Lords Sitting of 15 July 1946

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
The Lord Mildmay of Flete—Took the Oath.
Prayers.
  BANBURY CORPORATION BILL.
  Read 2ª and committed, the committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT-ADDISON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. This is, I am afraid, an unfortunate event at this stage in most Sessions. Although I think the adoption of this proposal is necessary for the completion of our business by the time of the Recess, I hope it will be understood that time will be found, through consultations in the usual way, for discussions on other important subjects—just as we have made room for one on India—if the necessity and the desire arise.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess, and that Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I think we would wish to thank the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, for what he has said. We fully realize that there comes a period at the end of every Session when time has to be found for Government business, and certainly it would be quite contrary to our desire to put any difficulties in their way. I have no doubt, however, that the noble

405
Viscount, the Leader of the House, will be aware that there are certain very important subjects on which debates may be necessary, such as India, Palestine, and Foreign Affairs, on which question a debate has had to be postponed. This is a matter, of course, for negotiation and adjustment between the two sides of the House, but I hope it will be found possible to provide time for debates on vital issues of that kind.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, we on these Benches concur, and bow to the inevitable, as the House is accustomed to do towards the end of every Session. We also concur in what has just been said by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, with regard to future debates. The three subjects that he mentioned in particular are subjects in which we, too, are interested.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I quite understand, and I had the same subjects in mind when I made my observations. We shall be very anxious to meet the desires of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 42:
Local advisory committees.
42. Regulations may provide for the reference to local committees representing employers or insured persons or both, for consideration and advice, of questions bearing upon the administration of this Act, and for the payment by the Minister to the members of any such committee, and to persons attending its meetings at the request of the committee, of such expenses and travelling and other allowances (including compensation for loss of remunerative time) as the Minister with the consent of the Treasury may determine.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, at the end, to insert:
"(2) The persons selected as members of the said committees may include persons put forward by organizations concerned with the interests of employers or insured persons, including friendly societies or organizations representative of friendly societies."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage we had some discussion in regard to the friendly societies, in an attempt to determine what part in future those societies should play in national
406
insurance. There was a strong feeling on this side of the House that they should be used to the fullest possible extent, and we voiced that feeling. There is nothing that we should wish to do which would in any way delay, or even be thought to have delayed, the coming into operation of this Bill. As I said, and as others also said, this was a Bill which arose during the time of the Coalition Government; all Parties assented to its main provisions, and it was the work of men of all the Parties in the country. I have not, therefore, again put down the Amendment that was discussed in general with the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, on the last occasion, but I have put down this Amendment which I am now moving.
Clause 42 of the Bill provides for local advisory committees to help the officials running the scheme under this Bill when it becomes an Act, with advice on various questions. It says:
"Regulations may provide for the reference to local committees representing employers or insured persons or both, for consideration and advice, of questions bearing upon the administration of this Act, and for the payment by the Minister …"
I seek now to add a paragraph at the end saying:
"The persons selected as members of the said committees may include persons put forward by organizations concerned with the interests of employers or insured persons, including friendly societies or organizations representative of friendly societies."
I hope and believe there may be a feeling on all sides of the House that it is right and proper to associate the societies (which have done so much in the field of national health insurance) as far as possible with the running of this scheme, and in particular to see that they are represented on these local advisory committees. I am certain that the advice their representatives will give will be sound advice, based on knowledge acquired in the past. It will also help the friendly societies, I hope, to say what information they would like to be given by the Ministry so that there may not be overlapping when they are administering the extended insurance benefits which we hope many people will still take out from these old friendly societies. If we get this collaboration between the representatives of the friendly societies and the officials of the Ministry I think that that co-ordination may be better than it would otherwise

407
have been, and it is in that spirit that I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Admendment moved—
Page 36, line 31, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I am sorry to say that once again I must find fault with the wording of an Amendment drafted presumably by the noble Lord. It reads, "may include persons put forward by organizations." You do not put forward persons, you put forward names. You could say, "persons proposed by organizations," or you could say, "persons whose names have been put forward by organizations." You certainly cannot say in an Act of Parliament that you put forward persons. I suggest, if this Amendment is accepted, that perhaps at another stage it might be put into good English.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I think I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is not really to blame for this wording, because he and I had a discussion about this Amendment and after telling me what he wanted I endeavoured to find words to meet him and the main responsibility for the wording must be mine. I confess, moreover, that having heard the noble Lord who has just spoken it strikes me that there is very considerable force in his argument, and I will ask the draftsman to look at it again so that if necessary we can have some other words put in. But in principle I am very ready to accept this Amendment. Although I have never been willing to have officials of the friendly societies either as responsible or as paid agents, yet I am very anxious that we should carry the friendly societies with us in the administration of this scheme, and that we should avail ourselves to the fullest extent of the great work they have done, and the knowledge and experience they have acquired during very many years of honourable association and distinguished service to the national insurance scheme. The more we are together the better it will be for both of us. That being so, I have much pleasure on behalf of the Government in accepting the Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I do not know whether I have a right to say another word, but I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor for pointing out how this arose. If the words were, "whose name has been put forward" I think it would be an improvement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 67:
Compensation for displaced employees.
67.—(1) Regulations shall provide, subject to any prescribed exceptions or conditions, for compensating out of the National Insurance Fund, for loss of employment or for loss or diminution of emoluments or of superannuation or similar rights where the loss or diminution is shown to be directly attributable to the passing of this Act or the making or any regulations, persons of the following classes, namely—

(a) persons who were employed full-time, during such periods and on such date before the commencement of this Act as may be prescribed, either—

(i)by an approved society; or

(ii)by some other body (including a body of which the society is a branch or section) administering the affairs of an approved society;

not being persons who were so employed wholly or mainly on business other than health insurance business;

(b) persons who during such periods and on such date as aforesaid were employed full-time in connection with any special scheme under section seventy-three of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 5933, by the body charged with the administration of the scheme;

(c) persons who, having before such date as aforesaid been employed in the manner mentioned in either of the foregoing paragraphs, would have been within that paragraph but for any war service in which they have been engaged.

2.47 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved at the end of paragraph (c) to insert:
"Provided that the amount of compensation payable to any of the said persons shall not be diminished on the ground that such person has refused an offer of employment by the Minister unless the Minister proves to an arbitration tribunal to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of the determination of such disputes that such refusal having regard to all the circumstances including such person's domestic and personal circumstances was unreasonable."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have again put down an Amendment which I put forward on the Committee stage. My main reason for doing so is that during the course of the discussion we had on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord

