WAR DAMAGE BILL. (Hansard, 23 January 1941)

§ The Chairman
The first Amendment that I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner).

§ Major Milner (Leeds, South-East)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I hope that I shall not be presuming in saying that, while there is a great number of Amendments on the Paper—and there will no doubt be others—this Bill has been received with such a substantial measure of approval that I feel confident my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer can rely on the good will of hon. Members, which, in fact, he invited when asking that it should co-operate with him in improving the Bill. With regard to the Amendment which I am moving, I would invite my right hon. Friend to give us some idea, if he finds it possible to do 337 so, of the functions, and perhaps the corn-position, of the War Damage Commission. It would be very helpful to the Committee, if my right hon. Friend would tell us what, in his view, would be the functions of that Commission. The purpose of my Amendment, which is to leave out Sub-section (2) of Clause 1, is, in the first place, to give my right hon. Friend the opportunity which I have suggested, and, in the second place, to ensure that the War Damage Commission is in effect the body which will have charge of the operations of the Bill.
There are three grounds for inviting the Committee to delete this Sub-section. The first is that its inclusion means that in effect, and subject, of course, to any specific provisions in the Bill, the whole administration and conduct of matters arising under the Bill would be in the hands of the Treasury and not in the hands of the War Damage Commission at all. The Commission would merely be a channel, or, more properly, an agent of the Treasury. It would be bound hand and foot by directions given by the Treasury, and it appears to me that this matter is particularly important, because there is no provision whatever in the Bill for any publicity to be given to any directions which the Treasury may think it right to give to the Commission, and it would be possible under the Bill for the Treasury to give confidential or secret instructions to the Commission as to the way in which it should conduct its business. Many of us feel that there is already far too much power given to the executive in some directions. In most cases, however, we have knowledge of the directions, regulations or instructions given by Government Departments, but in this case, unless my right hon. Friend agrees that some publicity shall be given to these directions, that will not be the case and it will be possible, of course, for the directions to be quite contrary to the spirit intended by Parliament and the country.
My right hon. Friend may say that nothing of that sort is intended, and no doubt that it is merely the intention of the Government or the Treasury, which in effect means the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, to give directions on comparatively minor matters, but on perusing the Bill, hon. Members will see 338 the possibility of extending it in a much wider fashion than that. For example, it will be possible—and I am subject to correction—for directions to be given as to the period in which claims shall be made under Clause 3. The period may be short, and I believe that, in the opinion of the Committee and the country, it may cause great hardship, and, therefore, it is clearly desirable that the period should be fixed by the Committee, or that publicity should be given to any directions given by the Treasury on that matter.
Under Clause 4 it will be competent, if this Sub-section remains in the Bill, for the Treasury to give directions as to what shall or shall not be relevant circumstances in considering payment of cost of works, and thus it might be possible for the Treasury to alter the basis of the cost of works. Under Clause 7 it will be competent for the Treasury to give directions as to any question which arises in giving effect to either Clause 4, 5 or 6. Reference to the Bill will show that Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are among the most important, if not the most important, in the Bill. Hon. Members will see that it will be possible for directions to be given on these matters. Under Clause 8, the Treasury may direct the Commission that damage shall not be made good in any particular, or, indeed, in any general case. Under Clause 9, directions may be given to the Commission as to when payments shall be made. There again, it would be within the competence of the Treasury to alter entirely the intention of Parliament and inflict hardship upon claimants.
These are not the only reasons why I ask for the deletion of this Sub-section. It must be remembered that, in the first instance at any rate, the Commission will not be administering public money. The first £200,000,000, or whatever may be the proceeds of the premium payments, will be contributed by property owners, and therefore it does not seem reasonable that the Treasury should have the right to give these directions to which I have referred. I submit that it is only fair that these contributors, subject always, of course, to the national interest, should have some say about what is being done with their money. If the Treasury is to limit by directions the payments to be made by the War Damage Commission there may be a certain saving, though not a very substantial saving, but it is, I submit, 339 unreasonable that the Treasury should have the final and decisive voice in matters of this kind.
Finally, I submit that to confer such a wide power as this on the Treasury would be contrary to the spirit in which these proposals were introduced to Parliament by the Prime Minister and approved by the country. Claimants are entitled to expect generous though just administration, free from red tape and petty restrictions. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will say that these difficulties will not arise. I am told however that in a somewhat similar case complaints are already being made. That is in connection with the assistance rendered by the Unemployment Assistance Board, a statutory body similar to the proposed War Damage Commission, in payments towards the provision of essential household requirements and clothes. There is, I am informed, a good deal of complaint, particularly in London, about the smallness of the payments which have been made. Many say that these payments would not, in the circumstances, meet with the approval of this House and they are certainly not on a just—I will not say a generous—scale, as most of us think they ought to be. In that case instructions have been issued by, it may be, the Unemployment Assistance Board to its officers. Those instructions are private and confidential and I submit that if this Sub-section is to remain in this Bill there should be a provision with regard to publicity.
The Bill provides not only that directions are to be given by the Treasury but that regulations are to be made by the Treasury. It is true that these regulations have to be laid on the Table of the House. It also provides for orders to be made by the Treasury and for regulations to be made by the Commission. All this very much complicates the Bill, and if we are not careful the whole purpose of the Measure may be nullified by the number of directions, orders and regulations which may conceivably be made under it. In my submission we should be wrong in conferring such wide and general powers on the Treasury as this Sub-section proposes, without having even the safeguard of publicity, and I invite the Committee to accept my Amendment.

§ Mr. Denman (Leeds, Central)
On a point of Order. May I ask whether the Question on this Amendment as it has been put from the Chair, would rule out the Amendment standing next on the Paper in the name of myself and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay)—to insert the words "Save as is hereafter provided"?

§ The Chairman
Yes, I think that would be so.

§ Mr. Denman
May I ask, then, whether the later Amendments which we have put down to Clause 8 will be affected?

§ The Chairman
I think I know the hon. Member's point. He has Amendments down to Clause 8, and he fears that when we reach Clause 8 he may be told that those Amendments cannot be moved because certain qualifying or saving words have not been inserted in Clause 1. I have no hesitation in saying, and I think the Committee will approve, that I will not rule his later Amendment out of Order on that ground. If, as a result of a later Amendment to Clause 8, a consequential Amendment to Clause 1 becomes necessary, the matter can be dealt with on Report.

§ Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)
I rise to support the Amendment, and I am sure the Committee would be glad to have a satisfactory statement on it from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is true that we have been conferring upon the Treasury inordinate powers in relation to the administration of public Acts in this country and I think that, in this Bill, some limitation ought to be placed on the extent to which the Treasury may interfere directly with the work of the War Damage Commission. We have had recently an immense volume of Departmental legislation. During the last war, a constant complaint was that we were legislating in almost every Department, by means of orders, and that the interpretation of Acts was dependent on orders. I hope that some limitation will, in future, be placed on this kind of extension of the power of bureaucracy in this country. It is wrong that we should remove from Parliament the powers that Parliament ought to exercise, in order to ensure fair play among those who were affected by the administration of a Measure of this kind.
341 I hope that my right hon. Friend who, I am sure, realises the full significance of this Amendment will make a statement upon it which will satisfy the country that this Measure is to be administered fairly and squarely in the interests of all those whose property is damaged by enemy action. In these times people are passing through a very severe ordeal. There is much suffering in the country as the result of the destruction of property and the damage done to thousands of homes, in respect of which claims will be made in due time. It is important that these people should feel, and that the whole nation should feel, that in the administration of this legislation there will be perfect fair play and that the Treasury will not unreasonably or unfairly interfere with the administration of an Act which means so much to so many people.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood)
It may be convenient to the Committee if I respond to the invitation of my hon. Friend and intervene at this stage, and perhaps I may be allowed a little latitude in the statement which I am about to make on this important matter, both with regard to the control by Parliament and the position of the Treasury in relation to the War Damage Commission. In the first place, let me say that the intention and I think the effect of this Sub-section are the exact opposite of what has been indicated in the objections which my hon. Friends have put forward. I will, in a few moments, say what I am prepared to do, but I would point out first that this provision has been put into the Bill not to create a bureaucracy or give special privileges to the Treasury, but to ensure effective Parliamentary control over the administration of the Measure. If there were no such provision, the whole administration of this important Act, involving very large sums of money, would be left to the Commission. Unless some such provision as this were included, the House would not be able to exercise any control over that administration. It cannot be contemplated for a moment, having regard to the vast questions associated with this Bill, where there are large sums of money on the one hand and the interests of persons of humble means on the other, that this House should not be able to bring effective criticism to hear or see that the general policy of Parliament is carried 342 out in this most important sphere. The only way we can do that is to put the responsibility on a particular Minister in order that he may be questioned and arraigned, if necessary, in the House of Commons in relation to any important matters concerning the administration of this Bill.
Let me explain why the word "Treasury" is used and incorporated in this Bill. There are a number of Departments which are concerned with the administration of this Bill and of public policy. There is the Ministry of Works, associated with public policy in relation to rebuilding. There is the Ministry of Transport, which is affected to a very considerable extent with regard to roads and things of that kind. There is also, of course, the Board of Trade, which is concerned with factories under these proposals and the defence services which may be vitally interested in the early re-building of certain factories and other buildings which come under these proposals. Under these circumstances it was impossible to say that the Commission should act under the direction of half a dozen different Departments. They must be co-ordinated through the Treasury, not with the Treasury as a sort of watchdog of the public purse but as the principal coordinating Department of the Government.
I can say this and give this undertaking, which I am sure will be carried out by anyone who occupies my position. The Departments in their respective spheres will be consulted on matters which concern them in connection with the administration of this Bill. With regard to planning we would go to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Works and the Minister of Health and the Secretary for Scotland. Again, if it was a question of whether we ought not to make a great effort to re-erect a factory in connection with our defence proposals the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go to one of the Defence or Supply Ministers and, if necessary, consult him with regard to that matter. It is in order to ensure that all these Departments are brought together and proper influence exercised by them with regard to national policy that this provision is in the Bill. When you see the word "Treasury" it is in its ordinary form and the usual way of putting upon 343 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day responsibility to Parliament for directions which he gives. If we do not have some sort of Clause of this kind the House of Commons and the other House will be powerless to intervene and see that the general policy is, in fact, carried out under the general jurisdiction and criticism of Parliament.
When I refer to the directions which the Treasury may give under Clause 2—I am not now speaking of Clause 8—I mean for instance a matter such as the Commission drawing funds from the Exchequer. The Chancellor would give directions as to the way in which the accounts are to be kept, the method of accounting and the regularity of financial procedure in order to comply with the well established rules laid down by this House. In the light of what my hon. Friends have said I shall be prepared on the Report stage to make it clear that there will be no attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give, under this particular provision, other than general directions. I will move it on the Report stage because I want to conduct this Bill in the light of hearing what the House of Commons has to say. On a number of major matters I have in my own mind certain directions on which I think I can meet the House in accordance with desires already expressed but with a number of them I prefer to wait with a view to bringing forward on the Report stage such proposals as I think the House will desire. Therefore, to-day I will listen to and, I hope, profit by, any further suggestions which are made.
As I have said, I will on Report emphasise in this Clause that it is general directions I shall give. My hon. Friend raised an important question of publicity and my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) and South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) have an Amendment on the Paper which will ensure this. It is not my desire—and I am sure it would not be the desire of any Chancellor—to give secret and hole and corner directions on this matter and whether it should be by way of directions or by way of regulations which the Chancellor shall make under this Clause I will see that it shall be put into action on the lines of the Amendment which says: 344 … shall … be laid before Parliament… If that is done it will ensure what the House desires—proper Parliamentary control and that the directions the Chancellor shall give under this provision shall be of a general character. It will also ensure that the directions under this Clause shall be fully known, not only to the House but to the interests affected. I think that will be the best way of meeting this particular proposal. I must also emphasise this of course: that no directions which I or any Chancellor may give could interfere with the provisions of this Bill when it became an Act or any other Act of Parliament. Under this Bill certain powers are given to the Commission by which it can do this, that or the other. It is largely a matter of coming to an opinion on a certain set of facts. These conditions must be respected by the Chancellor just as the Commission must respect them.
Therefore, it must be remembered that, when it is stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has power to give directions, he has no power in those directions to overrule any Act of Parliament or any provision in this Bill, when it becomes law, if in fact the operation of the provisions of the Bill is laid down absolutely in the Bill. I hope it will be convenient to the Committee if, at this point, I say a few words, although they are not strictly relevant to this Amendment, about the Commission, because when we are considering what directions should be given to the Commission, we must have regard to the character of the Commission. I think it will expedite the progress of the Bill if I give a general indication as to what is in my mind with regard to the Commission.

