HC Deb 31 August 1914 vol 66 cc402-33

(1) From and after the passing of this Act no person shall—

  1. (a) proceed to execution on, or otherwise to the enforcement of, any judgment or order of any Court (whether entered or made before or after the passing of this Act) for the payment or recovery of a sum of money, except on an application for the purpose to that Court; or
  2. (b) levy any distress, take, resume, or enter into possession of any property, foreclose, realise any security, forfeit any deposit, or take any other measures, for the purpose of enforcing the payment or recovery of any sum of money, or in default of the payment or recovery of any sum of money, except on an application for the purpose to the High Court, or, alternatively, to the County Court in such cases as may be provided for by rides or directions under this Act.

(2) If on any such application the Court is of opinion that time should be given to the person liable to make the payment on the ground that he is unable immediately to make the payment by reason of circumstances attributable, directly or indirectly, to the present War, the Court may, in its absolute and final discretion, by order stay execution or defer the operation of any such remedies as aforesaid, for such time and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit.

(3) Where a bankruptcy petition has been presented against any debtor, and the debtor proves to the satisfaction of the Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy that his inability to pay his debts is due to circumstances attributable, directly or indirectly, to the present War, the Court may, in its absolute and final discretion at any time stay the proceedings under the petition for such time and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may make such-rules and give such directions as he thinks fit for the purpose of giving full effect to this Act.

(5) The powers given under this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other powers of any Court.

(6) Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or power of pawnbrokers to deal with pledges.

(7) Any stay of execution or of other proceedings and any postponement of the operation of the remedies of a creditor, which has been granted or ordered by any Court since the commencement of the present War and before the passing of this Act, shall be as valid as if this Act had been in operation when the stay or postponement was granted or ordered.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon)

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) paragraph (a), after the word "money" to insert the words "to which this Sub-section applies."

It is proposed that in the rules or directions in the case of a pending action or actions it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff first to get judgment, and the plaintiff may give notice before he gets judgment.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I think if these rules provided for secrecy in a matter of this kind it would be very unfortunate. I do hope that it is not contemplated by these rules that all these matters should be decided in camera.

Sir F. BANBURY

I should like to know If the rules will provide for an appeal. It is a very important Bill which may very seriously affect a large number of people. Yesterday I received a letter from a constituent of mine in the following terms:— I venture to trouble you with a statement as to the particular position in which I find myself in consequence of the War, a position which is not remedied by the moratorium. My income is entirely derived from property let upon all sorts of tenancies from £15 up to £400, and amounting to about £5,500, which, after deducting the outgoings, leaves me an income of £1,100 a year. My correspondent goes on to say:— Since the commencement of the War I have not received a single penny for rent, and my expectations for the future are very doubtful. I cannot borrow any money on properties that cost me £20,000, and they are now practically unsaleable. There must be many people in my situation, and the only way to avoid bankruptcy I can see is for the Government, to do certain things. I do not agree with the proposal which my correspondent outlines in his letter, because it means that the Government should take certain steps which I think it is impossible for them to do. This, however, raises a very important and a serious question, and one which is not limited to the case of my correspondent. There are in all probability a large number of people in a similar position, and unless there is an appeal to the High Court it may be possible that a large number of people may be ruined by the passing of this Bill. I know that is not intended by the Government, and I know that the Bill says that proceedings shall only be taken provided the War affects them, but a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, a magistrate, or a minor Court of that description, may take views as to what is affected by the War which are not perhaps the right views or the views which a judge of the High Court would take, and which consequently might inflict very great injury on a large number of people. I will hand this letter to the right hon. Gentleman, together with his name and address, because I think it is a matter which deserves very serious consideration.

Mr. DENNISS

I think the matter which has been mentioned by the hon. Baronet does not arise under this Amendment.

Mr. DAVID MASON

With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) as to whether these proceedings should be held in private or in public—

Mr. RUTHERFORD

I think it will be found that this point is the subject of an Amendment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer later on, and it would be better to get rid of the Amendment first.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think that would be the better plan.

Sir J. SIMON

I will deal with the points which have been put on this question when we come to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the word "property" ["possession of any property"], insert the words "exercise any right of re-entry."

Sir J. SIMON

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), paragraph (b), after the word "security," to insert the words "except by way of sale by mortgagee in possession or."

It has been pointed out that while it might be reasonable to say that a mortgagee ought not to foreclose or realise his security, it might be unnecessarily hard to say that the mortgagee who had already entered into possession and had been in possession for many years, should have this Bill thrown in his way before he had exercised the ordinary rights of mortgagee in possession. This is why I ask the Committee to insert these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1), paragraph (b), leave out the words "or take any other measures."

After the word "money" ["enforcing the payment or recovery of any sum of money"], insert the words "to which this Sub-section applies."

After the word "any" ["in default of the payment or recovery of any sum of money"], insert the word "such."

Leave out the words "except on an application for the purpose to the High Court, or, alternatively, to the County Court in such cases," and insert instead thereof the words "except after such application to such Court and such notice."

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words "Provided that in cases of tenancy and premises let at a rent of not less than £50 per annum, in which the rent has been in arrear for over one month, the provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply."

The Amendment provides that the Act shall not apply to cases where the rent is more than £50 and where it has been in arrear for more than a month. The object of the Act is to give relief to small tenants who may find it difficult to meet their demands during the War, and I submit that, as far as bigger classes of property are concerned, it is not intended to relieve the tenant to such an extent that he should be allowed to remain in possession and not have his goods distrained upon if he is in arrear for over a month.

