HC Deb 11 February 1941 vol 368 cc1268-98
Mr. W. H. Green (Deptford)

I beg to move, in page 34, line 47, to leave out paragraph (a).

The purpose of this Amendment is to make the business scheme relating to movable plant and machinery, office and shop equipment compulsory upon all traders. It raises in a very limited form a principle which I am sure the Committee will want to discuss at some length before the day is ended. This war damage scheme would operate three distinct principles. There is one class from which there is no exemption whatever, and the insurance will be completely compulsory. The second section is that with which we are dealing now, in which there are certain exemptions, and a very large section of the community may escape, if they so desire, the payment of premiums and the necessity of insurance. Then there is the third section, which we shall reach shortly, which makes it entirely optional over the whole field of insurance of chattels and other personal belongings. Under the Clause as it stands a trader would be entitled to insure his property if it amounted to £1,000 or more. He need not insure it if it is less than a figure which I understand has been fixed at £1,000. The object of the Amendment is to compel all traders, whether this type of property reaches £1,000 or £20,000, equally to be amenable to compulsory insurance.

Sir I. Albery

Where does the hon. Member get the figure of £1,000?

Mr. Green

It has been stated in the Press, and I am assuming it for the moment, but the principle that I am arguing will not be affected, whether it is £1,000 or £2,000, or even £500. It makes an unfair discrimination between the multiple shopowners and the individual traders. A large multiple concern or a co-operative concern may have 500 branches, each of which has goods of under £1,000 value but they will be compelled to insure the whole of the stocks of their shops. Individual traders, however, with stocks of under £1,000 may be exempt from the operation of the Bill. I think that I am right in stating that the overwhelming majority of traders are small men whose stocks under this Clause would not reach £1,000. Consequently, they would not be compulsorily insured.

I regard this as a grave weakness in the Bill. If insurance is good for one it is good for all and should be made compulsory on all. In cities and towns where the risk of raiding is regarded as greater and damage to property more likely, all the traders will obviously insure. In a fair proportion of the country where the risks of bombardment are expected to be less, the traders will not insure. We cannot blame them, for if we were in similar circumstances we should react in the same way. Is it good business policy to rule out from the scheme the better risks and to compel the bad risks to come in? If all the traders with property under the terms of this Clause were compelled to insure, it is reasonable to suppose that the premium could be considerably reduced. Because in the main only the bad risks are to be embraced, a higher premium will have to be charged. If the obligations of insurance are desirable they should be made compulsory on all. This point raises a principle of considerable concern to many traders because the Clause will penalise the bad risks owing to the good risks being exempt.

Mr. Lyttelton

I accept the suggestion that it is bad policy only to underwrite all the bad risks, but I cannot admit that that is the effect of putting on a limit of £1,000. We cannot ignore the costs of collecting the premiums if the insurance of all plant of whatever value were made compulsory. It would make very big inroads on, if not completely absorb, the extra premiums that would be gained. Otherwise, it is generally the small man whom one wishes to protect. It is conceded that the big businesses can generally look after themselves, and one of the reasons why the limit of £1,000 has been fixed is in order not to put the small trader under an obligation, which his circumstances may make it impossible for him to meet, to pay a high rate of premium. If he is a small man in a prosperous position, he will take out a voluntary insurance. It is because we want to protect him from the incidence of a high premium that the limit has been fixed.

Mr. Green

If the right hon. Gentleman's contention is correct that the collection of premiums from a large number of smaller traders is prohibitive and financially unsound, why does he allow them to come in voluntarily? Why not exclude all of them if the collection of premiums is too big an item?

Major Milner

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not desire to impose the payment of premiums upon those who have less than £1,000 worth of assets. What is the result of that? He is no doubt correct that the large firms may be able to help themselves. They can equally look after themselves if they suffer a loss. A poor man, however, cannot do so. If he is unable to bear a premium and he suffers damage, he will be completely ruined. It is essential that this insurance should be compulsory equally with the insurance of private chattels. It is wrong to avoid placing the burden of a premium on a small man in the hope that he may escape damage, whereas, in fact, a greater burden is being placed upon him by the risk he runs of being ruined without any opportunity of compensation. There is no substance in the right hon. Gentleman's argument if, as he says, he desires to help the small business man. The way to help him is to give him a form of insurance for which he can afford to pay. The War Damage Commission will be placed under a difficulty if these traders can insure voluntarily. One may insure and a trader next door to him may not. Will the Government say to the latter, who, although he had the opportunity, was not perhaps able to afford it, or did not think it worth while, that he had the opportunity of insuring and that as he did not he could not get compensation? We have to be consistent in these matters. One of the difficulties in this Bill is that the Government throughout are inconsistent. In principle the idea is good, but in practice they have departed from the principles with which they started. There are opportunities in the Bill for evasion and of contracting out, and this is surely one of those matters in which the insurance should be compulsory so that there should be no opportunity for the small man to get into difficulties and to become ruined.

Sir I. Albery

I was not very much impressed by the argument which my right hon. Friend put up. I understood him to say that if a man was poor and could not afford to pay the premium he would have to suffer the loss of the whole of his goods. That does not seem to be at all in keeping with what I believe to be the general spirit of the Bill which was to spread the sacrifices over all and so to help the weaker brethren as well as the stronger brethren. I had expected my right hon. Friend to put forward a different argument. I thought he would probably say that if everybody came into the scheme there would be no adequate machinery for dealing with the position. That might have been a good argument, and if that had been the argument we should have been up against this position, that one would have to shut out the man who would come in of his own free accord. The only alternative would have been to make a definite limiting basis. If the machinery cannot be found to ensure everybody this protection, let us reduce the number by some limiting factor. That would be fair to all concerned. I cannot see that there is any logic in the reply.

