HC Deb 25 March 1941 vol 370 cc455-89

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, South)

If it is in Order, may I suggest that it would be desirable and convenient to have a brief statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer outlining the major changes which have been made in the Bill by the Amendments passed in another place. In that way, we might save a considerable amount of time.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood)

Broadly speaking, the great majority of the Amendments are of a drafting or consequential nature. I think the most convenient way of dealing with them would be to indicate, when a particular Amendment is called, whether it is merely drafting or is an Amendment of substance and where any Amendment raised matters on which the House ought to be informed. either I or one of my hon. Friends would take the opportunity of doing so. I would also propose, if it is in Order and convenient to the Chair, to indicate where a certain number of Amendments stand together and all deal with the same matter. Of course, if any hon. Member desires to raise any question on individual Amendments, my hon. Friend and I will do our best to answer him.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3— (Payments to be either of cost of works or by reference to value.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 40, leave out from "possession" to the second "any", and insert "subject to".

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the two Amendments which follow it on the Paper— In line 42, after "land" insert "any public right of way, right of common, or other right inuring for the benefit of the public or of any section thereof, and any restriction or liability imposed by or under an enactment," and in line 43, at the end, insert "but free from any other incumbrance"— stand together and should be read together. They are really drafting Amendments, and the only one of the three that I wish to mention for purposes of explanation is the second Amendment, that to line 42. This Sub-section (5) of Clause 3 provides that the depreciation in the value of a hereditament caused by war damage should be ascertained by comparing its market value before the damage occurred with its value after the damage occurred, and the valuation is the valuation of the hereditament as a whole and not of any particular interest in it. Obviously, in such a valuation, account has to be taken of incumbrances that diminish the value of the land as such. It was ascertained on examination that as originally drafted the sub-section was defective because it required account to be taken only of such incumbrances, in so far as they consisted of restrictions inuring for the benefit of other land, and that did not cover public and statutory rights which would diminish the value of the land. The purpose of the Amendments is to put this matter right and in that sense they are actually in the nature of drafting Amendments.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

These three Amendments all raise questions of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 3, line 43, agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I will cause a Special Entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 5 after "value", insert ''ascertained in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is to be read in conjunction with that which follows it on the Paper—in line 8, after the second "value", insert, "ascertained as aforesaid,". This Sub-section (6) of Clause 3 requires the value of any articles, which become available as materials, to be taken into account in settling the amount of a cost-of works claim or a value claim, and it was represented that doubts were likely to arise as to the manner in which the value of debris is to be ascertained and the time at which the value is to be ascertained. We thought it desirable that this matter should be dealt with definitely. Obviously, it raises questions of a detailed and technical character and we have therefore provided that these two matters should be dealt with by Treasury regulations. Under Clause 92, those Treasury regulations are subject to the control of Parliament. By this means we secure, in the first place, under the Regulations, a precise definition which no doubt will be desirable and secondly, as this will be done by regulation, it will be subject to Parliament. The matter is not of great importance but we thought it desirable to have it cleared up definitely.

Sir H. Williams

I think this is a very wise provision and, in passing, may I express the hope that the Regulations will be made promptly and that they will include provisions to prevent the destruction of debris which is going on all over the country at the present time.

Sir K. Wood

I will have regard to that matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It would save time if, with the general assent of the House, those Amendments which stand together and on which it is not desired to have any discussion were put from the Chair en bloc. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be good enough to indicate in the case of such groups of Amendments those which he proposes to accept. If the right hon. Gentleman would let me know the first Amendment which he does not propose to take, and if any other hon. Members call my attention to the fact that they wish to say anything on particular Amendments, perhaps the intervening Amendments could be disposed of in the way I suggest.

Sir K. Wood

I propose to move to agree with all the Amendments on the Paper, but the next Amendment to which I desire to call the attention of the House is that on page 6, line 1.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 19, agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Determination of questions as to works and value.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 1, leave out "Sub-section (2)," and insert "Sub-sections (2) and (3)."