§ The Chairman
Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. He says that his remarks may go beyond this Amendment. I would point out that the constitution of the Commission is dealt with in the Schedule, and, therefore, any Amendments concerning the constitution of the Commission will be properly discussed on the Schedule, and not on this Clause. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will like to know that I do not propose to call any of those Amendments on this Clause.

§ Sir K. Wood
I should like to give some very general indications concerning the 345 Commission. It must be recognised that the functions of the Commission will be most important, because vast sums of money and very considerable interests are concerned, and a very considerable contribution has to be made by the people interested, and also, we know that in certain eventualities a very considerable contribution may have to be made by the State. All those matters have to be borne in mind with regard to the composition of the Commission. In the first place, obviously the determination as to the individuals who shall form the Commission must be made by the Minister who is responsible to Parliament for those appointments. However vital their interests might be, one could not accept the suggestion that a body of people should nominate these Commissioners, for this would remove the whole of the personnel of the Commission from the sanction and authority of Parliament. Having regard to the vital duties which the Commission will have to perform, obviously in this case the Chancellor of the Exchequer must take the responsibility for the composition of the Commission, in order that he may be able in Parliament to answer for the decisions and choice which he has made. If this were not done, Parliament would have lost all authority in this matter now and in the future, and would have no authority over the personnel.
Certain suggestions have been made to the effect that a proportion of the members of the Commission should represent this or that interest. As I conceive the matter, I must present to Parliament in due course a body of Commissioners who will receive the public confidence, who will have the necessary qualifications, which will be of a varying kind, and who can perform the work suitable to the very important tasks which they will have in hand. It will not be an easy choice to make, but I shall endeavour to obtain for this important work people who will have regard to the many interests affected and at the same time obtain the general confidence of the public. All these matters must be borne in mind in the composition of the Commission. I hope that some time during the passage of the Bill I shall be able to inform the House of the composition of the Commission.
It might also be useful if I were permitted to say a few words about Scotland. 346 It has been urged upon me that there are considerable differences in the system of land tenure and property in Scotland which have to be taken into consideration with a view to securing proper treatment for Scotland. From the proposals in the Bill, the Committee will observe that two members of the Commission will be able to form a quorum. That has been done because it may be desirable for two members of the Commission to deal with certain problems in order quickly to come to a decision. In order that there may be a prompt and adequate method of dealing with Scottish problems, I propose to appoint to this Commission two members for Scotland who will be able to look after Scottish interests so far as the Bill is concerned. This will enable Scottish problems to be dealt with quickly in Scotland by the two Scottish representatives.
In view of the number of claims which undoubtedly the Commission will have to consider and deal with, it will be my policy—and I am sure it will be the policy of the House—to see that the Commission shall have local offices, and it will probably be convenient for those offices to be situated in the same towns as the Civil Defence Regional Commissioners, seeing that at those centres there are responsible representatives of the various Departments who must be consulted with regard to the administration of this Measure. I contemplate that the Commission will delegate to officers at these centres power to settle small and easy claims—for we must have expedition in this matter—and it may be necessary for me on the Report stage to move an Amendment to enable this to be done. Then, it is most important that at each of these offices there shall be a Deputy Commissioner who will be able to deal with all those claims which I have indicated in order to achieve a quick settlement.
I would propose that the Deputy Commissioners should be persons of standing and repute in their respective areas. Whilst they will not be members of the Commission itself, they will, of course, keep in close touch with the Commission so as to be informed on their outlook and policy. I would expect in this way agreement to he reached on most of the claims. Of course, any aggrieved person should always have the right to refer his case to the Commission, and the Commission will have to consider it. The vast majority of 347 these claims, although not all, will not, I believe, be of an extensive character, and if we have the right local machinery, it will be possible for the Deputy Commissioner, who is familiar with the area, to settle them promptly. Of course, there are important matters which cannot be so settled, and in cases where agreement is not arrived at, then the Commission must consider them. I believe that on those lines we shall get the machinery together which will enable this machine to work efficiently; but what I feel about this scheme is that it must work quickly, and I hope by that means we shall carry out that purpose. This is a very important matter. I am afraid I have spoken at some length, but I wanted the Committee to know what was in my mind, and that I have endeavoured to secure not a bureaucracy but Parliamentary control. I have also indicated certain local machinery which we contemplate and which I hope will ensure prompt settlement.

§ Sir P. Hannon
Will the Chancellor say whether, in cases where there are legal difficulties which cannot be dealt with by the Deputy Commissioner, poor people who have to make appeals will have to bear any legal costs?

§ Sir K. Wood
I do not think so. There are many precedents of this character. In that class of case, I believe that in 99 cases out of 100, probably a larger proportion than that, a settlement will be arrived at.

§ Mr. Garro Jones (Aberdeen, North)
I am sure the Committee will greatly appreciate the advance information which the right hon. Gentleman has given in regard to the constitution of the War Damage Commission. I myself was a little intrigued at the thought that whereas the right hon. Gentleman promised that two Scottish members would sit upon the Commission, nevertheless the quorum of the Commission remains at two. If the two Scottish members are allowed to sit alone, I feel that we shall have some very useful advantages accruing to that part of the country, of which I am one of its representatives. It is customary, as Members of the shortest standing know, to examine much more meticulously the earlier Amendments to a Bill and then at a later stage—probably the second or third day— 348 as experienced Whips know, for the Bill to travel much faster. Therefore, I hope the Committee will not think, in directing its attention closely upon the proposed Amendment that we are not indulging in that weakness.
Here, indeed, we are on a point of principle of the greatest importance in the administration of this Bill. I had listed all the powers which were given to the Treasury by this Bill by direction and order—some by order and some by direction. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) recited some of them, although he did not recite them all. I do not intend to recapitulate them, but the Committee ought to realise that under this Bill, and particularly under the Sub-section which it is now proposed to omit, the Treasury are going to have vast powers unless they are properly supervised by Parliament. We do not intend to press this Amendment to a Division; discussions have taken place, and we are hoping to get the Bill through and operate it satisfactorily.
We are most anxious that the powers to be exercised by the Treasury, whether by direction or by order, shall be subjected to some form of supervision by the House of Commons. What are the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman gave us on that score? He told us that the object of the Sub-section was not to give power to bureaucracy, but to lay the administration open to Parliamentary criticism. Well, if that is indeed the object, then we require riders to the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given. First, I think that the powers of the Treasury ought to be exercised by regulation rather than by direction in this proposal, and in the other proposals which will subsequently come before the Committee. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to promise publicity will be given to those cases in which the powers are exercised by direction under Part I of the Bill—that indeed is an assurance of some substance which we welcome. But the War Damage Commission will also exercise great powers under Part II of the Bill, and, although I should not be entitled to go into that matter at great length at this stage, I am greatly concerned, since the composition of the War Damage Commission has been mentioned, 349 to be assured that the interests of tenants will receive due regard upon the Commission. In the Bill it states on page 8, Clause 9, that the War Damage Commission may direct the time of payments to he made: (a) in the case of payments of cost of works . … (b) in the case of value payments, . … These cost of works payments may frequently be made to tenants, and if the Treasury are to give directions to the War Damage Commission upon that score, it is only right that there should be someone on the Commission who has the interests o tenants under special surveillance. I do not propose to ask for an assurance at this stage, but I hope, having regard to the vast number of claims to be made by tenants, that the right hon. Gentleman's Department will consider whether it is not possible to have someone on the Commission specifically charged with seeing that justice is done to the claims of tenants.
There are two other brief points that I wish to make upon this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Treasury would be the principal co-ordinating Department for the administration of the Bill. The Committee have had some experience of co-ordinating Departments—some unfortunate experience of co-ordinating Departments and the machinery for co-ordinating Departments. We all remember the classic case, which is very much in our minds when we reflect deeply, of the Minister who ran a co-ordinating Department. The Treasury needs a vastly more complicated organisation than that. I want to be assured, having regard to this vast list of duties which are to devolve upon the Treasury, that it is to be equipped for handling those duties. Are all these tremendous additional duties to be laid upon the Treasury, with its enormous existing burdens, without proper provision being made? The Bill is giving an enormous amount of work to the Treasury. If I read it out, I think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be surprised. I merely ask him to satisfy himself that the Treasury will not be overworked. We know that in other spheres of the war effort the Treasury has come under severe criticism for delay in decisions, and I hope it will not come in this regard.
350 One other point with regard to the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Treasury will in no circumstances be empowered to overrule the provisions of the Bill itself. That was, in my view, not a very solid assurance, because the powers given to the Treasury are expressed in such vague terms, as, for example, that they may under Clause 4 (5) prescribe principles for the valuation of hereditaments of any class. There is an Amendment on the Paper dealing with that, so that that will be discussed, but it is vitally necessary that the Treasury should give full publicity to its directions under the Bill. I hope, as it progresses, the Chancellor will lend himself to any proposals designed to secure the main purposes of the Amendment—Parliamentary control, publicity and directions to be given by the Treasury.

§ Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)
I think the Amendment has served one very useful purpose in eliciting the statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which we have listened with great interest. I could not support the Amendment, because I think the Sub-section in some form is essential to the Bill, particularly for the reasons given by the Chancellor. My objection to the Clause is its form. The County Councils Association attaches as much importance to this Clause as to any in the Bill, because of the powers that it gives. The hon. Member who spoke last said the directions were very vague. If they are vague, they are at least very wide, and there is very little that cannot be done under this Sub-section as it stands. I should like to know definitely what the Chancellor proposes to do. Did I understand him to say he was going to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) or to take the substance of it and put it in another form? That is a matter in which the Association takes great interest.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)
May I ask in what respect the County Councils Association are affected by the Clause, in view of the fact that they are not a building authority?

§ Sir J. Lamb
They come into it tremendously; they are very vitally affected. I wish the Chancellor would accept the Amendment to which I have referred. If he will, I shall be perfectly 351 satisfied, but if not, what is it that he proposes to do?

§ Sir K. Wood
I gave undertakings that I would put in the Bill that the directions under this Clause should be general, that I will assure publicity and that I will see that they come before Parliament. I want to do this by regulation if I can. I should like this Clause to be left as it is, and if I can I will bring forward on the Report stage an Amendment in the proper form to do it by regulation or in some other way. I know what the wishes of the Committee are.

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)
In view of the Chancellor's statement, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman might with advantage withdraw his Amendment, which is very Fascist in its character and creates one of those corporations with which we are not too pleased, and that my hon. Friend opposite ought not to move his Amendment, and then we can proceed with the Question "That Clause 1 stand part." The Chancellor was quite convincing, and his undertaking with regard to the treatment of directions should be satisfactory to all of us. Before Report, we may have an opportunity of private consultation with him as to the exact form that he proposes.

§ Sir Robert Gower (Gillingham)
In view of the assurance that has been given, I do not propose to move my Amendment.