Mr. Woods

Like the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), I am amazed at the reply of the President of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Green) put up a perfectly sound case, arguing that here was an opportunity to make the Bill much more equitable and to accomplish what is the main purpose of the Bill, that is, to spread the liability for meeting the risks over the whole country, irrespective of questions of vulnerability of areas or otherwise. It is obvious that under the Bill as it is whole areas of the country which regard themselves as safe will make no contribution to the fund—excepting those businesses which come over a certain figure—and naturally there will be vulnerable areas where all will come in. This means putting the burden upon the vulnerable areas and relieving the remote areas of their share. The President of the Board of Trade shakes his head, but that will be the effect.

Mr. Lyttelton

We are talking about limits of money and not geographical limits. The hon. Member is suggesting that there are proportionately more thousand-pound businesses in the vulnerable areas.

Mr. Woods

It is not a question of money. The object of the Amendment is to make this either compulsory for all or voluntary for all. If we leave it so that people can make their choice, obviously those who consider themselves as running little risk will not take advantage of the scheme, and in other areas most people will insure voluntarily, whereas the whole object of the Bill was to distribute the burden over the whole country. We have had instances of quite small businesses which are in difficulties in the vulnerable areas owing to the removal of the population. On the other hand there are in remote villages and elsewhere small prosperous businesses which will feel that it will be wiser for them to take the risk themselves and not to insure because the premium is so high. That would be a concession to those who are gaining whatever advantages are to be derived from the movements of the population. There was another point to which my hon. Friend received no reply. There are businesses which will be compelled to come into the scheme simply because they are grouped together. Take a co-operative concern in a small rural area. They may have two or three departments in small self-contained shops, but because they are bulked together for Income Tax purposes and the figure exceeds £1,000, they will be compelled to come in, though their risk is no greater than that of competitors who will have nothing to pay. What reply we did get was to my mind a staggering one.

I do not know whether it was the intention to create the impression that the cost of collecting the premium would run to 0, 20 or 30 per cent. of the premium, but the statement was that the cost of collecting premiums would make it uneconomic. To my mind that is utterly ridiculous. No insurance concern would carry on like that. The cost of collecting premiums of this kind would be infinitesimal if the business were properly organised. There might have been a question as to the necessary staff being available, but too much emphasis cannot be laid on that, because we all know that up and down the country are many people who would be ready to undertake this type of work if only they could get it. It is all a question of organisation, and if we cannot organise to collect the premiums for this fund how are we going to win the war, which is a totalitarian war? If we cannot organise the country in such a way that we know where the risk is and distribute the burden of risk equally, then that is a confession of weakness which staggers me.

Mr. Butcher (Holland-with-Boston)

I hardly think that the reply made by the President of the Board of Trade is in any way satisfactory. We can understand, as was urged earlier from the Terasury Bench, that just as a limit must be set upon the amount of damage which can be compensated, so a limit must be put upon the value of the assets which can be included in the scheme. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) said the scheme must be either voluntary or compulsory. We may get this position, that a small trader in a town in a danger area who has already lost his business will pay his premium feeling sure that his assets are likely to be damaged and that anyhow his chances of surviving their loss and the loss of goodwill and custom are small; and, on the other hand, a trader in the district to which these customers have removed, in a safer part of England, may say, "My risks of damage are so small that I shall not insure." The argument of the President of the Board of Trade failed entirely when he said, "Ah, but they can come in on a voluntary basis." The scheme will break down if everybody comes in on a voluntary basis. If, on the other hand, they keep out, then surely there is something to be said for reducing the limit below £1,000. Let us have a scheme where above a certain level everybody stands or falls together. If necessary, a rake-off of £250 or £500 could be allowed even to a giant company. But do let us have a datum line for companies or firms, whether in a safe or a danger area, and let all pay the same premium and share in the same potential benefits.

Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern)

I hope the Minister realises that the Committee wish to make this Bill sound if that can be done, and that if we criticise it is not because of antagonism to the Government's proposal but because experience suggests to us that the Government may be wrong. I hope the Government do consider it in that light, and not as a contest between them and the other members of the Committee. The argument of the President of the Board of Trade means that there will be all sorts of anomalies throughout the country. There will be people with businesses just under the £1,000 limit and others which are just over, and judging by the experience of the Purchase Tax, where a limit was fixed in regard to printing establishments, such contrasts will cause no end of ill-feeling between one set of traders and another. On grounds of equity the same principle should apply to everybody. I gather that the question before us comes down to one of practicability. Can we get a scheme in which the cost of collecting will be less than is involved in the administration work?

I would like to make a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Many big insurance companies allow people to do their own collecting. For example, if one buys a diary for the new year one can insure one's life for £2,000 against travelling risks. Why should not the Government adopt some simple principle for the smaller business? They could make the scheme compulsory throughout, and could say that everybody must go to the Post Office and take out a policy for, say, £200, £400, £600 or £800, and up to £1,000. Then the Government could go outside, when that limit was reached, and collect the premiums in some other way. They could make the scheme obligatory upon the owners of businesses, who would have to estimate the amount of insurance required and to take out policies accordingly. The Government would then have only to check and spot-check, in order to see that everybody complied with the law. It is assumed that people know the law; if the Government make this the law and use the Post Office as I have suggested, the matter will be done simply and, in the first instance, without administrative expense. It will bring much more money to the Government with much less expenditure of public money than some other methods, and will make the Bill more practicable in this aspect.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall (Lewisham, East)

I have been connected with Lloyds for many years, and I have seen something of insurance matters. How can you possibly make hundreds of thousands of small shopkeepers come into the scheme compulsorily? What sanction will you apply to those who will not come in? I do not see how you can do it. The administrative cost would be not merely 30 per cent. but something like 30s. per cent. to collect all those small sums and to check up on persons who had not entered into compulsory insurance. If a man deliberately chose not to take up insurance, it would be difficult to find him. The hon. Member opposite suggested that the scheme could be worked through the Post Office. I rather like the idea, but I do not think it would be possible to do it even on those lines. It is very much the best plan to leave the scheme as it is. You can get hold of those whose stock is valued at £1,000 or more but, in my view, the small people are administratively impossible.

Mr. Woodburn

Why is the Post Office proposal impossible?