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a drafting Amendment leading to the next Amendment, in line 21, at the end, to insert: (3) If any person is aggrieved by a determination of the Commission of any question which is under this Section to be determined by them, other than a determination from which an appeal lies under Sub-section (2) of this Section, he may appeal there from on any question of law to the High Court. Provision may be made by rules of court for regulating appeals under this Sub-section, and those rules shall provide for limiting the time within which such an appeal may be brought, for the determination thereof in a summary manner, and for requiring notice thereof to be given to the Commission, and may provide for the hearing and determination of any such appeal by a single judge, and the Commission shall be entitled to appear and be heard on any such appeal. This Clause confers on the Commission powers to determine questions that arise on Clauses 3, 4 and 5. They are actually, in practically every case that one can foresee, merely questions of fact, but in the final stages in this House the possibi- lity was raised that some questions of law might arise and that the Commission should not be left to decide them. This Amendment is made to meet that criticism. It will make it plain that any question of law will be taken to the courts by the Commission. A similar point arises in Clauses 39 and 42 where, as the Bill left us, the final word was left to the Commission, and similar Amendments will be made to those Clauses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 11, line 3, agreed to.

CLAUSE 19—(Properties liable to contribution.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 21, at the end, insert: or

  1. (ii) if the property consisted of a fishery; or
  2. (iii) if the property consisted of any corn-rent or other rent-charge issuing out of land,
so, however, that nothing in paragraph (ii) of this proviso shall affect any liability to the said contributions in respect of properties consisting of or including such fishing rights as are mentioned in Section Six of the Rating Act, 1874.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

In this case the question of Privilege arises as the Amendment deals with contributions.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment has the effect of exempting from contributions property such as salmon and oyster fisheries in tidal waters. Such properties are not likely to be damaged by enemy action, for if a bomb dropped on them it would be difficult to find out how much damage was done. In some cases where it includes the bed of an estuary it would not be land within the meaning of the Bill entitled to compensation, even if one were able to show that damage was incurred.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence (Edinburgh, East)

I understand that this Amendment applies only to tidal waters and that a later Amendment deals with the question of salmon pools and things of that kind. That being so, I do not wish to raise any question on this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

A question of Privilege arising, an entry will be made in the Journals.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 18, line 36, agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Amount of contribution and time for payment thereof.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 28, at the end, insert "or of any other incorporeal rights."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege, as it deals with contributions.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Besides the sporting rights which fall within the Rating Act, there are certain incorporeal rights which are contributory properties, such as easements which are rated, at any rate, in Northern Ireland though they are not in this country. This Amendment, therefore, puts them down to the 6d. rate. It is right that they should have the benefit of the lower rate irrespective of the nature of the land on which they are exercised. It may sound a little illogical, but the rights will mainly be over land which in itself will be at the lower rate. It would, therefore, be absurd to have a higher rate for an incorporeal right over land which is at the lower rate. The next Amendment, on page 19, is connected with this one, namely, in line 30, at the end to insert: but nothing in paragraph (e) of this proviso shall be construed as affecting the amount of an instalment in respect of a property which was the subject of a valuation for rating purposes by virtue of the occupation of land. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the lower rate does not necessarily apply where the property is not the incorporeal right itself, but the land occupied by virtue of that right. Examples are land occupied by virtue of a way leave or a shop in a railway station which is occupied under licence.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 23, line 42, agreed to.

CLAUSE 25 (Rights over against mortgagees in certain cases.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 8, after "any," insert "costs or."

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment deals with the question of costs and, therefore, may arouse some feeling in the minds of my hon. Friends opposite. The paragraph in question defines the mortgage debt which is to be compared with the price of acquisition or the value of the property for the purpose of determining the amount, if any, of the mortgagee's share of the contribution. The costs incurred by the mortgagee are often added to the mortgage debt and it is proper that they, as well as arrears of interest, should be included in the amount of the debt. The Amendment makes that clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 15, agreed to.

CLAUSE 26 (Liability for instalments in case of shooting, fishing and other rights).

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 16, leave out "the last preceding subsection" and insert: the two last preceding subsections.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

On this Amendment, which it consequential on the one immediately preceding it, I may perhaps be allowed to explain the point upon which the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked for information a few minutes ago. We are dealing here with exceptions to the general rule, which has been laid down in the Amendment already passed. Let us suppose, for example, that there is land which includes among other things a salmon river and that the property is worth £5,000 without fishing rights, that the fishing rights are worth £500, and that out of that sum for fishing rights £50 is attributable to a particular pool in that salmon river. Then let us suppose that a bomb falls into that pool, and that while it spoils the fishing in that pool it does not do any other damage to any other part of the land. The question obviously is, "Where does compensation come in?" If the owner of the land is also the owner of the fishing rights then, of course, he would get the compensation, but if he is not the owner of the fishing rights then he should not get the compensation, because the actual damage to the pool does not affect him.

Major Milner (Leeds, Central)

The whole thing seems fishy.

