than it is in 1944 because, as he will agree, the damage in those days was far more serious, although perhaps no more extensive. There were far more houses demolished then with all their contents than have been demolished during the recent troubles, though probably the number superficially damaged may be almost as great now as it was then. Further, the Chancellor on 25th February, 1941, made this point very clear in his speech on the recommittal of the Bill in this House. He said:
  "The only restriction I would make would be the obvious one, that the amount of cover should be limited in respect of such things as jewellery, antiques and specially valuable articles." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1941; Vol. 369, c. 396.]
  Therefore, from the very outset, it was felt, and as I have said, was generally accepted, that there should be a limitation on these values.
  My hon. and learned Friend says that he thinks the trouble is nearly over, and that therefore it would not be unreasonable to make some concession. He has suggested that there should be an agreed schedule of valuation lodged with the policy. I agree that that might be administratively possible for future damage but, pray God, future damage in this country will be slight indeed. But would it be fair to do such a thing now? Would it be fair to say that for the few houses we hope and believe will be damaged in future, we are going to make a special concession, but are going to do nothing for all the cases which have already taken place? My hon. and learned Friend may say, no, that he would like his suggestion to be retrospective, but will he consider with me for a moment the administrative difficulties in such a provision? Many of the claims have been postponed for payment until after the war, but the claims have been settled and filed away. The claimant has been told how much he is to expect and he has agreed the sum. In due course he will receive a draft for that amount. In other cases, however, for special reasons, payment has already been made. Quite a number- of cases of special hardship have been proved and paid out of hand. Is it really suggested by my hon. and learned Friend that all these cases, both the ones paid out and the ones still to be paid, should be re-opened, that the
  380
  files should be examined again, that people should be invited to claim for any article which was destroyed three and a half years ago in the blitz of 1940 or 1941 which they now think was worth more than £50 at that time? I am quite certain that if my hon. and learned Friend will think about that for a moment or two he will realise that it would set our staff a task with which even they would have the very greatest difficulty in dealing.
  Mr. Hutchinson: Surely a settled claim must show that certain articles have been scaled down to the particular limit of limitation. Surely there would be no administrative difficulty in reopening claims to that extent.
  Captain Waterhouse: My case is not that the thing could not be done but that it would be an administrative task of great magnitude. If a case had been made out—which I submit has not been made out—that without this a great wrong would have been done to the subjects of this country, then clearly it would be possible to do it, but I submit that the task would be a great one. In equity it was well understood from the outset that no payments over £50 were to be expected. It was well understood that this was not an insurance scheme in the general sense but that the object of the scheme was merely to help those who had had damage inflicted upon them and to take the worst of the hardships away from His Majesty's subjects who suffered from the war.
  There is, however, one small provision which may be of some little consolation to my hon. and learned Friend. He spoke of the difference in prices, and said that they had materially increased. It is true that anybody who tried to buy a piano now would have to pay a great deal more for it, and it is equally true that everybody who had lost a piano, and who tried to buy one now, would not succeed in doing so because there are not nearly enough to go round. But for those who lost these more valuable articles and any other articles there is a certain undertaking to scale up compensation, which, on the authority of His Majesty's Government, I gave in this House on 3rd June, 1942, when I stated that the Government had in mind the possibility or hardships arising to persons of modest resources and that if the price

  381
  level at the date of payment differed materially from that on which compensation was based, while it would not be right in the Government's view to call upon the general taxpayer to find money to pay for additional compensation for the replacement of articles which were not necessary for a reasonable standard of life, they would be prepared to consider, should post-war price levels and other circumstances require it, the adequacy of compensation in the case of the small man. Under this I did not at all envisage the re-examination of the value of individual articles, but I do envisage that if when a claim, settled for £300 in 1941, comes to be paid, prices—one does not know what they will be—are, say, 25 per cent. higher than they were then, in such circumstances, under this provision, a claimant would receive not £300 but £300 plus a sum which will make up to him for the decrease in the purchasing value of money.
  Mr. Woodburn: The point which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just raised is an important one to people with small incomes. Does that also apply to the general insurance which is not covered by premium where, I think, we replace up to £120 for chattels in the ordinary
  382
  home? Is that to be scaled up to meet increased costs?
  Captain Waterhouse: There is no differentiation between free insurance and premium insurance. This will cover both.
  Mr. Woodburn: Can you exceed £120?
  Captain Waterhouse: It may be as much as £300, I think, for man and wife.
  Mr. Hutchinson: Will the concession my right hon. and gallant Friend has now referred to apply to claims already settled?
  Captain Waterhouse: No, it was clearly understood by those who have had claims settled that in taking advantage of that special provision they would forgo any chance there was of any scaling up. I submit that, although there is a hardship here, you cannot avoid hardships in war. There is no unfairness, because people understood for what they were insuring and what they were going to get. I very much hope that, with the explanation I have given my hon. and learned Friend, in spite of any regret that he may feel, will be reasonably satisfied.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Fourteen Minutes before Seven o'Clock.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISABLED PER SONNEL: SPECIAL ALLOWANCES)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (DISABLED PER SONNEL: SPECIAL ALLOWANCES)
  CIVIL AVIATION
  CIVIL AVIATION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS
  LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Export Markets (Traders' Visits)
  Export Markets (Traders' Visits)
  Goat Skins
  Goat Skins
  Heavy Engineering Trades
  Heavy Engineering Trades
  Scrim (Distribution)
  Scrim (Distribution)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Stroud Valleys
  Stroud Valleys
  Apples
  Apples
  ANTIQUATED LAWS
  ANTIQUATED LAWS
HOUSING
  Repairs, London Region
  Repairs, London Region
  Housing Manual, 1944
  Housing Manual, 1944
  Building Components (Government Purchases)
  Building Components (Government Purchases)
  ROYAL NAVY (PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE)
  ROYAL NAVY (PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE)
  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (BUILDING TENDERS)
  GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (BUILDING TENDERS)
  ROAD TRANSPORT, STROUD VALLEYS
  ROAD TRANSPORT, STROUD VALLEYS
  INDIA (BROADCASTS TO PRISONERS OF WAR)
  INDIA (BROADCASTS TO PRISONERS OF WAR)
  GIFT PARCELS (PURCHASE TAX)
  GIFT PARCELS (PURCHASE TAX)
POST OFFICE
  Parcels (Prisoners of War)
  Parcels (Prisoners of War)
  Mail Service, Turkey
  Mail Service, Turkey
  Airgraph Service
  Airgraph Service
  PETROL RATIONING
  PETROL RATIONING
  GERMAN WAR CRIMES
  GERMAN WAR CRIMES
  STATE OF SAN PAULO, BRAZIL (BONDS)
  STATE OF SAN PAULO, BRAZIL (BONDS)
  ETHIOPIA (NEW TEMPORARY AGREEMENT)
  ETHIOPIA (NEW TEMPORARY AGREEMENT)
  BRITISH VISA CHARGES
  BRITISH VISA CHARGES
  FRANCE (POSTAL SERVICES)
  FRANCE (POSTAL SERVICES)
  WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY (DUMBARTON OAKS CONFERENCE)
  WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY (DUMBARTON OAKS CONFERENCE)
  WAR DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
  WAR DECORATIONS AND AWARDS
  ROAD BLOCKS (REMOVAL)
  ROAD BLOCKS (REMOVAL)
  LIBERATED EUROPE (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  LIBERATED EUROPE (FOOD SUPPLIES)
  WAR GRAVES
  WAR GRAVES
  MINISTERS (ABSENCE FROM GREAT BRITAIN)
  MINISTERS (ABSENCE FROM GREAT BRITAIN)
  LEGAL ADVICE (POOR PERSONS)
  LEGAL ADVICE (POOR PERSONS)
  WAR FACTORIES (DEREQUISITION)
  WAR FACTORIES (DEREQUISITION)
  TURKEY (MAIL CENSORSHIP)
  TURKEY (MAIL CENSORSHIP)
Preamble
The House met, at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD.
  Leslie Stannard, Lord Bishop of Sheffield—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  The Lord Hardinge of Penshurst—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BRITISH TROOPS IN INDIA.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they have any statement to make as to the welfare of British troops in the India Command.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (The EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. The Government of India have been and are making great efforts to improve and expand welfare arrangements for British troops in India. There is no doubt that a great deal more can be done if further supplies, equipment and personnel can be provided from outside India. Recent improvements in our general situation are now making this possible. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for India is anxious to be assured that everything possible will be done and that further assistance which is now becoming available is applied to the most urgent need. He has accordingly asked me to proceed to India to examine conditions on the spot, to consult with the Government of India and report to him personally. My visit will be of short duration and confined to the purpose I have described.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
COUNTY BOROUGH OF WEST BROMWICH ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF WHITCHURCH (SALOP) ORDER.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper.
Moved, That the Orders made by .the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTROL OF. LAND USE.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to call attention to Cmd. Paper 6537 on the Control of Land Use; and to move to resolve, That the decentralization, decongestion and redevelopment of our big towns do constitute a primary object of policy of His Majesty's Government. The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the last one hundred years or rather more the population of civilized countries has shown a tendency to mass itself into large urban aggregations. London achieved a population of 1,000,000 in 1801, and since then there have grown up not only in this country but in Europe and in the United States of America a number of large urban aggregations which have absorbed to themselves an undue proportion of the population of their respective countries. The figures I shall mention—there are not many of them—are the Registrar-General's estimate of 1937; they are in the Barlow Report from which I am quoting. In 1937 there were seven million-mark aggregations in this country. Greater London is, of course, a phenomenon by itself, but in addition there are Greater Birmingham, Greater Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool and Merseyside (which is one aggregation), Tyneside, and West Yorkshire. These great urban aggregations during the last one hundred years have shown a tendency to increase in population at double or more than double the mean rate of increase of the population of the country.
The phenomenon is one which is more marked in Western countries than it is in the East. There are great aggregations