409
Pakenham, was kind enough to say that he would communicate with me about this. This is a point with which people other than myself are mainly concerned, and although the noble Lord has been good enough to send a communication to me personally I would like what he told me to be said publicly so that we have on the record an answer to the point I made. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 36, at end insert the new proviso.(—Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for giving me an opportunity to make a statement which I hope will reach the many people interested. The matter to which the noble Lord referred has received close examination by the Advisory Committee which as I mentioned on the Second Reading stage the Minister had appointed. That committee represents the approved societies and the organizations representing their staffs. The real problem of course is to attach a clear meaning to the "reasonable grounds" on which an employee of an approved society will in future be able to refuse work offered him and still be able to receive compensation. It is obviously rather difficult to determine how that word "reasonable" should be defined. The meaning to be attached to the word "reasonable" in this connexion is to receive the further attention of this Advisory Committee, but I should say now that I do not expect it will be possible or desirable to attempt to include a comprehensive definition of the term in the Regulation. The construction of "reasonable" must depend upon the particular circumstances at the particular time, and it can only be determined in the light of the actual facts of the individual case. I would say to the House and the noble Lord that machinery for appeal will certainly be set up and the appeal bodies will be independent of the Ministry. I need perhaps only add that in addition to those required for the Ministry's establishment at Newcastle, very large numbers of people to make up staffs will be required throughout the provinces, and it will be the Policy of the Ministry to find employment as close as possible to their homes for those members of approved society staffs who are absorbed. I feel sure that the last sentence,
410
in particular, will be helpful to Lord Llewellin.
2.51 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. Two matters that give me considerable satisfaction are, first of all, to know that these claims will be judged by an independent tribunal—that was the main point of the Amendment I put down—and secondly, to learn what, I am certain, will appeal to a large number of people who have got settled homes in, say, southern England, namely that there will be a certain number of jobs for them in those parts, and that they will not, in order to find work in this scheme, have to go to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where, I suspect, the housing situation is not much better than elsewhere. As the noble Lord has been good enough to give me this explanation I will with the permission of the House withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.53 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) Regulations may provide in respect of any employee (as hereinafter defined) who has been or is proposed to be transferred to employment in the Ministry of National Insurance,

(a) for such employee to be treated as an established civil servant;

(b)for allowing such employee an option to receive the same superannuation benefits as he enjoyed under his former employer (as hereinafter defined) instead of the superannuation rights he would enjoy as an established civil servant;

(c)for empowering the Minister to count as years of pensionable service with the Civil Service the years of his pensionable service with his former employer;

(d)for the payment to the Minister of the share in any pension or superannuation fund to which the employee may be entitled by virtue of his prior employment;

(e)for making such modifications in the Superannuation Acts 1834 to 1935, as after consultation with the Advisory Committees on the absorption of Approved Societies he may consider fair and reasonable or desirable for carrying out the purposes of this section.

(2) For the purpose of this section "employee" means a person who was employed full-time, during such periods and on such date before the commencement of this Act as may be prescribed, either—

(a) by an Approved Society; or

(b)by some other body (including a body of which the Society is a branch or section) administering the affairs of an Approved Society;

411
not being a person who was so employed wholly or mainly on business other than health insurance business; and "former employer "means the Society or body in whose service the employee was prior to being transferred to the Ministry.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a slightly different point, but it is also one which concerns the employees of the approved societies. There are many of them, no doubt, whom the Minister will wish to have transferred to the Ministry, and who will be willing to be transferred on the terms that they become permanent civil servants. But it may not be possible to make this arrangement because of Section 17 of the Superannuation Act, 1859, unless there is some other power given to the Minister to do so. That is the object of subsection (1) (a) of the Amendment which is now before your Lordships. Before I leave that paragraph let me say that if the Minister has not got this power because of that section of the Superannuation Act (if he has got it I shall be very glad to be told of it) I think it would be the wish of everybody that he should have it, so that these people can become permanent civil servants.
The object of paragraph (b) is to give to employees who are taken over a similar right to that given by Clause 36 of the National Health Service Bill. It is given by that Bill to certain local officials. The only difference between these employees and such officials is that provisions of this nature already exist in regard to the latter. But, in each case, there are instances where the superannuation attaching to the former employment is better than any given to civil servants, so I am suggesting that the employee who is in that position may receive the same superannuation benefits as he enjoyed under his former employer, instead of the superannuation rights he would enjoy as an established civil servant. Paragraph (c) is on the usual lines, and follows precedent. Paragraph (d) is only fair to the Minister. It reads:
"(d) for the payment to the Minister of the share in any pension or superannuation fund to which the employee may be entitled by virtue of his prior employment;"
That is to say the employee will bring the capital credited to him in that fund and will get the higher rate that that fund entitled him to. Paragraph (e) is a machinery paragraph. If there is anything
412
else in relation to this in all these other Acts perhaps I shall be told of it—I have not read them all—but I hope this new clause is so drafted as to bring those Acts into line with our intentions.
Subsection (2) of the new clause is a definition of the people whom it is intended to cover by this. It sets out that "employee" means a person who was employed full time,
"during such periods and on such date before the commencement of this Act as may be prescribed, either—

(a) by an Approved Society; or

(b) by some other body (including a body of which the Society is a branch or section) administering the affairs of an Approved Society;

not being a person who Was so employed wholly or mainly on business other than health insurance business …"
That is a provision to ensure that these people who have done good work in the past, and who are naturally feeling somewhat unsettled by reason of their not knowing quite where they will stand when this Bill becomes law, shall have clearly set down What their rights may be and what the Minister may be able to do for them in regard to making them permanent civil servants and seeing that they do not lose any of the superannuation benefit they would have got if they had remained with their approved society. My object is to make better provision for the treatment of these people, and that is why I move this new clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 44, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin).
2.58 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has certainly performed a valuable service in setting out so clearly the proper objects that he has in mind. At the same time, I hope that neither he nor other noble Lords will think me unduly evasive if I do not now embark upon a discussion of the full merits of the proposals which he has put forward. The short point is simply this: I have already referred to the advisory committee representing the approved societies and their staffs which is about to report to the Minister on these and kindred questions. I think, I hope and I believe that the noble Lord will be inclined to agree that it would be a mistake to attempt to draw up what one might call a superannuation code this