Sir J. SIMON

I am going to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether the case he has in mind, or, at any rate, a portion of it, could not be met in another way. I am quite aware that my proposal does not go as far as his, but, subject to the view I may gather during the Debate, my own feeling is that his proposal goes rather too far by way of exception. This Bill as it will be altered by the Government Amendments, will apply, so far as distress for rent is concerned, both to past and future agreements. Future agreements having nothing to do with rent have nothing to do with the Bill at all, but there is an exception made in the case of agreements for letting or renting. It may be true that the case of premises let at a large rental is different in some respects from the case we have mostly in mind, but I am not at all satisfied, so far as regards past letting agreements, that the mere fact that the rent is £50 or more is a good reason for saying this Act of Parliament shall not apply. Take one case which would appeal to many people. Take the case of an officer in the Army who may possibly be living in a house at more rent than £50 per annum. It seems a curious thing to say that because the rent is more than £50, therefore this Act shall not apply. I am sure there must be business premises taken perfectly properly by people who had no thought of war Jet at more than £30 per annum, and, if the general principle of the Bill is accepted, it is hardly reasonable to say that distress, ejectment, re-entry and all the other powers are to be exercised without any regard to this Bill.

After all, it is only after taking into consideration both sides that you are to say whether failure to pay is due merely to this supervening emergency. I would suggest, therefore, that we apply some such provision to future agreements. If a man now rents premises at more than £50 per annum, he knows the circumstances under which he takes them, and I think there is much force in the view that he should not receive exceptional privileges under the Bill. If the hon. Member will look at the Order Paper, he will see a provision down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to insert at the end of paragraph (b) the words "This Sub-section applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent) due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen." That saves the application of the Statute so far as rent is concerned, even though it be rent under a new agreement. If the hon. Member thinks it would meet the case, I would be prepared to alter the words in brackets, so that they would read "other than rent not being rent at a rate exceeding £50 per annum." The Bill would then be available for rent of any sums so far as it relates to agreements before the War, but so far as it relates to agreements after the War began it would not be available, and would not apply if the rent were more than £50 a year.

Mr. RAWLINSON

On that understanding. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. SIMON

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words,

"This Sub-section applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent not being rent at a rate exceeding £50 per annum) due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the fourth day of August, nineteeen hundred and fourteen."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

Would the right hon. Gentleman, for the convenience of the Committee, move the Amendment as originally drafted?

Sir J. SIMON

Very well. I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (b), to insert the words,

"This Sub-section applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent) due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the fourth day of August, nineteen hunched and fourteen."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

(indistinctly heard) The Bill, as originally introduced, protected the land purchase annuitants just as much as the tenants. You have now so altered it that you have earmarked merely the word "rent." You are giving protection to tenants of very large rentals, and, as the land purchase annuitants are really tenants of the State, I think the Bill should apply to them. It is a Bill which I do not think ought to be passed through all its stages to-day. It is not so very urgent, and I would therefore ask the Government to consider between this and the next stage whether the word "rent" is not susceptible of some definition which would include land purchase annuitants.

Sir J. SIMON

The hon. and learned Gentleman has put a difficult point, but it has been present to our minds. I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Bill, as now altered, will not apply to purchasing tenants, and I confess the view I have been disposed to take has been that on the whole it is undesirable that it should apply to them. The splendid punctuality with which these annuities have been paid is one of the most remarkable features of the recent agrarian history of Ireland, and I would be sorry if a Bill of this sort were to do anything to weaken that punctuality. I rather imagine it would be an arguable point if the Bill as originally drawn did apply to those annuities. But we have quite deliberately left the thing as it is. If, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman feels strongly upon it, I will have inquiries made while this discussion proceeds, and when we come to the Clause applying the Bill to Ireland that will be an appropriate place to raise this point. But I rather hope the Committee will take the view that it is really better not to make any application of this Bill to the payment of annuities under the Irish Land Acts. That certainly was our intention. There is one other point raised by the hon. and learned Member to which I must refer. This Bill is not one which, in the public interest, we can deal with in a leisurely way. I do not at all say that it is a substitute for the moratorium. Nothing of the sort. But it is obvious you cannot judge what is the right thing to do in reference to the moratorium until you know exactly what the position is under this Bill. The moment the Bill passes rules will have to be drawn up, and, in view of judicial authorities, it is very important that if such a Bill is to be passed, it should be passed with the greatest promptitude consistent with reasonable care. I therefore hope that my hon. and learned Friend will, while this Debate is going on, consider what is best to be done when we reach the Clause applying the Bill to Ireland, and I trust, also, he will bear in mind that our fixed intention was that the Bill should not apply to the payment of annuities under the Irish Land Purchase Acts.

Mr. HOLT

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why payments under the Irish Land Purchase. Acts are not debts due in pursuance of contracts made before the War! I should have thought they were included.

Sir J. SIMON

The view I have been disposed to take was that such debts would not be the result of ordinary private con-tract, but are really obligations to the Crown. I do not think that taxes are governed by this Bill.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I think I am right in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer distinctly used the phrase, "Kent and taxes." Reference has been made to the case of an officer shot during the war and unable to pay. But what about the Irish land purchaser who gees to the War? He also may be shot.

Sir J. SIMON

May I suggest we can deal with this matter better when we come to the Clause applying the Bill to Ireland. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes these annuities to be included, let him propose words to that effect. Let us at any rate say either that they are or are not to be included. We do not want any mystery about it. The hon. and learned Gentleman can put down an Amendment, it will mean only three or four words, and we can discuss it when we come to the Irish Clause.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I will not take the responsibility of adding to the list if the Government are not disposed to do it themselves, because I am rather against the Bill as a whole.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

This Subsection applies to all sums of money—to everything except rent, and it is particularly rent we want it to apply to. The words are, "Due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the 4th day of August, 1914." It seems extraordinary that the Sub-section should apply to sums of money except sums other than rent, whereas we want to have rent included. It starts by saying,

"This Sub-section applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent),"

etc. But we want rent to be excluded.