173
in China, Japan, and India, but it is with our own industrial population and our own aggregations that we are concerned. It is that feature which causes me alarm in looking at the future. The position has now got to the stage where two-fifths of the whole of our population are in the seven million-mark aggregations. The seriousness of that can be realized when we compare it with the figure in the United States. In the United States only one-fifth of the population is in the million-mark aggregation. From another angle there is an equally striking figure. A little more than one hundred years ago in this country 80 per cent. of the population lived in the country or in small villages. By 1937 the position was more than reversed. Instead of 80 per cent. being in the country, only 17 per cent. lived anywhere: except in the towns. That is not the same thing as the million-mark aggregation, and I am not contending that it is contrary to civilization to have moderate-sized towns; but I do go so far as to say that aggregations over one million lead to conditions which are not compatible with, what I understand as the best type of civilization. London is a splendid place to live in for those who can get out of it. I regard the crowding of the pop nation more and more into the big cities; as a thing which we must view with alarm and which, if we cannot check it, will threaten not only the efficiency of our industry but the healthy and happy homes of our people.
It is from the point of view of the efficiency of industry and the health and happiness of cur population that I approach this whole subject of planning. I would lice to try and state quite briefly what I conceive to be the objectives of town and country planning. My first objective would be a serious endeavour to check, and ultimately to reverse, this tendency of aggregation in these huge urban conglomerations. The next objective of planning would be—and I think it has already been accepted by the Government—a reasonable industrial balance. When I say I think it has been accepted by the Government I mean that there are several references to industrial balance and the acceptance of the principles of the Barlow Report, perhaps not in those words, but acceptance of the principle in the White Paper on full employment which was laid before your Lordships' House and
174
another place. I am not quite happy about that because my view about industrial balance is that it should not be confined to the special areas, but that industrial balance is important elsewhere just as much as in the special areas. I would have liked to see an expression of Government policy with regard to industrial balance not only in relation to special areas but with regard to the allocation of industry throughout the country as a whole. Lastly, as an objective of town and country planning not least important is of course the preservation of our agriculture, and the preservation of the amenities of the countryside and the coastline and so on.
I do not think there is anything very contentious about what I have said in regard to the big cities and the other objects of town and country planning. It is a commonplace of conversation that our big cities are too big and that the increasing urbanization of our population is a real social danger. I believe the position to be so serious that I would like to see the Government express their intention of directing their policy to the end of checking those aggregations. Before passing to the Government's proposals I would like to emphasize that so far as I am concerned planning is never an end in itself. I do not care a fig for planning except in so far as I get the results that I want, and the major result which I seek to get is healthy, happy homes for the people and the efficiency of our industry. I know that some of my friends are apprehensive about planning because they think it means bureaucracy, that it means regulating their lives and not giving them freedom to do what they want. The kind of planning I want to see would be just that framework within which initiative and enterprise would get a chance to operate and without which I believe things will go from bad to worse.
I turn to the Government's proposals. We have before us the White Paper on the Control of Land Use and we have also seen the Town and Country Planning Bill which is at present under consideration in another place. The first point which gives me satisfaction is that in the White Paper the Government express their acceptance of the analysis of the problem of floating and shifting value in the Uthwatt Report. The White Paper says:
"…the peculiar value of the Report lies in its masterly analysis of the abstruse pro-

175
blems lying at the root of any effective system of town and country planning."
And again, when we come to the question of betterment in the White Paper, the Government accept as substantially correct the Uthwatt Committee's analysis of the problem with which their Report deals. That is satisfactory because it indicates, as indeed their proposals indicate, that they realize that contrary to superficial appearance it is not always fair when you buy a thing to pay its market value. Those of us who were concerned with the Coal Bill remember that it was not altogether easy to understand that when you had a few million tons of coal easily accessible it was not necessarily fair that the Government should pay quite the full value which at first sight we thought the owner was entitled to get. I think some of us did understand after the full .examination of the question that there were overriding circumstances which did limit the price that it was fair for the Government to pay. Now this land question has a certain analogy with the coal question. I can conceive that it is extremely vexatious to an owner of land just on the fringe of a big town who feels that he is sure of getting a market for his land. It may not be what is called "dead ripe development" but he has a fairly sure market at so much and it is difficult for him to understand that the Government should come along and say, when they are going to take over either the whole of the land or put restrictions on it, that they should not pay the full market value for the floating and the shifting value.
The virtue of the Uthwatt Committee's analysis and the benefit of the public discussion which has followed lie I think in the fact that there is now very general understanding in the country that market value in the aggregate would greatly exceed the price which the Government can be expected to pay if they are to deal with the thing in a wholesale manner. The Government have decided not altogether to accept the recommendation of the Uthwatt Committee for the complete acquisition of the development rights, but instead they propose to impose a restriction on change of user—that is to say, anybody who wants to develop his land will have to get consent and he will be paid compensation if he is prevented from developing land which had a development
176
value in March, 1939. I am not going to attempt to describe the Government's scheme in full. I leave that to my noble friend who is going to follow me if he wishes to expound the whole scheme. I am certainly not competent to do it. I desire only to call attention to those points which are relevant to my argument. Put briefly, there is to be a universal requirement of consent to development. There is to be a payment of compensation in appropriate cases and there is to be a collection of betterment.
Finally, the other main feature of the scheme is that the local authorities are to have large powers of purchase of the freehold of areas which they will require for redevelopment for what are known as "blitzed" areas or as obsolescent areas. The Government proposals fail, in my submission, because they have not laid down the principle on which their planning is going to be based from the national point of view. I would like to see the principle laid down that the big cities are too large and that that tendency is to be reversed. That does not mean that I am suggesting that you can either prohibit new industry in the big towns or direct industry where it has to go, but it would mean that, once you had established and agreed that principle, national policy would be directed to setting up tendencies which would work in the direction we wish to see.
I think that it is an indication of the failure of the Government to produce a policy that in the conclusion of this Report there is this sentence:
"The Government believe that a national and positive policy for the right use of land can best be evolved by a continuous process of collaboration between local and central authorities and the individual citizen."
You cannot evolve a policy by collaboration. You can evolve an application of policy, an execution of policy by collaboration, but before you can expect your citizens to collaborate with the local authorities and the Government you must tell them what you want them to collaborate in. Then I think the other failure of this policy is in its financial proposals. The suggestion is made and the principle is laid down that payment of compensation and the collection of betterment over what is described as a reasonable period of years will be equated. I have no objec-

177
tion whatever to the principle that over a period of years the betterment collected should be sufficient to pay the compensation which is to be paid out, but the question is, Over what period of years? I do not know whether my noble friend will be able to give arty clue to the answer to the question, What is meant by a reasonable period of years? but a very great deal depends on that.
We are dealing here with a policy which is going to affect us not for five years, or fifteen or twenty-five years, not for ninety-nine years, hut for nine hundred and ninety-nine years. The war with its destruction in the "blitzed" areas has given us a chance to make a new start in the orientation of our housing policy, has given us a chance to get away from this terrible peripheral development of our big towns, but unless we make a conscious effort things will go on as before. Local authorities have enough land for two years building, but unless we consciously make an effort and direct our attention to a long-term policy thugs will go on as before and in my submission will go from bad to worse. It is almost impossible to avoid the inference on looking at the White Paper that this five years period will have an influence or the amount of compensation which is going to be paid.
The great objection I have to this White Paper is that it does not settle the question of compensation. There is to be a Commission which I cannot help thinking will be just a department in the Treasury, a bookkeeping Commission which will pay the compensation and collect the betterment. But nothing is to be settled for five years. There is to be an expert Committee appointed before the end of five years which will assemble and review the material on which to base recommendations to the Government for determining the compensation. During those five years local authorities will be sending in their schemes, and all the time it will be possible to make some kind of estimate of the amount of compensation which will be necessary to pay to carry them out. During the same time some idea will be gained of what betterment will be collected, and I find it impossible to resist the conclusion that these gentlemen sitting in We Treasury will keep a very sharp eye en the betterment with a view to settling how much they can spare for compensation. We all know that the great difficulty of the local authorities
178
before the war was that they could not plan properly and boldly because they felt that they could not foot the bill for compensation. I think that if this scheme is put into effect local authorities will find it just as difficult to plan because they will find they cannot find the money for compensation. The Treasury will give them a limit and they will have to make that go as far as they can. If it does not go far enough, so much the worse for planning.
Again, the betterment is to be 80 per cent. I do not propose to argue that. I accept the principle that betterment is to he collected and I accept the suggestion that the betterment is to be collected on a change of use. That is still left over for definition. The meaning of the term will have to be accurately defined, and it will he very difficult to define. But when the owner changes substantially the use or scale of use he will have to pay betterment. In any case it will be only 8o per cent. and also a great deal of betterment will escape. There can be no possible doubt of that. In the case of land acquired for open spaces there will he no betterment but a good deal of compensation. I feel that the chances of the betterment collected being sufficient to allow for compensation on a scale commensurate with reasonable planning are very poor indeed. If there was a suggestion that the Treasury is going to take a long view and be prepared to advance £50,000,000 or £100,000,000 on account of the betterment, that might give one some hope of a long view. But I see no sign of that in the White Paper and it is not what one would expect the Treasury to do as a gesture if they had not promised to do it in advance.
I think every one of your Lordships will remember my noble friend saying a fortnight or so after he was appointed Minister of Reconstruction that quite clearly we had to settle the land question. I am not blaming my noble friend—I have great sympathy with his difficulties—but the fact remains that in November he came here and said, "I can see quite clearly we have to settle the land question." This White Paper was produced in June. It is a coincidence that it took the Government seven months to prepare this White Paper. A seven months' infant is sometimes absolutely sound and lusty and com-