Captain Crookshank

The owner of the land in the ordinary sense of the word, as opposed to the rights of fishing, has himself suffered no damage, and the Subsection with which we are dealing exempts from the rate of contribution where throughout the risk period the properties were separately owned and not merely let off.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

What I want to be clear about is this: Supposing a river or a pool is damaged, perhaps by a poison bomb falling into it and killing the fish. Somebody has suffered a loss. First, I would ask, will any compensation be paid, and, secondly, if compensation is to be paid has any contribution in respect of that property found its way into the Exchequer? I can see that in some cases compensation will be paid, but I am not sure whether any contribution is to be paid, and if not I feel that to be unsatisfactory.

The Attorney-General

In the Schedule A assessment, the annual value takes into account sporting and fishing rights as being included in the sum for which the land is let, and if the fishing rights are of any considerable value they will be included in the Schedule A valuation. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that compensation will not be paid unless there has been a contribution, which should become effective under the machinery under which contributions are assessed.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 29, line 13, agreed to.

CLAUSE 38.—(Land belonging to foreign States and Sovereigns, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 6, after '' envoy '' insert: a person to whom immunities and privileges are for the time being extended under Section one or two of the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, 1941.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House will remember that persons who enjoy special privileges relating to exemption from taxation—diplomats—are exempted by the Bill from liability to pay contributions in respect of war damage. This Amendment is designed to meet the fact that diplomatic privileges and immunities are now being conferred, in connection with the war, upon members of foreign Governments established in this country and envoys accredited to such foreign Governments. This Amendment puts those persons in the same position under the Bill as are diplomats.

Major Milner

I take it that the net result of this Amendment will be that both diplomats and other representatives of other Governments will pay no contributions, and that if the property belongs to the country which they represent and is damaged that country will obtain compensation from the war damage fund without having paid contributions. It is just as well to have that on record, because while, no doubt, we are doing the proper and right thing it may conceivably involve us in a very substantial responsibility. It is an additional courtesy which has been extended to diplomatic representatives and is now to be extended to our Allies in the war, and note ought to be taken of it.

Sir K. Wood

The hon. Member's statement is correct. We take the view, and I think with the general approval of the House, that diplomats and others who are here for the purpose of establishing relationship with this country should not be asked to pay contributions, and that if their premises do suffer damage we should pay compensation.

Sir H. Williams

Will it cover the German Embassy, which is now occupied by the Swiss Government?

Sir K. Wood

I should like to inquire into that point.

Major Milner

Suppose I were the owner of a property and I let it to the representatives of a foreign Government. Is the obligation upon me, as owner or landlord, to pay the: contributions, or should I be exempted equally with the Government concerned?

Sir K. Wood

I shall have to look into that matter.

Mr. Bellenger (Bassetlaw)

Surely that is covered in the Bill. The owner of a property has to pay, irrespective of the manner in which he has let the property to a tenant. Another point I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into relates to the premises of the German Embassy, in which case there is a Crown lease. 1 take it that, under the Landlord and Tenant Act, there is no liability to keep that property in thorough repair, but if the property is destroyed, presumably compensation will be paid, because there is valuable consideration in that Crown lease. The right hon. Gentleman should inform the House clearly whether the Amendment that we are about to pass includes such buildings as the one I have described in Carlton House Terrace.

Sir K. Wood

This Amendment relates only to special representatives, who are now accredited here, owing to the presence of foreign Governments established in this country. I shall have to inquire just how the German Embassy is affected. I should say that we are absolved from any liabilities in respect of it.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Land held for charitable purposes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 3, after "purposes," insert or to any other person in right of that interest,

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The intention of this paragraph is to put within the discretion of the War Damage Commission the payment of so much of a value payment as is in respect of an interest held for charitable purposes. The words in the Clause at present are a value payment or a share of such a payment…payable…to the owner of the proprietary interest. It is obvious when you look at various charities that the word "owner" is not sufficiently extensive and that we must have regard to the case in which there may be a committee of management or some other persons who could not be definitely described as the owner of the property. To meet that point, the first part of this Amendment is moved. It is intended to enlarge the scope of the Clause. The remainder of the Amendment is of a drafting character to bring a mortgaged interest within the ambit of the Clause, as must be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 33, line 47, agreed to.