Mr. DENNISS

The great object of this Section is to prevent distraints for rent, especially on small properties, whether the tenancies were created before the War or after it. That is the intention of the Section. It was threshed out between the various parties who met the other day, and everybody agreed that as regards the rents of small properties no distress or ejectment or any such action should take place whether the letting was before or after the War began.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I quite agree, and the Committee were of opinion that it should be extended beyond the 4th August. Really the Section applies to all sums of money, except sums other than rent, while it is intended to include rent.

Mr. BOYTON

The hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) is anxious about the Irish land annuities. I am anxious to know if I am liable to the Government for rates. Is there any exemption which prevents the Government unduly pressing me for rates which may be due?

Sir J. SIMON

indicated assent.

Mr. BOYTON

May I ask where it is to be found?

Sir J. SIMON

The liability to pay rates is enforced in this country by application to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. That Court makes an order, and that order may take the form of an order for distraint. If the rates cannot be paid as far as that order is concerned, it will come within Sub-section (a). So far as distress is concerned, if there has not really been an order it would come under Sub-clause (b).

Sir F. BANBURY

That means that the rates cannot be enforced if the Court to which application is made refuses to make an order.

Mr. BOYTON

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation. There is another point I wish to put. Assume I am the lessor of property paying rates, such rates being included in the lessee's rent. If the lessee fails to make payment to me, will the Government ask me for payment of the rates which I have not been fortunate enough to recover in my inclusive rent? In such a case, will an order be made against me personally?

Sir J. SIMON

Supposing that the rates are due from the tenant, as is ordinarily the case—except in the case of flats and small properties which compound—suppose the rates are due from the tenant, in the event of their not being paid under the ordinary law, it is on the tenant that the distress goes, and the tenant will be protected against any such proceedings being taken under the terms of this Bill. Therefore, persons who find that it is impossible to pay rates in view of the special conditions which the War has brought about will have the protection of this Statute, so far as the Court thinks it right to give it them. But then there are cases where the rates are paid by the land-lord, either by compounding, or because he is the landlord of flats. The hon. Gentleman wants to know what is the position there. The answer is that the Court that makes any order for relief against an application for distress or protection against remedies for rent may in such a case attach conditions. The Court might, and probably would, in a proper case say to the tenant: "It is all very fine your urging that you should not pay your rent to your landlord. But the landlord has to pay the rates, and therefore unless you comply with the conditions we are going to impose, some such condition probably as that you shall put your landlord in funds to enable him to pay the rates, we shall not be able to give any relief at all so far as regards the payment of rent." The Court will be able to deal with any special cases by attaching suitable conditions before it grants relief.

Sir F. BANBURY

I thought that was what was meant by the Section. I have been asked by the Corporation of the City of London to put this question: How are they going to pay their way if they are unable to get in their rates? What is to happen in that case? That is one of the reasons why I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cork that there may be some doubt as to whether the Bill is not going to do more harm than good. Perhaps the Attorney-General will tell us what is to happen in the event of a large number of people being unable to pay their rates to the local authority.

Sir J. SIMON

This is developing into a conversation in which I am always assisting. I would point out that the tribunal which is to deal with these cases is to consider the interests of both sides, and that is provided for in words which no doubt the hon. Baronet has seen. That is one of the considerations which must-make any tribunal cautious before it grants relief. I should have thought the cases very rare indeed where a man, who desires exemption from payment of rates has not other liabilities in respect of which it would be more easy to get some relief than in the case of rates. It must be borne in mind that the rates must be collected with reasonable promptitude if the local finances in any area are going to be carried on satisfactorily. I think we may trust to the good sense of those who will have to administer the Bill to give due consideration to this very obvious proposition.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am not quite sure that I have as much confidence in this tribunal as the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but, under the circumstances, I will accept what he says.

Mr. WILLIAM THORNE

I want to know what the position is of the tenant who pays taxes in with his rent. Suppose the landlord refuses to pay, is the local authority to be then in a position to come on to the tenant for the rates due, or is the tenant to have the same protection in respect of rates as he is being given in respect of rent?

Sir J. SIMON

So far as I can see he has. I must not be understood to say the present law does that. This Bill is not intended to lay down the normal procedure; it is for exceptional cases. If you have a case in which the claim is rightly made against a defendant, but the defendant can show that, owing to the very exceptional circumstances in which we are now living, it is right that he should be given some relief or time, no doubt he would get it.

Mr. DUKE

Having followed the course of these things, I can say with regard to rates that the distresses by means of which rates are levied would not be issued during the War if there are circumstances which arise to afford an excuse for their not being levied. I see no great complexity about it.

Amendment made in proposed Amendment: After the word "rent" [" other than rent"], insert the words "not being rent at a rate exceeding £50 per annum." [Sir. J. Simon.]

Question, "That the words 'This Subsection applies to all sums of money except sums (other than rent not being rent at a rate exceeding £50 per annum) due and payable in pursuance of a contract made after the beginning of the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In Subsection (2), after the word "Court" ["if on any such application the Court"], insert the words "to which the application is made."—[Sir J. Simon.]

Mr. MORRELL

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words "or declare any policy of life insurance to be void by reason of default of the payment of any premium when due except on such an application as aforesaid."

My object in moving this Amendment is to draw the attention of the Committee to the cases of a very large and deserving body of people who are at present suffering very great hardship in consequence of the War—the holders of small life policies—who, in consequence of the War, are unable at the moment to pay their premiums, and who are in danger in consequence of that of losing the benefit of all the premiums they have paid before the War commenced. I am told that large insurance companies are threatening and are, in fact, taking steps to declare these policies to be void, just as if there were no war going on. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Prudential Company is doing it!"] I believe other companies are doing so. I have here a letter from a constituent of mine, who is accustomed to this class of business, who says there are many thousands of policy holders in Birmingham alone—people who have paid their premiums, say, from £5 to £20—who, during the present crisis, cannot do so, and are at the mercy of the offices and societies, and who will lose all. That seems to be a very hard case, and one with which the Government are bound to deal. I hope the Attorney-General, or someone on the-Treasury Bench, will tell me what steps-the Government propose to take in order to deal with these cases. I see a little further down on the Order Paper art. Amendment standing in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which expressly excludes them, and which says that nothing in this Act shall affect any power to forfeit a policy of insurance for nonpayment of premium—that is to say, an Amendment in the name of the Government runs directly counter to my Amendment.