413
afternoon for the members of the staffs of the approved societies who are going to be taken over by the State. I will just give him one piece of reassurance. As regards paragraph (a) of his proposed clause the noble Lord will be glad to know that no legislation is needed to treat the persons concerned as established civil servants on transfer to the Ministry's staff. The general powers of appointment to the Civil Service are sufficient.
Without, of course, guaranteeing that every person now employed by an approved society who is taken over by the State will become an established civil servant I can assure the noble Lord that we anticipate employing as established civil servants, considerable numbers of people now employed by the approved societies. We recognize the great contribution which these people can make, by virtue of their experience, position and abilities. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that we are unlikely to do anything that would leave them with any sense of grievance. The existence of the Committee which I have mentioned is an earnest of the fact that the Minister is genuinely anxious to obtain the views of their representatives on how this matter can be tackled. I hope the noble Lord will allow representatives of approved societies to continue their work, on the understanding that if legislation should become necessary it would be forthcoming later.
3.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this discussion, but there is just one point I would make. I think it is clear that although the Government cannot accept this Amendment, they are willing to give sympathetic attention to the points raised in it. It is only just that they should do that. The noble Lord said that we do not expect a superannuation code included in the Bill; I understand that that is not practicable. Subsection (1) (c), which empowers the Minister to count as years of pensionable service with the Civil Service the years of a man's pensionable service with his former employer, raises a very important point. Under this subsection, the marl who has been engaged for a large number of years on what was in reality State business has, because the machinery has been changed, technically to change his employment. I have no
414
doubt that a great many men in this position are nervous lest they lose the advantage they should have gained. I hope that that point will engage the most earnest attention of the Government, because if these people were deprived of what is their due, a genuine sense of grievance would be created.
LORD PAKENHAM: I can assure the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, that the point will receive the most earnest attention. There is some doubt whether that paragraph would entail a chary on the Exchequer, and that raises a complication of a different kind.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his courteous reply, and for what he has told us. As I understand the position, this advisory committee will study the question, and when it has reported—if its report is accepted by the Government—I gather that it might need a short Bill to do what I seek to do in this Amendment. In that case the Government would bring forward the necessary amending legislation. Would that be so?
LORD PAKENHAM: Yes, but I cannot, of course, give any guarantee that the Minister would regard as final and binding the report of any advisory committee.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I did say, "if it was accepted by the Government." On that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Interpretation]:
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to insert:
"'friendly society' means a society registered as a friendly society under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, being a society which as part of its ordinary business provides benefits during sickness, or other infirmity, or in old age, or in widowhood, or for orphans, and not being a collecting society within the meaning of the Industrial Assurance Act, 1923;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has for a moment left the Chamber, because the Amendment which I am now proposing has the same parentage as that to which he previously objected. This one seems all right to me. I have been reading it through carefully in the interim, and it only seeks to define what we mean by friendly societies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 13, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, I was a little relieved to note the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. When the cat is away, the mice will play! I have very much pleasure in accepting the Amendment, because I do think some definition is necessary, particularly in view of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, which we are shortly to debate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
Constitution, etc., of National Insurance Advisory Committee.
1. The National Insurance Advisory Committee (in this Schedule referred to as "the Committee") shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and not less than three nor more than seven other members so appointed. At least one member of the Committee shall be a woman.
2. The chairman and other members shall hold office for a period which, in the cases of each of the members first appointed and of any member appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall be of such duration not exceeding five years as may be determined by the Minister, and in the case of all other members shall be a period of five years:
Provided that any member may by notice in writing to the Minister resign office at any time and shall be eligible for re-appointment from time to time on or after the expiration of his term of office.
3. No member of the Committee shall be capable of being elected to, or of sitting in, the House of Commons.
4. Of the said members, other than the chairman, there shall be appointed—

(a)one after consultation with organisations representative of employers;

(b) one after consultation with organisations representative of workers; and

(c) if and when reciprocal arrangements with the appropriate Northern Irish authority are in force under this Act, one after consultation with that authority.

LORD BEVERIDGE LORD BEVERIDGE moved, in paragraph I, to leave out "three" and insert "four." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendments which I am about to move are inter-related. I should like to begin by saying that I am so confident, following the way in which your Lordships have agreed to the first two Amendments to-day, that I would not mind if the noble Lord, Lord
416
Strabolgi, were present. The first two of my Amendments come from somewhat the same source as those already moved. The third is substantial, and I hope that I may speak on it in moving the others. You will recall that the first was one of a series of Amendments which I moved on the Committee stage, with a view to securing the use of friendly societies as responsible agents in the administration of this national scheme. The Amendment which I moved then received from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, a reply which convinced the great majority of your Lordships that what I was proposing was impracticable and undesirable.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will not think me ungracious if I say that although he convinced the great majority of your Lordships, he did not convince me. The fact that he did not convince me is only additional testimony to the skill with which he presented his case. If I had not been quite such a new boy I think I might, on the last occasion, have made a better rejoinder to his reply. When I am more used to this particular arena, I may be better able to recover before being counted out. On this occasion I am not attempting to raise questions either as to the impracticability, or the desirability or otherwise, of what I proposed on the Committee stage. I should like briefly to refer to two reasons for this Amendment which I put forward on the last occasion. One was the object of humanizing and individualizing the administration of this great national scheme. The second was to prevent damage to the friendly societies, which have been the pioneers of sickness insurance in this country. Those are the two main purposes of my Amendment, and I believe everybody in your Lordships' House would desire to serve those purposes so far as possible.
The first purpose, that of humanizing and individualizing administration, cannot in the main be achieved except by some such means as I have indicated. It is a question of the careful selection and training—and, may I add, refresher training—of the staff. That is possible, and I am sure those who have the scheme in mind will deal with that question. The second object, that of preventing damage to the friendly societies, arises from the fact that they are more threatened by

417
this particular Bill than any of the other people who have been concerned with insurance. Because what is included in this Bill is so close to the work of friendly societies, they are threatened more than the industrial life offices and more than the trade unions. And I must say at once that I still think the danger to them is very real. I know from what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said, and from what other members of this House have said on behalf of the Government, that they believe I am wrong in fearing damage to the friendly societies. Let me say here, that there is nothing which would give me greater pleasure than to find that they are right and I am wrong in that. I move this Amendment in the hope that it will help us to prove that although friendly societies have no part in the detailed administration of the scheme, they can in fact grow and prosper independently of it.
Independent of the national scheme, there is still great work for them to do, especially if the Amendments which I propose to-day are carried. That will help them to go on. If this Amendment is carried, it will be a formal recognition by the Government and Parliament, that men ought not to try to live by national insurance alone, but that this scheme of security includes voluntary insurance through the friendly societies in addition to the compulsory national insurance. This Amendment gives the friendly societies a recognised place in advising and helping to advise on the regulations that are made. I hope it may help to achieve a method by which voluntary and national insurance, without infringing any of the principles laid down by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, on the last occasion, can still be brought together, avoiding any unnecessary overlap and bringing about as much co-operation as is possible. By having the friendly societies represented on this committee you will most certainly be able to get their invaluable experience of how insurance affects the individual citizen. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment and thus make it clear that when national insurance comes in we do not want individual voluntary insurance to go out.
You will see that the first two of my Amendments increase by one the minimum and the maximum number of the members of the Advisory Committee.
418
Speaking from my experience as chairman of a similar committee dealing with unemployment insurance, I think it is essential that the Advisory Committee should be kept small, but I do not think there can be any harm in adding one to the minimum and the maximum in order to make it easy to bring in the friendly societies without keeping anybody out. I beg to move the first of my Amendments, and I challenge the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to correct me.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 14, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Beveridge.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, has, I think, taken a very convenient course in discussing the three Amendments together, although, of course, they must be put separately. I am rather glad that on the Report stage of this Bill I am enabled to accept in lull the noble Lord's Amendment. I am glad I can accept them from him, because he has been a most gallant and indefatigable fighter on behalf of the friendly societies. I agree with him that they have done great work in the past, and I sincerely hope they have a great future. Without saying more than that, I will indicate that we are very pleased to accept these Amendments. I am always anxious to prevent these committees from being composed of people who regard themselves as delegates. We must always avoid getting people on these committees who take a narrow sectional point of view, and who regard themselves as being there to see that their point of view is upheld. I do not think that there is any danger of that in this case. That is why we now have a maximum number of eight and a chairman, and a minimum number of four, one of whom, as a result of this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, will be somebody representing the friendly societies.
Loan LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I rose on Committee stage to support the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, with regard to this Amendment. In fact, I asked for a decision then. The noble Lord who replied on behalf of the Government asked if the matter could be considered between then and the Report stage. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord has put down his Amendment again, and that the Government have seen fit to accept

