Lords Sitting of 21 April 1942

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE) (Lord Cecil): My Lords, I think that I ought to open our proceedings to-day by informing your Lordships that when we come to the debate on the Motion which stands in the name of the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet, Lord Chat-field, I shall propose to the House that we go into Secret Session. The view taken by His Majesty's Government—a view in which I understand I have the concurrence of the noble and gallant Lord himself, and in which I feel sure I shall have the agreement of all your Lordships—is that a discussion on a programme of battleship construction and replacement and its progress is in its nature one that cannot properly be held in war-time in open sitting. The national interest demands the utmost secrecy in matters of this kind, and however discreet may be the references—and I am sure that your Lordships will always exhibit your usual wisdom in these matters—there will certainly be opportunities afforded to the enemy for gathering much-needed information, whether from actual statements made in the course of the debate or from the omissions, which in matters of this kind may be almost equally valuable to him. Therefore I think there is no doubt that in a case of this kind it would be wiser and better for the House to sit in Secret Session.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, I beg
658
to move the Second Reading of this Bill As your Lordships are aware, the Bill must receive the Royal Assent by the end of the month. The Preamble and Clauses 1 and 2 are in the usual form. Clause 3 introduces two changes in the Army Act in regard to the summary punishment of officers. In the first place it enables charges against Majors on less serious offences to be disposed of under Section 47 by a General Officer or Air Officer authorized to convene a general Court Martial. At present all charges against officers above the rank of Captain must be tried by Court Martial. Secondly, it empowers the authority dealing summarily with a charge against an officer below the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel to order deductions to be made from his pay in cases where the offence has caused loss or damage to property. This power can at present be exercised by a Court Martial and also, in the case of warrant officers, by an authority authorized to deal with charges summarily. The amendment, which also applies to the Air Force Act, puts officers in the same position in this respect as warrant officers.
Clause 4 amends Sections 56 and 70 of the Army Act and the Air Force Act. Section 56 enables a Court Martial to convict a person, in certain cases, of an offence other than that with which he is charged, but does not, generally speaking, enable the Court Martial to convict him of a more serious offence. In one case, however, the section enables the Court Martial to convict of a more serious offence, in that it may convict of desertion a person charged with attempting to desert. This power is not in practice used, and is repealed by the clause. The amendment of Section 70 enables a valid finding to be substituted for a finding of guilty by a Court Martial which is invalid or unsupported by the evidence, if the new finding could have been validly made by the Court Martial and the Court Martial must have been satisfied of the facts establishing the new finding. It also enables a sentence to be imposed for the offence specified or involved in the new finding, but the sentence must not be more severe than the sentence imposed by the Court Martial. These powers are analogous to those exercisable by the Court of Criminal Appeal under subsection (2) of Section 5 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, and cover a case where a Court Martial has wrongly convicted a

659
person of an offence and could under Section 56 of the Army Act have convicted him of a less serious offence plainly established by the evidence
I will give an example which, I trust, will make the proposal clear to your Lordships. A soldier has been convicted by a Court Martial of desertion and sentenced to six months' detention. The proceedings are duly confirmed and the sentence put into operation. On reviewing the proceedings before they are filed, the Judge Advocate General reaches the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the conviction. As the Act stands at present, he could only advise the quashing of the finding and sentence even though the soldier had been absent without leave from his unit for weeks and the court had clearly been satisfied that the soldier had been so absent. If the Act is amended as proposed (and the consequential amendments to the Rules of Procedure under Section 70 of the Act are made), His Majesty or the Army Council would be able to substitute a finding of guilty of absence without leave and a sentence of, say, 56 days' detention. I would like to emphasize that in no case will it be permissible to substitute a conviction on a charge of a graver nature than the one on which the Court Martial convicted.