I want to know if insurance premiums are not to come under this Bill, and how these people are to be provided for? Are the Government really going to allow these large insurance companies to secure an immense profit at the expense of this large class of persons by lapsing all policies? What do the Government propose to do? As the Committee knows, these people cannot come within the terms of the moratorium because their payments are too small. I questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject on Thursday, and he said he was in communication with the insurance companies on the subject. When I questioned him further, he could not say that he had any particular scheme in hand, or that he was proposing to do anything, and he could give me no assurance whatever. I confess I am not satisfied. It is time the Government realised that this is a very serious matter, and they ought to be able to produce some scheme for relieving these people. At any rate, they ought to allow the policies to continue and to make any arrears a first charge in the event of any claim being made under a policy. That would not involve any hardship to the company and would permit these life policies to continue to exist. I hope the Attorney-General will be able to give me some assurance that the Government have the matter in hand and that they intend to deal with it—if not in this-Bill, at any rate in some other.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I would suggest with regard to these very difficult cases, and those which we cannot now foresee, that the Government should insert an in terrorem Clause giving them power to extend this Bill by Order in Council particularly to classes of cases not now mentioned in the Bill, so that an insurance company, if it acted badly, could be told that if due consideration were not given the Government would by Order in Council make such an extension of the Bill. I think the Government are wise in proceeding cautiously, but there may arise hard eases such as the hon. Member pats forward. If they took the power such as I suggest, they would be able to say to a company which was proceeding badly, "If you treat your clients badly, we will make the extension." By that means, without actually defining the matter in the rather drastic way the hon. Member proposes, the Government would still be able to effect everything in their power. I do not know whether such words might be inserted as appear in Sub-section (4) of Clause 2, which says,

"His Majesty may, by Order in Council, at any time determine the operation of this Act—"

That clearly affects time—

"or provide that this Act shall have effect subject to such limitations as may be contained in the Order."

Why not have such a power to extend the Bill in regard to these doubtful cases which may arise in the future as in the Government's opinion may seem desirable?

Mr. LYELL

The hon. and learned Member has made a very interesting suggestion. He proposes that a Clause should be inserted which should be something in the shape of a rod in pickle which could be used by the Government at any stage at their discretion. The efficiency of a rod in pickle depends upon the will to take it out and use it if necessary. At the present moment what is in the mind of the Government is to be found in the Amendment on the Paper to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Morrell) has referred. If we are to judge anything from that Amendment in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is the intention of the Government to except from the operation of this Bill this particular question of insurance policies for small amounts, so that we are to infer that the rod in pickle proposed by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy) is going to remain in pickle, because the Government say by putting that Amendment on the Paper that they have no intention of taking that rod out for the benefit of insurance companies. I ask the Attorney-General to give us some information as to the effect of the changes the Government propose to make in the law by this Bill. I would ask, in the first place, whether the moratorium is not to apply to insurance policies where the amount payable monthly or yearly is under £5, but does apply where the amount is over £5. If so, that appears to be very much like making one law for the rich and another for the poor. The large policy holder who makes a payment of over £5 is to be relieved under the moratorium and is to escape payment at a time when it may be difficult to pay, but relief is deliberately refused to the small policy holder—at any rate, I understand that is to be the effect, and I hope it will not be so.

Sir F. BANBURY

I have been a loyal supporter of the Government for the last month, and I am one of the most devoted supporters of the Government at the present moment, but my support does not go quite so far as is indicated by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork (Mr. T. M. Healy). I prefer to wait and see what they are going to do. I do not want to put into their hands the power to do anything they like outside the House of Commons, and I prefer that we should have some knowledge of whatever rules and regulations they make.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. JOWETT

The suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Cork that there should be a rod in pickle does not, to my mind, at all meet the case, because, in some instances, just six weeks' arrears will put a man entirely out of benefit, which means that in the case of death the whole of the money he has paid is lost. It is small comfort to those who are left and who ought to have the benefit of the insurance money, to learn that there has been a rod in pickle and that somewhere and at some time later on other people will have their grievance redressed. This is a most serious matter among certain sections of the public. I have had letters on the subject myself, and I believe similar letters have been sent to Citizens Committees up and down the country. Let the House understand that the country is taking serious note of certain things which are occurring at present. The poorer section of the community has got it firmly fixed in their minds that with regard to the banking interest, and with regard to those insured persons who pay large premiums and those who owe large sums of money there is protection—there is the moratorium. It was passed quickly. There was no such thing as pages of Amendments put down by Members of the House. It was hurried through all stages in the matter of half an hour or an hour, and as soon as ever a Bill come on which raises the question of small debts, small insurance policies, questions dealing with those people who suffer more than any other section of society, the section of people who are called upon to fight, and who are driven practically to fight whereas other sections of society can please themselves whether they fight or not, there is opposition. The poor are feeling, and in my opinion most bitterly, some of these differences, and if this House today does not make it clear that it intends to do justice to the poor in this matter there will be a reckoning day sooner or later.

Mr. DAVID MASON

May I suggest that the Amendment should exclude insurance policies entered into after the outbreak of the War. I think there is a good deal to be said for support of the Amendment with regard to policies entered into prior to the War, but at the same time some consideration should be made for people entering into contracts now with their eyes open, and we should not leave the Bill too wide for future transactions.