419
it. It is right that the friendly societies should be consulted, not only locally, which was the object of my Amendment, but also on the central committee, which is the object of this Amendment. I am very glad that in this way a tribute can be paid to the work which the friendly societies have done.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 14, leave out ("seven") and insert ("eight").
Page 83, Line 32,("after workers") insert—("(c) one after consultation with friendly societies or organizations representative of friendly societies; ")—(Lord Beveridge.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Pakenham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
(The LORD STANMORE in the Chair.)
Clause 1:
Counting of certain war service for superannuation purposes.
1.—(1) Where, during the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and ending with such date as the Treasury may by order appoint, a person has entered the civil service of the State after whole-time service during that period in the armed forces of the Crown, in the merchant navy or the mercantile marine, or in any of the women's services specified in the First Schedule to this Act, then for the purposes of section four of the Superannuation Act, 1887, or section three of the Superannuation Act, 1914 (which relate to gratuities on retirement or death), or section three of the Superannuation Act, 1933 (which enables persons who become civil servants to reckon for superannuation purposes previous service in an unestablished capacity) any such whole-time service as aforesaid served by that person after he had attained the age at which, in the opinion of the Treasury, he might but for war circumstances have been appointed to the civil service of the State in the class in which he was in fact appointed shall, subject to any regulations made under this section, be treated as if it had been continuous service in an unestablished capacity ending immediately before the date on which the said person entered the civil service of the State.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN had given notice that he would move in subsection (1) to leave out the second "unestablished" and insert "established." The noble Lord said: In my speech on Second Reading I drew attention to the phrase used on page 2, line 3, "in an unestablished capacity." Since then, by the courtesy of the noble Lord, I have had an opportunity of discussing the position with him. I understand that by putting in the word "unestablished" we put those men who served in the Forces in the same category as those who have been serving in the Civil Service, because none of them were established during the days of the war. If we left out the word "unestablished" and put in the word "established," we should be putting them in a better position, and that I have no intention of doing. If I am right in that regard, as I believe I am, then I do not wish to move the Amendment.
Clause 2:
Superannuation of late entrants to civil service.
2.—(1) If with respect to any person becoming a civil servant after attaining the age of forty years the Treasury have directed that he shall be subject to the provisions of this subsection, then for the purposes of the Superannuation Acts the length of his service shall be treated as eight-fifths of the actual length thereof.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), after "becoming" to insert "an established." The noble Lord said: In discussing this and the next two Amendments, I would point out that Clause 2 (1) begins by saying, "If with respect to any person becoming a civil servant, "I am suggesting that you should insert the word "established" so that it shall read: "becoming an established civil servant." I believe it is desired to use Clause 2 in respect of a certain number of people who have been temporary civil servants during the war. We ought to make it quite clear that it is to be applicable to them. I have had an opportunity through the courtesy of the noble Lord, to learn what has been laid down as the definition of "a civil servant." It is laid down that it means "an established civil servant." That is not the way in which any noble Lords in this House have thought of it, it is just as well to get Acts of Parliament more into line with what people are thinking and with the way they use phrases, without

421
everybody having to refer back to Statutes passed in the reign of the gracious Queen Victoria, if not before. I would like to see it quite clear. I do not know whether the noble Lord will be breaking a precedent if he accepts the word "established," but I believe we all want it to mean that.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 26, after ("becoming") insert ("an established").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord has made a speech which, in his place, I should have been very much tempted to make, and I will give him a reply which, in my place, he would no doubt have delivered by way of a return. Section 12 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, provides that the expression "civil servant" means a person who has served in an established capacity in the permanent Civil Service of the State. The noble Lord is aware of that, but he may not be aware (although it is possible that he is) that the same meaning attaches to the words "civil servant" in a number of Acts. In Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1935, we find at the beginning:
"If, as respects any person who, at the time when he becomes a civil servant, is serving the State in an unestablished capacity …"
So, in that Act of 1935, you get the temporary civil servant referred to as someone serving the State in an unestablished capacity, who becomes a civil servant when he is established but not before. It is not for me to improve on the language of the draftsmen. All I can say is that the proposal of the noble Lord, while it is bound to command sympathy among those who like the English tongue to be a medium of clear expression, is too revolutionary to be accepted this afternoon. While I hope he will not altogether forsake his idea of one day redrafting a great many Acts, I do hope for the moment he will withdraw this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is not a matter about which to make any great warfare, but I should have thought we could have made it quite clear in Clause 9 (1) of this Bill and had "unestablished capacity" defined. Of course, that is rather complicated. It has the same meaning as in Section 3 (4) of the Superannuation Act of 1935, if you go back to that Act, which is
422
"… employment in the civil service of the State otherwise than in the capacity of a civil servant as defined by Section twelve of the Superannuation Act, 1887, being employment to which the person serving therein is required to devote his whole time. …"
We could quite easily get rid of that and put in the word "established," and although, as I said, we obviously do not mean to press this Amendment on the House or the Government, I should be obliged if the noble Lord could devote himself to putting through a little revolution like this before the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Modifications of Superannuation Acts to meet war circumstances.
4.—(1) For the purpose of adapting the Superannuation Acts to the circumstances of persons whose employment in the civil service of the State (in this subsection referred to as "usual employment") has been interrupted Or terminated by war circumstances, so as to authorise the making, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, of awards which, or the amount of which, would not be authorised under the said Acts apart from this section, the Treasury may make regulations providing, in the case of persons of any class to which the regulations apply,—
(e) in the case of a person who on or after the said date left his usual employment through having for reasons of conscience refused to enter on service in the armed forces of the Crown or to continue in his usual employment, but later entered on such service or returned to employment in the civil service of the State, and was subsequently reinstated in his usual employment, for reckoning as aforesaid such service or employment before he was reinstated;
3.25 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: I made a point, when I was speaking on the Second Reading, in regard to this paragraph (e) of Clause 4. It seems to me it is a rather complicated piece of drafting, and it did not make clear its meaning to me at First Reading or before I made my speech on the Second Reading. I gather now that all paragraph (e) does is to enable a person, if he is a conscientious objector, to be treated as though he were a civil servant, making his years of service count for superannuation from the moment, not when he has been reinstated

423
but when he is taken back into the Civil Service. There may be some three or four weeks or some three or four months before it is decided by the Civil Service Commissioners, or whoever is the appropriate person, to reinstate him in the Civil Service, and it is only after he has done that sort of probationary period that he may count the intervening time, when he was serving as a civil servant, for his superannuation benefit. If I am right in saying that is what it means, I have no objection to it, but it was not entirely clear to me. I would like it to be confirmed that I have now got it more or less right.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line to, leave out paragraph (e).—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Lord has clarified the position completely with regard to the civil servant who is dismissed because he does not accept the findings of a tribunal in view of his conscientious scruples, and who afterwards has a change of heart and re-enters the Civil Service. There is also the case of the man whose change of heart leads him into the fighting line. In such a case, of course, there may be a considerable period of service of something longer than the three or four weeks or three or four months referred to by the noble Lord. However, the noble Lord has cleared up the principle of the clause and I am very grateful to him.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In the circumstances, I do not press this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended, Bill read 3ª and passed.