Sir A. Pownall

On the question of sanctions. It would be very difficult to find out who was and who was not insured without having inspectors.

Mr. Woodburn

We have inspectors.

Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)

As one with experience in this matter, I realise that there would be difficulty in collecting premiums on small policies. The hon. Member who has just spoken is right. Where you had small insurances the administrative cost might be greater than for big insurances. Is that the real reason why the President of the Board of Trade proposes to fix the limit at£1,000? This Bill cannot be compared with insurance as the hon. Member who has just spoken explained it, but must be looked at from an entirely different point of view. If there would be great difficulty in insuring for the small amounts, would not that difficulty arise also if people came in voluntarily? There must be something more behind the proposed limit than the explanation given us by the President of the Board of Trade, and I invite him to be frank with us. The scheme is allied to the small insurances on goods and chattels with which this House, and vast interests outside, are concerned. The President of the Board of Trade should take us fully into his confidence.

In this scheme, the agents for the collection of the premiums will be Lloyds and the fire offices. They have the machinery already in existence, although, like every other business concern, they may not be able to work with the precision of pre-war days owing to smaller staff and for other reasons. I ask the President of the Board of Trade: Is he acting upon their advice in refusing what we are asking? Is it the fire insurance companies and Lloyds who—I note that the President of the Board of Trade says that it is not upon their advice. On whose advice is it that he is giving us this limitation? The President of the Board of Trade has not been frank with us. I do not want to labour the point but I suggest that he must give us a better reason than he has advanced before he can convince us.

Mr. David Adams

We all agree that the design of the Bill is the protection at all points of the national interest. It must be clear that the vast majority of small businesses are below the £1,000 limit and that if they are excluded, the national interest may suffer very materially, in the event of great strafing. I am entirely at a loss to understand why the Post Office could not be used as has been suggested. It is utilised for much more elementary matters than the collection of premiums. We want an explanation of this matter. I think it would be a solution of the diffi culty if the post offices were used for the collection of premiums. Everybody knows that we are an exceedingly law-abiding nation, and that, if shopkeepers were advised that they had to insure, only those shopkeepers in a distressed condition would not take advantage of the opportunity and would not fulfil the obligation to insure their properties. The statement that the cost of collection would make the scheme difficult and too costly, and beyond the value of the money collected, seems extraordinary, since collections are being made of smaller amounts and the cost of the collection is absorbed in the amounts collected. We ought to protect the lesser fry in the business world of the nation, and the obligation to insure should be made compulsory, with a view to protecting not only the people concerned by the nation at large.

Mr. Lyttelton

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) suggested that I ought to be frank with the Committee. I think there must be a little misunderstanding about the question of collection. I use the phrase to include administration. There is no difficuly in the actual act of collecting; the Post Office could do that. But there is a great deal of difference between that and assessing the value of a man's plant. I am sorry if the phrase "collection of premiums" should have deceived hon. Members or led them to think that I was deceiving them. There are about 500,000 to 600,000 traders who would fall under the £1,000 premium and whose plant would have to be valued. Most hon. Members who have spoken on this Amendment have referred primarily to shopkeepers and to commodities which are not the subject of discussion at all. This is a business scheme which relates to what is commonly called plant. The checking-up of insurances in regard to 500,000 or 600,000 small traders is an immense task, and the cost of administration below the figure of £1,000 would probably be uneconomic. There is one point I would like to make concerning the small trader. We say that a small trader, if he is in a safe area, should not be put out of business by having to pay a premium which he cannot afford.

Mr. Woodburn

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Are we to assume that in respect of all businesses over £1,000, before the person can pay his premium the State is going to conduct a detailed valuation of the person's property? Is it not the case that in every business over £1,000 the person himself has to judge the value of his property first of all and to take out a premium on that value? The question of checking the value will arise only when damage is done, and surely the Government do not expect everybody to suffer damage. Therefore, the question of assessing the claims concerns only those who will suffer damage, and they will be a very small number indeed. I suggest that the first question is the getting of the premium. There is no reason why the Government should worry about a person who undervalues his property, as there is a Clause which punishes him if he does so. This should be a sufficient protection to the State.

Mr. Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I find considerable difficulty in following the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman. It does not seem to be the same explanation as we had before. Most of the Debate on this Amendment has proceeded on the basis that the difficulty was one of the collection of premiums. I now understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that that is no difficulty at all. The suggestion made by my hon. Friend seemed to the Minister to be a good and practicable one. If it were not, he appeared to think that it would be perfectly easy to think of another. What he now says is that the difficulty will arise in the administration —the inquiries and investigations and so on. The right hon. Gentleman must admit that the State has never found it to be an insuperable difficulty in the administration of the Poor Law, the Unemployment Assistance Board, Old Age Pensions inquiries or National Health Insurance, nor have the insurance companies found it an insuperable difficulty in industrial insurance which deals in much smaller sums than are contemplated here, and where the cost of administration is very much higher than anything contemplated in this proposal. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if that really is his best reason for refusing to accept this Amendment, he will do himself, the Committee and the scheme greater justice if he thinks again.

Mr. Woods

The more one listens to the explanation of the Board of Trade, the more ludricrous the whole affair becomes. We were told, first of all, that it would be too expensive to collect. We were then told that there was a misunderstanding, that it applies to plants and that there are about 500,000 of them. I suggest that the President of the Board of Trade should get into consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could provide him with all the figures which are necessary for assessing these values. All these 500,000 firms will have to make returns under the law of the land. Even if they require exemptions, they will have to make returns. In those returns the claims will be specifically defined. It does not matter if a business concern has de