179
plete with all its limbs. This seven months' babe is lacking in its most vital part. It lacks the one part it ought to have, that is the settlement of the compensation question. I do not want to be more critical than I can help, and I have already spoken longer than I had intended to speak, but I want to make some practical suggestions.
My suggestions are in two parts. The first concerns development rights and the second land which has to be bought for public purposes. With regard to development rights I say "Settle, and settle now." I believe this uncertainty is bad for everybody, bad for landowners and bad for local authorities, because none of them know where they stand. The Uthwatt Report says if a fair price is given, fair to the owners and fair to the Government, it would be something between one third and one half of the market value in 1939. I would not niggle. I believe that the attitude of the Treasury ought to be that of a far-sighted trustee, with I venture to say ample funds at his disposal, and that they ought to take the long view. I am aware that there are competing claims. We saw yesterday that there would be a few hundred millions for Social Services. We know there are immense claims, but what claim can take priority of providing for housing policy and providing for efficient industry? I venture to say that is the first charge on the property and national wealth of this country. I believe that the landowners would feel it was not unreasonable to settle for 5o per cent. of the development value estimated in 1939. I am not arguing about the merits of the 1939 price—that is another matter—but assuming the 1939 price to be taken then I say 5o per cent. is a proper provision.
LORD ADDISON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I think he said 5o per cent. of the betterment. Does he not mean 5o per cent. of the compensation ascertained on that basis?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Of course "betterment" is the wrong term. It should be 5o per cent. of the development value. The difficulty of the Treasury is that it cannot be expected to buy too big a pig in a poke. Consequently I think there is a way in which we could ease that difficulty and make it easier for the Treasury to take a long view. That is in
180
the purchase of the land which is necessary for development. This is a matter on which there are likely to be very acute Party differences. It is evident that in the Town and Country Planning Bill and in the White Paper there has been something in the nature of a compromise between acute Party differences. There is a clause in the Town and Country Planning Bill which provides that a local authority is not to be allowed to develop the land which it owns for shop and commercial purposes unless private enterprise is unwilling to do so. I cannot conceive that the noble Lords opposite, and their Party, can have accepted that with any pleasure, because they believe in development by the local authority. Nor do I believe that the people of a conservative frame of mind can have very gladly accepted a provision whereby local authorities are to become owners of the whole of the freeholds of their "blitzed" and, possibly, blighted areas. Consequently there is obviously an element of compromise there.
I would like to sublimate—if that is a proper word to use—that compromise into a rather different form. I think we ought to take a much more long-term view of betterment in this land which is to be acquired for public purposes. Everybody knows that unified ownership is necessary for redevelopment of some of the "blitzed" areas. You cannot redevelop with dozens of individual owners. You must have single ownership. I would prefer to see that land owned not by the local authorities but by some body much higher up: Perhaps I may say by a Land Commission. It is unfortunate that my noble friend the Minister has already taken that expression as a title for this took-keeping department of the Treasury, but if the Minister will allow me to use the same expression—for it is one which fits the proposal I make—I would like to do so. As I say, therefore, I would like to see a Land Commission in existence to own this land which must be bought for public purposes. I would like to see them own it and administer it on good, sound, estate management lines.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: A Land-holding Commission?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: A Land-holding Commission, that is it. I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. Where necessary this Commission

181
would let land to local authorities on a 99-year lease. I would make this proviso where a local authority has to develop land in cities, for purposes of horsing. That land, I suggest, ought to be let to them at a rent commensurate with user. That is to say there should be a low rent for land to be used for houses. A lease of 99 years would give the local authorities all the freedom they would want and they would be greatly eased by the fact that the rent of land for housing and open spaces would be related to the user. Low rent for land for housing is essential. It is fair that the Exchequer, representing the nation, should take a hand in that because both open spaces and housing have a very strong national benefit as well as a local one. At the same time, bearing in mind that we are looking not to a 99-year future but to a 999-year future, an ultimate betterment would accrue to the Exchequer, and I think that the Exchequer could then take a much wider and bigger point of view upon the equation of compensation and betterment. They could allow the period during which they are to equate to be very much longer than I feel is their intention at the present time.
This, as I have said, is a matter of Party differences I believe Conservatives would dislike a band-holding Commission because they would think it was some-thing like nation; lization. I do not think it is so, from our point of view, if I may say so speaking as a Conservative. I would sooner have a land-holding commission than local authorities as large landowners. From the point of view of noble Lords opposite, I think it must be recognized that land nationalization, at the moment, is out of the question and this Land Commission would be just as much a public ownership as ownership by the local authority; and if it does have this supreme merit of enabling the Treasury to take a bigger and longer view I think that would be a compromise of principle which all of us might very well afford to make.
I have detained your Lordships longer than I had intended to do, and still I fear that I nave dealt all too inadequately with a most complicated and difficult subject. It is difficult in dealing with such a subject to know how much detail to take and how much to pass over. I can hardly hope that I have made myself absolutely clear to all your Lordships.
182
The importance of this matter lies in the vital necessity of the housing problem. We must have a settlement. I have made a suggestion of 5o per cent. Possibly the Minister will think that a counsel of perfection, but I beg him, attached as he may be to his proposals, to take into his consideration the suggestions which I have ventured to make. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the decentralization, decongestion and redevelopment of our big towns do constitute a primary object of policy of His Majesty's Government.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
THE MINISTER OF RECONSTRUCTION (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, I am anxious to meet the convenience of the House on a subject that is full of difficulties, and my first intention was to wait until the end before I ventured to address you. I came to that conclusion because I would have you know that as far as we are concerned, as a Government, our intention is to get debate, to get Parliamentary discussion, on this Paper, and I thought that there was no reason for a Government speaker at this stage. The Government have spoken, in some people's opinion no doubt inadequately and unsatisfactorily, but at any rate these are the conclusions which we thought that it was wise to put before Parliament. On those grounds I felt that perhaps it would be better if I did not intervene in this debate until the end. I altered my mind for this quite simple reason. I think we have got something to say. There has been a tendency among some of my friends in this House to suggest that the Government have no firm policy at all on these questions of planning, and therefore I thought that it would be convenient for the conduct of the debate, and I hope gratifying to the noble Lord to whom I am personally greatly indebted for the speech which he has made, if I told him here and now that I accept the Resolution which he has moved. I accept it on behalf of the Government and after consultation with the responsible Minister, the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
That preliminary statement may help to clear away any doubts in your Lordships' minds as to where we stand. I shall not surprise you if I say that I do not accept the whole of the noble Lord's arguments. I do not regard this Paper

183
as an immature child, though I am bound to say that there was much labour in bringing it to birth. In accepting the noble Lord's Resolution, I do so in a broad spirit. I am certain that he would be the first to admit that there are places in this country where considerable areas of land have been most wisely developed, but I agree with him entirely that there are very many areas where planned redevelopment is most urgently required, and in that sense I find myself in agreement with a great deal that he has said.
He observed that when I first came into this Ministry, in a moment of unguarded enthusiasm I declared the faith that was in me. I said then that I regarded the question of land use as being basic in reconstruction. I still regard it as being basic in reconstruction. I have had much more experience since then of the difficulties which arise when people of widely divergent political views, which they hold with deep conviction, try to arrive at a working principle. I am not apologizing for this Paper, but I do say that for very many years the Parties have been completely divided on this subject of the use of land and of land tenure, and yet we have, during the seven months to which the noble Lord referred, at any rate come to some common agreement; and it is agreement that we want for the future, and not divergence of opinion. Let us therefore take this agreement at which we have arrived. In the fullness of time different Parties in the State, when they come into office, will doubtless be able considerably to improve on the work which we have done, but do not let us be contemptuous of the basis of agreement on this subject. Let us use it to the full.
I shall not detain your Lordships much longer. I hope that this debate will enlighten the Government. On a subject of this nature, it seems to me to be reasonable and proper that a Government of all Parties should go to Parliament, to this House and to another place, and should say: "We have done our best to arrive at some solution of this problem. We know that that solution will be unacceptable to many people who are on the extremes of Party politics. We ask you, Have we something here on which we can proceed to frame legislation and submit it to you with the hope of getting it passed?" That is what we are doing in this White Paper.
184
I gather that with much of the White Paper the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is in agreement. He expressed certain views to-day on which I think he would find it very difficult to get unanimity in the Party to which he belongs. We shall, I hope, find out in the course of this debate—and I am glad to see that it is going to last for two clays—what weight we may place on the views which he has expressed. How far are you prepared to urge the Chancellor to go in making financial arrangements for the future? That is a proper subject for Parliamentary debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the very practical propositions which he has put before your Lordships. I hope that you will discuss them.
I want to say this about the whole subject of town and country planning. The noble Lord said how urgent it was that we should come to a conclusion now. I most heartily agree. If I may draw your Lordships' attention to the White Paper, you will find in paragraph I of the Introduction what I hope is a quite clear indication of the Government's recognition that in the future we want something better than haphazard growth of our towns, our roads, our open spaces and our industrial development. I hope that those of your Lordships who are particularly interested in agriculture will find in this Paper expressions with which you will agree on the subject of agricultural land; because it certainly has been in the minds of those of us who framed this Paper that by the means which we propose here we should secure the proper use of agricultural land in the future, and above all that we should avoid in the future the constant encroachment of towns upon good agricultural land.
There is a little difficulty, I think, in the language of some of our publications on the subject of industrial development. I went to some trouble in the White Paper on Employment to see that it was made quite clear that we believed in securing a properly balanced population so far as industrial development is concerned. We hung that, it is true, on the issue of the Special Areas, but Special Areas are not things which were created in the past and which will never happen again; they might quite easily happen again if we do not maintain this proper balance of the population, so that if economic circumstances cause one par-