Clause 5 amends paragraph (1) of Section 138 of the Army Act and of Section 138 of the Air Force Act which provide that a soldier or airman sentenced to penal servitude, imprisonment or detention shall not receive pay during his sentence. The amendment extends the provision to sentences of detention in Borstal Institutions. The sole object of Clause 6 is to obviate the necessity of printing a revised and consolidated Army Act or Air Force Act each time it is amended by an Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, and so save paper and the labour of editing fresh editions of the Acts. This is solely a war-time measure which can be repealed when things become normal again. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Croft.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUGAR INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope to detain the House for only a few moments. The Sugar Industry Bill, which has passed through another place without amendments and indeed, without debate, is related to the Sugar Industry (Reorganization) Act, 1936, the principal features of which will no doubt be familiar to your Lordships. The main purpose of that Act was to reorganize the industry in order to secure the maximum efficiency in the production of home-grown sugar, and so to preserve sugar beet growing as an integral part of our agricultural system. Thanks to the good progress made towards these objectives in the short time available before the outbreak of war, we have been able in this war to produce substantial quantities of sugar and, in addition, valuable supplies of feeding-stuffs for our live stock, particularly dairy cows.
When war broke out, my noble friend the Minister of Food assumed control over the production, refining, sale and distribution of sugar in the United Kingdom; this rendered redundant most of the duties and functions of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and of the Sugar Commission under the Act of 1936. This small Bill is intended, therefore, to relieve the Minister of Agriculture and the Sugar Commission of these functions during the war period. The highly complex procedure set out in the Act of 1936, for the payment of assistance to the Sugar Corporation, proved too difficult to work under war conditions, and a simpler method of payment by the Minister of Food during the war has been adopted. The opportunity has been taken in the Bill of tying up a number of loose ends resulting from the change of responsibilities of Ministers, and of making certain retrospective adjustments. These amendments are, however, of so technical a nature that, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to leave detailed consideration of them till a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, when a remedial measure is proposed—and this Bill falls within that category—there are two relevant questions which are apt to be put and which, if I may so, are properly put—namely, first, whether a mischief is disclosed requiring remedy; and, secondly, if so, whether the remedy proposed is appropriate. I hope your Lordships will come to think, after I have spoken for the few minutes during which I wish to detain the House, that the answer to both these questions is in this case in the affirmative.
First, as regards the mischief. The law of Scotland as it stands to-day has revealed, under war-time conditions, a certain defect and hardship requiring remedy. I may explain that under the law of Scotland, when two people in Scotland desire to marry, each of them has to give notice to the registrar of the district in which he or she resides and in which—I beg your Lordships to mark these words—they have resided for fifteen days before the application to the registrar is made. If the application has been duly made, and has been notified in a public manner for seven days by the registrar, as the law provides, then he issues a certificate and the marriage may proceed. That applies when the two people concerned are resident in Scotland. But your Lordships will see that under present-day conditions there are difficulties. There is a certain difficulty in giving effect to the requirements to which I have alluded, and particularly to the requirement regarding residence when the two people concerned are engaged in war work, let us say, on this side of the border. To-day there are many Scotsmen and Scotswomen who are resident in England because of war-time jobs which they have here, and the result is that the requirement of fifteen days' residence in Scotland in a particular district cannot receive effect unless, indeed, the man or woman, or both, forfeit their jobs or, at best, secure leave for fifteen days to go o Scotland, where they desire to be
662
married, together with leave for the further period required for the purpose of the ceremony. Accordingly your Lordships will see that a very real difficulty may arise, and indeed has arisen.
The picture I have drawn is by no means a fanciful one. I have been in consultation with the Registrar-General for Scotland, who informs me that during the last three months of last year he had to deal with about a dozen problems of this kind in the course of each week at headquarters, and the local registrars in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Dundee have similarly been beset with problems arising from the circumstances to which I have referred. Accordingly the Registrar-General was well advised, as I humbly think, when, as the result of his consideration of the evidence before him, he came to the conclusion - that a serious hardship was fully documented and that something should be done to remove the hardship so created.