§ Sir Harold Webbe (Westminster, Abbey Division)
I am sure the Committee will accept the arguments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has used for his inability to accept the Amendment. We are all indebted to him for the assurance that he has given us in regard to the kind of control that the Treasury proposes to exercise over the War Damage Commission. I am particularly grateful for the assurance that no directions or regulations made by the Treasury shall in any circumstances conflict with the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act, and that will make it unnecessary for me to move my Amendment at the end of the Clause. I understood from the Chancellor that the general policy of the Treasury was, in fact, to make the War Damage Commission a much more really effective and important body than it appears to be as the Bill, and in particular this sub-section, is drafted and that makes all the more 352 important what the Chancellor had to say in regard to the type of men that he proposes to appoint to it. I am entirely in agreement that the appointments must be in the hands of a Minister who can answer for the Department.
I am entirely in agreement with the Chancellor's objection to anything in the nature of the representation of vested interests. But that does not dispose of the point which I have sought to raise, and which I may have an opportunity of raising on the Schedule, of the importance of having on the Committee men of practical experience. I should be the last to minimise the value of a man of general business experience who can bring the benefit of an open mind, in spite, or perhaps because of the fact that he is ignorant of the technique of the Department, but the matters with which the Commission will have to deal are of such a technical character that it seems to me essential that, if it is to act with expedition and efficiency, it should contain men of practical experience in the technique of the business who are able to assess at its proper value the advice that they may receive from their technical officers. While none of us has any doubt that the Chancellor is both anxious and able to man his Commission with people who will command public confidence and people of standing and experience, I ask that in so doing he will have regard to the highly technical character of the business they will have to do and will see that there are as members of the Commission, not representatives of interests, but people qualified by practical experience of the property owning and managing industry to give decisions on the basis of knowledge. The Chancellor acknowledged the large contributions which the property owners had made, and it is generally recognised that the people who pay the piper have a right to call the tune. We must accept for national reasons, however, that those who pay the piper must dance to whatever tune the piper plays, but we must have an assurance that the pipers are, at any rate, reasonably competent musicians.

§ Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)
We agree with the Chancellor that the essential thing is to make the payment of claims as quickly as possible. He said that a possible means by which that might be done was through the area centres. That may be excellent in certain cases, but in 353 certain of the area centres there is a hopeless bottle-neck. In such cases I suggest that the centres should be transferred to other places.

§ Sir Waldron Smithers (Chislehurst)
As my name was put to this Amendment, I should like to assure the Chancellor that it was brought forward in a constructive spirit. This is a matter of great principle, and I want to thank the Chancellor for foreshadowing what he proposes to do. If the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) agrees to withdraw the Amendment, I shall be prepared to agree. It is not enough, however, to have a statement of the Chancellor's intentions; we want to have them put into the Bill. May I ask the Chancellor whether he will, when considering the composition of the Commission, take the advice of or include somebody from the big insurance businesses?

§ Mr. Craven-Ellis
The work of the Commission must obviously be costly. May I ask whether the cost will become a charge upon the contributors or be borne by the Treasury?

§ The Chairman
That question does not arise on the Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member will take the opportunity of asking it on the Question "That the Clause stand part."

§ Major Milner
I think that the moving of the Amendment has served a useful purpose. While I must not he taken as accepting all that the Chancellor has said about the deletion of this Sub-section doing away with Parliamentary control, I agree that he has met us handsomely and that his promise appears to be satisfactory. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out "this Part of."
This is purely formal, because the Commission has functions in other Parts of the Bill as well as in the first Part.

§ Mr. Denman
This seems to be more than a verbal point, because under Part II the directing authority is the Board of Trade. It is so stated in Sub-section (3) of Clause 42. Perhaps the Financial Secretary 354 will explain how both the Treasury and the Board of Trade can be directing authorities. Moreover, it is not clear in the Bill what the functions of the Commission are under Part II. It would be interesting to know what is in the mind of the Financial Secretary in moving the Amendment.

§ Captain Crookshank
In Sub-section (3) of Clause 42 there is a reference to the War Damage Commission exercising such functions for the purposes of this Part of this Act as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury direct. It is because of that provision that this Amendment is necessary.

§ Mr. Denman
The effect of the Amendment is to give the Treasury the power to give directions to the Commission, but in Clause 42 it is the Board of Trade which, with the approval of the Treasury, gives the directions. Surely that produces a conflict.

§ Captain Crookshank
I do not think it does. The whole object of the Amendment is to do away with possible conflict, and if it has a contrary effect we shall have to consider it, but I do not think it will have the result which the hon. Member has in mind.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies (Westhoughton)
I am not as familiar with the Bill as other lion. Gentlemen are, but I am induced to rise because, since I have been in the House, I have seen so many Commissions set up by Governments, and I want to suggest that the Bill should set out the number of which the Commission shall be composed. I do not remember any Commission being set up without the numbers being given. There is the usual formula that no Member of Parliament shall be a member, but that does not mean, presumably, that no Member shall be appointed and then resign his seat. Such appointments are often made by the Conservative party. I live in a district which has suffered a great deal from enemy action. Houses are down here and there, and people have asked me to do what I can to expedite the passage of this Bill. My remarks will, therefore, be very brief, but I wish to put this point. 355 I know of two young married couples who lost everything in one night. They were paying off the mortgages on their houses to a building society and they are very anxious to know where they stand. Ordinary people do not know the law, and these people are afraid that the building societies may claim their payments in spite of the fact that the houses have disappeared.

§ The Chairman
I am afraid that the hon. Member is hardly likely to get a satisfactory answer to his question on Clause 1, because the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot give the answer to it until he knows what is to be the effect of all the other 70 Clauses of the Bill and of the Schedule.

§ Mr. Davies
I am glad you have advised me, Sir Dennis, and it confirms my statement that I am not as familiar with the Bill as perhaps I ought to be. I will ask another question about the Commission. When the Treasury set up a Commission they know what salaries are to be paid to the members of the Commission, and are able to say also whether membership of the Commission will be a full-time or a spare-time occupation. If it is a full-time occupation there will be a salary for each of the Commissioners and, of course, for the chairman as well. It would interest the public to know whether it is to be full-time or spare-time work and what salaries are to be paid.

§ Mr. Craven-Ellis
May I now ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who is to pay this charge—the contributors or the Treasury?

§ Captain Crookshank
The number of members of which the Commission will consist has not been settled. The hon. Member pointed out that it is not stated in the Schedule, and his views will be welcome when we come to the Schedule. My right hon. Friend has already made a general statement on the functions of the Commission, but it would be a mistake to close our minds about any particular detail at this stage, and it is not yet possible to forecast whether membership of the Commission will have to be a full-time or a part-time occupation. I think there is no doubt that the chairman will have to be a full-time member, but whether it will be necessary for all the members to give 356 full-time service may depend upon the final form in which the Bill emerges from these discussions, because some of the functions of the Commission which we propose may be taken away and others may be added, and we shall have to see how things develop as we go along. The hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Craven-Ellis) asked about the administrative costs of running the Commission. Those costs fall to be considered under Clause 16, where it is laid down that the Treasury has to make estimates from time to time of the expected net receipts on the one hand and of the expected payments on the other, and according to how those estimates work out will fall the incidence of the full or partial cost.

§ Mr. Craven-Ellis
But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not say who is to pay. Is the money to come from the property owners or the Treasury?

§ The Chairman
I think the hon. Member must wait until we come to Clause 16.

§ Mr. Benson (Chesterfield)
I would point out that this is dealt with also in the First Schedule.

§ The Chairman
That is another reason for not dealing with it here.

§ Sir Robert Gower (Gillingham)
I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 5 and 6.
The lines which it is proposed to omit read:— Provided that no such payment shall be made where the amount thereof, if it were made, would be less than five pounds. I cannot understand why this proviso has been inserted. This, it must be borne in mind, is not an insurance Bill. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very careful indeed not to bring the Bill within the range of insurance. No reference is made to premiums. This is a compensation Bill, and, so far as I can see, on the principles of this Bill there is no justification at all for inserting such a proviso. I do not, however, rest my case for this Amendment 357 upon that consideration. I appeal as strongly as I can to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this Amendment. There is an enormous number of small property owners in this country. There are many thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands, of working men who have saved a little money which they have invested in bricks and mortar by buying the houses which they occupy. Each one of them has to pay his contribution under this Bill, aid if it so happens that the damage which is done to his house is under the sum of £5 he will receive no return at all for his contributions. I notice, also, that in paragraph (1) of the Fourth Schedule it says:— Subject to the subsequent provisions of this Schedule the references in sections four and five of this Act to war damage shall be construed as references to war damage occurring on a single occasion, and accordingly the nature and amount of the payment to be made in respect of war damage occurring on each of two or more occasions shall, subject as aforesaid, be determined separately. That means that this will happen—and I can assure the Committee that instances of this kind have, to my knowledge, occurred. A house has been damaged to the extent of between £3 and £4. In subsequent air raids the same house has been further damaged. But, having regard to the terms of the Schedule, if the proviso to Clause 2 which I am moving to omit is insisted upon, the unfortunate owner of that property will not be entitled to one penny by way of compensation. I am informed, and I believe that what I say is correct, that in the vast majority of cases the amount of the damage done to properties by hostile air action is between £2 and £3. Of course, there is a large number of cases where there has been total demolition of the property, and a large number also in which the damage done is very considerable, but around the spot where a bomb drops there are many cases of what one might term minor damage to houses, such as penetration of the roofs, the breaking of windows, the loss of tiles. I believe I am right in making the assertion that the average cost of making good such damage is between £2 and £4, and I strongly urge that house owners, particularly working men who have suffered that amount of damage to their premises should not be deprived of benefits under this Measure in respect of which they will have to make contributions.

§ Mr. Spens (Ashford)
On a point of Order. I have a similar Amendment upon the Paper upon the same subject. May we discuss the whole of these Amendments together? The one before us at the moment proposes to leave out the proviso, while mine proposes to amend it. We are all dealing with the same thing, but in a different way.

§ The Chairman
I should be only too delighted if the hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members would agree to that course and would deal with the matter in that way. It must be definitely understood, however, that in that event we cannot have the discussion over again upon subsequent Amendments.

§ Sir J. Lamb
Am I to understand that the Amendment standing in my name, to add certain words at the end of line 31, is not to be called?

§ The Chairman
We must wait till we get to that point,

§ Mr. Spens
Anyone with knowledge of the part of the country represented by myself and the hon. Member who last addressed the Committee will be aware that there have been constant attacks. In a scattered, and particularly a country, area, damage by blast occurs time after time to cottages and small houses standing some way from military targets. Not once, but fairly frequently, in the last six months the same small properties have had their tiles removed, chimneys knocked off or windows broken. Some of the houses in South-East Kent, which have tiled fronts to keep out the wind and rain, have had tiles removed in small patches. If the claims in respect of such damage are taken one by one, they will not amount to more than £5 each, but there must already be a number of owners of that type of property who have suffered on more than one occasion, and their cumulative claims must now be well over £5. We must remember also the owner of a number of such properties. Considered as separate units for the purpose of the Bill, each property may be represented by a claim for less than £5, but if there is a line of houses, the total claim must be well over that figure.
I feel very strongly that there may be tremendous dissatisfaction at the working of the Bill if owners of small houses are told: "You can have £5 or up to £5 for 359 any existing damage, or you can have £5 for damage to one particular house group"—which may cover eight or nine houses. I hope there is no question of owners of small properties where there has been repeated damage, being excluded from the operation of the Bill.

§ Mr. Silkin (Peckham)
I desire to support the Amendment for some of the reasons which have been put forward by those who have already spoken. I would point out that, if the Amendment is accepted, it will apply to large properties as well as to small.

§ Mr. Spens
The point about the large property which is inside an area affected by blast is that it almost always has a sufficient amount of damage done to it to carry the claim over £5. The small house or small cottage does not necessarily suffer to that extent.