185
ticular industry to fail there is some other industry in the neighbourhood to occupy the population. While we bung that statement on the Special Areas, I should like to assure your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that we accept the principle in general. That, I hope, is a quite clear statement which may give some comfort.
There is often a wide distance between the acceptance of principles and putting them into practice, and there is nothing easier than to make statements of general principle but not to get down to the issue of practice. I should like to convince your Lordships that His Majesty's Government are trying to get some practical Platform on which we can operate. Just look at what we have done. Forgive me for saying "Look at what we have done during the war and during the time when people's minds, the minds of Government, and particularly the minds of those in the inner circle of Government, were really very concerned with war issues." It was at that time that they started a Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Let that be to their credit. It was a clear indication that they realized that there was a problem here, and that they ware setting up machinery, to deal with it I do not want to detain your Lordships but if you will be good enough to look at the Introduction to this White Paper you will see in paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 clear statements of our intentions. In paragraph 5 you will see that we propose a new Bill. That Bill is in another place, and I hope it will come to your Lordships early, so that we shall have time to give it proper discussion in this House. It deals with the redevelopment of both devastated and obsolescent areas.
The noble Lord spoke about housing. His Majesty's Government at the present time are concerned with many social issues. We gave to the country our proposals on social security on Monday, and to-night at half-past five we shall publish, and you will find in the Vote Office, the second part of these proposals, dealing with industrial injury. But I believe that there is no ping of so much importance to the well are of the country in the immediate future as this problem of housing. I believe that as soon as we have the labour we must make it into a great military operation to secure that we
186
get the maximum possible number of houses. We have to build in a hurry in this country, but there is no reason why, because we are in a hurry, we should build without planning. We worked in a great hurry a few weeks ago to get into Normandy, but for how long before our troops went into Normandy was every detail of that operation planned? There is the justification for planning in the military sphere—a great victory. There is the same justification for planning for housing, planning ahead, knowing where the sites are going to be, knowing where the materials are coming from. And I hope that it is on that basis that we shall conduct our policy.
Then I gather from what the noble Lord has said that he would like us to have a master plan. There I think—do I misinterpret him?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH assented.
LORD WOOLTON: I am glad I misinterpreted him; I apologize for doing it. I do not want a master plan inflicted on this country. I do not want a plan that is produced in St. James's Square, or wherever the Ministry of Town and Country Planning may be, by someone deciding that that is the way in which the whole of this country is going to be laid out. That is not the British way of doing it. I believe we shall secure a better result by harnessing all the forces of all the local authorities and letting them evolve their plans. But it does not follow that because they are going to evolve their plans they can do as they like. They must have neighbourly interests one with another. I believe that where the master plan comes in is not in detail but in conception; that what we require is central initiative on the general policy on which we should proceed, but that the details must be worked out by local authorities. The local authorities themselves are being encouraged in initiative, encouraged in inventiveness, encouraged to get something which is peculiarly suitable for their own domestic life, but all those plans should then be submitted to the judgment of the Minister who is responsible to Parliament. I have made those observations because I hope to convince your Lordships that the Government are looking to this problem of planning in a practical way —not opposing it, but trying to work it

187
into the administrative system of the country, which has not failed yet in strength.
Now I come to the detailed proposals, but I do not propose to speak of them at any length; the noble Lord has already done so. If you will look at the White Paper there you will find quite clearly laid out the proposal that the local authorities should have the power to purchase land that requires to be redeveloped, land that has become obsolescent, in order that there might be built up in that area a scheme of proper housing, with all the ancillaries that go with social life. You will find there the statement—a very important statement of principle—that it is right for the community to have some voice as to the nature of the development that shall take place, and that if the community decides that development shall not take place along the lines that are proposed then it is proper that it should say so and should be entitled to prohibit it. But if it does prohibit it to the disadvantage of the person who owns the land, then it is proper that he should receive compensation. If, on the other hand, it results to the advantage of the person who owns the land then it is proper that some of that advantage should accrue to the State.
But it has been found in practice that where compensation had to be dealt with in circumscribed areas and localities planning was delayed. Therefore it is proposed that there shall be some central fund into which betterment should be paid and from which compensation should be drawn. Those are the principles; I commend them to you as principles of equity. As to how much the compensation should be and when it should be paid, that is a subject very proper for Parliamentary debate, and His Majesty's Government will be glad to be informed of your Lordships' views. They have put before you certain proposals. I hope you will be able to improve them. I hope that I have not detained your Lordships unduly.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I am quite sure that the House generally will have appreciated the decision of the Minister to speak at this stage in the debate because it is much more useful, from his point of view, that those of us
188
who have any remarks to make should make them in the light of the Government's observations, and at the same time it makes our task somewhat easier than it otherwise might have been. I am glad that the noble Lord drew attention to the considerable measure of compromise which is represented in this White Paper and to the considerable amount of agreement between those of different political allegiance which it clearly embodies. To that extent he and his colleagues are to be congratulated, and I do congratulate them, on the result of their endeavours. But I do not think he persuaded himself, and he certainly did not seem to persuade us, that it was a settlement of the land question. I hope it will enable us to get rid of some very difficult matters affecting compensation and betterment, but when we have dealt with them we have not secured the adequate use of the land. I may be permitted, although it may be somewhat outside the scope of this Paper, to draw attention to a matter which is always first in my own mind—namely, What is this going to do to secure the better use of the bulk of the land of the country which is not happily, as yet, covered over with houses? I mean the agricultural land. When all is done and said, this Paper gives me the impression that those who drew it up did not know much about agriculture.
LORD WOOLTON: Oh!
LORD ADDISON: It gives me that impression. I am glad to hear that it is an incorrect impression, if it is. At any rate, it makes no reference to the subject. From start to finish there is nothing in this Paper which suggests a helpful procedure for making a more adequate provision for the full use of the bulk of the land of this country. The noble Lord must excuse me if I remind him of what is, to me, a very unfortunate and significant omission, that nothing in the Paper envisages the adequate use of our land. We have had before us in this Session a succession of Bills for better water supplies for rural areas and so on, all of which need to be extended enormously if you are going to get adequate use of the land in the country districts.
Now, having relieved myself by that characteristic observation, I shall turn

189
more closely to the Paper itself. I am delighted to see the measure of agreement it represents. We shall wait with anxiety to see what is proposed in the Town and Country Planning Bill when it finally emerges from is stage of discussion. This scheme does not help you to acquire land. It says, that heal authorities will be entitled to acquire land for such and such purposes and, of course, housing is outstanding in it, urgency, but it does not get us any further with regard to acquiring land for housing, even acquiring land for putting up these metal huts of Lord Portal, still less acquiring land and seeing that the houses put up ire properly planned. The noble Lord is well aware that it is the proper planning of the land which is of first-class importance if we are not to repeat the errors of the past. In the Town and Country Planning Bill we may expect these powers to be included. They are not, anyhow as far as I can see, amplified or even dealt with in this Paper, except that it says that local authorities and others are to have powers to acquire.
I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Paper which set out with a unique clearness, so far as I am concerned, the unfortunate results of the bad use of land and the necessity for making a proper use of it. They are set out with really conspicuous clarity in the opening paragraphs of this Paper. I am sure we shall remember these paragraphs, and I should not wonder if we re Mild the noble Lord from time to rime of them because they are of great value and immense importance. What was the reason for the Uthwatt Committee and the Scott Committee being appointed, and for this and many other similar inquiries? It is the present system of land ownership. That is what is the matter. I am not going to be offensive, I am not going to say anything to annoy the noble Lord, I am merely trying to face the truth. I had a case reported to me by my noble friend Lord Latham only this morning where some trivial piece of ground was sought to be redeveloped and acquired, and in order to do that there were, on that quite small piece of ground, hundreds of different rights and claims to be dealt with and determined before it could be delivered. If this clearance of rights to compensation which are to be ascertained by the Committee to be appointed will once and for
190
all enable owners to be dealt with collectively and difficulties got rid of, I do not mind myself how generously they are paid as long as we get rid of the difficulties, and as long as we can get on to the business of making proper use of the land.
It is no good concealing the fact—and I do not say it with any Party feeling at all—that our difficulties arise from the existing system. It is this which has led to this imbroglio of difficulties. These difficulties will continue inevitably as long as the system continues. The Paper proposes that where land is developed by permission of the planned scheme, and thereby its value becomes enhanced, 80 per cent. of that enhanced value shall be collected. Where, as a result of planning, land which the owner thought and can prove had some prospective development value in 1939 has been deprived of that value, he is to be compensated for the loss. We do not object to that; it is quite fair. The noble Lord said that if all the claims of different people in a district were added together they would make a much larger sum than would fairly be claimable because in the course of development some parts would be developed and others would be left. The noble Lord says "All right, let us get rid of it by paying 5o per cent. of the claim so ascertained." I think there is a good deal to be said for that, but how it will be received by some of his friends I do not know. For my part if we could get rid of the subject by paying 50 per cent. I would be glad to do it. Quite frankly, speaking for myself I think it would be worth while even if 5o per cent. was more than the value, because we should at last be able to get the land used for its proper purpose without the continual disturbance arising from all manner of claims which have to be dealt with at hearings. That postpones effective action.
Now I come to what I think is a fatal fault. If noble Lords turn to page 11, they will read this in paragraph 29:
"There is the further important consideration that in so far as a refusal of permission to develop in one place is matched by a grant of permission in some other place, the payments received in betterment should, over a reasonable period of years and over the country as a whole, provide a fund adequate to pay fair compensation."
In other words, what is contemplated is that the betterments that will arise out of the permissions and out of the develop-