Division No.5.] AYES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Granville, E. L. Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'd, W.) Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester) Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J.(Sc'h. Univ.) Gridley, Sir A. B. Rickards, G. W.
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Grimston, R. V. Robertson, D. (Streatham)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W. Robertson, Rt. Hn. Sir M. A. (M'ham)
Beaumont, Hubert (Batley) Hammersley, S. S. Ruggles-Brise, Col. Sir E. A.
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central) Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Salt, E. W.
Blair, Sir R. Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A. Samuel, M. R. A.
Bossom, A. C. Hepworth, J. Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Boulton, W. W. Higgs, W. F. Savory, D. L.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Hill, Dr. A. V. (Cambridge U.) Scott, R. D. (Wansbeck)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hopkinson, A. Selley, H. R.
Brooke, H. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Cadogan, Sir E. Hume, Sir G. H. Simmonds, O. E.
Campbell, Sir E. T. Hurd, Sir P. A. Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)
Cary, R. A. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington) Spens, W. P.
Charleton, H. C. Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. Storey S.
Cobb, Captain E. C. Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (Northwich)
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (Edin., W.) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Stuart, Rt. Hn. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L. Leach, W. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Leighton, Major B. E. P. Tasker, Sir R. I.
Culverwell, C. T. Levy, T. Tate, Mavis C.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Liddall, W. S. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd) Little, Dr. J. (Down) Thomas, Dr. W. S. (Southampton).
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Llewellin, Colonel J. J. Train, Sir J.
Davison, Sir W. H. Lucas, Major Sir J. M. Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsand)
Denman, Hon. R. D. Lyttetton, Rt. Hon. D. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Denville, Alfred McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Waterhouse, Capt. C.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Maitland, Sir A. Watkins, F. C.
Ede, J. C. Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E. Westwood, J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge) Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty) Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.) Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Elliston, Captain G. S. Morris-Jones, Sir Henry Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Entwistle, Sir C. F. Paling, W. Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir K. (W'lwich, W.)
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.) Peat, C. U. Young, A. S. L. (Partiok)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Peters, Dr. S. J. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.-
Foot, D. M. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Mr. Munro and Mr. Holdsworth.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Glyn, Sir R. G. C. Pym, L. R.
NOES.
Adams, D. (Consett) Griffiths, J. (Llanelly) Silverman, S. S.
Adamson, W. M. (Cannock) Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley) Sloan, A.
Barr, J. Hardie, Agnes Smith, T. (Normanton)
Bellenger, F. J Harvey, T. E. Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Bevan, A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Thorne, W.
Chater, D. Lunn, W. Welsh, J. C.
Cove, W. G. Maclean, N. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Daggar, G. Mathers, G. Windsor, W.
Douglas, F. C. R. Milner, Major J. Woodburn, A.
Dunn, E. Mort, D. L.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Parker, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gallacher, W. Pearson, A. Mr. Woods and Mr. W. Green.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Silkin, L.

preciated its plant out of existence. The returns will go to the Income Tax Commissioners, and they will claim their statutory percentage of wear and tear of that plant and machinery. The Board of Trade will have those figures in their possession. In view of those facts, it seems to me that the whole argument which we have heard opposing this Amendment has completely fallen to the ground.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'such' in page 35, line 5, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 35.

Sir I. Albery

I beg to move, in page 35, line 5, to leave out "such sum as may be prescribed," and to insert "the sum of one thousand pounds."

I propose the insertion of the sum of £1,000, not because I am wedded to the idea of any particular sum, but because I want to know why no sum is inserted in the Bill. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily, so I will only ask the Government spokesman if he will say why no sum has been inserted in the Bill and, if it is proposed to name a sum, what that sum will be.

The Solicitor-General

It is very satisfactory to me to be able to tell the hon. Member that the sum the Government have in mind is £1,000. Great minds have evidently thought alike. On the other hand, the figure is being left out in order that the sum could be altered. It is proposed to prescribe a sum, but that does not commit us definitely and finally if, in the light of subsequent experience, it should be desirable to change it. Subject to that, the sum of £1, 000 is what the Government have in mind.

Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)

If I may say so without any undue disrespect, the argument we have just listened to is a somewhat forensic one. It does not answer the query as to what is the reason for not putting a sum in the Clause. Though it would be out of order to discuss the matter, I would like to call attention to the fact that in the whole of the Clause reference is made to "such sum as may be prescribed," and I should have thought that it would have been far better to put in the sum.

The Solicitor-General

I did endeavour to answer the point. I said that my right hon. Friend thinks that £1,000 is the right sum but that experience may show that that is not so. If a sum were fixed in the Bill, it would become part of the law of the Medes and Persians, and could not be altered. On the other hand, if my right hon. Friend has the right to prescribe a sum, although we do intend to prescribe the sum of £1,000, if later experience shows that, say, £500 or some other sum is better, we shall be free to alter it.

Sir Waldron Smithers (Chislehurst)

May I ask the Solicitor-General to tell the Committee in what way it is proposed to prescribe the sum? Will it be by direction or by regulation to be laid on the Table, and, if the latter, will it be subject to Debate in this House?

The Solicitor-General

It is to be prescribed by the Board of Trade, and a regulation will be issued.

Sir W. Smithers

Will that regulation be subject to Debate in this House?

The Solicitor-General

Very likely not.

Mr. Bellenger

It seems that the Government want the best of all worlds. We have had a strong argument as to whether we shall have any sum at all, and the President of the Board of Trade has said "No." The Government thinks the sum should be one of £1,000. In that case, everything under £1,000 will be bad business, and the administration of all policies under £1,000 will be impossible. Along comes the Solicitor-General and says that we may find, after we have had a little experience, that the sum can be reduced to £500.

The Solicitor-General

Or up to £2,000.

Mr. Bellenger

Or up to £2,000. But I would take the point "down to £500," which is just the point we have been trying to put to the Government. Do the Government know their own mind; do they have the best advice? I suggest that at present they do not know the real reasons why they are inserting any figures at all. Some of the arguments which have been put by previous speakers have obtained added weight from the two statements made from the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Woodburn

I support the Government on this matter. I think it is better not to specify a sum. We have just suggested that the sum should be nil, and, therefore, any process of gradually reducing the sum should be supported. When all cases of over £1,000 have been dealt with, and there is a staff ready, you will be able to take further cases, and gradually to reduce the sum, until I hope that administrative experience will lead to the conclusion that everybody can be included.