TEST FACILITIES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES.
3.30 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that at present no facilities exist or are available to the manufacturers of motor cars, motor cycles, and accessories for the testing of
424
their products to the limit of their performance, whether they are aware that insufficient testing is likely to affect the successful export of British products, and whether the Government can now make any statement on the future of Donington; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel I must offer a word or two of explanation with regard to the terms of the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and if your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments, I will try and explain them. Donington Hall (which is called by the War Office by another name, which, I have no doubt, is nevertheless just as sweet) was a private estate upon which in days gone by a few motor cyclists started motor cycle races by permission of the owner. There was thereafter a rapid expansion and it became in clue course a racing track of international importance upon which really big races between international teams took place.
Your Lordships may wonder whether motor racing is of the slightest use. Motor racing, of course, is not a fashionable sport but it is of great importance from the point of view of experiment, research, and also advertising. Motor racing brought three tracks into being in this country. One of those was Brooklands, which was started a very long time ago, before the first world war. Donington came into being between the two wars, and so did the track at Crystal Palace, which was, comparatively speaking, unimportant. Your Lordships will no doubt be aware that during the war the Brook-lands track was taken over by the Vickers Company, and no racing, of course, was possible, desirable, or even wanted then. At the conclusion of the war, the Vickers Company bought the track, with the result that it could no longer be used for motor racing. That was a tremendous loss to the motor industry of this country, because it was the custom for tyre firms, accessory firms and car firms to take the track for days on end and to send out cars to keep up sustained high-speeds hour after hour. That was of great importance from the point of view of the motor industry as a whole. The Brook-lands track was rather out of date. It was constructed of old concrete which required renewal and that would have cost a great deal of money.
On the other hand, Donington is a purely road circuit, and is to-day in

425
reasonable condition. According to my information, it is in very much the same condition to-day as it was when it was taken over by the War Office. At the beginning of this year I had the honour of taking a deputation to see the Under-Secretary of State for War in order to raise the whole question of the Donington track, to put certain arguments before him, and to hear his reply. If I may, I will tell your Lordships who constituted the deputation. There was my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara and myself; there were three Members of Parliament, two of them belonging to the Government Party, and one belonging to the Opposition; there were representatives of the National Cyclists' Union, the Auto-Cycle Union, the British Cycle and. Motor Cycle Manufacturers and Traders Union, the accessory people, and so on. I should like here to pay tribute to the extreme courtesy of the Under-Secretary who received us. He was quite charming, as is his habit, and we had a most sympathetic hearing.
I should like to put before your Lordships some of the points we raised. We asked: "Why does the War Office want Donington at all?" and the reply that was given to us was that during the war the War Office had spent so much money on Donington that it had really become indispensable to them. They had put down I forget how many miles of water mains to deal with any fires caused by bombing during the war, and they were also using it for the storage of a lot of vehicles. We suggested that within a very short distance of Donington there was other accommodation, notably an ex-American depôt at Sudbury, which had miles of railway sidings, miles of hard standing for vehicles, and apparently most of the facilities which the War Office would presumably require, and another depot at Eggington, which was not very far away. I believe both these places are within thirty miles. We explained that there were several other depôts—the Chilwell Ordnance Depôt, another depôt at Old Dalby, and also a depôt near Derby, at a place called Sinfin.
We pointed out that Donington was the only track where cars could be tested out at high speeds, which is absolutely essential from the point of view of the motor industry, and we explained that before the war Donington was used by over half a million people in the course of a year,
426
with the result that the Chancellor of the Exchequer received over £5,000 a year in entertainment tax. The National Cyclists' Union representative pointed out that a problem would arise because cyclists were going in for racing on the public highway, involving mass starts, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that mass cycle-racing starts, with all the impedimenta involved, are highly undesirable on the public highway, if they can be staged elsewhere, as they can at Donington. The tyre representative on the deputation pointed out that it was absolutely essential for the tyre manufacturers to be able to test their products at sustained high speeds for days on end. To show how necessary this has been in the past, perhaps I may say that the Dunlop tyre Company used to keep two racing cars at Brooklands for no other purpose than to go round and round the track for days on end, even for as long as ten days, in order to carry out observed tests of their tyres, measuring the temperatures and all the rest of the factors involved.
Those were the arguments placed before the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, as shortly as I can put them. We were then told that the noble Lord would go into the matter very carefully, which I know he did, and that he might probably pay a visit to Donington to see the position there for himself. Arising out of the loss of the Brooklands track, I put myself in touch with many of the motor car manufacturers of this country, and they all expressed grave concern over its loss. I will not say all of them did, but most of them. I therefore got in touch with the whole motorcar industry, so far as it was possible for one individual to do that, and I found there were four important firms who were not in the least interested in Donington continuing as a racing track, but that there were twelve other important firms who were.
There are fifteen accessory firms to be considered and the whole of the motor cycle industry, as well as cyclists to whom I have already referred, and incidentally such other organizations as the Camping Club and the Civil Service Motoring Association. The suggestion was then made that the idea of a racing track at Donington might be combined with advantage with a sort of national proving ground which could be available to all the motor industry in this country. The Under-Secretary of State for War referred

427
that suggestion to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Society considered that for months on end. On April 5 an article was published in The Times and this is what it said:
"It is to be hoped that the lack of unanimity among motor manufacturers that marred the negotiations with the Government about motor taxation will not once again result in a short-sighted decision which will hamper still further the expansion of this valuable industry."
The article began by saying that Donington Park was developed as a motor-racing circuit before the war and it was subsequently used by the Army as a motor reserve depot, and that it had become a matter of national concern. Notwithstanding that very cogent article in The Times—and there are many other passages with which I will not weary your Lordships at the moment—I have a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in which he says this:
"After considering our question on the usefulness of Donington Park as a proving ground, to the manfacturing side of the motor industry, they reply that after investigation and consideration it has been decided to recommend definitely against Donington Park being used for proving ground purposes. They add that though the necessity for the proving ground remains the industry would not be prepared to press for the release of Donington Park for that purpose. You will appreciate that in these circumstances I do not see my way to take further the suggestions that have been discussed between us, and I therefore propose to proceed on the footing that the War Office may now regard Donington Park merely from the standpoint of War Office interests."
In the debate in your Lordship's House on July 4, 1946, upon the retention by the War Office of certain lands and properties, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for War, in column 172 of Hansard, laid down two principles whereby the War Office was going to retain land in this country. He said:
"The first was that the Army must have the necessary land, both in acreage and in kind and quality, that it requires for the essential purpose of making it an efficient Army. And the second principle that I, as a member of the Government, accepted, was that the Army must not have a single acre more than it requires for the purpose of enabling it to become an efficient Army."
Those two propositions I think will have the general assent of your Lordships at large. What is there about Donington that is going to give us an efficient Army? The Under-Secretary has told me that the Army spent about £250,000 in laying fire
428
mains there. Will those fire mains help us to win another war? I do not know. If that money has been spent, as I reminded your Lordships the Treasury gets £5,000 a year in entertainment tax at Donington for its usual peace-time purposes and if that amount of money were capitalized surely the War Office would very nearly be able to recoup themselves. Donington Park is by no means the only place where the War Office could go. There were aerodromes all round. Whether they are still there or not I am afraid I cannot say, but there is undoubtedly alternative accommodation. What are they using Donington for? It really is nothing else than a sort of Missenden at the present moment. I have a recent report on the state of Donington Park and this is what it says:
"There are still approximately 8,000 vehicles in Donington, but when the Ministry says 8,000 vehicles they mean everything on two wheels. There may be 2,000 trailer heads, chassis on a couple of wheels, there may be a large quantity of smoke screen tanks on wheels and a very large number of derelict vehicles which have been in the Park for two or three years. No doubt all of them are classified as vehicles, a very large percentage of which are absolutely scrap."
It goes further and says that there is a Lieutenant-Colonel in charge of the depot with a few soldiers and a few A.T.S. It really does not seem that the use to which Donington is now being put is so indispensable as to justify taking away the only track which exists from the point of the motoring world. I have obtained the views of various people, and here is one expression of opinion from one firm:
"Apart from the vital need of a track as a testing and proving ground in the national interest, there is also a great need for a motor course, as it has been universally realized that motor racing research and development work that goes with it is not only of value to the industry as a whole but is a grand means of telling the world of the excellence of our motor engineering."
Then there is another view:
"It cannot be argued in these times that the racing machine of to-day is the owner's car of to-morrow, but the various problems set to the development engineer to meet the need of the high performance racing machine are a powerful stimulant, which although outside his normal field, is none the less valuable."
I could read your Lordships many expressions of view like that but I do not wish unduly to weary your Lordships. There is, however, one view that I would like to put before you, and this comes from the motorcycle world. The motor-