§ Mr. Silkin
I could not altogether accept that suggestion. I should say that, in the case of large properties, where windows have been broken and no other damage has been done, you might be able to repair the windows for £5. I do not want this Amendment to be regarded as a poor man's Amendment, because it will apply, if it is accepted, to all forms of property. The Amendment should be accepted. I face the possibility that, by abolishing any limit, we may open the door to an enormously increased number of claims, and that that will make for very great difficulties in administration, but we must accept that possibility. We may feel very great sympathy for the Commissioners, who will have their task greatly increased. Nevertheless, we ought to agree that it would be wrong to exclude claims merely because they were small. The Treasury will have to find some method of dealing with small claims without excluding them altogether.
I am grateful to you, Sir Dennis, that you have recognised the principle of hon. Members speaking on all similar Amendments to this Clause together. I have put forward an Amendment which puts the case of the local authorities. There may be a very large number of properties upon an estate, and all of them may have been slightly damaged, mostly, separately considered, to a less extent than £5. I know of one local authority with an enormous 360 number of dwelling houses damaged to a less extent than £5, but, in the aggregate, the claims will come to something like £25,000. If the Clause stands as it is, the local authority will not be able to get one penny in respect of that £25,000 worth of damage. I am sure that the Committee would not wish such an injustice to be done to a local authority. I can imagine the same position arising with other owners of large properties. The Chancellor, I suggest, must put up with the inconvenience of dealing with a large number of claims, rather than impose an injustice upon owners of property, small or great. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the Amendment.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I do not want this Amendment to be regarded only as a poor man's Amendment, but we must remember that the poor man has his rights as well as other men. Really, this is very strongly a poor man's Amendment, because a very large number of small owners will suffer small damage. I question whether the Committee fully realises how many people really own small properties, usually their own houses. For a long time the Government have encouraged this type of investment, and therefore a large number of people will be affected by the Clause. There will be a tremendous number of claims from such small owners. That may be a difficult position, but the main object is that justice should be done and, in justice to the claims of the small owners, I have put forward my Amendment.
This matter does not affect small owners alone, but also owners who have a large number of properties, and public authorities, who are owners on our behalf of a very large amount of property in this country. Many institutions have been building villas. I do not know whether each villa is separately insured. You may get one villa suffering a small amount of damage while another close by is more severely damaged, and yet together the claim may come to under £5. There will be a serious blow to the local authorities if they are to deal with the claims separately. a large number of public authorities have houses for the accommodation of their workmen, and if one house is to be considered as a unit and no claim must be made if it is less than £5, there may be a considerable number of claims for the collective 361 damage to all of them. There are large numbers of smallholdings where this might equally apply. This should either be withdrawn, or there should be given the opportunity of aggregating the amount of claims made, because there are many places—and we know them because we have seen the damage in our own constituencies—where there will be repeatedly small claims, and if one is not allowed to aggregate them, considerable hardship will be caused to the individuals.

§ Mr. Garro Jones (Aberdeen, North)
I rise to support this Amendment, in the hope that it may save a little time. We on this side of the Committee are strongly in support of this Amendment, because we believe that if it is carried it will operate more to the advantage of the small owner than the large owner. I support that contention by reference to Sub-section (2), whereby it is possible to aggregate units for the purpose of computing the amount of the total damage, whether it exceeds £5 or not. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spells) will see that the interpretation of Sub-section (2) will depend upon the definition of the word "hereditament," and "hereditament" depends upon the definition of the word "building." There may be a large row of houses, every one of which has lost its windows and tiles, and which individually would not have suffered damage to the extent of £5, but which in the aggregate would come within the definition of "hereditament," and therefore would come within the provision for payment under this Bill. The persons who will really suffer are those who will have damage to the total of £5 to their own individual properties. The large owners will be able to aggregate. I support very strongly what was said on this point by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower). Justice must be done, and a loss is a comparative matter. I well remember that it was always taught to me, and indeed I have found out, that if you are in need of £5 it is the most difficult sum in the world to raise, and the person who is really suffering a loss to the extent of £5 may be at his wits' end how to repair the damage done to his property in this particular case.
There is a further reason why we support the Amendment on the Order Paper, and it is this: If provision is made for the 362 payment of claims of £5 or less, an enormous amount of consequential damage will be saved to sufferers from war damage. In inclement weather tiles blown off or windows destroyed will lead to an enormous amount of consequential damage, and local authorities, landlords and tenants to whom payment might be made under the various Clauses of the Bill will be much more likely to repair promptly damage done for those small amounts if they knew that they would be compensated, even if it fell to an amount less than £5.
Finally, I come to the question of machinery. If claims for less than £5 are to be admitted, the number of claims will be increased almost in geometrical progression. There will be hundreds of thousands more claims, but that is no reason why justice should not be done and why the machinery should not be set up. I do not say that the burden should be laid upon the War Damage Commission. If necessary, some separate machinery might well be set up for dealing with claims of less than £5, and if the claim cannot be aggregated under Subsection (2) and it amounts in its aggregate to less than £5, it might be necessary at a later stage to introduce a new Clause setting up new machinery to deal exclusively with claims of less than £5. Unless that is done, great injustice will be suffered by people who are not able to bear their losses. Their losses will be much heavier than those of the larger owners, and much satisfaction would be felt if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could see his way to accept this suggestion.

§ The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)
It may be convenient if I rise at this stage and say what is in the mind of my right hon. Friend on this subject. Let me say how the matter stands at present. There are two questions involved in the discussion which we have had. There is the question whether there should be any limit, and there is the further question raised by some of the other Amendments, namely, whether, assuming a limit, there should be a right to aggregate in respect of successive acts of damage to the same property. There is also the question whether there should be the right to aggregate in respect of an owner who owns one small property. 363 As regards the limit, that question will be reconsidered. The reasons for a limit were put strongly by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and others. One reason is the immense increase in the costs of administration which would be caused if any claim under £5 were allowed. I think it is right to bear in mind that it is not merely a question of people having more work to do, but that it would increase the costs of administration which fall on the general body of taxpayers, and which is one of the items which, under Clause 16, is taken into account when it has to be considered whether the extent of the damage justifies a further levy and which in its turn will mean a further contribution from the taxpayer. The small and the large taxpayer, therefore, are interested in seeing that the costs of this scheme are at any rate not unreasonably increased.
The hon. Member who has just sat down threw out a suggestion that he might be willing to accept some scheme other than the Commission, because, as he and the Committee know, there are provisions passed by Parliament by which local authorities, particularly in the case of working-class houses, do exactly the type of first-aid repair to prevent further damage which the hon. Member had in mind. As far as that part of the problem is concerned, I think the powers are already there, although whether they are being fully used is a matter which can be considered later. But the point raised by the Amendment is whether we should increase, and increase very considerably and definitely, the cost of the administration of this Measure by allowing persons to put in claims without any limit.
A word or two has been said about justice. Justice is one of those words which all can use, but sometimes what one person thinks is just another person thinks is unjust. I do not think there is any abstract principle of justice which would lead one to say that a scheme under which persons were asked to bear a small amount of damage—that is, to bear the cost of damage if it was below a certain limit, while the general body of taxpayers together with the contribution of the person concerned would meet claims above that limit—is unjust. You may think it would be better not to have a limit, but 364 I do not think there is any abstract principle of justice which says that such a limit is unfair, and it would vastly increase the number of claims if half-crown and five-shilling claims were allowed.

§ Mr. Silkin
But it is the local authorities which will be repairing the damage. May I have an assurance that local authorities will be reimbursed for the damage on any house even if that damage is less than £5? They may repair any number of houses to which the damage amounts to less than £5, and thereby be deprived of the opportunity of being reimbursed.

§ The Chairman
That is not a question arising out of this Bill at all. It is a question arising out of existing Acts.

§ The Attorney-General
I think my right on. Friend has that point in mind and will refer to it later. So far as the question of a limit is concerned, my right hon. Friend thinks at the moment that there should be a limit; whether it is to be of £5, £4 or any other figure is a matter which he will consider. In regard to aggregation, I appreciate, and I am sure the Committee appreciates, the force of the case which was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment raised the case of the single house which is repeatedly damaged. That is, I agree, a type of case which does occur quite frequently. There are many cases in which houses near the places where bombs are dropped from time to time have been damaged, two, three, or as many as half-a-dozen times, and in each case the damage may be less than £5, although, of course, it may be more. My right hon. Friend thinks that there should be a right to aggregate for successive damage to a single property.
The question of the man who owns more than one property is rather more difficult. If you take, for instance, the case of a man who is sufficiently well off to have two houses, perhaps one in London and one in the country, it might be thought rather hard that whereas the man who can afford only one house cannot be reimbursed to the extent of, say, £3, the man who owns two houses, both of which were damaged to the same extent, would be allowed to add the two together and receive compensation of £6. I quite agree that that is not the type of case which my 365 hon. Friend had in mind, but there is obviously a certain difficulty in saying that whereas the man who owns only one house is to have a limit, the man who owns several will escape the limit although the damage to each individual property may be below it. So far as that is concerned, my right hon. Friend, on the general principles which he has already stated, is prepared to consider what has been said and any further communications which those interested may care to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said that he knew of an instance in which a local authority had a £25,000 bill, made up, I understand, entirely of claims of less than £5. If that is so, it is very remarkable, but it will also have to be considered. It is a situation which can arise, and my right hon. Friend would like to have full information about it. At this stage I will only indicate what my right hon. Friend has in mind in regard to aggregation in the case of repeated damage. He thinks there ought to be a limit. He does not want to rule out cases to save money, but simply to avoid unduly multiplying the costs of administration. On the aggregation of claims by single owners of many properties—of course, a row of houses could be treated as a unit—he will certainly consider what has been said.

§ Mr. Silkin
May I ask whether the case of the local authorities will receive separate consideration, for it is rather different from the case of individuals owning several properties?

§ The Attorney-General
I think the local authority is entitled to have its case considered like anybody else. Whether a housing estate owned by a local authority should be a different position from one owned by a private individual, I am not quite prepared to say, but if there are reasons for distinguishing them, they can be put forward.

§ Mr. Messer (Tottenham, South)
The speech to which we have just listened does not, to my mind, deal with the points raised in the Amendment and does not carry me very far towards agreement with the retention of the passage which we seek to delete. There are two important questions involved in this particular part of the Bill. One is a point of principle, and all those who are accustomed to insurance know that there is often a possibility of 366 contracting-out of a part of it by virtue of a reduction in the premium. It seems to me that the point of principle is one to which we ought to devote our attention. Suppose we have two people, A and B, who are paying exactly the same contribution. One suffers damage which exceeds £5 and gets compensation, while the other suffers damage which is just under £5 and gets nothing. Now the effect of that is that one is paying £5 more on the premium than the other. He is out of pocket to the extent of the damage which he must make good and, though it may be said that there is no abstract principle of justice involved, there is no one who for one moment could sustain the argument that that is anything but unjust. It is certainly an injustice to ask two people to pay the same contribution while one can be called upon to suffer damage under that scheme to the extent of £5 whereas another borderline case would not be so treated. I am not so sure that the Commission is going to find itself relieved of claims, because it is clear that those whose damage approaches £5 will do their best to see that it comes under the scheme. The number of borderline cases will present a problem that will have to be dealt with in some other way than on the clear-cut lines of demarcation one would expect when a limit is laid down.
The second question that I regard as important is that of relative value. In recent years working men have become to a much greater extent owners of the houses in which they live. I am glad to see that. I believe that every working man should be assured of a shelter over his head. If you rob such a man of compensation you will probably take away that very roof upon which he depends for his shelter. But this is the important point. To the working man £5 is of very much more importance than it is to the owner of property, who has invested in property. To some working men £5 represents two weeks' income. It is not always first-aid repair that will be involved. There will be the type of damage that cannot be considered to come under that first-aid scheme. Damage may not necessarily be the effect of blast on windows: it may not be damage to tiles; it may be damage to some part of the building, perhaps, an outbuilding, which is important but not part of the owner's shelter. Then the owner will have to 367 suffer the loss himself, if it does not amount to £5. The Chancellor ought to go further, and see whether something cannot be done so that this part of the Bill shall not fall more heavily on those least able to bear it than on those who are better able to do so.

§ Sir John Mellor (Tamworth)
This provision in its present form seems neither just nor logical. If the provision had been that any claimant should have to bear the first £5 of damage himself, that would be more logical and more just. There is plenty of precedent in insurance experience for a provision of that kind. That would put all on a footing more closely approaching equality. As things stand at present, a man who suffers damage amounting to £5 10s. will get £5 10s., while a man who suffers damage to the extent of £4 10s. will get nothing. I cannot see either justice or logic in that.