191
ment will provide a fund to pay compensation to owners deprived of development values which they proved that they possessed in 1939; that these betterment moneys as they come in will help to pay, or will balance, the compensation that has to be paid. I say that that is an arithmetical impossibility over any period of time. What you want to do is to pay fair compensation for the expectations of value which you have extinguished, but by this plan in effect you say: "We will not pay these people fairly for what we have taken from them in this public acquisition and which they can show they legitimately possessed in 1939, unless receipts from betterment are sufficient." We accept that it ought to be paid, that they are entitled to be paid. Then let us get them paid and be done with it. Betterment is not going to balance over a period of five years or ten years or fifteen years or, it may be, a hundred years.
The point is this, that the State can afford to wait for betterment to develop whilst the individual cannot do so. I well remember as one of those largely responsible for the proposals which led to the establishment of the Forestry Commission twenty-six years ago, having to meet the objection that it would not pay. One can well believe it does not pay an individual owner. But if he does not reap the harvest of timber in his own lifetime his grandson may do so if he is lucky. It does not matter to the State that forestry will not yield its betterment until after eighty years, because the State can afford to wait. To expect that you are going to marry prospective and ultimate betterment to the compensation which you ought in fairness to pay to people for values which they possessed in 1939 and you now acquire is an arithmetical absurdity. The two things just do not fit. What I am pointing out is that it will be a fatal mistake if we try to make them fit.
What is going to happen? If you are proceeding on the basis of balancing betterment and compensation, the Secretary to the Treasury will have to give his consent when it is proposed by a local authority or anybody else to acquire land for a given purpose and say that the compensation to be paid shall be so much. He will say: "Yes, but I am not going to have a revenue this year from my betterment fund which will enable me to pay that compensation."
192
Of course he will not. He certainly will not, and the result will be that the Treasury will put a spoke in the wheel. The Treasury will be having to consent to these schemes of development and they will have in their mind, as an important element in deciding whether they will consent or not, whether the betterment will enable them to pay the compensation which ought fairly to be paid. You are going to put into the hands of the Treasury, who knows nothing whatever about the local needs or necessities of the scheme, an incentive to refuse their consent because they have not got within sight the money from betterment that will enable them to pay.
I sincerely hope that as a result of the discussions which the noble Lord has invited the vicious implication of paragraph 29 will be dropped entirely. We ought not to try and make a balance in any particular year or in any particular term of years between the compensation to be paid and the betterment to be acquired. The betterment will of necessity arise over a long period of time, but will not be payable in cash in a particular year so as to enable you to pay what ought to be paid on the 1939 rights to be acquired. The criticism I make is that this drawing up of a balance of betterment receipts with the compensation that ought to be paid is not the proper method for dealing with the matter because in fact the two things have no necessary relation to one another. You could not in fact balance the two because one is not realizable for many years after the other and in fairness it should be paid at once.
I wish now to make one other point with regard to the case set up by the noble Lord, which I think is an improvement. I say that with bated breath because I expect anything we say from this side of the House is suspect; at least I start out with that assumption. I must say I am not surprised but rather glad that the noble Lord recognized the necessity of vesting this land in a Commission instead of in a multiplicity of authorities. I think that is right. We are confronted here with a proposal that there should be a Commission which should receive betterment payments, which should pay compensation, but should have no interest whatever in what is going on. That is

193
surely wrong. The Land Commission being responsible for the finance of the whole thing should necessarily have the title of the land transferred to them and lease it to the local authorities for as many years as you like in accordance with any approved plan. If you are going to have this land dealt with as is suggested by trying to balance compensation from little parcels of land in Northumberland with betterment from Little Pedlington in Cornwall it is nonsense. The idea that these different sets of land in thousands of separate ownerships can be so dealt with by a central Commission is an impracticable proposal
I gladly welcome the suggestion of the noble Lord that land so dealt with and so under the responsibility of the Commission should be vested in the Commission and that the Commission should release it to the authorities concerned. Whether the local authorities will like that I do not know, but I think it is a much better way of dealing with it than the proposals in the White Paper. The proposal for centralization of finance is excellent in its general principle, but I think it will be quite impracticable in working as set out in the White Paper. In any case I think that if we had a system of land being vested in a Commission we should gradually get an experienced staff of State management which would be able to apply a good deal of experience to the development of the whole country such as would not be possible if there were separate authorities.
My main criticisms are with regard to balancing compensation and betterment, the method of payment of compensation, the ownership of land and the responsibilities of the Land Commission, but I am sure the noble Lord will not think that in making those criticisms I am inspired by any hostility. I am thinking of something which will really work and enable local authorities to get on with planning and with the development of the land. So long as this period of uncertainty continues it is impossible to expect effective and prompt action by local authorities. They are held up now all over the country and if this state of uncertainty can be resolved I am sure it will be to the public advantage, We are indebted to the noble Lord for getting this White Paper to us as soon as he has done. He has done better than I expected.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the House will I am sure be interested and perhaps surprised when I remind them of the terms of the Motion which we are supposed to be debating. The Motion is to resolve:
"That the decentralization, decongestion and redevelopment of our big towns do constitute a primary object of policy of His Majesty's Government."
That would be a very interesting topic for your Lordships to debate some day, but it is certainly not the one that has been under discussion this afternoon. The noble Lord who moved the Motion raised in his introductory remarks the question whether towns above a population of a million are socially improper or not, and he said that his main argument proceeded from that as the starting point. Whether they are too big or not is a fascinating subject which might be debated on another occasion. Possible they may be too big, but if some of our big towns were remodelled, as for instance the London County Council proposes in the case of London and the Birmingham plan in regard to Birmingham, and if they were provided with adequate swift internal communication, they might prove not too big. However I will not pursue that because that would be in order. On the precedent set for me by the three noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships it is the White Paper containing the Government policy—in which this particular topic is not alluded to—that is the matter we are considering to-day.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I do call attention to the White Paper in the Notice I put on the Order Paper, and I did talk quite a lot about the White Paper.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I agree, and that is the precedent I propose to follow, that being the topic of the mover of the Motion dealing with another matter. I am sure that since the Minister himself and the Leader of the Opposition discussed the White Paper I shall not be checked or called to order for doing the same. Therefore, respectfully bowing to the Resolution, I will proceed to discuss the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, suggested an alternative and about that I would first make some observations because I do not find myself in agreement with the alternative. He suggested that a Commission should be set up which

195
should purchase all the land in question and then lease it out to the local authorities. He did not say whether it was to be leased out to the authorities simpliciter for them to do what they liked with it, or leased subject to certain conditions and obligations, but I gather that the latter was meant. The object of having a central Commission is to impose upon local authorities various restrictions or to give them inducement to alter the distribution of the population and perhaps the location of industry, but let us imagine this Commission in being, charged with these duties.
It would have to hold land and determine on what conditions it should be administered and developed in every town throughout this country. It would have to decide the future fate and development of every industry. It is possible for a central Commission to own minerals, as in the case of the coal mines, because there you are dealing with one industry and with restricted areas, and it is possible that one body can negotiate successfully with the various mineowners actually conducting the working of the coal industry, but this is an entirely different proposition. It appears to me that it is essential that the task of planning should be decentralized, otherwise you will have difficulties impossible to overcome. I do not think that the great corporations governing our towns would for a moment tolerate that the whole of their futures should be placed in the hands of this Commission. The London County Council, the Manchester City Council, the Councils of Liverpool and Birmingham and other towns not so big would not consent to legislation which would take out of their hands the whole future of their great populations. That would be entrusted not even to a Ministry but to possibly some small Commission of chosen individuals, and the peoples of London and those provincial cities would not be able to express their desires and their hopes directly through their own representatives on their local councils. They would have to move their members of Parliament to persuade the House of Commons to influence the Minister to control the Commission in order to carry out any particular policy.
It seems to me, I confess, an impossible proposal. On the contrary, so far from
196
desiring to supersede the local authorities in dealing with these matters of vital importance, I for my part would suggest that the Government should go further than they have done in this White Paper in extending the powers of the local authorities. First it is necessary to secure that the areas of the authorities are the right areas. We all know that our local government system which comes down to us from an earlier state of society, has not been sufficiently modified to keep pace with the requirements that arise by reason of the technical developments of the modern world, and that most of our local governing authorities are too small. We cannot, at this juncture, swiftly remodel the whole of our local government area system, least of all could that be achieved in war-time. Consequently we have to put up with makeshifts in the shape of joint committees and ad hoc bodies consisting, perhaps, in cases of great cities, of the bodies controlling surrounding areas federated with it. That is a practical idea, and one that has been adopted as the policy of the Government.
In the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act which was passed last year, it was provided that these enlarged amalgamated or federated local authorities should be constituted. We have not heard, so far as I am aware, from the Minister in charge of town and country planning, how far that has been in fact accomplished. Perhaps in the course of this debate or on some future occasion, the Government may be able to tell the House and the country how far the local authorities have been constituted over the areas that are essential for the proper execution of a planning policy. When this has been done—and it is in process of being done—then, to my mind, much larger powers than have hitherto been granted should be granted to local authorities for acquiring land and dealing with the problems of development which are now facing them.
Not long ago I had the honour to be Chairman of a Committee in Oxford, where I am now living, the duty of which was to make proposals for the future planning of that city. It was appointed by the Oxford Preservation Trust and with the co-operation of the Chairmen of the Town Planning Committee of the City of Oxford and of the Oxfordshire County Council. In that capacity I had to make inquiries as to the extent to which the