If I have taken your Lordships so far with me as to agree that a hardship requiring redress is frequently disclosed to-day, then what about the remedy? This Bill essays to provide that remedy, and the remedy is in essence quite simple. It is this, that when two Scottish people who arc working in England—very often on war-time work—desire to be married in Scotland, as they generally do, then if one of them had his or her ordinary residence in Scotland at the outbreak of war, he or she may give notice to the Scottish registrar of the intention to marry, and the registrar proceeds to exhibit that notice publicly in his registry office. Then, without the period of residence of fifteen days, when the two people resident in England give notice of the intention to marry in Scotland, if they had their ordinary residence in Scotland at the time of the outbreak of the war—namely, September 3, 1939—the registrar proceeds just as if they had fulfilled the requirement of spending fifteen days in the registration district before the certificate was granted. The registrar, in point of fact, then proceeds to exhibit publicly the notice he has received, and, if no objection is taken, at the end of seven days he issues his certificate, which is the warrant for the marriage to proceed. In short, the requirement of fifteen days' residence is in the circumstances dispensed with. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that I have demonstrated

663
not only a grievance, but also an appropriate remedy for that grievance.
I would only add two things, if I may. Firstly, this measure is chiefly designed for the benefit of war workers, and its terms will be spent at the end of the war. Secondly, I have been, throughout, in close consultation with the Church of Scotland, which is interested in this problem from another angle—namely, marriage following a proclamation of banns. Not only does the Church have no objection to this measure, but I have reason to think that in its own domestic way it will proceed to deal on similar lines with the problem from the Church point of view. This Bill, as your Lordships see, merely applies to marriages which follow upon an application to a registrar, not those which follow on proclamation of banns. The Bill really has only one operative section—namely, the first. The other sections are either ancillary or, in some cases, merely consequential, and I do not think I should be justified in detaining your Lordships on a Second Reading of the Bill by discussing these sections in detail. I content myself by submitting that I have shown that a grievance is disclosed, that redress of that grievance is called for, and that the redress provided by this Bill is satisfactory and appropriate. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (POWERS) MEASURE, 1942.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, in the absence of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I beg to move the Resolution which stands in his name. It deals with a very simple matter relating to the machinery of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In ordinary times, whenever the Commissioners vote a grant, this has to be secured by a formal sealed instrument published in the London Gazette. This is suitable machinery for making grants of which the instrument is both a permanent record and a document of title. During the war the number of grants made has increased very largely, and the
664
great majority of those grants are of a temporary nature. This Measure would enable such temporary grants to be made by a resolution of the board. This would save time, expense, and the waste of a vast amount of paper. This Resolution has already been passed by another place, and I hope this House will now pass it. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commission (Powers) Measure, 1942, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Winchester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SECRET SESSION.
LORD CHATFIELD LORD CHATFIELD had the follow-Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government whether all necessary measures are being taken for the replacement of the battleships of the "Queen Elizabeth" and "Royal Sovereign" classes as early as possible, in view of their great age; and in particular whether satisfactory progress is being made with the battleships of the "Lion" class, whose construction was approved before the war; and to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now sit in Secret Session.
Moved, that the House do now sit in Sercet Session.—(Viscout Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House resumed in Open Session.

PLANNING AND RECONSTRUCTION.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to deal with planning and reconstruction; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in putting this Motion on the Paper I have no intention of making a long speech, and I have still less intention of making it at this hour of the sitting. I merely put the Motion down so as to enable the

665
noble Lord, the Minister of Works and Buildings, to make what I hope will be a comprehensive statement about Government policy for reconstruction of town and country after the war. Some time ago—last February—the noble Lord, Lord Reith, informed the House that the Government had decided to create a Planning Authority. His statement was received with general satisfaction, and noble Lords opposite, who had been critical on previous occasions about earlier statements, welcomed this statement with whole-hearted gratitude. It looked as if, at last, a definite step forward had been made, and that legislation would be introduced to carry out the promises which had thus been made. Then, to general surprise, shortly afterwards came the announcement of a change of Ministers. It is generally recognized, I think, that Lord Keith worked with great energy and enthusiasm in his Ministry, and that the promise of the creation of this authority was due to his own driving power and initiative. It is not for me to enter into the question of why there was a change of Ministers at that time, but there has arisen in the minds of many a certain amount of fear as to whether the change of personnel might possibly mean a change of policy. I am anxious that the noble Lord, Lord Portal, should reassure us on that matter. I hope especially that he will be able to tell us that planning will take the predominant place in the reconstruction of building policy of the Government.