Sir J. SIMON

I am not sure that I quite follow my hon. Friend's suggestion, because it seems to me that the case that needs very anxious consideration is the case of policies of insurance, and especially policies of insurance with industrial companies entered into before the War. A great deal of thought has been given to this matter, and I may as well be frank and confess that I still feel a good deal of doubt as to what is the right way to deal with it, but, plainly, it is not right to deal with it in this Bill offhand, unless we are quite clear that we see how it will work out. There is this, of course, to be considered. You may regret it, but it is undoubtedly true that the finance of many industrial insurance companies essentially depends upon the calculation that a certain number of policies will lapse. No doubt the tendency for policies to lapse in time of stress is very greatly increased, and that is a hardship with which everyone here must sympathise, but you have to be careful in making provision that policies are not to lapse for non-payment of premium in the interests of those who find it difficult to pay, lest quite unintentionally you may strike at the whole actuarial basis on which policies are issued which are held by people who do pay. It is undoubtedly a very difficult side of the matter. I do not think it would be right to say that every man who has entered into a policy of life insurance and has paid, perhaps, one or two weeks of premium should thereby get such a vested interest in his policy as entitles him to prevent the policy from being forfeited in the event of non-payment. If I saw my way to draw a line by which I could select the cases of people who have got an established right in a policy from a long course of punctual payments, that would be a very different thing. But the reason why, for the time being, we have thought this ought not to be done was because it seemed to us that the object was so full of difficulty, and the result of such a proposal so uncertain, that it might be desirable to see whether it could not be dealt with by other means.

My hon. Friend Mr. Morrell asked what was being done about it. I can speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I know how much of his time has been devoted to considering this class of question, and many of us have been considering whether the matter might not be better dealt with by diverting the local charitable assistance which is being organised all over the country in order to relieve suitable cases of this sort by paying these premiums. If you did that you would do nothing, of course, to strike at the root of the actuarial solvency of a company, and at the same time you would save the cases which everyone wants to save. The hon. Member (Mr. Jowett) made a reference to this Bill being discussed by lawyers. Lawyers in this matter are no better than other people. I hope they are no worse. The hon. Member himself gave us assistance, which we very much valued, when we had a discussion the other day—most of us lawyers—and I think he will bear me out that even the lawyers of this House were only concerned in showing that this Bill is so framed as to carry out its real object without imposing impossible conditions upon those who, after all, are entitled to have their debts paid if there is no reason to the contrary. Then an hon. Member behind me asked whether or not the moratorium did not apply here. I doubt whether it does. A premium due on a policy of insurance is not a debt. No one can sue you for it. An insurance company cannot put you into Court because you do not pay. A contract of insurance of that sort is a contract by which there is a certain definite consequence of your not paying, which is that you lose the right which you would otherwise have to call for a sum of money in a certain event. I question very much whether the moratorium has anything to do with that. Certainly there is not the slightest difference here between insurance policies entered into by poor people for small amounts and insurance policies entered into by other people for larger amounts paid at longer intervals. The thing is so complex that we did not feel we were warranted in bringing into this Bill a provision which, for all we could tell, might produce very serious consequences upon the very institutions whose dealings in this matter we want to maintain.

After all, the House is going to meet again. From time to time we shall have an opportunity of seeing how this works. If it be true that industrial insurance companies take an unfair advantage of this situation we can deal with it, but may there not be something to be said for really seeing whether that is in fact the experience of the next few weeks, rather than doing this now, which I defy any Member of the House, if he does it, to say will have a definite and ascertainable consequence? I cannot judge what would be the effect of saying that in the case of these insurance companies you are not to allow any single policy to lapse until you have made an application in which the insured will be entitled to say he would have paid his premium if it had not been for the War. I cannot tell what would be the consequence to these insurance companies, not merely on the rights of those who are in danger of lapsing, but on the rights of other people who are relying on the insurance companies to pay them their money. The view we were disposed to take, acting as a committee of public safety, in this matter and desiring to do what is generally approved and what is right, was that really it is better not to put this into the Bill—at any rate at present. We had better see how it works out and deal with it hereafter if need be, and in the meantime I should have thought this was exactly one of the cases where the organised charity of localities, which is proceeding with such fine spirit, might with general consent and approval be used in order to relieve those cases, which no doubt exist and which may be very many, where these policies are in danger of falling through no fault of the insured. I can assure my hon. Friend that if he will produce any sort of scheme with a reasonable basis we will put it into the Bill in a minute, and it is not from any want of sympathy or desire to do what is fair, but because we really do not feel justified in adding this to the list until it is clear to the general intelligence of the House that it is a safe addition to make. With very great regret I am bound to say at present that it would be a dangerous addition. Obviously if it was going to be made it could not be made by adding these words here. Words must be added earlier in the Clause, but this is a matter of argument.

Mr. MORRELL

I feel very much disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman's reply. The Attorney-General was extremely sympathetic, but from beginning to end he made no definite suggestion of any sort except that these unfortunate people, many of whom have been paying premiums now for twenty years past, should rely on charity to tide them over the difficulty which they are in in consequence of this War. In the first place, the Attorney-General put the case of people who have only paid, say, for a month or two or a few weeks. It would be quite easy to have a Clause which will say, "where a man has paid his premium regularly for at least two years." At any rate, that would protect a certain number. Then he says there would be cases which will occur in which it will be a hardship for the company if they were not allowed to lapse policies. If you were to carry an Amendment of this sort, it would be quite possible to put in a provision that the High Court shall take into consideration the regular payment and all the circumstances of the case, and therefore protect the insurance companies against any undue application for relief. I still say I think it is time, considering the extent of this grievance, that the Government ought by now to have been able to decide on their policy, and to give us a more definite statement than they have done. My right hon. Friend says the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a lot of consideration to this question. He was not able to say in the least what was the result of this consideration. I suggest to the Attorney-General that at any rate the claim might be allowed to be set off against the benefit. That is that the premiums which were deferred might be set off against the benefit when the policy falls due. That could not possibly damage the insurance companies very largely.

Sir J. SIMON

I am sorry, but even in a time of crisis we must have some regard to business considerations. To say that an insurance company, which is taking £30 a year from me in order to pay £1,500 when I die, will not be any worse off if they deduct £30 when I die, really does not meet the case.