§ Major Milner
A great deal of publicity will be given to this Bill; and is it not possible that in practice such a provision as this will lead to greater expense and greater trouble? May it not be that in some cases, if a house is damaged to the extent of about £4, and people know that, owing to the slight amount of damage, no compensation can be obtained, there will be a temptation to throw a stone through a window, in order to make sure that the damage shall exceed £5? I put that forward with some diffidence, but it is a possibility. If that assumed serious proportions, the object of having any limit at all would be evaded. Quite clearly, there is an injustice in fixing any limit. Having regard to the fact that in almost every case where the damage is less than £5 the local authorities will carry out the repairs, I should have thought that it would have been possible to meet the difficulty by ensuring that where the local authority put damage right, the owner should not be charged with the cost, but that the local authority should be reimbursed by the War Damage Commission. That would avoid the necessity of setting up any special organisation, such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), and would ensure that the poor man, who perhaps owns only his own house, and has not completed the transaction with the building society, shall not suffer by comparison with the person who 368 can afford to make good any damage. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas), to insert after "payment," in line 5, of Clause 2. except a temporary works payment That might, at any rate, afford some relief to us in the difficulty in which we are placed. Clause 6 provides that: Where a payment of cost of works or a value payment is made in respect of war damage to a hereditament there shall be made, in addition to that payment, a payment (in this Part of this Act referred to as a "temporary works payment") of an amount equal to the proper cost of any works reasonably executed for temporarily meeting the circumstances created . … That Amendment might go some way towards meeting our difficulty if the Chancellor cannot do away with the limit altogether or provide that the local authority shall be reimbursed for such repairs by the War Damage Commission.

§ Captain Strickland (Coventry)
I hope that the Chancellor will give some assurance that he will go very carefully into this matter. We are discussing a Clause which seems to be bound up more with justice than with administration. It is either right or not right to compensate people for loss incurred as a result of enemy raids. If it is right to do so, I do not see that, because it would be expedient to the administration of the Act, we should reimburse some people who incur loss as a result of enemy action, and take exactly the opposite course with others. It may be true to say that the cost of administration in small claims might be greater in proportion than it would be in the case of large claims, but I think we can set off against that fact that the administration of the large claims will not cost anything like in proportion what it would cost in respect of the small claim. One might easily be set off against the other and the cost taken as a whole. Even if it costs a lot to grant justice to small property owners in respect of properties which have been slightly damaged, it seems to me to be the duty of this Committee to secure that justice is done to all claims on an equal basis. I suggest that here is a case that calls for great and sympathetic consideration by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I hope, will see that justice must prevail over expediency 369 in dealing with the claim which has been put forward so well by Members of this Committee.

§ Mr. Benson (Chesterfield)
I do not want to help the Attorney-General to state his case, but I think he certainly overlooked the strongest argument that has been made that it was not so much the cost of administration but the appalling delay that there will be, if, as the Attorney-General said, every half-crown claim is sent in. I realise that there will be a very grave blocking of the machine if this Amendment is carried and nothing else is done. At the present moment the prescribed form, V.O.W.1, has to be sent to the district valuer in respect of every small payment. I do not know what may happen in the future to the printing of the paper, but I have a clear idea of what will happen to the machinery of the district valuer. Nevertheless, there is one way in which we can get over this by some modification of the time limit within which a claim has to be made. Under this Bill a claim has to be in within 30 days of the damage being done,. and you cal get an extension of time by applying for it. I suggest that small claims under £5, or under some limit fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should not require a special claim to be sent in, but that the payment of the claims should be allowed to accumulate until they had reached a certain point over £5.
I observe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be rather startled by that suggestion, but there is a very strong precedent for it in regard to the quinquennial adjustment in Schedule A. In that connection a landlord can save all his repair bills for the past five years, and, after the expenditure has been incurred, he can present the bills to the Inland Revenue authorities, who then go into them and either modify or admit them. If, in connection with the question of small claims for war damage, such as a few tiles or perhaps a couple of windows, the property owner could keep his bills and, if necessary, have them certified by the repairer that the work had been done because of war damage, and then present them, when his claim reached a certain aggregate, it would be going a very long way towards meeting the real objection to the small claim. It is not a question of the added cost so much as the appalling blocking of administrative machinery. I 370 do not see how we can accept the defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he cannot admit these small claims on account of administration unless we, at the same time, consider the possibilities of a time limit for notification. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take into consideration the multiplication of small claims.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish (Lewes)
I confess that when I read the Clause I thought that, in conformity with the usual insurance methods, something of the sort was necessary in view of the great administrative difficulties. Although a Debate has taken place on this question, I confess that it seems to me that by denying anything to people who have suffered damage of under £5 we shall be providing what I might call an incentive to let that damage get to over £5. It would appear that a great many people in the aggregate who will have suffered damage of under £5 will be paying for the people who have damage of over £5 and that there would not be any rebate of premium and no-claim bonus. Therefore, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will in some way try to find some machinery which will help this matter out.

§ Sir K. Wood
Perhaps I may shorten the proceedings if I intervene at this stage and say that I shall be glad to take into account what has been said in the Debate to-day and re-examine this matter afresh, with a view to seeing whether I can introduce some proposal on the Report stage. As has been said, I shall bring forward an Amendment in regard to property that has suffered repeated damage, and, as far as the other matters are concerned, I shall examine them in the light of what has been said. I would like to assure the Committee that it is not the intention or desire to deprive anybody of compensation, because I realise that these small amounts of damage may affect many people in poorer circumstances. The limit was inserted very largely for the reason given by my hon. Friend opposite. I shall have the greatest difficulty in setting up the machinery for this Commission. It is not only the difficulty of appointing members of the Commission, which is an important matter, but when one thinks of the machinery that I shall have to devise in order to get an early settlement of these claims, I 371 would warn the Committee that if I had to set up that machinery now it would be extremely difficult from the point of view of personnel. The more that I can do to lighten the burdens of the Commission, the more I shall expedite the settlement of claims. It is an exceedingly difficult problem to get people to do such work to-day.

§ Mr. Selley (Battersea, South)
Would it be possible to get local authorities to deal with these trivial cases? They are really the people on the spot. The damage that might largely flow from damage to a roof which the owner might not be able to repair because he could not get the labour, might be taken over by the local authority.

§ Captain Strickland
I suggest that my right hon. Friend should consider the fact that in case of damage an inspection takes place by the local authority, and it would be a simple matter for them to certify. We need not niggle as to a shilling or two whether it is an overcharge or not. In small cases it is not so difficult as in cases of claims for a thousand pounds or more.

§ Sir K. Wood
I hope the Committee will not think that I have some sort of Treasury idea to try and cut people down. That is not the case at all. I should like to see the full settlement, but there are other difficulties besides. It has been suggested that the local authority might come in, and I will consider that point. Anybody who has any knowledge of the duties of local authorities and who suggests that I can get over the difficulties in that way shows a misapprehension of the burdens of local authorities. But I will look at this matter again with a view to seeing what I can do.

§ Mr. Denville
Would it be helpful if the Chancellor considered a suggestion that this £5 should be applied to certain kinds of assessment or under a certain assessment value?

§ Sir W. Smithers
I have been away from the Chamber for half an hour, and I do not know whether the point has been raised, but in the case of an owner of small property, say, of six or seven houses, if a bomb drops near and damages each house to a value of less than £5—which has been done—cannot that be aggregated?

§ Sir K. Wood
We have discussed that, and I will not rule anything out, but so far as that proposal was concerned, it was pointed out by the Attorney-General that it would be difficult indeed to support a proposal where a man owning seven houses and damage to the value of £4 was suffered by each house, he should be allowed to have £28, while a man who owned only one house should not receive £4.

§ Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern)
May I make a suggestion? A large number of people in this country would, I believe, be prepared to bear a small amount of the cost of their damage, from patriotic reasons. What they are afraid of is the colossal damage to their houses, and I hope the Chancellor might consider the policy which is adopted by insurance companies with reference to motor car claims, where the company makes a 10 per cent. reduction in the premium if the claimant bears the first £2 of the cost of the damage, or something of that kind. If you were to say to an insured person that if he was not prepared to claim up to 0.5 of the total value of his house a slight rebate would be given, I think it would meet with general approval.

§ Sir K. Wood
I will consider that, but I do not want to adopt any proposal which will clog this machinery. Nothing will bring more disfavour to this scheme than interminable delays. We shall be doing, in fact, more injustice to a number of people if we allow a vast number of claims to be put forward in this way and stop this machine working. I say that as a warning, but I will, of course, take into account the matters suggested and consult with my advisers with a view to bringing something forward on the Report stage of the Bill.

§ Sir R. Gower
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I move this formally on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), in order to get an explanation from the Chancellor as to what exactly is the meaning of the term "in such units," which appears in the Clause.

§ Sir K. Wood
I am very glad to give an explanation. This is simply designed for the convenience of administration and the owners of property. The intention is to allow, by this Clause, where this matter comes up for consideration, the Commission and claimants themselves to deal with certain property as a single unit. What we have in mind is, say, a row of houses or block of flats, for example, under the same ownership. Here the claimants would be able to deal with the Commission in respect of those houses or flats as one set of premises and settle the matter with the Commission. Of course, it is a matter for the Commission to determine, but it is obviously convenient, instead of going to the individual in each case, to be able, under this Clause, to deal with the matter as one unit. My hon. Friend's proposal would in fact put the local authority in a different position from that of anyone else, and I should not be able to accept that.

§ Mr. Silkin
I am much obliged for the explanation which the Chancellor has given. It is entirely within the discretion of the Commission, which can take each case on its merits In one case they can take a row of tenements and treat it as one unit, and in another case they can treat a row of houses individually. I think some principle ought to be laid clown as to the circumstances under which the Commission would treat a number of properties or otherwise. It ought not to be left to their individual discretion, and there ought not to be a difference in one case from another. I hope the Chancellor will consider that and see that principles are laid down. The principle that I would like to see laid down is that in the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper, where you get a block of tenements. Quite frankly, I think that the same principle would apply to a block of tenements owned by private enterprise.

§ The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown)
The discussion of that matter must take place on the Amendment in the hon. Member's name in page 2, line 12, and not on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Amendment cannot be withdrawn now.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert: Provided that a block of tenement dwellings owned by a local authority for the purposes of the Housing Act, 1936, shall be deemed to constitute a unit for the purposes of this Sub-section. I see no reason in principle why in this respect a block of tenements owned by a local authority should be treated differently from a block owned by private enterprise. I submit that in both cases a block of tenements should be treated as a single unit, and that it should not be possible for the Commission to take each flat separately and deal with it as a unit for compensation purposes. Although my Amendment relates specifically to tenements owned by a local authority, I should have no objection if it were widened to cover all tenements owned by one person.

§ Captain Crookshank
It is rather difficult to deal with this Amendment, because, while it says one thing, the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is prepared to accept the Amendment in a different form. One of the arguments against the Amendment as it stands is the fact that it would place local authority tenements in a class by themselves and make them different from all other forms of tenement or property. The hon. Member has seen on reflection that that is not a tenable proposition, and therefore, he has said that he would not mind if the Amendment were altered. The purpose of Sub-section (2), which the Committee have just passed, is that this matter and similar matters should be left to the discretion of the Commission to be dealt with according to the facts in each case. As the hon. Member for Peckham has made a suggestion which is different from the proposal in his Amendment on the Paper, my right hon. Friend will look into that point of view, but I think that on the whole it would he as well to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commission.

§ Mr. Silkin
On the Chancellor's undertaking that lie will look into the question, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir Harold Webbe
I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, at the end, to insert: 375 () An appeal shall lie from any determination of the Commission as to the land which is to constitute a unit for the said purposes, at the instance of any person who is an owner or mortgagee of any proprietary interest in such land or any part thereof, to one of the panel of referees appointed under Part I of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to any such appeal. This Amendment provides for the insertion of a new Sub-section which will give a right of appeal from a determination of the Commission as to the basis for purposes of this Measure. As it stands, the Clause gives to the Commission the authority to determine the way in which the land shall be dealt with as units for purposes of the Measure. Apparently, it gives that power at any time, and therefore by implication gives power to the Commission at any moment to change the units and the basis. I assume that broadly speaking, the Schedule A unit will be normally the convenient unit for purposes of this Measure, but I can understand that there may be certain cases in which it might be more suitable, for purposes of this particular Measure, to group the land and the property into different units, either larger or smaller. But the aggregation, and still more the opposite of aggregation, of units might have a very serious effect upon the position of a claimant whose property had suffered war damage.
I can conceive that the aggregation of one house which had been completely demolished with another one which had only been damaged might well be for the benefit of the owner of the property. I assume this would be done if, for example, the continued satisfactory existence of the damaged house depended on the restoration of the destroyed house. However, I can equally conceive that the opposite process might operate very adversely against the claimant. For instance, suppose that there was a factory with a substantial office block built to adjoin it or built as part of it. That block would have value only in relation to the factory as a whole. It is possible that the factory might be so damaged as to make the case one where the Commission could only make a value payment and not a cost-of-works payment. In such a case, the Commission could, under the Clause, subdivide that 376 unit and treat the factory as a unit and the office block as another unit, with the effect that they could get out of the damage to the factory by making a value payment, which would be substantially less than the cost-of-works payment, and thus leave the unfortunate owner of the factory with an office block which would be of no use to him unless he spent a great deal of money in rebuilding the factory. As this power is intended to deal rather with exceptional cases, and as the use of this power might well affect the fortunes of individuals in particular cases, I feel it is a fit subject for an appeal, as suggested in my Amendment, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider that point.