197
site of the City of Oxford is owned already by the municipality, or by Colleges, by the University, or by the Oxford Preservation Trust, or bodies of that kind. I found that more than half of the whole area is so owned either by the municipality itself or by other bodies exercising what may be called social control. This led me to inquire into the position with regard to other cities. I found that Leeds owned more than a quarter of its own area, Liverpool about one-third of its own area, and Huddersfield almost two-fifths of its own area Where great corporations do own a large area of their towns it is obviously going to be an immense advantage. It greatly facilitates the proper laying out of streets and roads, the location of sites for open spaces and parks, housing sites .and other purposes.
The suggestion which I would venture to make is one which I have adumbrated previously in debates in this House. It is that what is needed is not an elaborate Bill like the one now before the other House, a Bill of legal verbiage and difficult distinctions between one area and another, but a Statute giving in a few clauses quite simple and general powers to the larger local authorities, the county councils, the county borough councils, to purchase land for whatever public purpose they think necessary, by compulsion if necessary and unavoidable, and at prices fixed in a manner determined by the Statute. It will be all to the good for these great corporations to become—as the ones I have mentioned have become already to some extent—historically some of them have been so for centuries—the landlords of their own cities. Their ownership of land and their administration of it I am sure will be very closely watched by the townspeople and interested parties, and if any abuses occurred they would he brought to light, and remedied. There would no doubt be a power of appeal, as there always is in such cases, to a central national authority should any suspicion arise of misapplication of powers. In that way you would be able to bring to bear conscious social action for the administration of these great matters which is to be desired in place of the whims and chances of private ownership or on the other hand the centralized control of a National Commission endeavouring to deal with this matter by single action.
This would be a bold act of statesmanship which would take the whole subject
198
out of the sphere of particular departments, where it now is. Those departments have got lost among the departmental trees and they cannot see the wood as a whole. What I have suggested would, I claim, be a natural development in this twentieth century of our great system of local government and an immense simplification. It would also be the best solution of this intricate problem of betterment and compensation over a very large part of the field, not universally, but in very many cases. It would, in fact, by-pass altogether the intricate maze of technical legalisms which now make up the complicatea clauses of the Bill which is before the other House. It would not deal with the question of undeveloped land outside the municipal boroughs, and in that respect I still think that the proposals of the Uthwatt Report are very fine proposals. Although they may give rise to certain difficulties, I think it is a pity that these difficulties were not dealt with and overcome rather than that so much of that fine piece of work should have been set aside.
The Government have provided an alternative. They have not suggested merely the negation of the Uthwatt recommendations without an endeavour to suggest some other course. Paragraphs 36 to of the Paper deal with compensation and betterment proposals and suggest that there should be created a National Compensation and Betterment Fund. That seems to me a good proposal and one which, in principle, should receive very careful consideration. But I agree with the criticism that has been so cogently made by my noble friend Lord Addison as to the plan that the Commission should not only take in the betterment revenue and pay out the compensation expenditure, but should see that there is a balance between the two. As I say, I agree with my noble friend. I do not see why tie, two should necessarily balance. It would mean that no local authority is to be able in any case to carry out improvement in its town, except to the extent that it likely to get betterment from those whose property has been increased in value. Towns are continually carrying out improvements in the public interest, however, where there is no prospect at all of a betterment revenue recouping the expenditure, and they do that with the com-

199
plete approval of the public opinion of their localities.
There is a further if minor point to which the noble Lord did not refer, but which should be mentioned. While the compensation payable is the full amount of the assessment, the betterment is only 8o per cent. of the added value given. If it is assumed that the added value on the one hand is to be countered by the revenue on the other, this difference between 80 per cent. and 100 per cent. would in any case throw the fund into a deficit of 20 per cent. all through. Perhaps, however, that is not the proposal which is actually intended. In any case it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Addison, is right in saying that the matter should not be placed in the hands of the so-called Land Commision to decide how much good planning can be paid for, local authorities being restricted to that amount.
As to the title of that Commission, I agree with the criticism that it is not a Land Commission and ought not to be so called. It is a Land Financial Commission. Indeed, the White Paper specifically declares that while additional functions may be put upon it, those functions are not to relate to planning policy, so that it seems improper to describe it simply as a Land Commission. How the Commission will work in practice it is impossible for us at present to form an opinion upon; the White Paper does not give us sufficient information. What is to be the financial relationship between the Commission and the local authorities is nowhere explained. A leading article in The Times when this White Paper appeared, which described it as "a meagre and unsatisfying document," said:
"A first impression is that the compromise of which it is necessarily the product has been bought at the cost of no little obscurity. On many questions there are no data at all; and on the central question of the relations between the local planning authorities and the central Land Commission there is no word to be found."
Yet from the point of view of the local authorities that is absolutely vital. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, would elucidate this point. With his disarming amiability he proceeded with his speech, however, but did not greatly assist us in the understanding or
200
interpretation of the White Paper; and his earlier intervention in the debate, while quite welcome, has not, I am afraid, greatly helped the House to discuss the White Paper which is now in fact before us.
As for the Bill itself, it is not now before this House but before the House of Commons, and I shall not discuss any of its provisions; but I would remind your Lordships that it has been received with great disfavour by the local authorities of the country. The local authority associations—the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils' Association, the bodies representing urban district councils, rural district councils and non-county boroughs—with the London County Council and the Corporation of the City of London, have all combined (a very rare circumstance) and presented a common front. They sent to the Government a joint statement in which they say that with regard to many of the provisions of the Bill relating to matters of fundamental importance the local authorities feel "the keenest and most profound disappointment." These are bodies accustomed to speak with a great sense of responsibility. They are somewhat conservative minded. They certainly weigh their words very carefully, and when they speak of "the keenest and most profound disappointment" it should give us pause.
In the House of Commons the Bill received a storm of criticism, and indeed it appeared that the Government, in trying to produce a White Paper which should avoid making enemies, had almost failed to enlist a friend. The consideration of the Bill has been suspended, and we learn that the Minister, Mr. W. S. Morrison, has held four conferences with the local authorities and has published a first list of proposed modifications. These, with one exception, are of minor importance, the exception being that the local authorities are to be given compulsory powers in relation to open spaces and playing fields. The local authorities have not yet replied. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who has taken such a leading part in this movement, may be able to tell us what their attitude is. In the meantime everything seems to be doubtful; only one thing is certain—namely, that we are to be subjected to yet further delay.
The Government have divided the whole subject into two parts, and I think

201
that they have been in error in so doing. They discuss in the White Paper the more urgent matters, which are in paragraphs headed (a) and (b), and both are included in the Bill. They then propose to deal separately and at greater leisure with all the other frequently major proposals. We can understand how this division has come about if we look at the history of this matter hi recent years. There has been the destruction of our towns owing to air attacks, and that has constituted an immediate and urgent problem, the problem of rebuilding. A great deal of public interest has been aroused, and that public interest has enabled the Government to override a great many of the obstructions which always face progress in this matter. The Government have taken advantage of this situation and have said: "Let us make use of whatever agreement there is owing to this very urgent national situation arising out of the war."
In the Bill, therefore, they define the areas of "extensive war damage," and they deal with that as the main substance of the Bill, and then add on to it extensions elsewhere dealing with so-called "obsolescent areas" and so forth. The consequence is that the Bill is one of great elaboration and immense complexity. When we consider these historical facts we see how that has arisen, but the consequence is what can only be called a piece of bad legislation. If we forget the historical origins of the Bill and look at the problem in itself, and proceed by saying "Let us deal with the planning question as a whole; the major part of it is in towns which have not suffered air raid damage," then by dealing with the greater problem as a whole the lesser problem of the destroyed areas would be included in the greater. Some special provisions would have to be made on the financial side, because the Treasury has to make special grants where the re-planning is the consequence of war damage. The towns are dealt with on the same principle as the private citizen whose property has been damaged in the war, the nation coming to his aid to make good loss which has been suffered in the national cause. That should be done also in the matter of war damage in the towns. But in general it would be far better, if the Government find that they are bogged with this Bill in the House of Commons, for them to with-
202
draw it and to proceed on other lines, much more simple and brief and able to be passed through Parliament much more expeditiously, not setting out to deal separately with the war damaged and the other areas but including the former in the larger whole.
In the meantime the end of the war may be only a few weeks or months off, and nothing is ready. The legislation is not passed; the local authorities are not able to know what they can do; the plans are not in their final form; we do not know, in fact, where the houses are going to be, although the Government say that everybody knows just where the houses ought to be built. In fact that is not known, because the plans have not been adequately prepared.
LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but we have stated time and again that the sites are available for 250,000 houses, and it will require a great deal of effort to get those built in the first year after the war.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: That confirms what I say—25o,00o houses, when everybody knows that the number needed runs into millions.
LORD WOOLTON: We shall not get them in the first year after the war.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, it takes 'a long time to make plans, and it is necessary to consider the location of industry. If you do not consider the location of industry, how do you know whether houses will be needed at all in this town or in that, or whether this town is to grow or the population is to be transferred elsewhere? The Government have been warned again and again, and repeatedly in this House, that possibly the end of the war will come as a sudden development. This is the sixteenth debate on this subject that we have had since November, 1940. Every three months for four years this House of Lords has been doing what it can to stir up the Government, but without success. As an old English writer once said, "It was no more use talking to them than to the east wind." I think it was Lord Reith, the one Minister who really did have a sense of urgency, who said that the Government certainly would not be caught by the peace. Well, it seems extremely probable that that is