Mr. MORRELL

I quite see that it goes some way to meet the case. If they deducted not the whole, but certain small payments during the War, it might have been possible to meet this difficulty. At any rate, I have made a suggestion, and the Attorney-General has made no suggestion whatever, except that these people should rely upon charity.

Mr. LYELL

I wish to express my great disappointment at the reply of the Attorney-General. He has spoken of the hardship to the companies who have entered into actuarial calculations in which they have reckoned upon a certain proportion of lapsed policies. It is obvious that this country will have to go through a prolonged period of strain and stress, greater than you are going to cover by the moratorium, and goodness knows there will be many lapsed policies during that period. Some companies have derived an unenviable reputation for relying upon revenue from lapsed policies. No one can measure the duration of the War, but if it lasts for eighteen months or two years, surely it will be time enough then to lapse a policy. What I gather is that a person who has failed to pay his premium is explicitly shut out by the Bill from the benefits of his policy. According to the definite language put in the Bill, a person concerned shall not have the power to go to the Court and get relief. Why should not discretion be given to the Court to say whether he is to have relief or not? I cannot understand why discretion should be given to the Court in all other directions, and not in this case. The Court is to be put in a privileged and super-legal position. It is to be put in the position of the Keeper of the King's Conscience with power to do equity where the law fails. But in this particular case no discretion is to be allowed to the Court. Is that to be the attitude of the Government? I hope the Attorney-General will give further consideration to the matter between now and the Report stage. I hope he will see whether something cannot be done in this particular case.

Mr. DUKE

I think the Committee on both sides would desire to meet this difficulty if we could, but I must say that I sympathise with the Attorney-General in the feeling that if this Amendment were accepted you would introduce a power which would interfere with the working of very delicate machinery. If you were to dislocate industrial insurance in this way, it would give the go-by to the conditions on which industrial insurance can only be carried on. It is possible that the emergency might be met by giving very limited power in the form of a provision dealing specifically with industrial insurance. I venture to suggest to the Attorney-General that he should consider whether it would be possible to make a limitation of the power of forfeiture by inserting words like these:—

"The forfeit of any policy of life insurance granted in consideration of weekly or monthly payments, if such policy shall have been in force (for some period of time, naming it) before the commencement of the War."

That would have the effect of assimilating the position of an industrial policy to some extent with that of an ordinary life policy. Members, of course, know quite well that in the case of an ordinary life policy one of the conditions endorsed is a condition which gives a surrender value. To a larger extent than in this country some foreign countries have laws providing that the surrender value is a matter which is beyond the power of the insurance company to control. I do not think there is a surrender value in the case of industrial policies. My recollection is that the proviso says that in the case of default for a certain number of payments the policy lapses. I think it would not be a very grave interference with the finance of the insurance companies if they were required in cases where policies have been in existence for such a long time that they have received substantial benefits, and where there must be some accumulation for the good of the holder of the policy, to go to a magistrate or County Court registrar in order that he might interpose his judgment as to whether there were circumstances connected with the default which existed through the existence of the War. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider that proposal, and see whether he could give this degree of indulgence in regard to industrial policies maintained for a considerable period. At any rate, if the matter is so serious as to affect the solvency of companies, the House will be meeting from time to time, and the companies will not be slow to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer of their difficulties. If a Grant were made to meet cases where the breadwinner has gone to the War, or is out of work in consequence of the War, I think the money would be well bestowed.

Sir J. SIMON

I wish to know what the suggestion is. It is obvious that anything which may be done will have to be done under strict limitations. I understand, first of all, that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Duke) proposes that it might be limited to policies of life insurance in cases where the premiums are payable weekly or monthly.

Mr. DUKE

indicated assent.

Sir J. SIMON

Does he propose any limitation as to the size of the amount insured or is his view that, if you limit it to policies where the premiums are payable weekly or monthly, you may be pretty sure that you are dealing with small transactions?

Mr. DUKE

I think practical experience shows in connection with industrial insurance policies that there are no policies worth speaking of which would be affected by this Amendment, except those for small amounts. It is suggested by an hon. Member on the other side that you might limit it to policies of £20 without doing any harm. I am sure it would be a help if the Attorney-General could accept that suggestion.

Sir J. SIMON

Then the hon. Member suggests that there ought to be some limitation to meet the point in regard to people who have now got a certain length of run in the policy. It is suggested that the period should be three years. I think a period of two years is enough, but I do not at the moment wish to commit myself to that period.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I would suggest that the limit should be £25.

Sir J. SIMON

If the policy is not more than £25, it should have been in force for two years before the War began. I gather that is the general sense of the Committee, and I ask leave to consider the proposal. It is obviously not a matter that can be dealt with now.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I quite agree with the proposal of the Attorney-General. So far as the other policy is concerned, I do not think you ought to extend the moratorium to it at all. I will tell the Committee why. As a matter of fact, every life insurance policy is a moratorium as it stands. It allows thirty days' grace, and further than that, no reasonable office ever discharges a policy without ample notice, and most of the good offices continue the policy for twelve months after default. Some offices require that the man insured must be examined again by a doctor. Therefore, in the case of ordinary life insurance there is no necessity for the exemption. As to industrial policies which have no surrender value, I think the concession is very desirable. My hon. Friend (Mr. Lyell) spoke of some offices making a good thing out of lapsed policies. There is no reasonable office which would not prefer that a policy was continued rather than lapsed. I think where a man pays fortnightly or monthly for a small sum, some indulgence should be allowed, and I support the request that the Attorney-General should have time to consider this matter.

Mr. MORRELL

I feel grateful for the concession that has been made in this matter, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (6), after the word "affect," insert the words "any power to forfeit a policy of insurance for non-payment of premium or."

Sir J. SIMON

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), after the word "discretion" ["in its absolute and final discretion"], to insert the words "after Considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties."