Sir I. Albery

In view of the fact that this Amendment is connected to some extent with the previous one, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Milner

I beg to move, in page 35, line 12, at the end, to insert: (d) a local authority shall be entitled if they tl-ink fit to be insured under the business scheme in respect of all or any of their goods but nothing in this Act shall operate so as to require a local authority to be so insured. This Amendment is brought forward at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who think that a local authority should have the option in respect of a business scheme of being insured or not. That seems to me a very reasonable proposition. A local authority may have many objects of art which it might not be desirable for it to put upon risk. It also has large funds, and is well able to insure itself if necessary. The corporation with which I was connected, at Leeds, ran its own insurance fund, and made a large profit upon it. It may be to the advantage of the ratepayers that a local authority should have the choice of insuring or not.

The Solicitor-General

This may be a reasonable Amendment from one point of view—I will say something about that presently—but from the point of view of the people undertaking the business of insuring—in this case, the State—it is a little awkward if the insurer is allowed to select only those things that he wishes to insure; because, other things being equal, he will select only the worst risks. But there is substance in the Amendment; and the Board of Trade have power, under Clause 45, to exempt either classes of goods or classes of persons from the obligation to insure. We understand that, as a whole, the municipal corporations desire to insure their utility services' equipment, but not such things, for instance, as the works of art in their art galleries. I can well understand that. [Interruption.] I mean that I can well understand that, because they have put those works of art underground, or have packed them away in cases. The Board of Trade, however, will consider this question, and, after consultation with the Minister of Health and with representatives of the local authorities, will see what they can do to meet the local authorities in the matter.

Major Milner

I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend, but before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I would ask him to make it clear that he does not suggest that objects of art owned by local authorities are not in many cases extremely valuable, and well worthy of being insured.

The Solicitor-General indicated assent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

I beg to move, in page 35, line 12, at the end, to insert: (d) notwithstanding anything in the Act contained, any bodies of persons (whether incorporated or not) who occupy premises for, or in connection with, the ads. ancernent of religion, education; science or research, shall not be compelled to insure under the business scheme the goods on such premises, but may at their discretion insure any or all of such goods (including such goods owned by persons living or employed in, or resorting to, the premises) either under the business scheme or under the private chattels scheme without limit of the sum insured. Provided that for the purpose of this section goods which are kept normally on the premises. but have been temporarily removed elsewhere, shall be deemed to be goods on such premises. The point of this Amendment is very similar to that of the Amendment which has just been withdrawn. I have in mind the difficulty of universities, and, rather more particularly, of colleges. The Bill attempts to distinguish between assets held for business purposes and assets held for domestic purposes—or for purposes of living, rather than of earning a living. The peculiar difficulty of universities and colleges is that they are both a kind of home and also a kind of business. It will be extremely difficult to draw a straight line between assets held in one regard and assets held in the other regard. The Solicitor-General suggested just now that if the insurer might himself choose which things he would insure, he would choose those things which run the heaviest risk, but not other things. I do not think that that difficulty arises very much in this connection. We all hope that at the end of ten or 15 years, or however long the period may be, this will be a land flowing with milk and honey, and then all these institutions will be re-endowed, but until then none of us thinks for one second that we ought to be given back those of our chattels which may be said to be luxuries or amenities. But we want to be sure that, so far as national resources permit, we shall be able to replace those of our chattels without which we cannot continue our functions. On the educational side, we think our difficulties would be best met by an Amendment of this kind. If there is any hope of the principle of this Amendment being accepted, let me say that I am in no way wedded to the wording. In particular, the words within the second brackets and in the proviso might be omitted without doing any harm from my point of view.

The Solicitor-General

It is not on a mere question of words—if it were for no other reason than that, I could no doubt meet the hon. Member—but in principle we are not prepared to accept this Amendment. It seems to us that a university must be regarded for the purposes of this Bill as carrying on business, and we think it undesirable to exempt from compulsion persons carrying on business and to allow them to pick and choose as between what goods they will insure and what goods they will not insure. I agree with the hon. Member that the objection does not apply so strongly to universities as to ordinary businesses. A man carrying on business up and down the country would obviously select for insurance the goods in the more dangerous areas, and would not insure those in the safe areas. What I can say to the hon. Member is that, while we regard the university as carrying on business, and therefore liable to insure under the business scheme, we will use our powers under Clause 45 (1, c) to exempt from the obligation to insure certain classes of the non-essential equipment of universities, which will have to be very carefully defined. They will have to be worked out and defined, and in working out and drawing the distinction between the two sets of goods we shall, of course, no doubt, seek the assistance of the universities themselves. To that extent I can help the hon. Member, but further than that I regret I am not able to go.

Mr. Pickthorn

In a minute or so I shall ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred exclusively to universities. I do not wish to delay the Committee by explaining why this really affects colleges even more than universities, but I ask the Committee for the moment to take my word for it. I should like the assurance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, when he said universities, he included colleges and college authorities. I also hope that before the regulations are drafted and the Board of Trade decides to use the powers under this Sub-section, some opportunity will be given to Members of this House who are particularly interested to see the drafts before it is too late to have any effect upon them.

The Solicitor-General

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would welcome the assistance and observations of the university Members, and with regard to colleges. I agree with the hon. Member, but there are a very large number of colleges. I must not be thought to have given an undertaking that we shall consult every single college—that is obviously impossible—but consultation with some people such, as I have said, as hon. Members of this House, or those who are similarly situated and can speak for universities and colleges, I am sure my right hon. Friend would gladly welcome in working out details of the regulations.