203
exactly what will happen, and then we shall repeat the old mistake, and the Government and the local authorities will be forced by public opinion to build with the utmost expedition where they can. They will do so where they can build most quickly and most cheaply. Then once more our countryside will be spoilt, the hopes of the finer England which we had entertained will be betrayed and, in the words of one of the leaders of the planning movement, we shall find that we have sold our birthright for a mess of cottages.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I hope it will not be felt that I am speaking out of order if I keep strictly to the terms of the Resolution; a Bishop is by nature an orderly creature. I am very glad that the noble Lord has introduced this subject to the House. There is no one here more qualified to do it than the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who has given so much time and so much trouble to this whole problem of housing. He approaches the subject not as one who is interested in planning for the sake of planning, but because it is necessary to have good and wise planning if you are to have a reasonable policy for building houses. I approach the subject from the same point of view, and I was very glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said in the most emphatic way that nothing is so important for the future of the country as this problem of housing. There was a time when I think our cities rejoiced in the large number of people they possessed and in their extent, but during the last quarter of a century we have been recognizing increasingly that an extremely large city does not always make for good and healthy housing.
The Barlow Report brought this before us in a very striking and emphatic way, but the conclusions of the Barlow Report have been intensified by the experiences of the war. The first evacuation of children brought before large numbers of people the fact that conditions in certain parts of our great cities were profoundly unsatisfactory, and the bombing of our towns from the air shows how dangerous it is for the security of the nation when we have an enormous population and a large number of industries collected in one place. And if that danger is a serious one
204
now, in the years to come it may be very much more serious when there have been, as I fear there will be, further developments of the machines for enemy air attack. But, quite apart from the events of the war, the deterioration of houses in the last five years has raised a very serious problem of rebuilding. When the Barlow Report was signed there were many who felt that its conclusions were admirable, but that it would he quite impossible to undertake the great task of reorganizing and rebuilding our cities. Since then, however, the whole position has changed. Whether we like it or not, huge schemes of rebuilding must be undertaken in our cities.
It is now, I suppose, fair to say publicly that in some of our cities the central parts remind von more than anything else of the ruins of Pompeii. Building on a very large scale will have to be undertaken, and the movement of population which seemed to be impracticable before the war has taken place on a large scale. The result is that the majority of our cities are now considering very seriously the plans for the rebuilding of the cities and the housing of people who have been for the time moved away.
There are three lines of policy which might be adopted. First of all, there is the attempt to rebuild the old congested districts, making here and there an additional open space or some minor improvement, but on the whole the old crowded districts would be rebuilt again. I quite recognize that in some cases it will he necessary to rebuild in some way or another a part of those districts. But it will mean the housing of people in large tenement buildings. The modern tenement, of course, is very different from the old citadel of gloom which was once regarded as a model dwelling place for the working classes, but even now the tenement is unpopular. From one inquiry, made by the Housing Advisory Committee of Women, it was found that only 14 per cent. desired to live in tenements. In the inquiry made by the Edinburgh Advisory Housing Committee it was found that only 10 per cent. desired to live in tenements. The Committee of Housing Managers of Suburbs found that only 4 per cent. wished to live in tenements. And so, though it may be necessary to build a certain number of tenements—I quite recognize that it is necessary to build some tenements, and the

205
tenements which will be built now will be a great improvement on the tenements of the past—the great majority of our people do not wish to live in tenements, and they do not wish to live in them for the simple reason that family life is extremely difficult in these overcrowded warrens.
The second policy, which is very popular in certain directions, is to build more estates on the outskirts of our great towns and to move far as possible the industries in those directions. We tried that very largely after the last war, but that policy is open to very serious objections. There is the difficulty of traffic: it means more transport difficulties. There is the difficulty also that you are destroying by this policy those green belts which we hoped to see surrounding our towns. The divorce between the man who dwells in the centre of the town and the country becomes more pronounced than ever. It will be harder for the dweller in the more congested parts to reach the country even for a few hours. And I think, the most serious of all the difficulties is this. If you allow new rousing estates and suburbs to be built on the outskirts of towns you are once again destroying all sense of community life. I think this is what I notice most of all in the great suburbs round our towns: there is no sense of community there is no common centre. In this way, of course, the people in the Middle Ages had a great advantage over us to-day. No doubt we are often misled by the extremely attractive pictures sometimes shown to us depicting the town within its walls, surrounding the church and the civic hall, all looking extremely picturesque. We forget that the main street was probably the main sewer and that the houses were crowded, damp and uncomfortable. Nevertheless, in the Middle Ages, there was a community sense a community centre. If we allow people to dwell in these inchoate districts without any common centre there will be no real interest in civic life, there will be no common cultural life. That policy will be a policy of despair.
So we are driven back on the third policy which at one time seemed to be simply an idealistic policy—namely, the creation of a large number of new towns in different parts of the country. There is a possibility of doing this to-day which did not exist in the past. Many great
206
industries, on account of the war, have been established in the country. Many of these munition factories, we hope, may be brought to an end as soon as possible, but some of them can be converted into industries for use in peace-time, and round these industries there might spring up flourishing, populous towns. Of course we cannot move the people from our towns into the country by coercion. That would be the Hitlerite method which would be repugnant to all our national instincts and sentiments, but we can persuade industry to move to suitable places in the country and where industries go there the population will, sooner or later, follow. I hope that the Government will act on the suggestions in the Barlow Report that where you get a huge centre of industry, where the people are almost dangerously congested, a licence should be necessary for any new industry in that area and should only be given when it is clearly necessary that that industry should start in that place. That, by itself, will not be enough. Encouragements of various sorts and kinds should be given to industries to move to those localities where they are most of all required.
We are all very anxious about the depressed areas—reference has been made to them by the noble Lord who replied for the Government—and we are anxious about the future of the North-Eastern area. At the moment that area is flourishing. The heavy industries are hard at work, but when the war comes to an end there is a grave doubt as to the future of a district of that kind unless other industries are introduced into it. In a very interesting report issued some months ago by the Northern Industrial Group, consisting of a number of industrialists, it was urged very strongly that into the North-Eastern area there should be introduced a much greater variety of industries making highly developed products suitable for export as well as for the home market like engineering, chemicals, and synthetics as well as all sorts of light industries making such things as wireless, household goods, semi-luxuries and necessities of all kinds. In that Report they go on to say that definite action must he taken by the Government to overcome the reluctance of business people to establish in the north-east and that action should be taken encouraging them to do so in various ways, holding out inducements for these industries to move there.

207
There will have to be called into existence, quite apart from the older districts to which I have been referring, new towns. I know the objection is sometimes raised that if you have these new towns in various parts of the country you are ruining the countryside. If these towns are planned, and if they are established in connexion with a reasonably thought-out plan, they will do infinitely less harm to the countryside than the indiscriminate sprawl which has been taking place during the last few years, ruining the countryside in every direction. That is the kind of haphazard growth which the noble Lord, speaking for the Government, wishes to replace with something better. I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord who introduced this matter. The difficulty is that we have not yet had from the Government a definite enough lead as to the way in which this planning is to be carried out. The Government have done a great deal in the way of preparing for housing after the war. Perhaps we are much more advanced in that way than we were towards the end of the last war. I am not ignoring what has been done, but I am afraid that there may spring up haphazard schemes all over the country which will stand in the way of a comprehensive policy unless a very clear and definite lead about planning is given by the Government. I am also certain that schemes for housing on a large scale are being held up by vagueness and uncertainty about the compensation proposals.
I would say, with the noble Lord who spoke first, "Let us settle, and settle now, even if it means paying a larger sum for compensation." This is really a most critical period. We have to make decisions which will not only influence the next few years but will influence the nation for many generations to come. We have an opportunity of planning and building such as we have never had before. If we make mistakes now, if we refuse through timidity, hesitation, and delay to seize this opportunity, we shall be laying up quite terrific problems for those who come after us. On the other hand, if we make wise decisions and can carry them out promptly, we shall be building for the future cities in which it will be a joy to live and houses which will be homes in which the people can live healthily and happily.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, indicated that the debate has rambled over a very wide field. I propose in the few remarks I shall make to deal with what my noble friend has described as the "decentralization, decongestion, and redevelopment of our big towns." That obviously involves control of the use of land. As I understand it, the object of the White Paper and the object of this debate is to try and crystallize public opinion. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government indicated that that was his desire. A previous speaker has reminded us that we have debated this subject sixteen times. I do not know whether I have made sixteen speeches, but I have a recollection of having taken part in discussions such as this on numerous occasions during the last few years. To-day, as before, I do not claim to speak as an expert. I do not claim to speak on behalf of any association, whether municipal corporation or anything else, but I want to share with your Lordships the practical experience I have had during the last five years as Lord Mayor of a city which was unplanned, overcrowded, "blitzed," and which has been early in the field with proposals for replanning.
One of our difficulties is that we are expected to deal with this in a piecemeal manner. The proposals of the Government go forward piecemeal and too often we are expected to take vital steps and commit public money on a very large scale on promises only. What I venture to suggest to this House is that we need statutory certainty before we can embark on and implement our schemes of reconstruction and replanning. I would like to explain to your Lordships some of the problems which we in Plymouth are up against and I would commend to your Lordships, if any of you have an hour or half an hour to spare, the exhibition which by the courtesy of the Institute of Civil Engineers is in Great George Street. To anybody interested in replanning I think half an hour or an hour spent there will prove of great value.
Plymouth used to be a very much overcrowded town. Before 1938 our density of population was I think 36 compared to 15, or almost twice as much as that of other county boroughs. If we deal with that problem of decongestion it results in overspill. The land which we have, if we plan properly, is unable