§ Sir K. Wood
I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. The decision in question is a purely administrative one, and I think my hon. Friend must assume that, for the purposes of this Measure, where it is a question of an administrative decision the Commission will act fairly and in the national interest. The Amendment proposes that there should he an appeal to the referees under the Finance Act, 1910, but those referees would not be in any better position—and probably would not be in anything like such a good position—to arrive at a determination of an administrative matter of this kind than would be the local representatives of the Commission, to whom I have already referred. I have endeavoured in certain important matters to give a right of appeal, but I did so only where I thought it was necessary in the interests of justice. If we were to begin a series of appeals in connection with these proposals, I do not know where we should finish. I hope that property owners will bear that in mind. The intention in this Measure is to get early action, and in time of war we cannot contemplate a series of appeals, especially in a matter of this kind.

§ Mr. Spens
May I say just one word on this Amendment? The hon. Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe), who moved the Amendment, assumed, and I hope rightly, that under the powers given at the beginning of the Sub-section the Commission can alter the units and basis from time to time. If that is so, everything the Chancellor has said will work, but it is an entirely different case if there is to be one determination for all time.

§ Sir H. Williams
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not finally close his mind on this. I quite agree that we do not want a lot of appeals, and I hope that everything will be done to achieve local settlements. But if the Commission takes up a line of policy which results in a large number of people being dissatisfied, and there is no tribunal to which appeals can be made, which must be made on facts, because there is no question of law, the result will be that the Chancellor, or his successor, will be burdened with great masses of questions in this House. I quite agree that the House wants to keep control, but it does not want to be overburdened with a great mass of letters and questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with block so-and-so, of such and such a block of flats, or offices, both of which will be units. I can visualise the Chancellor being overburdened with work because he has not provided any machinery where someone who is discontented with a decision of the Commission can go and say, "You might look at this a second time." I ask the Chancellor to turn the matter over again in his mind between now and the Report stage.

§ Mr. Silkin
As the Clause stands, there is nothing to appeal against, because it is entirely in the discretion of the Commission whether a thing is decided to be a unit or not. You cannot appeal against somebody's discretion. I hope, however, that the Minister will look at this again, because any decisions that are made must be consistent. We do not want a certain decision for one part of the country and another decision on similar facts for another part of the country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer lays down the principles upon which the Commission is to act in settling whether a unit is to be decided on, then I do not think there will be any difficulty about it. That is one more reason why the right hon. Gentleman should look at this again.

§ Mr. Woodburn
On the other hand, there is another point to keep in mind. Different owners of flats might not agree to be treated as one unit. There may be difficulties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot reconcile unless he lays down principles to guide the Commission.

§ Sir H. Webbe
In the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider 378 the point that has been raised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) for the purpose of having an explanation of what this Clause means.

§ Sir K. Wood
The Clause in the Bill makes a difference, which, I think, the Committee would agree is a wise one, between developed hereditaments and undeveloped hereditaments and the manner in which they should be treated. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove that differentiation. Under the Bill, damage to a developed hereditament is compensated on a cost of works basis unless the damage involves total loss, but damage to an undeveloped hereditament is compensated on a cost of works basis only when the payment would be less than the amount of depreciation caused. Therefore, in the interpretation of this Clause it would turn out in practice that claims for undeveloped property are likely to be settled on a value basis, and cost of works payments will be exceptional in this case. The object of the provision is to deal as efficiently and economically as possible with the most common type of undeveloped property. I included in this Bill, although it was not originally announced, undeveloped property in order to deal with the effect of bomb craters on open land. I have had many representations made to me, and whilst no doubt the amount of damage caused may not be considerable, provision is made for it in these particular proposals. Of course, in such cases where you have bomb craters on open land from the point of view of the property owners themselves who must hear a considerable proportion of the cost, it may be uneconomical and undesirable to undertake complete reinstatement. Therefore, compensation in this case will generally be on the basis of depreciation, and it is accordingly provided for on that basis. It seems to me that justice is done to owners of undeveloped property who, in spite of their best efforts to make good the damage including the disturbance to land drainage, are unable to bring the land back into proper production for some years. Therefore, such owners will get 379 recompense in terms of depreciation. It seems to me to give cover against one aspect of enemy operations in this country and to provide a workable scheme.

§ Mr. Woodburn
In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Spens
I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, at the end, to insert: And provided that there shall be included in a hereditament that comprises agricultural land all buildings ordinarily occupied or used with, or in connection with such land. The Amendment is put down in order to deal with something which in the minds of some farmers creates a difficulty. As the Committee knows, the rate of contribution for agricultural land and agricultural buildings is less than the rate of contribution for common agricultural buildings and lands. It is very desirable that it should not be possible here for the Commission, by reason of the fact that they may find agricultural buildings temporarily in certain parts of the country being used for purposes other than their normal use, being excluded from their being treated as agricultural buildings. What I have in my mind is that in certain parts of the country there has been a measure of evacuation which has necessarily curtailed present farming activities of the tenants of these farms. It may well be that cottages and other buildings are for the time being used for purposes other than agricultural purposes. They are, of course, part and parcel of a particular farm when it is being farmed to its full capacity. As I read the Sub-section at the present moment, it would be possible for the Commission to say that agricultural cottages which are not occupied in connection with farming are not agricultural buildings and that, therefore, the full rate must be paid in respect of them. It is desired that it should not be possible, and that where in connection with a farm the ordinary farm buildings, cottages and so forth, whatever use they are being put to at the moment, shall necessarily come into the unit which would be agricultural land and agricultural buildings. I believe it is possible for the Commission to do what I am asking that they shall do even under the wording of the Bill, but I ask either 380 that the Amendment shall be accepted or that the matter shall be considered and a statement made now or later in order to satisfy farmers who are suffering from that anxiety.

§ Captain Crookshank
As far as what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind has to do with contributions, that really falls to be discussed when we come to Clause 15 (3), but I see his point, that he is afraid that some building which is temporarily not being put to agricultural use owing to evacuation might be deemed, as a result, to be put into the category in which it would pay the higher rate. I do not think that can happen, but, if there is any ambiguity, my hon. and learned Friend may feel assured that we shall look into it. But I should not like to resist the Amendment merely on that ground. If we put it in it would have a very unfavourable effect upon agriculturists. The result would be, if you read it in conjunction with Clause 5 (1) (b), that payment would be on a value basis unless payment of cost of works is less. Damage to a farm house would only rank for compensation on a depreciation basis, which ex hypothesi must be less than the other. So it would be an ill service to the agricultural community to accept the Amendment as it stands.

§ Rear-Admiral Beamish
I had an Amendment on the subject of precautions against fire, which was not called. Remembering that the Clause deals with payments to be made in respect of war damage, and that a considerable attack has already been made on the Chancellor on the subject of even more money being paid out of the Treasury, and also remembering that the Bill might very well be termed a property owners' charter, and not a Bill for the better protection of the Treasury, I hope the Deputy-Chairman will indicate at what point it will be proper to have a full discussion on the question of avoiding contributory negligence and the proper provision of precautions against fire.

§ Mr. Silkin
I should like to ask whether Clause 2 (3) comprises property which is only partly constructed. There is no reference in Clause 14 to partly con- 381 structed buildings, which, of course, would not be under Schedule A. I should like an assurance that the matter is covered.

§ Mr. Levy (Elland)
I feel confident that what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind is that it is incumbent on all property owners to employ a fire watcher, and that if a fire watcher is not employed and damage occurs, contributory negligence would be involved. In the event of empty property in any locality where it is not possible to employ a fire watcher—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I do not think that fire watching can be discussed on this Amendment.

§ Sir K. Wood
The point mentioned by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) is covered in Clause 41, the definition Clause.

§ Mr. Spens
I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after "period," insert not being less than three months after the date when the person making such claim shall have received notice of the fact that war damage to such hereditament or land has occurred. My Amendment includes two points: first, that there should be not less than three months' notice and, what is much more important as far as I personally am concerned, that the period of notice should run from the time when the owner of the property has notice that damage has occurred. Here again this is a question which deals primarily with only certain areas of the country, but in part of the area which I represent there are hundreds of properties of all sorts which have been evacuated and locked up with no one in charge of them, because the persons who normally would be in charge are not allowed to be there and there is no one whose duty it is to report any damage to the property if and when it occurs. Furthermore, the defence authorities object very strongly to any information being given as to damage immediately after the damage occurs. The result is that it may be months before the owner has any intimation of any sort that damage has been done. I suggest that some proper provision should be put in requiring 382 the Commission to make special provisions for persons who prove themselves to have been in that state. The penalty of forfeiture of the right of claim if it is not made within the prescribed time is a very serious one indeed. I want it made quite clear in the Bill that, whatever the period is, it shall be a long one and shall run from the date of notice of damage received by the owner.

§ Major Milner
I have an Amendment on the Paper in somewhat similar terms prescribing a period of not less than 60 days in which a claim might be made, but I and those who sit with me would approve of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). He has given some cogent reasons why this extra time should be given. I would like to urge another reason. Under the present procedure a form known as V.O.W. 1 has to be put in within 30 days, but my experience is that that period is rarely adhered to. It is not possible in the ordinary case to value and tabulate the necessary particulars within 30 days. The result is that claimants have to apply for an extension of time, and in my experience the district valuer gives it without objection. When the extension expires one applies again, and I have not heard that there is any difficulty in obtaining the further extension. That procedure involves correspondence and clogs up not only the claimant's machinery, but the machinery of the district valuers, who in certain areas are hard pressed. If a longer time were given it would mean a great saving of work and prevent a good deal of difficulty. The wording of the Amendment is a greater protection to the claimant than the present law. I recognise that there may be a difficulty in proving when a claimant received notice that war damage has occurred and the Chancellor may not approve of those words, but if additional time can be given that will in the main meet my point.

§ Mr. Benson
Another aspect of this matter is that damage is not always immediately apparent. Valuers and others who are professionally engaged in preparing schedules of damage are perturbed about it. As an instance of what might happen, a bomb dropped near a small pair of semi-detached houses. Not a window was broken, not a tile removed, but the whole property was bodily shifted 383 seven inches from its foundations. Fortunately that was discovered and the property is now being demolished. There are many cases where damaged footings would occur and they would not be noticed except by an expert and thorough investigation. The damage may not become apparent until after the period of notice has elapsed, and it would be hard on the owner if, because of that, he had to forfeit his claim. There ought to be some possibility of re-opening claims in cases of that kind.

§ Sir K. Wood
I have every sympathy with the proposals behind the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). He himself will no doubt be aware of the criticism that can be brought to bear on the exact terms in which the Amendment is drafted. Claimants should certainly have a reasonable time, a generous time, if you like, in which to put in their claims, but it is equally desirable from the point of view of the administration of this scheme that they should put them in as early as they reasonably can. I should not like a specific period to appear in the Act of Parliament. It may be that the period may be altered and readjusted from time to time as experience is gained. What I will undertake is that the Treasury shall, in their Regulations, prescribe the period. Those Regulations will come before the House. The advantage of that method is that we shall be able to make the period more elastic if need arises. I will also have regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) has said in quoting the interesting if somewhat unusual case to which he has referred.

§ Mr. Benson
Not unusual.

§ Sir K. Wood
I do not wish to exaggerate things too much.

§ Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)
I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) is not an unusual case. But what I rise to say is that although in the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Chesterfield that latent defect was found, there will be many cases in which a property owner will not find defects unless he goes to considerable expense. There will be many cases where a house has been seriously 384 damaged and can no longer be let, and the property owner deprived of the rent, will not be able to go really thoroughly into the damage which his house may have suffered. Whether this is the appropriate Amendment or not I hope that the Chancellor will devise some means whereby at whatever period—at any rate during the war—the owner of property finds out that it has suffered damage he will be allowed to put in his claim. The claim should not be excluded by virtue of the fact that he has not been able to spend money on expert advice to ascertain at the time the full extent of the damage.

§ Sir William Wayland (Canterbury)
I am rather disappointed with the Chancellor's reply. I have in mind a case in which a lady and a gentleman who were suspected of being Fascists were ordered last September to clear out of the district in which they were living. They wrote to me the other week to know whether I would be kind enough to say whether their house, which they had had to leave, was still standing. There will be many cases like that in the evacuation and defence areas, one of which I represent. I have had quite a number of cases brought to my attention. I should prefer that we should state a definite period. Three months is not a long time. Unless we make it a definite period it must be left to the whim or will of the Commissioners whether it is to be one, two or three months. It would be much better to state the period in the Act, because then there would be something which people could rely upon.

§ Mr. Selley
I hope that the Chancellor will also take into account "damage flowing from" the effect of bombs. I have in mind a case in which people have not been able to repair the damaged root of their house—there is only a temporary repair and damage will flow from that original damage, because wet will be coming in and saturating the ceilings and walls. The repair of damage which, if it could have been put in hand at once would have cost no more than £200 may cost £500 before the actual repairs can take place. Those are very serious cases and they are not isolated. They are not like the case of the bombed house mentioned by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). There are literally thousands of such cases.

§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)
Nobody wants to multiply cases of uncertainty, but we have all had experience of how, in almost every kind of litigation, even longer terms than three months have caused the very greatest hardship. I suggest to the Chancellor, even though it involves a little extra working and uncertainty, that he should provide some machinery whereby bona fide claims will not be excluded.

§ Sir Arthur Harbord (Great Yarmouth)
Would the Chancellor consider whether he can provide means whereby a person who is the owner of a property and is injured through a raid or by enemy action can have his case considered? I think such a provision should be embodied in the Bill.

§ Sir K. Wood
I propose to cover that point. The Commission will have power in regard to such cases.

§ Mr. C. Williams
I would like to bring a particular class of case to the notice of the Chancellor. In my division I have a great number of sailors, some of whom are away for many months, and they hear nothing whatever about their property for six or eight months at a time. I would like a definite answer in this Committee, although I do not want it to be put into the Bill, in the form of an assurance that there will be some instruction that men serving abroad shall have the fullest possible time to put forward claims in regard to their property.

§ Sir K. Wood
Certainly, I can give that assurance.

§ Mr. Spens
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, after "Treasury", to insert: or in such other form and at such time as may be considered satisfactory by the Commission. Many of the arguments in favour of this Amendment have already been put forward. The Treasury is, in fact, to issue 386 regulations. But the Commission will have the administration of these regulations, and from the Clause as it stood it struck me that great hardship would be caused in the existing circumstances, in having a very rigid form and manner for the presentation of claims. I suggest that it is not practicable for the Treasury to deal with all the exceptions which have been raised by various hon. Members—exceptions where people may be absent, or in hospital for months. These people may know nothing about their houses or their claims, and may come forward after the form and manner have ceased to take effect. Thus they would forfeit the right to make a claim. Therefore, I suggest that the Commission should be given discretion, so that if in such circumstances, the claimant is not able to make a claim in the form specified or in the time and the manner specified, the Commission will be able to make an allowance, even though it is not in accordance with the Treasury regulations. Many cases cited by hon. Members to-day have provided an argument for that discretion.

§ The Attorney-General
It would be a pity to accept this Amendment, for reasons which I will give briefly. As was pointed out in the discussion a short time ago, it is quite clear that the regulations, which will be the code for dealing with the time in which claims have to be made, must be sufficiently elastic and must give power to the Commission to exercise discretion in order to admit claims after the period elapses in circumstances such as have been quoted by hon. Members, for instance, where damage may not have come to the man's notice for some time, or where he may be abroad and may not have anyone here to make a claim on his behalf. All cases of that kind must, clearly, be capable of being covered by the code. The words proposed would suggest that the regulations will not be sufficiently elastic and that, therefore. It is necessary to give the Commission discretion which the regulations do not provide. It is much more satisfactory that the regulations themselves should he drawn sufficiently widely to give the Commission the backing which it desires and which this Amendment is designed to meet. If the regulations did not so provide I do not think they would he satisfactory. I have not the slightest doubt that if they came before the House 387 their defects in that respect would be pointed out. Therefore, it is much better to leave these matters for consideration, and I think it would be very unsatisfactory to introduce words which would seem to presume that the regulations did not give the necessary power.

§ Mr. Woodburn
In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation, with which I agree, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Attorney-General
I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out from "Treasury," to the end of the Clause, and to add: (4) In relation to a payment in respect of war damage sustained by a hereditament before the commencement of this Act, and in relation to a payment for which a claim has been duly made under subsection (2) of this Section where the person making it has died or become incapable of acting and in such other circumstances as may be prescribed, such person as may he determined under regulations made by the Treasury shall he treated as the claimant. This is an Amendment which will commend itself to the Committee. It is to meet the case in which a claimant may become incapable and it is necessary to determine the person who shall be treated as the claimant in his place. It was not previously provided for and it is quite clearly desirable that there should be power to deal with cases of that kind

§ Mr. Bellenger
I would like to ask the Attorney-General whether we are to take it that the words he proposes to insert here would not affect the ordinary processes of law in the case of death. An executor would, presumably, be admitted as the legal representative of the deceased person by the Commission. Is it desired to set up some arbitrary powers whereby the Commission could, as it were, overrule the executor of a deceased person?

§ The Attorney-General
There is no question of doing that; it is simply that the Commission shall have power under the general provisions of existing law, as to the devolution of rights, to select a person who can be dealt with as acting in the matter on behalf of the person concerned.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, at the end, to add: 388 (4) Regulations made under this Section shall provide for a claim for a payment under this Part of this Act being made within such period as shall be fixed or specified for that purpose by the owner of any proprietary interest in, or by any mortgagee of, a hereditament on failure of the direct contributor to make a claim in respect of such hereditament within the period fixed or allowed under the preceding provisions of this Section. This Amendment is designed to meet the case of a direct contributor who, for one reason or another, does not put forward a claim and where there are other parties interested in the damaged property. It may sound extraordinary that the directly interested party should not wish to put in a claim, but there are cases in which the direct contributor has very little interest in the property. It may be heavily mortgaged, perhaps for an amount greater than the value of the property, and he may feel that it is not worth his while to put forward a claim. The Amendment is designed to meet such cases and to enable some other person interested in the property, after due notice, to put forward a claim in his place. I think it is a kind of case which will be met with from time to time, and unless something of this sort is provided in the Bill it may act very harshly on persons who have a substantial interest in the damaged property. I, therefore, hope the Chancellor will see his way to accept, at any rate, the principle of the Amendment.

§ Mr. Woodburn
There is another case that might be more drastic still. As I understand it is possible that the amount required to meet the damage to a house may bring nothing to the person who owns the house, but may all be required to meet the mortgage. In addition to that, the person who is the mortgagor may actually have to pay interest on his mortgage after that, and may consequently be out of pocket if he does make a claim compared with what his position will he if he does not make a claim. Therefore, if it can be transferred to mortgagor, that rather shifts the responsibility. Under other Amendments which I have put down the matter would be dealt with proportionately and would give both parties an interest in the claim, which I think would be to the advantage of all concerned in the ownership of a dwelling.

§ Sir K. Wood
I quite agree with what my hon. Friend has said. It is obviously 389 desirable that some provision should be made in this regard, but for the reasons I have already indicated in regard to the previous Amendment I think it is best to do it under our power of regulation under Sub-section (2). I will give an undertaking to my hon. Friend that when the Treasury regulations are made under Sub-section (2), the particular situation they have referred to shall be dealt with, to enable, for example, people having a proprietary interest in the cases that have been cited to make claims. It is clearly better to leave this land of case to be dealt with in a regulation than to have it printed in the Bill.

§ Mr. Silkin
This Amendment asks only that regulations should be made. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance.

§ Mr. Spens
An enormous number of forms have been sent in under the present Orders—the well-known form, V.O.W.1. They give a great deal of information, and I hope, at least, the regulations will not require that the same information will have to be sent in a second time. Particularly, I hope that nothing like a survey of damage incurred six months ago will be required. I hope that the regulations will be as kind as possible to those who have already spent much time, trouble and money in putting in claims up to date.

§ Sir K. Wood
Yes; we shall endeavour to be considerate. My hon. and learned Friend had an Amendment on the Paper which was to the effect that we should not in any attempt ask for further information. We cannot limit ourselves to that extent, but I will endeavour to meet the wishes of my hon. and learned Friend as far as possible.

§ Mr. Woodburn
If all this information has to be sent to London, and the sorting out of thousands of small claims done there, it will greatly hamper the administration. I respectfully suggest that in making regulations under this Clause the possibility should be considered of having devolution of the work, with authorities nearer the source than London to deal with small claims.

§ Sir K. Wood
Evidently great minds think alike. I have anticipated that difficulty. I am providing for a scheme of devolution with special arrangements so far as Scotland is concerned, and due regard will be paid to all interests.

§ Sir H. Webbe
Will care be taken to see that a reasonable time is allowed for claims to be made after damage has been incurred? Will my right hon. Friend also take into consideration the position of people who have suffered damage, but, possibly through ignorance, have not submitted their claims; and see that after the passing of this Act reasonable time is allowed for the submission of such claims?

§ Mr. Bellenger
The form V.O.W. 1, as we know it at the moment, has involved a good deal of expert work and a good deal of cost to claimants, many of whom are in a very poor way. In many cases they have to employ a surveyor to make out their claims on the form prescribed and in the manner prescribed, with the result that many individual claims cover numerous sheets.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member is apparently dealing with a form under an Act which is at present in existence, and not with a form under this Bill.

§ Mr. Bellenger
For the purpose of explaining to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the point which I want to put to him, I was giving him an illustration of what is now happening. I was going on to say that I hoped the present procedure would be modified in some way. It was necessary in order to explain clearly the point I wished to make to refer to the present position.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member cannot seek to alter procedure under an Act which is already in existence. If he wants to use the particular form merely as a warning against the use of a similar form under this Bill, that is another matter.

§ Mr. Bellenger
As I understand this Clause, all these matters, of the form and the way claims should be presented, arise. It is not that I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to alter the present law.

§ The Chairman
The hon. Member does not seem to understand what I said. He is repeating criticism of a form, which is not used or intended to be used in connection 391 with this Bill. It is the form issued dealing with another Act already in existence.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I am aware of that, but I am trying to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the nature of the form that will be prescribed when he makes regulations under this Clause. Therefore, I was only giving as an illustration the present form which may be used when it comes to making regulations. In connection with any form which may be necessary under this Clause when a claimant makes his claim, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make it as easy as possible for the claimant, so that he may make his claim without having to incur greater cost in instructing surveyors to make his claim. I therefore suggest to him that the claim should be more in the nature of a formal claim at the moment. It is impossible to foresee the total damage at the time the war ends. All sorts of things may occur. As the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley) reminded the Committee, a claimant's claim for actual damage caused by an explosion may be increased owing to wind and weather and things like that.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when prescribing these forms, should make them as simple as possible and require as little detailed evidence as possible. It would probably save the claimant considerable cost in the first place. To take a concrete case, if a surveyor is to be employed and paid to put down on a piece of paper the number of panes of glass that are broken, it will be necessary for the district valuer's assistant to come round and check up to see whether that number of panes of glass have been broken. In my own experience I have seen the counting of the number of roof tiles missing. That is an unnecessary inconvenience to cause to the claimant. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to say the type of claimant for whom provision is to be made. As I understand the Bill as far as we have gone, the claimant will be the one who pays the direct contribution, but there will be certain other interests involved who will want to put in a claim irrespective of whether a claim has been put in by the direct contributor.
To give a case in point. Ground landlords and mortgagees are asking their 392 leaseholders and mortgagors what is the nature of the claim they have put in and it is up to the mortgagor or lessee to send a copy of the claim to the landlord or mortgagee. It may be that the original claim in his assessment of the value of the damage may not be the figure which the mortgagee thinks sufficient and, therefore, I think it will be necessary in some way or other to combine the direct contributor with other interests in any claim so that we do not have a considerable duplication of forms sent in.