Unless there is preliminary planning, there can be no satisfactory reconstruction. Unless there is planning, we shall have chaos through the rivalry of the different competing authorities. Unless there is planning, we shall continue to make an uneconomical use of the very limited land which we have in this country. I hope he will also be able to assure us that this Authority will have a large amount of control over the location of industry. One of the mistakes we made after the last war was that we allowed industry to start without any reference to the people who were to work in them, and we allowed housing estates to come into existence without any relationship to the industries in which the people dwelling in them were to work. Unless there is some control over the location of industry, at the end of the war, when reasons of national security are removed, we shall find many industries going back to overcrowded towns, we shall
666
find other industries remaining on land which ought to be used for agricultural purposes, and—what is even more serious—we shall find a number of industries concentrated in one part of the country while there are no industries, or few, in other parts, and once again we shall have the spectacle of distressed areas.
I would ask the noble Lord two or three definite questions. First, can he hold out any hope that the setting up of this Authority will be speedily carried into law? Can he give us any idea as to when legislation will be introduced to carry out the preliminary recommendations of Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Report? I would ask him also—this may be more difficult to answer—can he tell us when there is any likelihood of a complete Report coming from Mr. Justice Uthwatt's Committee, and also from Lord Justice Scott's Committee on the general situation? It may be that I have been impatient in asking for answers to these questions, but the matter is really one of very great urgency. One reason, among many others, that could be given for the urgency is that there is a growing anxiety among the men in the Forces about their position at the end of the war. Lately this has been brought home to me in many different ways. Large numbers of men are intensely anxious as to where they will find employment at the end of the war. Some of these men are the sons of men who were unemployed after the last war. I have frequently been asked this question by men lately, for it is a question which is very much to the fore in the minds of the men serving in the Forces. The best answer to this question would be to show that the Government have a well-thought-out scheme of planning which will provide work after the war. I have every confidence that the noble Lord who is to reply is fully alive to the importance of this question. He has not only the reputation of being one who has, with great ability and skill, carried through many difficult tasks which have been given to him by the Government, but he is also remembered as the Commissioner of one of the distressed areas in Wales in one of the worst periods of unemployment. He dealt most sympathetically and thoroughly with that most difficult problem. I hope therefore the noble Lord will be able to give us a full and satis-

667
factory answer to these questions. I beg to move.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I intervene for a moment only on behalf of my noble friends, first to express regret that owing to an accident to one of my colleagues on this side of the House, the form of the Motion had to be altered. My noble friends and I decided that our general contribution to the debate on this subject should, therefore, be deferred. I hope with the right reverend Prelate that very soon the Minister will be able to announce the introduction of the necessary legislation. I should like to associate myself with what he said in paying tribute, which was deeply and sincerely felt, I am sure, on all sides, to the enthusiasm and energy of Lord Reith when he held the office which Lord Portal now occupies. Nevertheless, we know what the record of the noble Lord, Lord Portal, is in the work that he did in South Wales and elsewhere, and we look forward—I hope I may say with confidence—to the decision of the Government to press on with this matter without further havering. We have, some of us—perhaps the noble Lord is learning this for the first time—been very disappointed with what has happened in connexion with decisions respecting postwar planning. There were two or three almost unaccountable postponements last year. I hope that the noble Lord will determine that the period of indecision must come to an end, and that we can look forward hopefully to the early introduction of a Bill by himself which will provide him with ample powers. I am sure that if he gets them he will not hesitate to exercise them. Meanwhile, awaiting that introduction which we trust will be very little delayed, my friends and I wish to reserve our contribution to the discussion.