Mr. Edmund Harvey (Combined English Universities)

The learned Solicitor-General has given some substantial satisfaction in the assurance that he has made, and it will be a real cause for satisfaction to the universities to know that their case will be very carefully considered, but I regret, as I am sure many of them will regret, the reason given for the refusal of the principle of this Amendment, namely, that the universities must be regarded as concerns carrying on business. Although it is true that the universities receive help, every student receives more than the value of his fees. The universities are carrying on at a great loss and are only able to do it through benefactions and grants. Therefore, although I am bound to accept the decision of the Government, I am sure that many of us cannot but regret the reason given for it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Pickthorn

In view of what hasbeen said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth (Manchester, Moss Side)

I beg to move, in page 35, line 12, at the end, to insert: (d) a person (not being a railway company) who is the owner of a railway wagon or of a vehicle for the carriage of goods by road and by whom such wagon or vehicle has been let on hire or hire purchase shall be entitled but shall not be compelled to be insured in respect thereof under the business scheme. I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland) to move this Amendment in his absence. I am moving it formally, because the Amendment does not seek to obtain preferential treatment in regard to matters relating to the insurance of wagons or vehicles which are plying for hire or are working under some scheme of hire-purchase agreement, but rather to obtain from the Government some statement as to their idea of how they are to deal with these matters.

The Solicitor-General

I have already explained at an earlier stage that the intention was that the person who should insure was the one at risk in respect of businesses, and that is to say that wagons are insured under this scheme whereby the risk is on the wagon-owner. As he has to bear the risk, he ought to pay the insurance. But this is obviously a difficult question and there will have to be regulations defining exactly who is the person to insure. We have to avoid double insurance. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the observation made in regard to this topic will be most carefully considered in compiling the list. It cannot be done by this Bill; it is much too complicated. I do assure him that this matter will be carefully considered.

Mr. Leslie Boyce (Gloucester)

I understand that the reason why the Amendment was put down was because the provisions of the Bill did not appear adequately to express the intention set out in paragraph 17 of the explanatory Memorandum. I understand that one of the objects of the Amendment, in fact the essence of it, is to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the learned Solicitor-General a clear statement as to whether or not vehicles of this kind, which are the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, are to be voluntarily insurable or not. Would the learned Solicitor-General be good enough to say whether they would be voluntarily insurable or compulsorily insurable?

The Solicitor-General

Yes; if they form part of the business and come under the business scheme, they will be compulsorily insurable.

Mr. Woodburn

It depends upon the size of the business?

The Solicitor-General

Yes.

Mr. Duckworth

In view of the assurance which has been given by the learned Solicitor-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 35, leave out lines 13 to 19.—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 35, line 36, at the end, to insert: () Where by virtue of the proviso to Subsection (1) or the proviso to Sub-section (3) of this Section any person is exempted, either generally or as respects any description of goods, from the obligation to insure under the business scheme, any goods insurable in relation to him under that scheme as respects which he is so exempted may. in such circumstances and to such extent as may he prescribed and so long as he is so exempted as respects those goods, be treated for the purposes of the private chattels scheme as if they were insurable in relation to him under that scheme.

Earl Winterton

I want to raise a complicated point, which, I hope, I shall succeed in making clear. On Part I, when we were discussing the question of timber, I raised the point as to the part of the Bill under which growing timber of a commercial character was to be insured. There was a reference in this part of the Bill to timber and I was referred, by an interruption by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this part of the Bill. I have looked carefully through this Clause—and, of course, I must not anticipate the discussion which will take place later—and I can find no definition under farming business or under the definition in the Schedule which would bring growing timber of a commercial character within the ambit of the Bill. It could, of course, be brought in under Sub-section (2), which says: Where any person is exempted from the obligation to insure under the business scheme… It is obvious that if there is no obligation to insure timber under the business scheme, then a priori there is no right to have it insured under Part I of the Bill, and I would ask the Solicitor-General if he would be good enough to say under what portion of this Clause the growing of timber of a commercial character is insured. This is of immense importance to many private owners of timber and State farmers. I know that my right hon.

and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) will be able to confirm, from his knowledge of the other side of England, that a bomb on a single acre may do £2,000 or £3,000 worth of damage. I think it would be possible to insure under this scheme; if not, perhaps we could be told where it is possible.

The Solicitor-General

My Noble Friend has called attention to what he rightly says is a very important point, and I am grateful to him. I am sorry, however, that I did not know he intended to raise it now, otherwise I would have paid him the courtesy of taking pains to give a considered answer. As it is, I have applied myself as rapidly as possible to what he has said, and I think the answer is this: If he will be good enough to look at Clause 68, he will see there a definition of goods, and goods, of course, come under the Clause we are now discussing. The goods defined do not include certain things, such as money, negotiable instruments, etc., but, subject as aforesaid, they include all corporeal property not falling within the meaning of the expression "land" in Part I of this Act. I am sure that growing timber does not come under the definition of land, and it therefore seems to follow that it does come under the definition of goods. However, I shall have the opportunity between now and the next stage of the Bill of looking into the point raised, and if I am not satisfied with the answer I have given, I will see that the matter is dealt with in the way that it ought to be dealt with.

Earl Winterton

I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend. I apologise for not having notified him privately about this matter, but it has only just occurred to me. May I suggest that he should confer with his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Coutrhope), who represents the Forestry Commission in this House, on the point, if necessary, before the Report stage?

The Solicitor-General

If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Forestry Commission will be good enough to confer with me, I shall welcome his assistance.

Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner)

I shall be very glad to do so. This is a rather important point and should be cleared up.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 35, line 44, leave out "thereof," and insert "of the said prescribed multiple."— [The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, in page 35, line 44, at the end, to insert: () In relation to a person carrying on a farming business who is a tenant of the whole or any part of the farm, Sub-sections (3) and (4) of this Section shall have effect as if for any reference to the net assessment of the farm for the purposes of Schedule A for the time being in force there were substituted a reference—

  1. (a) where the person in question is a tenant of the whole of the farm, to the annual rent for the time being payable in respect of the farm;
  2. (b) where he is a tenant of part of the farm, to the aggregate of the annual rent for the time being payable in respect of that part of the farm and the net assessment of the remainder of the farm for the purposes of Schedule A for the time being in force."

Mr. Silkin

Could we have an explanation of this Amendment? Is it important or a drafting Amendment?