429
cycle manufacturers met recently and passed a resolution that Donington Park circuit was in fact of very considerable value to the motorcycle industry and instructed their chairman to make such representations as were practicable to secure the use of this circuit for the motorcycle industry. The Royal Automobile Club and the Auto-Cycle Union were invited to support these representations. There is the position as well as I can put it. Of course abroad motor racing is looked upon very differently. It must be remembered that in motor racing it is not always a question of the purely racing machine but it is very often the sports car as well. There are firms in this country who have built up their reputation upon the construction of sports cars which have been able successfully to take part in motor racing on the Continent and elsewhere. Donington is the only place we have got.
You cannot test cars out on the public highway. Certain firms in this country are producing cars of high performance. Where are those cars going to be tested? Very few motor manufacturers in this country have got tracks adequate for the purpose and vehicles have to be tested on the highway. I suggest it is undesirable for such machines to be tested in that way. One or two firms have tracks, but they are small. The more important and richer firms are perhaps able to send their vehicles to France and take advantage of the laws of France in sending their vehicles at high speed across France. It may be a very good way of testing the vehicles but I do not know what view I should take of it if I were a Frenchman and saw these cars careering along at very high speed—but perhaps I would not notice it. I hope that your Lordships will support me and that the noble Lord who is going to speak for the Government will indicate to us why it is that the War Office must have Donington, only Donington and nothing but Donington, and why they cannot transfer their collection of derelict vehicles, or whatever it is that they have got there, to some other site, and allow people who are interested in motor testing to use Donington now as they used it before the war. I beg to move for Papers.
3.52 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just spoken has dealt
430
with this question in a general way. He referred to motorcars and motorcycles and he also included derelict vehicles in his remarks. I propose dealing with the Motion from the point of view of those interested in motor cycles. In the days when I was a somewhat enthusiastic and, probably, dangerous motorcyclist, the motorcycle was a comparatively slow vehicle. We used, when we did not see a "bobby" in the distance, to career along at a maximum speed, if the road permitted, of something like 60 miles an hour. In those days, trials which were organised by local clubs could go a long way to help to solve manufacturers' problems and to find out for them mistakes they might have made in the construction of their machines. The trials were, of course, limited by law, to a speed of twenty miles an hour.
It did not take very much ingenuity on the part of the trials committees to produce courses on which you could go as fast as you dared the whole time. Those courses, naturally enough, were not along main roads where "bobbies" might be lurking. They led over moorland, marshland and other rough land in the country. Often it was very bumpy land, as I well know because my stern frequently told me so. As the result of this kind of testing Britain produced motorcycles which were famous all over the world. The Americans have never been able successfully to butt in on the British motorcycle market. It is the one market that we have always held and we have held it partly because we held trials in which a "motorbike" had to go as fast as any man could ride it, and partly because motorcycle clubs all over the country devised the most infernal tests they could think of to shake up their members' livers and to find out which machines really had got guts built into them.
Now that sort of testing is not possible to-day. Such is the speed of modern motorcycles that, even if the old kind of trials were permitted on our roads to-day, you could not organize trials of that sort and ensure reasonable safety for the lives and limbs of the riders let alone those of the general public. But we have got to maintain our position as the leading motorcycle manufacturers of the world. We cannot do that if we just go on producing pre-war machines which we know to be good; we have got to produce post-war machines which we know to be

431
better. And we cannot know that they are going to be better unless we have a proving ground. The only possible proving ground in this country, at the present moment, is Donington Park. The Army have got most of the country to choose from. The motorcycle manufacturers have Donington Park and nowhere else. I do say for Heaven's sake let the Army authorities show a little consideration for once in their lives.
3.56 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I am not going to detain your Lordships very long but I would like to say a few words in support of the noble Earl's Motion. I do not know if any of your Lordships have ever visited an establishment of one of the big motor manufacturers in America, and have seen the proving grounds which they have there. Not only do they have speed tracks, but they have hills, they have rough country, they have grounds with surfaces which ask of a motorcar all that a motorcar should be asked to do and a devil of a lot of things that it ought never to be asked to do in an ordinary user's hands. One naturally asks the manufacturer: "Why do you put your products through all these tests?" The reply I got when I put the question was: "Our customers at some time or other are silly fools, and unless we break a vehicle up completely we do not know what is going to happen." I, personally, am interested in a small way in the manufacture of a sports car in this country. That car is going abroad, and I hope that it will do fairly well. But we do not know—there is no means of telling.
One cannot do what one does in France. There you can go out on an auto route just outside Paris early in the morning and swing along at 150 miles an hour. Instead of the police running after you like nobody's business, you find that those officers who are about gather round and become frightfully enthusiastic—they will hold up all the other traffic for your benefit. I shudder to think what would happen if one went at 50 miles per hour in this country on a bypass. If we cannot have Donington, because it is such a valuable piece of property, surely it should not be difficult to let us have some little aerodrome, not necessarily for racing, where we could
432
test our automobiles and so help to maintain the high standard of our products that are being exported at the moment. I do not know, but my opinion is that the question of racing should come second to that of providing the necessary areas for trying out and proving our various types of vehicles. The Army has had plenty of opportunity for testing in the desert. Equally, the Air Force has had ample opportunity for testing at Farnborough and Boscombe Down. But the poor people in the motor trade have got nowhere to try out their productions. I hope that we shall hear today that we are going to be allowed to have a little place.
3.59 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, the first time I heard personally of this controversy with regard to Donington was in November, when the noble Earl who opened this discussion brought to my attention the difficulties with which he felt himself and his friends to be confronted. The noble Earl for a very long period, as I know, has shown the utmost interest and pertinacity in pursuing this question of Donington, and also, as we all know, in dealing with the problems presented by motor racing generally. Let me take this opportunity, if I may, of wishing Lord Selsdon, who has just spoken, the best of good fortune when he carries British colours in the international race which is shortly to take place. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, viewing the efforts of a younger generation, will take a friendly and paternal pride in the success—as we hope it may be—of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon.
The noble Earl has referred to the deputation led by him, which I received at the end of November. Before that deputation visited me I had done my utmost to familiarize myself with the problem as a whole, and with the various aspects of it which were likely to be placed before me. I found that at Donington a vehicle reception depot had been established by the Army at a very early stage, and that upon this depot some £250,000 to £300,000 of public money had been expended to make it the most efficient establishment of its kind managed by the Army in this country. I went into the question of whether an alternative could be readily found, or indeed, found at all. The result