THE MINISTER OF WORKS AND BUILDINGS (LORD PORTAI): My Lords, this is the first opportunity I have had to address your Lordships' House since I became Minister of Works and Buildings. In my opening remarks I should like to associate myself with Lord Addison's reference to the noble Lord, Lord Latham, who was going to bring forward this Motion. I am sure we all wish Lord Latham a speedy recovery. He will, in the near future, have an opportunity of taking part in a debate in this House, and I realize his wide knowledge of this sub-
668
ject, not only from his well-known public experience, but also from private conversations and the help he has given me during the short time that I have occupied this office. I am also very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for raising this question. It is not the first time he has brought forward a Motion that I have been privileged to answer. I recall that he introduced a Motion on the question of the depressed areas, and I am fully aware of his deep concern with the question on which he has just spoken.
I should like to state that, although there is much to be accomplished and many varied and difficult fields to cover, one must recognize the great amount of work which my predecessor, Lord Reith, put into both the question of planning and also that most difficult task of all, as everybody will realize, the initiation of a great project. I wish to say at the outset i that the statement of Government policy which Lord Reith made at the opening of his statement to your Lordships' House on February 11 stands. A Bill has already been introduced in another place which transfers the powers of the Minister of Health under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932 as the first step in the creation of a Ministry whose objective will be to secure the right use of the land of the country for all purposes. In planning the use of land it will be the duty of the Ministry to see that the national policy laid down for agriculture, location of industry, transport, etc., is observed and the necessary co-ordination between Departments will be facilitated by the general supervision of the Paymaster-General, whose duties are exactly the same as were those of the Minister without Portfolio.
Further amending legislation was referred to and much has been drafted, but after consultation with Mr. Justice Uth-watt and Lord Justice Scott, who now hope to furnish me with their Reports in the near future, it is considered better to await these Reports and then introduce our Bill. No time should be lost by this postponement. The Government have already announced that they accept the principle of the First Uthwatt Report regarding war-time speculation in land, and though that Report itself stated that legislative action was not at present required, I can assure your Lordships that the importance of dealing with this ques-

669
tion will not be lost sight of as one realizes how vitally it affects all the future of planning in this country. Lord Keith had the advantage of the advice of experts with special experience on his Consultative Panel. Their services will remain available to me. In order to keep myself informed on questions with which we shall have to deal in future legislation, I am arranging that some of the members of the advisory panel who can devote the necessary time will be available week by week to advise and assist me.
The noble Lord, Lord Latham, in the debate in your Lordships' House on February 11, drew attention to the excessive number of planning authorities. I agree entirely with his remarks. If each were to make a separate and independent plan the result would be deplorable, nor in many cases have they the technical personnel available to do so. Considerable reductions have already been made by voluntary combination among local authorities, but it is our policy not only to reduce the number further by joint planning over wide areas but to quicken the speed. Area officers have already been selected to assist in collaboration between the Minister and local authorities and will aid them in their planning work. They will keep local authorities informed of the national considerations which must be taken into account and will keep the Minister informed of the situation in each area. My Parliamentary Secretary for Planning will give his special attention to these areas, and help to stimulate this movement. I cannot agree with an article which I read last week which gives the impression that by the appointment of a Parliamentary Secretary for Planning, the interests of the Minister concerned may be lessened. I consider it should be a question of strength rather than weakness, and I can assure your Lordships from my own personal experience that I am under no illusions that the responsibility lies on the broad shoulders of the Minister himself to make a success or a failure of this great project.
I wish to refer again to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Latham, with reference to delays in procedure, and it is quite apparent to me that there will have to be a speeding up of procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act. It is clear that no national planning of the use of land would satisfy the country if it
670
did not provide for the preservation of extensive areas of great natural beauty and of the coast line. The question of National Parks and of the protection of our coast from ill-considered building development will be carefully examined and we fully realize the importance of this. I am working in the closest collaboration with my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General on this question as well as on all other questions of mutual interest to us both.