Mr. DENNISS

I would like to call the attention of the Attorney-General to the word "parties." It seems to me that that is rather too narrow, and that the Court ought to be able to take into consideration other interests as well as those of parties. There are many other interests which will come in. Some of them have been illustrated to-day during the course of the Debate. I would suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider whether the Court should be limited in its discretion by the use of the word "parties."

Sir J. SIMON

The words which we have put in the Clause were put in in order to meet a suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He pointed out that a Court might otherwise spend the whole of its time in considering the hardship of the man who has got to pay, and shut out the hardship caused to the man who has a right to be paid if he is not paid. We have first the words, "after the considering all the circum stances of the case," Surely those are sufficiently wide!

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (3), after the word "discretion," insert the words "after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties."

At the end of Sub-section (3) insert the words,

"This Act shall apply to all proceedings for the recovery of possession of tenements under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, as if they were in all cases proceedings for the payment or recovery of a sum of money due and payable on account of rent."

Amendment proposed: At the end of Sub-section (4), insert the words,

"and may by those rules or directions provide for any proceedings for the purposes of this Act being conducted, so far as desirable; in private and for the remission of any fees."

Mr. T. M. HEALY

I am very doubtful about the propriety of these words being inserted. It seems to me a very strong thing to say that the entire of these proceedings are to be heard in private. Take the case of an entirely unmeritorious application which is dismissed. By this procedure you would get rid of the pressure of public opinion to prevent further unmeritorious applications being made. I would say that in every case there should be publicity, I do not see that there is any shame in any man applying to the Court if the circumstances are such that the War has rendered him unable to meet his engagements. On the other hand, what about the case of people who are in the ordinary position? Nothing is done to prevent abuses. This Act is unlike any other Act which we ever passed. This step has never been taken in regard to former wars. Now we are going to have the additional relief given that the whole of the proceedings are to take place in private. Even divorces do not take place in private. In this case, primâ facie, your position is that the man is entitled to a relief because he is an object of judicial sympathy, yet you say that the Press is not to be allowed to publish a single one of these cases. Take the very case which we have been discussing, the case of the insurance companies. Would it not be a very salutary thing as against some of the insurance companies, which were found to be working oppressively towards the working people, to have the facts published that the judges had stated that the insurance companies should not have attempted to forfeit the premiums of the working man? I quite agree that there are cases where clearly there ought to be power, on a proper application, to have the matter heard in private, but to say that all this business should go on in private seems to me to be most objectionable.

Mr. DUKE

I regard the proposal which my hon. Friend has just made with regard to applications with something like dismay. It would be ruin to business men to go into a public Court and expose their business transactions and declare, not to the creditors who are aware of their position, but to all the world, that owing to the effect of the War upon their business, they are not able to carry on without indulgence. If you are going to have public newspapers devoted to the difficulties of firms with regard to matters which are essentially of a private character, as between themselves and their creditors, it would be better, to my mind, that the Government should withdraw this Bill, because it would be better that a man dealing with a harsh creditor under the control of the Court should have the ordinary jurisdiction than that he should make an advertisement to everybody that owing to the effect of the War he cannot carry on unless the Court helps him. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not press this. The position in the English Court is that a man who has to make this application at the present time under the ordinary procedure of the Court makes it in Chambers. It is founded upon the course of procedure. The suggestion made puts a penalty upon the endeavour of the State to assist business men and people owing money over these difficult times. That penalty cannot possibly be enforced. Men will face ruin just as readily from the force of circumstances as from having to make an application of this kind. If business men in this House think it necessary that there should be some check on dishonest applications, to my mind the utmost extent to which the Committee ought to go is to empower the judge before whom the application comes in Chambers to direct that the application should be made to him in Court. I am not aware that to have that penalty for any man who made a dishonest application would deter more than a few persons from proceeding under this Bill.

Sir J. SIMON

The hon. and learned Member for Cork will remember perhaps that this Amendment was put down because of some criticisms of the Bill as originally printed that were made by Members from Ireland. One of them, I think, was the hon. Member for Cork City, and it was pointed out that, unless we put in some such words, there would be this difficulty, that although in England we have practically such applications in Chambers, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and though technically such Chamber procedure is open to the public, yet for all substantial purposes it is a private procedure. I understood from the hon. Member for Cork City that there is no such practice in Ireland, or that at any rate in cases in which a judge does Chamber work he is practically sitting in an open Court in the ordinary way. It is not for me to say whether it is a good or bad practice in these cases, but it appeared to me that in this class of case the argument which has been used by the last speaker was a very strong argument. I do not say that every application must be private, but that it should be competent for those who make the rules, to provide, so far as desirable, that these applications should be private. In reference to the suggestion which has just been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I cannot doubt that if a judge found a case coming before him which he thought in the public interest should be dealt with in the presence of an audience with a prospect of its being reported in the newspapers, he would certainly exercise his power of saying "this had better come into open Court," and if it would meet the hon. and learned Gentleman—because I sympathise a good deal with his views of things not being done in private—I would undertake when these rules are made to represent that some such provision should find a place in them. It is obvious that some cases might arise in which a man would prefer not to seek to get relief under this Bill at the expense of advertising his position to the whole world.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

My object is to limit the Bill as much as possible. I want the Bill to have as small an application as possible. I do not regard the Bill with any enthusiasm. On the contrary, I think it a very doubtful expedient, and I am afraid that it can only work mischief in many cases. I entirely accept the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I should add in reference to what he said as to the Courts in Ireland that the practice in the two countries is different.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (6). The great majority of pledges I should imagine are cases in which the amount is under £10, and in those cases the persons who pawn goods have a year in which to redeem them, and if there are any cases in which the Court should have power they are those cases in which persons pawned the goods quite eight or nine months ago, and who owing to the War are not in a position to redeem them within the period of a year. In those cases, as long as this Bill lasts, probably during the currency of the War, the pawnbroker shall not have the right to sell the pledges, and you might possibly extend it to the extent of a year afterwards. I should have thought that if any class ought to be relieved under this Bill, it should be this class. As regards pledges for a larger amount than £10, surely the Government does not intend any particular exemption for pawnbrokers in dealing with mortgages any more than in the case of other big mortgages dealt with under this Bill! There is no particular reason why a mortgage dealt with by a pawnbroker outside the Pawnbrokers Act should have any exemption as compared with the mortgage dealt with by any other person. Therefore I move to strike out this Sub-section altogether. I submit it was put in owing to a misconception. As far as the smaller cases are concerned, they are undoubtedly matters for which provision should be made.