209
to accommodate all the, people who are displaced. Then we also have the problem of the allocation of industry. The Admiralty are extending the dockyards and that means that an area of something like 240 acres, which before was covered with dwellings and shops producing a great deal in rate income, is now going to be derated industry as part of the dockyard. That again faces us with a problem of loss A population and loss of income. The question of agriculture has been mentioned and if any of your Lordships can see the exhibition I have mentioned I would commend in particular an exhibit that has been provided by the Ministry of Agriculture. We were wise enough to ask an authority, Dr. Stamp, to make a survey of the land in and about Plymouth. It was most interesting to see that either within the city boundary itself or just outside the land is suitable for horticulture, vegetable and fruit growing, dairying, hill sheep and so on, and our plan proposes that some of this agricultural land should be preserved and reserved for agriculture. We think it is a good thing to have rural communities and town people living together, but we can only earn that out if we receive financial help.
In dealing with this problem one has to realize that agricultural land in order to be conducted profitably must form an economic unit. You cannot take away the best or an undue amount and cover it with houses and expect a farmer to be able to farm profitably the remainder. We found in our survey that in a little valley vegetables ripen a fortnight earlier than in other districts. I believe I am right in saying that that particular valley had been earmarked for a housing estate. I hope we shall save it for what nature obviously intended it should be. But if we do that, that again provides us with a problem of overspill—if, that is to say, we preserve green belts and open spaces and do not attempt to cover every blade of grass with a brick as used to be done in the old days. Then we are very anxious to preserve the amenities. It is possible now within ten minutes of the dockyard to find beautiful country scenery, lanes, walks and combes and valleys. We an anxious to preserve that scenery, but that can only be done if we get adequate help. That is planning, but planning of that sort requires adequate assistance from the Government. The "Blitz" has compelled us to plan im-
210
mediately. Whereas in towns which have not been bombed planning may be carried out in a generation, we are obliged to make commitments now, at once.
When I refer to overspill, I hope noble Lords will realize that the overspill of a relatively small provincial city produces an entirely different problem from the sort of thing which happens in London, where even the movement of tens of thousands of people represents only a small percentage of the total population. I will give the figures for Plymouth in a moment, but noble Lords will see with what a very serious problem we are faced. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh referred to the desirability of checking the undue growth of large cities. I agree with him entirely. At the same time we have got to see that cities which want to plan properly are not reduced unduly in their size through the problem of the overspill. One can divide cities and areas into three categories. There are those which were evacuation areas and for different reasons lost their population but were not "blitzed." When the war is over their populations will return. Their loss has been a temporary loss. There are other localities which are reception areas. They have received a large influx of people, many of them have received an influx of munition workers and visitors. I could point to many areas which have enjoyed eras of prosperity such as they never contemplated in the past.
There is another great category in which Plymouth comes. We were a "blitzed" city and an evacuation area. As a result of that we have borne the brunt of the battle and we are bankrupt, and the aid which we require is of an entirely different magnitude from the aid which can be claimed by a town that has not had its property destroyed or that which obviously could be claimed by cities or areas that have been reception areas. Before the war the product of a penny rate in Plymouth was £7,800, it is now £5,800—an enormous loss. We are only able to carry on because we receive a subsidy from the Treasury equal to 25 per cent. of our pre-war rate income and that is given by way of a loan. By next March we shall owe the Treasury £300,000 and we cannot begin to balance our municipal budget until we have rebuilt shops and dwellings, so that we have before us a very bleak era so far as finance is con-

211
cerned. What do I mean when I talk of overspill? Before the war our population was 220,000. In the spring of 1941 after the "Blitz" it dropped from 220,000 to 119,000. Our population to-day is roughly 146,000. If we carry out the Abercrombie Watson plan which has been received all over the world as a good and proper and ideal plan, our future population will be limited to a maximum of 180,00o as compared with 220,000 pre-war. The implications of that are obvious. It is impossible to expect a population so reduced in size and with its reduced rateable value to bear the burden of replanning as we want to do it and as I am sure your Lordships and the whole country would wish us to do it. And we are not unique. There are other cities—Hull, Dover, Great Yarmouth, Bristol, Portsmouth—in exactly the same predicament as we are, anxious to go ahead, ready with plans but unable to go forward unless they get more help from the Government and from Parliament than is at present envisaged.
LORD WOOLTON: By "help" you mean money?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I was just coming to that. We want more financial help and we also wish to preserve those values and that population which I have described as overspill which has moved from us. That means that there should be an amalgamation so that the people who earn their money in Plymouth but live outside continue to be citizens and ratepayers and that the values which move from Plymouth to the adjoining districts are preserved within the area as a whole. That is what I mean by the help we require. Like other speakers I have perhaps drifted a little from the wording of the Resolution, but the contribution which I think I can make to your Lordships' deliberations comes from these difficulties which those who have to deal with practical problems have to face. Our dilemma is that what we want to do and what we believe you wish us to do we cannot do unless we get substantial assistance. Previous speakers have referred to the way in which in the last century, in the Victorian era, during the period of laissez faire, we had this enormous growth of cities which later on developed into slums. Your Lordships know the way in which after the last war much of the beauty of the land was destroyed
212
by our attempts to house without having adequate planning control. Here is a last opportunity to preserve what still remains of the beauties of this relatively small country. I trust your Lordships will assist the other House in giving us who are responsible for planning those powers which we require if we are to do what I am convinced the public as a whole wishes us to do.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I want to express sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, for his statement that the Government do attach supreme importance to the question of housing and planning. Anything we can do in the way of planning we must do as a means to an end and not an end in itself. In spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said about the position of housing, I consider this White Paper a genuine effort at least to advance a pretty good step on the road to getting houses built. Therefore I think the White Paper should be welcomed. The people most directly affected by the proposals in the White Paper are the owners of land and the owners of property. They are asked to make the greatest contribution, and without their contribution the whole of the scheme would be valueless. If the noble Lord, Lord Addison, were in his place I would like to cross swords with him in reference to his statement that the present critical situation has arisen because of the action of owners of property. Surely the situation is entirely due to matters over which property owners have had no control whatsoever. I would like on another occasion when there is more time to take up that statement of the noble Lord and deny it. As it is, I would only say that in the past property owners have done very much more than local authorities in the way of securing houses for people to live in.
If the proposals in the White Paper were submitted in normal times I think that quite possibly the owners of land and owners of property might be fully justified in raising the very gravest objections to what might be described as interference with their genuine business and their freedom. These, however, are not normal times, but most exceptional times, and it is for that reason that property owners and land owners should, and I believe in general do, recognize the fact that some degree of control is necessary over the use of their land in the national interest. We are assured and we believe

213
that this control will go some distance to help to get houses built. If that is so, let us have that control and let us get the houses built; but the proposals which have been already severely criticized by almost every .speaker this afternoon will not only fail to hasten the building of houses but w.11 be, from the property owners point of view, a very definite stumbling block to development.
I am very impressed and I hope the Government will be impressed with the degree of agreement expressed to-day from all sides of the House against the proposals in the White Paper for betterment and compensation, mainly compensation. A case has been put forward—I. will not say has been made out —which is clamed to justify some part of betterment being paid to the State. It is suggested that 8o per cent. should go to the State and that the remaining 20 per cent. should go to the owners as an incentive to development. That 20 per cent. will not act as an incentive to the owner to develop his land or ,et it developed. It will be quite inadequate for hat purpose. The owner will have considerable expense to incur in preparing a scheme of development and getting it submitted to the Minister and it is extremely doubtful if the 20 per cent. will even pay his expenses. Any consideration of increase in value due to his own efforts has not been mentioned in the discussion. I hope the Government will find some means of altering the proportion. My suggestion is that 50–5o might be a fairer proportion, and that it would bring in more money to the State than the present figures which are likely to result in the discouragement of individual development.
I do not wish to repeat at length what has been said by other speakers on the subject of compensation, but I wish to support the statement that the proposals are much too vague and nebulous. If I may cite the part of the world in which I am lucky enough to live, I would say there are many thousands of acres there capable of development and of supplying much needed housing. That land has not been bought speculatively for that purpose. Much of it has been in the hands of the families of the present owners for over a hundred years. Without doubt there is a certain amount of potential building value attached to that
214
land and that has been the case for a long time. In the proposals concerning betterment and compensation outlined in the White Paper there is no incentive whatever to any of these owners to develop their land or to get rid of it for development. First of all they must provide a scheme of development. If that scheme is permitted they will be allowed 20 per cent. of the increased building value. But, if the scheme is rejected, that land will lose all its development value straight away, and the compensation they will be paid is some nebulous sum which may, or may not, be there at the end of five years. Such a proposal, I think, is not economic.
Lord Addison has referred to it to-day as a mathematical impossibility, and I suggest that any owner of such land who wanted to develop it, and prepared it for development now, would be extremely foolish. I do not think that the matter of five years delay in compensation has been previously mentioned to-day. Almost impossible complications would arise if this really came about. Deaths occur and there are changes of ownerships. No estate, however small, could he settled up, and a simple change of ownership would lead to complications which would be endless. That five years delay in compensation in my belief would never work. I do hope that the Government will give very serious consideration to the proposals on betterment and compensation that have been made to-day. I believe that, with those, highly important alterations, the White Paper might prove a sound basis for meeting what will undoubtedly be a very critical situation. As such it would be deserving of your Lordships' support—but only with those alterations.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Latham, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate he now adjourned.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

HOUSING (TEMPORARY ACCOM-MODATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª, and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter before five o'clock.