Now I would make a few remarks which I think will interest the right reverend Prelate on the question of the future personnel of planning, which is all-important. There is a question which is closely allied or shall I say goes hand in hand with the question of planning, and one which is bound up with my Ministry of Works and Buildings. Before the war, the building trade of this country was the largest industry in this country and numbered approximately 1,200,000 operatives. Directly the war is over, it will be essential to have this industry organized so as to cope with the vast amount of work with which it will have to deal. Most of the material required is at hand in this country. A very large number of new houses will be required, as well as repairs to many thousands, and we shall require new schools and other buildings. A well-balanced programme will have to be planned. The men to carry out this work will have to be made available very quickly. We are already well advanced in considering what will be required. The question of apprentices being taken into the trade is being thought out, and that of getting the large number of men back both from the Services, and the munition factories, is being gone into. The training of men on demobilization is also an essential factor. We must think out a long-term programme. Your Lordships will realize that this is no easy task, made no easier by the fact that the number of our building operatives is decreasing very fast as men are called up. I think, however, it is only right to tell you that we have men who have come into our Ministry to help us with this vital question and who are giving all their time to working out a practical solution.
This vast and many-sided question which will have to be dealt with embraces matters affecting the Ministry of

671
War Transport, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Health, Board of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, etc. All these various Ministries are alive to this fact, and they are each preparing and making their contributions to this all-important subject. These will all have to be co-ordinated, and at the present time this is engaging the whole time of my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General. One must remember that the question of the location of industry, around which the future of everything rotates, must at the present time necessarily be difficult to estimate. This is a question on which I had some practical experience before the war—experience as great, perhaps, as that of most people. The question of the location of industry in what were called the "distressed areas" and later the Special Areas engaged my full attention for two or three years. We had to deal with the position of men left behind up in the hills paying rates of 30s. in the pound when industry had moved away from the area. Help was given in the problem of getting light industries back both by the Government and by the noble Lord, Lord Nuffield, and others. We were able to introduce over 200 industries in those areas.
I must admit that I have not so much experience of planning as many members of your Lordships' House, but during the seven weeks I have been in office I have had more assistance offered me in planning than in any other direction. The number of people who have come offering advice makes it terribly difficult for me to keep both my feet on the ground at the same time, but I always try to keep in mind the practical side of the matter and I do not think practical planning need make this country devoid of beauty. A start has been made. I have heard people say that my knowledge of planning is very little, but I have some knowledge of business. I know that any skill one has in managing a business depends very much on taking the right advice and in the seven weeks I have been in office I have been trying to find out who are the right people to give advice and who are the wrong people.
I think your Lordships will agree with me that the most vital industry with which my Ministry is concerned is the building
672
industry. Not only must we make sure that we have our plans ready, but we must make sure that the building industry will be ready to start off when the war is over, because that industry will be one of the most useful agencies in planning in the country. In the past it has been an industry subject to a great deal of unemployment. I have also been associated with the mining industry, which also has had a great mass of unemployment. These industries, which have been subject to much unemployment in the past, will have to be dealt with in a different way after the war. You cannot have men coming out of the Army not knowing from week to week whether they are going to have any work. You cannot expect men to do good work if they are in that position. If men know that they can get work week after week it will give them a feeling of security. If any of your Lordships were in a position when you could only be sure of three days' work you would feel hopeless about the future. Broadly speaking, the policy initiated by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Reith, still holds good.