Sir J. SIMON

I confess I am not quite so familiar with this branch of the law as no doubt I ought to be. I have done my best to inform myself, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the Sub-section only excludes pawnbrokers from its operation so far as they are dealing with pledges. It has nothing to do with loans made by pawnbrokers at all. As I look at the Act, a pledge means an article pawned to the pawnbroker, and, as I understand it, it is only the smaller class of transaction that would really be covered by the Sub-section. As the law stands the pawnbroker cannot treat an article pawned as if it were his own until twelve months have passed. That is a permanent moratorium, and a very proper and reasonable one. I do not think we should be called upon to say that the pawnbroker, after the twelve months have elapsed, should make an application every time, having regard to the value of the article pledged. In regard to pawnbrokers dealing with ordinary pledges—I am not referring to other parts of their business—I think the provisions of the law meet the necessities of the case. I do not think we would be doing a good thing—for it is often necessary to borrow money from the pawnbrokers—if we were to put additional difficulties in the way of the pawnbroker exercising his right under the Statute. He has rights which he can exercise at a proper interval of time, and I think it would be better to leave the law as it stands. I do not feel disposed to accept this proposal.

Mr. RAWLINSON

While I am not in the least satisfied with the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, still I do not intend to divide the House, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. SIMON

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (6), to add the words "or give any power to stay execution or defer the operation of any remedies of a creditor in the case of a cum of money payable by or recoverable from a subject of a Sovereign or State at war with His Majesty."

Mr. RAWLINSON

The Amendment contains the substance of a new Clause of which I gave notice, but does not appear to be quite wide enough. Will it include such cases as persons carrying on business in Germany and having a branch in this' country? My Amendment included that as well. I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite satisfied that his words are wide enough to meet the case.

Sir J. SIMON

I think the words are all right. Of course, if the plaintiff is an alien enemy, he could not sue; he is debarred from our Courts. I think the words which I have submitted are all right, but I will have them looked into again, in view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

There are a good many English companies the shares of which are wholly held in Germany. Technically they are English companies, but the men who hold the shares are alien enemies in Germany and Austria. They ought not to be able to get over the difficulty on the technical point that a company, in which alien enemies hold the shares, is registered here as an English company.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

There must be a great many Englishmen who hold shares in' German companies, and I think we ought to be very careful. Will the learned Attorney-General read the Clause as amended?

Sir J. SIMON

The Sub-section, as amended, will read, "Nothing in this Act shall affect any right or power of pawnbrokers to deal with pledges, or give any power to stay execution or defer the operation of any remedies of a creditor in the case of a sum of money payable by or recoverable from a subject of a Sovereign or State at war with His Majesty." I think the words are right. I do not see any way by which you could examine the register of a company registered in this country, and carrying on business in this country, and deprive them of the application of this Bill merely because their shareholders are Germans or Austrians. I think it would be very difficult to carry that out. The way in which it would work out would be this: Suppose such a case came before the Court, the tribunal would have the right to examine into all the circumstances of the case, and it would be a very proper circumstance to consider the position of the shareholders' list of the company.

Mr. DUKE

The right hon. Gentleman has founded his observation on the view that the dividends, for instance, or the profits of trading in England of companies which have alien members will result in the payment of money to those aliens during the war. I understood the position to be otherwise—that no money was to go out of this country to alien enemies whether they are shareholders or otherwise.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (2), after the word "discretion" ["final discretion"], insert the words "after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties."

In Sub-section (3), after the word "discretion" ["final discretion"], corresponding Amendment made.—[Mr. Munro.]

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir F. BANBURY

Will the right hon. Gentleman give some answer to the question which I put to the Solicitor-General, and which referred to a very hard case?

Sir J. SIMON

I am bound to say that I do not think that the remedies which this Bill provides are remedies in regard to which we ought to encourage unlimited right of appeal. After all, we are dealing with a case where one of the parties is, presumably, not able to pay, and nothing is so unprofitable as a series of appeals going up in the Court, where one of the parties to the litigation cannot pay. I think there was a great deal of force in what was said, that it would not be right that a quite subordinate person should deal with anything of very great importance, in a case such as the hon. Baronet mentioned, but I think it could be provided for under the rules. For instance, it could be provided that where a matter was over a certain amount it should be dealt with by a judge of the High Court, in order to exclude altogether the risk of its being finally decided wrongly by someone subordinate. I hope by that means we shall probably get the substance of what the hon. Baronet wants.

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

I very strongly object to any decision of any kind without some appeal. No doubt what the learned Attorney-General says is perfectly right, that it is not desirable to encourage appeals, but if there be no appeals you are apt to get a doctrinnaire set of decisions which are all wrong, and which would never have been given if there had been the knowledge that they could be appealed against and reversed. I have seen that in several instances where no appeal has been given. Where appeal is given the tendency is that better and more careful judgments are delivered, and in the long run the cost of appeals is reduced. I suggest that the Lord Chancellor should make rules by which every man should have the ordinary right of appeal in some Court or other, and if that were done, I am quite sure the result will be a saving of costs, and the obtaining of carefully-considered judgments.

Sir F. BANBURY

I am prepared to take the assurance of the Attorney-General that there will be some sort of protection.

Question put, and agreed to,