433
of my inquiries indicated that there would be the utmost difficulty in making a change. Moreover, I discovered that the track in question was the main artery around which the vehicle depôt had been constructed, and that all the buildings of the depôt had been built in such a way that they opened upon the track. Then came the deputation led by the noble Earl. I must confess that I was much impressed by the arguments that were placed before me on the desirability, in fact the need, of a track. And it is not out of place to say that I was particularly impressed by the arguments advanced by the representative of the Dunlop Rubber Company in regard to the testing of tyres.
Then there was brought to the aid of the deputation a powerful reinforcement in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, whose arguments as to our necessity to compete abroad made a very definite impression upon me. In consequence, although when the deputation arrived my mind had been rather negatively inclined I felt that the arguments were so formidable that it behoved me, and others who might be concerned, to investigate the matter further, in order to see what, if anything, could be done, to achieve the purpose which the noble Earl had in mind.
In replying to the deputation, I put forward a definite suggestion. I told the noble Earl that I was prepared, with a receptive mind, to consider the question of alternative user and a scheme whereby the track could be made available for the purposes for which the deputation thought it should be used, yet at the same time could retain its functions so far as the Army was concerned. I invited the noble Earl and his friends to think the matter over—as I would do—and to let me have a suggestion, which I promised should have the fullest consideration in an affirmative frame of mind. I told the noble Earl at that time that although the financial aspect was of importance, and must not be overlooked, we should not allow it to be the dominant factor.
What I wanted was to see a scheme. That was at the end of November. In the course of January the noble Earl was good enough to write to me with a project and a plan. I am bound to say that I regard documents of that kind with a layman's eye, but even to me, as a layman, it appeared at first sight that the noble Earl had not fully met the problem
434
with which I had confronted him; namely, the problem of making the track available for dual user, for his purposes and for the Army's purposes, at the same time. I submitted the plan to those who advise me in these matters, and their advice confirmed my own uninstructed initial view, that the scheme of the noble Earl would not meet the difficulties. So anxious was I to meet the views placed before me that I caused an independent inquiry to be made at the War Office, to see whether the principle of dual user could or could not be achieved. I was presented with a report which indicated that from a technical point of view it was possible. It would involve an expenditure of about £100,000, an important but not formidable commitment, but it would involve a commitment, both important and formidable, in the employment of 250 men for ten months.
At about the same time, it appears that either the noble Earl or some other representative of the interests with which he is associated had—very properly—approached the Board of Trade and the Board got into touch with me on the matter. I gathered that it was proposed to the Board that it might be possible to open a track, possibly at Donington, to replace Brooklands track, which had then been recently closed, so that there was no track available for testing cars. As a result of some discussion, the conclusion was reached since the approach had been made by the noble Earl, representing one organization, accompanied by the representatives of other organizations, working together in the deputation but not representing the organization of the industry, that we should communicate with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, as the recognized organ of the industry, upon this matter.
The position, as put to the Society—on February 23, I believe—was that we had been approached with the argument that Britain would find it difficult to sell her cars in the face of foreign competition overseas, and that as tests could not be carried out on the public highway a track for experiment and research was essential. We then asked the opinion of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on the use of Doningion for this purpose. We put to them certain specific questions, on the basis of which we thought we would form our ultimate opinion whether we should

435
go ahead. In the event of going ahead we would decide with whom to conduct our discussions, and how the transaction should be financed.
That was in February. It was not until the middle of May that a reply was received from the Society to which I think the noble Earl has already referred. Then the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, in reply to our inquiry, wrote that they had referred the matter to the Motor Industry Research Association, an organ of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which apparently advises the Society on matters of this kind. The letter says:
"The Society has now received a report which definitely recommends against Donington Park being used for proving ground purposes."
Then it goes on:
"The expense of conversion will be too great and there are likely to be more suitable sites available. In the circumstances, the Society has decided to accept this recommendation.
While, therefore, the necessity for a proving ground remains, as quoted in your letter under reference, the industry would not be prepared to press for the release of Donington Park for that purpose."
The War Office and the other Departments concerned were confronted with this wholly negative reply in very definite terms from the recognised organ of the motor industry. I informed the noble Earl of that in due course. Therefore, when the noble Earl says to me: "Why must the War Office have Donington and only Donington?" my reply to him on that aspect of his argument is that the War Office was perfectly prepared to share Donington, and had devised a method whereby, from the technical point of view, it could be done, but the organ of the motor industry did not think it was a sound project. The matter does not end there, because the Government do believe it is desirable that there should be a proper testing ground. They are sympathetic to the general project put forward by the noble Earl.
The matter has moved, because towards the end of June the Motor Industry Research Association, acting, it would appear, for the Society, for the recognised organ of the industry, approached the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research upon this matter, and raised not the question of Donington but the general question of providing ground for the joint
436
use of the Motor Industry Research Association and individual firms in and allied to the motor industry, for the purposes of basic research on complete vehicles and vehicle components, materials and so on, under actual and definable operating conditions, and for the development and testing of the products of the motor industry, as well as for the examination and testing of foreign vehicles. Then they go on to discuss requirements, and in this memorandum submitted to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research they say:
"There is perhaps only one site in the country at present which might be regarded as already possessing some of the necessary facilities, namely, Donington Park. This has been examined and rejected as being unsuitable. It has been suggested, therefore, that a disused aerodrome, should, if possible, be purchased, or rented and converted into a proving ground."
I pause on the question of Donington only to show that the burden of the argument now is not whether Donington shall be shifted, as a military organization, to an aerodrome, but whether an aerodrome can be found which will answer the purposes of the motor industry for which Donington Park is felt by the organ of the industry to be unsuitable.
Then the memorandum goes on to state the conditions of a suitable site. They say, as regards location, that no particular area of the country has yet been recommended for the location of a proving ground. They are anxious that a proving ground should be associated with the research facilities beyond those at present existing in the laboratory at Brentford. Then they state that the ultimate aim envisaged in this whole scheme is to establish a centre for the motor industry of Great Britain which will embrace—I think this is important—laboratory research, outdoor research under operating conditions, operational development and testing facilities for the industry, an institution or club for British motor engineers and for distinguished foreign visitors and engineers, to facilitate interchange of ideas and publicize the British motor industry. It is further suggested that, on occasion, parts of the road circuits might be made available for competitive motor racing events of national, and possibly international, interest.
That is the project that was put forward rather over a fortnight ago by the recognized organ of the industry. Discussions have already begun inter-depart-