My noble friend Lord Addison very kindly said that he hopes to see me active and getting things done. As a member of His Majesty's Government I shall do my utmost to help with this very important matter of planning, in close collaboration and friendship with my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General. A Bill for the transfer of powers under the Act of 1932 will come before your Lordships' House very shortly and I hope that then my noble friend Lord Latham will have recovered from his accident and be able to be present. He was good enough to postpone his Motion and give me three weeks instead of one week in which to settle down in my office. Meanwhile, I hope that what I have said this afternoon will satisfy your Lordships about the intentions of my Ministry.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I think we all feel that it is an encouraging reply: one that shows that there is continuity of policy, and that the noble Lord is determined to carry this policy out. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DEPARTMENTAL CARS: THIRD- PARTY INSURANCE.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I beg to ask the question that stands in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the practice of the Government Departments to insist that any person who uses a Departmental car with the consent of the Department concerned shall have taken out a third-party insurance in accordance with the law, and if not, why not.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, in answer to the question I would point out that Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which provides for insurance against third-party risks, does not apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown; Parliament doubtless made this exception because in cases where the Crown ought to pay there can be no question that the resources of the Crown will not be sufficient. The general policy of the Government is, as I have explained in recent debates, to assimilate the position of the Crown in respect of injuries caused by the negligent driving of Crown vehicles, to the position of private owners in similar circumstances. Private owners do not insist that the drivers they employ should personally take out a third-party insurance, and the Crown does not do so either. I venture to think that the noble Lord's question is not very accurately phrased, as I assume that he is referring to a case in which the actual driver is not acting within the scope of his employment at all, but is using the vehicle for his private purposes without consent. I should suppose that a person who uses a Departmental car with the consent of the Department would normally not be regarded as acting beyond his authority.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I am afraid that I am not quite sure that I understand what the noble and learned Viscount has been good enough to say, I understand the Road Traffic Act to provide that anyone who uses a car is bound to have a third-party insurance in respect of the use of that, car. Therefore, prima facie it seemed to me—I may be wrong—that it was a legal obligation resting on any person driving any car.
674
Whether it is a Government car or any other car makes no difference; an individual is still liable for any wrong that he may commit. As I understand it, the whole purpose and policy of this Act is that he is bound to take out third-party insurance. I certainly have learnt, with great surprise—if this is true—that he is not bound to take out such insurance. In one of the cases which I have brought to your Lordships' notice a driver was fined because he had not done so. I presume, therefore, that the court which fined him had no doubt that he was bound to take out such insurance. The point is that what private employers do is between them and their consciences; but the Government are bound to see that the laws of this country are carried out. If it is the law that anybody in charge of one of their vehicles must take out a third-party insurance surely it is a matter of common sense and common justice that they should see that it is done.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps with your Lordships' permission I may add a word to what I have already said. I should be so unwilling not to make myself plain to the noble Viscount, for I know what interest he takes in this matter and what study he has devoted to it. I think you may take it as a universal fact that a private owner of a car does not make his chauffeur take out a third-party policy of insurance to protect him, the chauffeur, because if the chauffeur goes out on a joy ride he is doing something which is quite outside his duty. It would seem to be very extraordinary for the private owner of a car, in those circumstances, to treat his chauffeur as if he were not going to do his duty. The same thing of course applies to the Government. I agree that my noble friend, so far as I understand him, is quite correct when he says that if a person who is driving a car is not driving it on behalf of his employer but is driving it on his own account, for his own pleasure, such a person, according to the law, should take out third-party insurance. If he does not do so, then I think the noble Viscount was quite right in saying that he is liable to be fined, and the case he mentioned was one in which a man was actually fined. That remains true, so far as I know. What is not true is that a Government Department, by some process I can hardly understand, compels everybody who

675
might be driving a Government car to take out a policy against the possibility of his driving it for his own pleasure. I do not see how the War Office, for instance, can say to every Army driver: "We must have you take out a third-party insurance or we must take it out for you, to cover any breach of your own employment or duty because you may attempt to run about without our authority." Therefore my answer, if the noble Viscount will be good enough to look at it, is that there is no difference between the position of a private employer and the position of a Government Department.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: There ought to be. That is just the point. Surely the whole purpose of that part of the Act was to see that if someone suffered from the negligent driving of a vehicle on a road he would have some substantial damages for injury done to him. That, I understand, is the whole purpose of that
676
part of the Act. At present, it is clear that so far as Government cars are concerned a person who is injured has not got that cover. If a man who is put in charge of a car by a Government Department goes out without the authority of the Government and causes an accident, the person who suffers from the accident has no remedy at all. I venture to submit to your Lordships that that is a really scandalous condition of affairs.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
Message from the Commons for leave for Lord Kindersley to attend to be examined as a witness before the Sub-Committee on Finance and Establishments appointed by the Select Committee of that House on National Expenditure. Leave given for his Lordship to attend, if he thinks fit, and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
House adjourned.