§ Sir K. Wood
I will have regard to what has been said and consult with my advisers.

§ Mr. Spens
I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, at the end, to insert: Provided that the Commission may in their discretion make a payment of cost of works in respect of part of a hereditament and a value payment in respect of the remainder of the same hereditament and may for that purpose treat such respective parts as separate hereditaments. This is an Amendment which is important. It may be based on a misapprehension of the powers of the Commission, but I suggest to the Committee that, as the Bill at present stands, it is not clear how the point I wish to raise shall be dealt with. Under Clause 2, payments will be made for damage and under Subsections (2) and (3) land is to be divided into units which are to consist of the hereditaments found in Clause 2. Under Clause 4 payments are to be made but must be one of two kinds—either payment of cost of works or value payments. As I understand it, as the Clause is now drafted, if you have a unit for the purpose of the Bill then you may be entitled either to cost of works payment—that is, the cost of restoration—or you may be entitled to value payment for the whole of it, but you cannot have part of one sort of payment or part of another sort. It may be that you can get over the difficulty if the Commission has the power—as the Chancellor is to consider under Clause 2—to alter units from time to time. It may be that when it comes to the time of actual 393 payment they may decide that although they thought there should be a cost of works payment when they first looked at it, it would be more desirable to divide up the units and make only a value payment in respect of some part. I suggest that that is an impossible position in which to leave the business community. To make the Bill work by suddenly varying the units will be a very difficult matter indeed. On the other hand, it seems to me reasonably certain that you may have a unit in respect of which you may want to restore part of the damaged building and may want to take over the rest of the site for widening roads or something of that sort, and, therefore, in respect of that part of the unit to make value payment.
As the Bill stands, I cannot see that the Commission are given power to exercise that discretion. When buildings, in the middle of towns, very often built many years ago, are destroyed, there will be a great opportunity in the national interest to take part of the frontages in order to widen roads, to enlarge central squares, and so on, and at the same time to restore the remainder of the buildings. In those circumstances it ought to be made quite clear that the Commission have power in appropriate cases to make partly a compensation payment for restoration and partly a value payment for that part of the unit which they decide not to have restored to its former condition. It is difficult to be certain that one is reading the Bill rightly, but it seems to me that the idea running through the Bill is that of definite units from the beginning, and that each unit must be treated either as a compensation payment unit or as a value payment unit. If that be so, I do not think there is sufficient flexibility to deal with the many complicated circumstances that may arise.

§ Mr. Benson
I think that some power such as that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) ought to be included in the Measure, but I think the Commission ought to require the consent of the property owner before they can decide, quite arbitrarily, that part of his property shall be treated as a value payment unit and part as a cost-of-works payment unit. Probably the property owner who receives a value payment will be a great deal worse off than the property owner who has his property 394 repaired, and if the Commission are able to pick and choose, to take a little bit of the property and say that a value payment shall be made in respect of it, because it suits them, some considerable injustices may be done. I quite agree that if there is not power under the Bill whereby a single unit can be treated in this way, such power ought to be included, but there ought also to be some safeguard for the property owner.

§ Sir H. Williams
This Amendment raises one of the fundamental issues of the Bill. If my property were destroyed and if there were left one brick on which I could reconstruct the house and get a cost-of-works payment, I should do so, because it will be infinitely better to have a cost-of-works payment than a value payment. In many cases with a cost-of-works payment a person would get more than he would if his house were completely destroyed. This is one of the issues which in some way or other we shall have to face. I realise the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he wishes to keep down the total amount of payments as much as possible in our interest, because none of us wants to pay too much by way of premiums. Democracy cannot work unless people forgather at large meetings in the evening, and I hope it is realised that, but for the present circumstances, public meetings would be taking place on the matter now under discussion. I feel sure that public meetings will be resumed shortly when it is light in the evenings, and I am sure that if public opinion were able to operate freely in respect of this whole problem of the relative position of value payments and cost-of-works payments, we should be subjected to the most intense pressure. Although I appreciate and sympathise to the full with the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in questions of value payments dating back pre-war, I think that before this Bill ultimately becomes law, value payments will not continue quite as they are now. I merely say that as a preliminary warning, because we are up against the most difficult problem of all.

§ The Attorney-General
The specific point raised in this Amendment by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has a superficial attraction, but one must realise that in some cases it would be administratively 395 impossible to split a hereditament. For example, no one could say what the value of a wing of a house was if regarded as detached from the rest of the hereditament with which it was inescapably mixed up. The same might be true of a building which, though geographically separate, was used as part of a group of buildings with which it was one unit. Therefore the problem which the Amendment suggests the Commission must settle would, in a great many cases, be incapable of solution. One can, of course, imagine cases in which it would be proper to apply the principle, and we will undoubtedly consider whether the provisions of Clause 2 are sufficiently elastic, as I am inclined to think they are, to meet them. One might have a case in which, although prima facie a group of buildings would be treated as one, one of these buildings could be treated as a separate unit for the purposes of valuation.

§ Mr. Silkin
Such as a garage?

§ The Attorney-General
It may be a garage, a cottage and so on. The question is, can you put a value on the building in the market if it was sold irrespective of the other buildings? In cases of that kind I think there is power for the Commission to treat them as a separate unit. It is a matter which you would have to leave to the body which deals with the individual cases. The actual point which my hon. and learned Friend put, namely, the case in which part of the building was to be taken off for street-widening does raise a different matter which cannot be dealt with completely under this Bill. There are provisions, as I have said, that may want reconsidering under Clause 8 Subsection 2 (c) and the Third Schedule. I tell the Committee at once that we think these provisions may want looking at again. But there are provisions dealing with what is to happen when some other Act of Parliament, either one at present on the Statute Book, or one to be passed hereafter, gives powers for taking for some national purpose the whole or part of certain property which has been damaged. Compensation under such an Act is not a matter which we can deal with finally under this Bill, because we cannot prevent Parliament, when it comes to a later Statute, putting in appropriate provisions there. There are, how- 396 ever, the provisions to which I have referred and this separate problem can be discussed when we come to them.
On the general point raised by the Amendment, it seems to me that one cannot value parts of buildings on the basis that they will be sold apart from the rest. There would be the greatest difficulty in carrying out the general purpose of the Amendment, and we must bear in mind the point raised by my hon. Friend opposite, that in some cases it might benefit the Treasury in their capacity of watch-dog, though not in their capacity as co-ordinator, if the Commission had power to knock off a bit and value it. It may be that the larger the unit the more likely you are to come within the cost of works provision. It wants looking at from all those angles. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

§ Sir J. Lamb
I should like to know what the position will be in the case of a local authority which has a school, part of which is modern and part obsolete. Is it possible for the modern portion to come under the cost of works for repair and that they can have the value of the older part?

§ The Attorney-General
I think the result would be, if the group of buildings was one school and you could not separate them, that you would have to apply the cost of works or the value payment test to the group as a whole, and the principles that the Bill lays down would lead you to take into account that part of the school was modern and part obsolete and, to that extent, bring down the value. The problem of splitting up, in that case, would be exactly the same as in any other.

§ Sir J. Lamb
My point is that it is neither desirable nor economic to pay cost of repairs on a building which is to a certain extent obsolete, because you could better expend the money on a more modern building.

§ The Attorney-General
My hon. Friend has in mind a case where, although a building might be entitled to cost of works payment, it would be in the national interest that the whole thing should be pulled down and something new put in its place. I agree that there ought to be power to do that, subject to this condition that, by doing it, the property owner, 397 whether local authority or anyone else, must not get more out of the taxpayer than he would get otherwise.

§ Mr. Spens
My Amendment would give power to the Commission in certain cases to do what it is desirable they should do, but in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) perhaps the wording might be improved. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Spens
I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 21 to 26.
My proposal is to omit the proviso to Sub-section (2,a). I can imagine nothing which would be the subject of more disputes and dissatisfaction if the proviso remains in the Bill. It is right that a person should not reinstate unnecessarily or waste any money in doing it. One has to remember, however, that the Commission may take one view of what is necessary for reinstatement, which will be entirely different from that of the owner of the building. Take, for instance, the ordinary large office premises. They may have been sub-divided by all sorts of internal sub-divisions and the owner may want them reinstated because, without them, he cannot make the best use of the premises. The Commission, on the other hand, may say it is a waste of money to put back the premises into such an old-fashioned form and that modern premises have only glass partitions or no partitions at all, and that a lot of money can be saved by rebuilding without putting in all that internal additional work. The Commission may be right, or the owner may be right, but I can see the most fierce disputes arising as to how the premises should be reinstated.
It seems to me, prima facie, that the Commission ought to be bound to reinstate the premises in the condition in which they were before the damage occurred and that alterations should be made only with the consent of the owner. If it is not possible to go to that length, there ought to be some independent body to whom the owner can appeal. I can hear my right hon. Friend say that it must be administrative and that there can be no appeal, but this is a matter of great importance to owners of premises, and if the Commission are to have the power, administratively, to say that the premises 398 are to be different from what they were before, the Chancellor and his successors will be asked, in the House, Questions by the thousand about these cases. This is a question of plans and of what is reasonable in the circumstances, and it is one in which, I think, an appropriate tribunal could most easily make decisions which would satisfy everybody.

§ Mr. Woodburn
The wording of the Clause— that if the reinstatement of any part of the hereditament could have been omitted —seems to me to presume that the blunders of the old building are to be repeated, that the building is to be reinstated with all its original blunders, and that the Commission is to pay the cost of them. I have suggested the words "could be omitted," so that they will be omitted, because I think it will be tragic if we reconstruct some buildings as they are to-day. I would suggest that the wording I have put down may be considered.

§ The Attorney-General
I quite agree that the question of whether this work is to be paid for or not should be considered before any steps are taken. As far as the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) is concerned, I think he concedes that there should be some such power as it is proposed to take. There are cases in which it would obviously be wrong to encourage, by paying for it, the useless putting back of things as they existed before the war. Therefore, it is common ground that there should be such a power. He thinks, however, that unreasonable use of the power may be made by the Commission, and drew a vivid picture of thousands of Questions regarding their actions appearing on the Order Paper. Does not that show the advantage of the Parliamentary control which is emphasised in a Sub-section which we discussed earlier to-day? If the Commission did make unreasonable use of this power pressure would be brought to bear upon my right hon. Friend, through this House, to see that an end was put to any such unreasonable action. I think that is a sufficient reply to the case which my hon. and learned Friend made on that point. It being conceded that there should be such a power, I suggest that we must leave it to that body to deal with cases in preference to 399 referring them to an independent appellant tribunal. If that were done my right hon. Friend or his successor would come to the House and say, "I am not responsible; there is a right of appeal." This is an administrative matter, I submit, and I believe it will be better to leave it to the Commission subject to the Parliamentary control to which I have referred.

§ The Chairman
Does the hon. and learned Member press his Amendment?

§ Mr. Spens
I am not going to withdraw it.

§ Mr. Silkin
I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, at the end, to insert: and if a lessee reinstates a building with such omission he and any superior lessee shall be deemed to have performed any covenant to rebuild, repair or reinstate the premises contained in any lease affecting the hereditament. The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that where an owner of property who is a lessee does work which is less than the actual reinstatement he should not then be liable under his lease to his lessor for the performance of covenants which would require him to do the whole of the work, and that there should be no question of damages for not carrying out the terms of the lease.

§ Captain Crookshank
I would remind the hon. Member that there is legislation on that point already in existence. Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, provides that obligations to repair shall not extend to war 400 damage. Therefore, the point he has in mind has already been dealt with.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I take it that that goes on in perpetuity, that it is not merely for the war period?

§ Sir H. Williams
As the principle raised in this Amendment is covered by another Amendment later, it might be as well—
It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business. the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.