The Solicitor-General

It is not merely a drafting Amendment. It substitutes the rent of a farm for the Schedule A assessment of a farm. The criterion as to the amount of insurance is in the case where a farm is farmed by a tenant and not an owner to be the rent. The tenant would know what rent he had to pay, but he might find it difficult to ascertain what the Schedule A assessment was, as that is normally the concern of the owner rather than the tenant. It seems to us that this Amendment would make it easier for the administration of the scheme so far as the tenant farmer is concerned, since the criterion is within his own knowledge and directly concerns him.

Mr. Silkin

Is it not generally the case that the contribution will be higher? Rent is generally higher than Schedule A.

Sir J. Lamb

Is this an alternative or a substitution?

The Solicitor-General

A substitution.

Sir J. Lamb

Then in all cases a tenant farmer pays rent and not Schedule A? I would like to pay whichever is the lesser, because sounds more reasonable. I should certainly wish to raise this question on the next stage of the Bill if I find that it means a bigger expenditure for the tenant farmer.

Sir Ernest Shepperson (Leominster)

Is not Schedule A the greater?

The Solicitor-General

This is rent.

Sir G. Courthope

May I point out that rent is almost invariably rather more than Schedule A, because sundry deductions are made from rent to arrive at Schedule A? Generally speaking, rents under Schedule B are approximately the same figure, and I think it has been overlooked that, normally, Schedule A is collected from the tenant who is the occupier and the amount of Schedule A is deduct-able by him the next time he pays rent. It frequently happens that it is the landowner who does not know what the Schedule A is, because he is not getting any rent.

Sir J. Lamb

In asking for further consideration of this matter, I would like to say that we ought to have had the advantage of hearing somebody on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture. There are instances where rents are high and application is made to the landlord for reduction. The landlord, realising that the rent is high, has not altered it but has made deductions, so that the amount left is really the payable rent received by him.

The Solicitor-General

With regard to consultations with the Ministry of Agriculture, I may say that this Amendment was inserted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the Department's request. The Amendment is certainly approved by them, although I need hardly say that we will gladly consult them about it. It is only fair that we should consult people about their own Amendments. That is the position, but I am told it not infrequently happens that there may not be Schedule A valuation in the case of a small tenant farmer.

Sir J. Lamb

That is why I would like the alternative and would like to take the lesser. Somebody representing the Ministry of Agriculture should be here to explain this matter. We are asking for information and cannot get it, and I must protest. The point should have further consideration.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Sir J. Lamb

On a point of Order, Colonel Clifton Brown. Do you not intend to call the Amendments on the Paper in my name?

The Deputy-Chairman

The three Amendments in the name of the hon. Member are not selected.

Sir J. Lamb

Further to my point of Order. As these Amendments concern definitions, I should like to have some explanations on them. I put them on the Paper for the purpose of obtaining explanations.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member can make his observations on this Motion.

Sir E. Shepperson

I wish to put one or two questions to the Solicitor-General. First of all, I want to ask a question concerning Sub-section (5), and in doing so, I apologise because possibly other hon. Members find the answer to that question in Sub-section (5), where it is stated that: Where under the prescribed form of policy, the maximum amount recoverable in respect of any goods is, irrespective of the sum insured. less than the value of those goods, Sub-section (1) of this Section shall have effect in relation to those goods as if that maximum amount were their value. If there are any hon. Members who understand that Sub-section, I apologise for saving that I do not. In the case of agriculture, the premium as stated in the Memorandum is payable on double the Schedule A assessment. The question I want to ask is whether it is to be double the gross Schedule A assessment or double the net Schedule A assessment? Secondly, if the compulsory premium is to be payable on double the net Schedule A assessment, then, assuming that the Schedule A assessment is £500, so that the premium will be payable on £1,000, and assuming that the total value of the commodity is £2,000, will the farmer, if damage is sustained to the extent of £2,000, get £2,000 in compensation or only £1,000, because he has paid a premium only on £1,000 instead of on the total value of £2,000? This is one of the most important matters in the Bill as it affects agriculture.

Sir J. Lamb

I should like to ask the Solicitor-General to explain fully to whom Schedule A now applies. From the Amendment that has been made, I understand that it is now a question of the rent, if it happens to be higher than the Schedule A assessment, which the farmer has to pay. Who is to have the privilege of paying on the Schedule A assessment if it happens to be a little bit less? I want also to ask some questions concerning Sub-section (8) of the Clause, which contains definitions. With regard to paragraph 1 of this Sub-section, which states: The expression ' farming business ' means a business carried on by any person … It commonly happens that a father and a son may have a farm together, and therefore, the word "person" would not cover such a case. However, I believe that under some other Act there is a provision that in these cases the singular includes the plural. I should like to have a confirmation of this from the Solicitor-General. My second question concerns the word "land" in this sub-section. Very often a man takes a farm, consisting of the land, equipment and attached buildings, but also land to which there are attached no buildings. He farms the two as one holding, although there are two parts, and transfers the crops he grows on the one to the equipped holding for cattle consumption. When it says "the land", does that mean the particular land of that particular holding, and does it or does it not include the whole of the land he occupies?

I am asking technical questions, and again I protest that there is not a single representative on the Front Bench who can speak for agriculture. It places us in a very difficult position, when we go to the trouble of examining a complicated Bill like this, to find no one with active connections with agriculture on the Front Bench. We did not have a representative even when the Clause which virtually alters this Bill was accepted under my protest and that of other hon. Members. There was no one to explain the Amendment put down at the request of the Minister of Agriculture, and we are not told whether the farmer is to have the option of paying on the basis of rent or Schedule A, or whether it is to be on Schedule A only, or rent only in the various cases. This leaves us in great difficulty, and I protest again against the treatment we have received.

However, I ask for a reply to the questions I have raised, which, I think can be dealt with by a legal representative. I will repeat them. In the first case, does, the singular include the plural, and, secondly, if a man takes land for more than two holdings, but farms it for one holding, will he be allowed to have compensation for damage to one holding, although the crops were actually grown on the other holding?