437
mentally upon this project. A communication has been, or is about to be, addressed to the Motor Industry Research Association inviting them to confer upon this matter. While, naturally, the noble Earl will not wish me to commit myself to every point referred to in the memorandum from the motor industry's recognized organ in this matter, let me say at once that the Government are sympathetic towards the carrying into effect of some such project. I hope that it may be found practicable and that the time is not far distant when it may be so carried into effect.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords I was not going to speak at this stage, but I do not think that we should leave the remarks that have been made by the noble Lord without a protest. I think we have gone off entirely on the wrong track. It is not for us to show why we want a motor track, or what is now, in a very cowardly way, called a proving ground. We produced that on our own. We produced Brook-lands and Donington. We never asked the Society of Motor Manufacturers if they wanted it or not. Yet the noble Lord quietly comes down to the House and says that we have got to show cause why we need it here. It is he who should show cause why he should take it. Supposing the Army had come on to New-market and taken the great race track there. Surely it would be up to them to show why they should go there, rather than why racing should be stopped. That is an entirely analogous position. But, of course, we are motorists, and are despised and rejected by everybody. The Government hates us. Yet they rely on us to a very great extent so far as the export side is concerned. It was for the export side that these particular tracks were being used.
Let me tell the noble Lord perfectly frankly that I myself am not at all satisfied with the production of English motor cars to-day compared with many foreign ones, from many points of view—from the point of road holding and in other respects. It seems to be the policy of the Government to-day that we should export motor cars abroad but not be allowed to import motor cars into this country, and if we are not allowed to breed thoroughbreds in the motor world by
438
virtue of being deprived of these tracks, I cannot see eventually who is going to buy motor cars made in England which are not up to the standard of cars made in other countries. This is a promise. The Government thinks that a proving ground is necessary and has dragged in the motor manufacturers, who were never keen racing men, and they have dragged in the Society of Scientific Research. Goodness knows whom they have not brought into this particular picture now. It seems to me that if these people are all going to recommend something to the Government, we shall never get anything done at all. I should have thought this particular track belongs to the people who produced it and who are keen on racing. I cannot see myself why the Government should not give it up entirely.
The noble Lord said that the Government had spent £300,000 on it. The Government spent £300,000 on it because it was so suitable, and it was suitable by virtue of what had been done to it as a racing track to start with. It was not virgin ground into which the Government put money; it was suitable ground right from the very beginning because it was a track. That is the reason why money was spent on it. Money has been spent by the Government on every single thing they have taken over, but that is no argument why those things should not go back to the rightful owners. The noble Lord has not shown us in any way why we should not have this particular track back again and I hope we will give notice to the Government to end this particular matter.
4.13 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I naturally listened with the greatest possible interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, said. He said it is difficult to make a change. That may have indicated to many of your Lordships that the War Office had put up an extensive range of buildings, or something of that sort. But the War Office have not put up an extensive range of buildings at Donington. Most of the vehicles at Donington are parked in the open and, due to the weather, they are steadily deteriorating. In fact some of them have had to be moved. They were parked under the trees during the war—I suppose because they would not attract enemy aircraft so much—and they had to be removed from under the trees because the water falling off the trees was making them even more rotten

439
then they would have been in the ordinary course of events.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. I cannot see why we have got to make an elaborate case for Donington. Donington was obviously necessary. It was paying its way before the war and paying a dividend to the country in the form of taxation. It was used by over 500,000 people a year including cyclists, motor car people and campers, and people who came from all over the British Isles. The noble Lord has laid down in debate in your Lordships' House certain principles with which I entirely concur, and I am sure we all do, for the retention by the War Office of requisitioned land. Are we really going to be told that Donington is the only thing that's going to make the British Army efficient, or even that it is going to contribute to the greater efficiency of the British Army as it is used at the present time?
The noble Lord criticized our plan for an alternative user, I think quite rightly, because as a matter of fact it is really impossible to produce a plan of alternative user to the War Office, having due regard to public safety and the safety of spectators. If you are going to have a motor race track you must be able to seal that track off absolutely or you will run the danger of great disasters, and the insurance companies will not cover the risk. We found it impossible to suggest an adequate scheme of alternative user which would have guaranteed us against the risks. All sorts of new openings have been made; they would have had to be sealed off and somebody would have had to stand by the obstructions to see that they were not moved, and to see that spectators did not endeavour to cross the track. Those were the great difficulties about a scheme of alternative user. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders were brought in by the noble Lord, probably quite rightly, but I am certain the society on this question, as on questions of taxation referred to in the article in The Times, have found it almost impossible to arrive at any decision at all.
Suggestions are now produced of using an aerodrome as a proving ground. An aerodrome as a proving ground might be all right, but I do not consider it would be a very good one. I speak with all due
440
deference to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and others who have had the opportunity of seeing American tracks which I have not seen, but aerodromes are chiefly flat—it is their chief characteristic—and I know that an aerodrome as a race track is not by any means the most satisfactory race track you can use. It is better than nothing at all, but that is about all that can be said for it. Donington, on the other hand, is almost an ideal track of its sort. It affords a magnificent test of vehicles, of the tracks, of roadholding and suspension, all features which are eminently desirable in any really good car, and I am certain the experience gained at Donington has been most helpful to the British motorcar trade as a whole. In any event, if the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders are going to have an aerodrome with a proving ground on it, how long will it take before that can be brought into being? We have on the one hand Donington, which would be ready for use in a few weeks or months at the outside, and on the other hand we have the proposal to put down the facilities which now exist at Donington on some aerodrome. But aerodromes are not really satisfactory for use from a racing point of view; they are bound to be flat and very uninteresting. At an aerodrome it is extremely difficult to control spectators, and in motor racing to-day one of the chief anxieties is the safety of spectators. If a car got in among the spectators it might cause hundreds of casualties, as has happened abroad. Aerodromes are not very easy to control from that point of view. I appreciate what the noble Lord has told us, and the sympathetic approach he has made to the whole problem. At the same time, we have got Donington which could be used in a week or two at the outside if the necessity arose.
There is another problem which may or may not come up in the future. If it does come up it will certainly take a long time before it dies down. The whole motoring community in this country to-day is suffering from a severe sense of frustration. Our petrol rationing is going on, and we only get a sort of trickle of supplies. That certainly gives all a sense of frustration when we hear of other countries where petrol rationing is being abolished. All petrol rationing is going to be removed in France on October 1, and it has been removed in Switzerland, Portugal and everywhere else. Cannot the noble Lord do some-

441
thing to help us? Give us Donington. If the Army were told to surrender Donington, perhaps by the spring of next year, and they had to find somewhere else to stand their vehicles, I am certain they would be up to the job. Cannot the noble Lord say something of that sort to us? Cannot he say that he will continue this sympathetic consideration and see whether it is possible to give Donington back to us—not to-day, or to-morrow, but perhaps some time next year? I thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has approached this problem, but I do humbly
442
submit that point to him. I am afraid I must withdraw my Motion. I do not wish to press the matter to a Division now, but I may have to return to it if something is not done.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

GLASGOW CORPORATION BILL.
Committed, the committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
House adjourned at half past four o'clock.