Mr. Spens (Ashford)

This is the most important Clause in the Bill from the point of view of agriculturists, and I want, if I may, to link it up with Part I of the Bill. Very few agriculturists in the country appreciate that at the present moment, as far as Part I is concerned, only the bare ground is included as an insurable article. By the definition Clause, growing crops are separated from land. Under Part I, the person who owns the land will receive a payment which apparently he will be free to put into his pocket. He will receive a payment in respect of a huge chasm existing in a field, and the farmer, carrying on the business on the land, will have to include the growing crops in the business scheme and pay a premium very substantially in excess of the premium paid by the person owning a proprietary interest in the land. What is going to happen, firstly, in respect of the yawning chasms which exist over various parts of the country at the present time, and, secondly, in the case of the growing crops which were destroyed last autumn? As far as I can make out, there is nothing to link up what is to be done with the two payments. There is no obligation on the owner of the land to apply the money he receives in putting the land right. He can get away with it, leaving the unfortunate tenant in a position of receiving a payment for his growing crops, but the site on which the crops were grown being left in the same state as at the present time. It is very difficult to see the two Parts working together. I beg that further consideration shall be given to the question of how the two Parts are to affect an agricultural holding.

The next thing I want to know is this: Is there anything in the Bill that will enable an immediate payment to be made to those farmers who have had or will have bombs dropped on their growing crops, because there are numbers of cases in South-East England where considerable damage has been done? The farmers have been told that they are going to get payment under this business scheme, and a statement appeared rather mysteriously in the papers last week-end that arrangements were being made by which advance payments might be made to farmers. I do not know where it came from. I can find no authority in the Bill for it, but I press that something of that sort should be done, because, if we are to get our growing crops next autumn, it is no use leaving land in the state in which some of it is at present and not giving the farmers the money with which they can get going again to get their crops at the earliest moment. I have a suspicion that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not be unconcerned in this, but there is still no representative of the Ministry of Agriculture here. The most pressing question is for the farmers to know what they will have to pay, what they will get, and when they will get it. If we are to get productivity out of the land, they will have to get advance payments at the earliest possible moment. That may all be hidden in the scheme which will come under this and previous Clauses, but an announcement ought to be made at soon as possible and money made available at the earliest moment, so that the farmers can get to work to get their crops growing again.

Sir W. Smithers

I want, as a farmer, to ask the Solicitor-General two specific questions. If he could see the land around the house in which I live, he would see that it is pock-marked with deep craters. Who under the Bill will fill them up, and whoever fills them up, who will pay? I want to support the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). Unless we get a satisfactory answer from the agricultural point of view, I shall feel it my duty to ask leave to report Progress. I have scores of letters from farmers, some of them small farmers, who are doing their best to carry on. Their land has been damaged, and their fields have craters in them. They cannot afford to fill them up themselves, and I cannot find out authoritatively who is going to fill them up and who is going to pay for filling them up.

Sir J. Lamb

I raised this point on the Second Reading and was given an assurance from the Front Bench that early payment would be made. I believe that it was given by the Chancellor himself. It is important that early payment is made because damage may be done to a farmer's crops in the barn. In that case what is he to feed his stock on, because he cannot with his present credit buy other feeding-stuffs unless he receives payment? This is an important matter, and I hope that we shall again have an assurance that it will receive favourable consideration.

The Solicitor-General

I am a little frightened about saying that the matter will receive favourable consideration, because once to-day the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made some animadversions on us for saying it too often. Let me try to deal with the series of questions which have been put. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) modestly pretended that he did not understand Sub-section (5). We all know that he really understood it quite well, but there is some excuse perhaps for not seeing its meaning at first glance. I think that the explanation is this: The obligation under the Bill is to insure goods for their full value, but in certain cases a limit may be put on to an amount less than the full value. For example, the limit might be £100, and there should be an obligation in such cases to insure to that limit and not to the whole value of the goods. The hon. Member asked, with regard to Schedule A, whether it is to be gross or net, and the answer is net. The third question he asked was whether the sum to be recovered was what in insurance jargon would be called a first loss or an average payment. The answer is a first loss payment. That is to say, the farmer will get the actual loss which he has sustained. We shall not be able to say to him, "You are under insured and your own insurer, and will, therefore, get only a proportion of the loss." It will be in the nature of a first loss payment and the full amount will be paid.

Sir E. Shepperson

I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for his answer. It will be received with great satisfaction in agriculture.

The Solicitor-General

The second questioner was the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb).He asked whether "person" includes "persons." I can assure him that under the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural. Therefore, the Amendment which was down in his name would be unnecessary. Then he gave an illustration of a farm being occupied, a part of it in the ordinary way and a part taken on; and the answer to that question is that all the land occupied in the business will be included.

Sir J. Lamb

Will my right hon. and learned Friend on the Report stage put in the word "any" or "all," instead of simply "the"?

The Solicitor-General

I am advised that the word "any" is unnecessary, but we will look into the matter to see whether any Amendment is necessary. A question with regard to holes in the ground and Idling up the craters, was raised by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Sir W. Smithers), speaking as a farmer, and the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), speaking as a representative of one of the most important farming divisions in the country. I too am a farmer, and can speak to the hon. Member for Chislehurst as one farmer to another. It is, therefore, a case of deep calling unto deep. The hole in the land is dealt with under Part I and the growing crops come under Part 11. In Clause 50 there is power given to the Board of Trade to make payments to a person in respect of war damage occurring under either of the schemes. I hope that in practice we shall be able to use that power and see that farmers who suffer damage to their growing crops will be paid under the power conferred upon the Board of Trade.

Mr. Spens

I cannot see any power under Part 1 where there is a hole in the ground. It is no good giving a man an advance payment unless the hole in the ground is to be filled up, nor do I see any obligation on the recipient to apply the money to make good the damage.

The Solicitor-General

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Chislehurst for calling attention to this matter. I would rather not now jump into the hole in the ground lest I get buried, but I will see that the representations they have made are seriously considered, because it is an important point. I will bear in mind the observations which they have made and talk it over with my right hon. Friend, and see that satisfactory arrangements are made. If I want the help of the hon. Members I am sure that they will meet me and discuss the matter.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.