CLAUSE 40.—(Land occupied for purposes of undertaking. )

Lords Amendment: In page 34, line 3, leave out from "undertaking" to the end of line 7, and insert: to which this Section applies.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the first of a string of Amendments, which introduce the words: except in so far as Parliament may hereafter determine. They make it clear that Parliament has to legislate for public utility and certain other undertakings. That point was not sufficiently strongly put in the Bill; in fact, it was not mentioned at all.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I cannot say that the method chosen is a happy one. If you propose to deal with public utility companies in a further Bill, they should be excluded from this Bill. No doubt we shall be given some indication of what was intended. We have heard of legislation by reference, which means reference to something in a Statute in the past, but here is legislation by reference to some Statute which may, or may not, be introduced in the future. I do not see why the Clause could not have been passed in a very simple form and an announcement been made that it was intended to bring in another Bill which would amend the Clause. The effect of this legislation will be to put not only public utility undertakings but an unspecified list of undertakings, some of which are not public utilities, in a state of suspense, which will remain not only until a Bill is brought in dealing with public utility undertakings, but for an indefinite time until some Government brings in a further Bill relating to the matter.

I do not know what would be the position of an undertaking which said: "We think we are going to be included in some future Bill that some Government may introduce, and therefore we propose to stand outside this contribution." Perhaps the Inland Revenue Department, or whoever will be administering the Bill, would say: "We do not think you are, and therefore you must pay at once." That seems to suggest that there might be unnecessary complications. The Bill should be in a straightforward form, leaving it to some future Bill to repeal or modify this Clause in some way. Suppose the Government were to postpone for quite a long time this second Bill; there may be reasons why the Government could not bring it forward. In those circumstances the Amendment, when put into the Clause, will leave not only public utility undertakings but other undertakings, who may think they are to be included, in a kind of suspended state, neither in nor out, so that they really do not know where they are. I cannot help feeling that this is not a very happy way of dealing with the matter, and I cannot see why it should not be dealt with along the lines I have suggested.

Sir H. Williams

I should like to reinforce what has been said by my right hon. Friend. My associates in the electricity supply industry are frankly rather unhappy, because they do not know where they are. I am not quite clear what is the exact significance of these Amendments, and I do not know whether that industry comes under this Bill, under the next Bill, or partly under each. I will give one example. In every house where there is a supply of electricity there is a meter which is fixed to the wall. In all, there are about £50,000,000 worth of these meters. Are they land, or are they chattels? Are they included under Part I, or are they removed from this Bill by the Amendment, or are they under Part II? There are tens of thousands of transformers which are sometimes counted as land and sometimes not, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention to this matter, because it raises issues of very great importance to great masses of people who have large responsibilities, and who at the moment do not know where they are.

I think some indication ought to be given of the way in which the public utilities are being dealt with. I have referred to the electrical industry, because I happen to be connected with it, but what is true of that industry is equally true of the gas industry and to a less extent of water. The railways, of course, have also their difficulties in respect of their stores of goods. I do not suppose any railwayman knows whether the masses of stores which the railways carry and which are part of their undertaking are deemed to come under Part II of this Bill or whether they are included under Clause 40, which apparently relates only to land and does not relate to chattels. There are great difficulties which I think must be cleared up. It may be that when the new Bill is introduced there will have to be substantial Amendments, not only to Part I, but also to Part II, and it would help a great many people if the Chancellor could make a statement to clear up those difficulties.

The Attorney-General

In regard to the question of form to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it was quite clear to my right hon. Friend that he could not produce a scheme which would be fair to the public utilities, which have special difficulties, in time for inclusion in the Bill dealing with the rest of the property of the country, and it was, therefore, necessary to postpone the details of their scheme by laying down in this Clause that the form and amount of their contribution would be dealt with later. It is rather unusual to have to say that a matter cannot be dealt with under one Bill but will have to be the subject of another, and it is for that reason that it was thought desirable to insert this Clause. This Clause decides whether an owner of an interest is liable to the normal contributions under Schedule A as laid down by this Bill, or whether his contribution is one which cannot be fixed until the terms of the new Bill are established.

The words in this Amendment that have been referred to: except in so far as Parliament may hereafter determine, were inserted by way of clarity and warning, and in fairness to those excluded at present who might regard that exclusion as meaning necessarily that they would not come under the provisions of this Bill. Perhaps when the matter is investigated it may be found possible to include some of the undertakings which are at present excluded and put them under this Bill rather than under the public utilities scheme.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

Or perhaps even the other way round.

The Attorney-General

There may also be some the other way round. There are, however, the two classes, and although no doubt it would have been more satisfactory if we could have waited until the autumn of this year and have had a scheme which dealt precisely with the whole matter in one Bill, that was not possible. The question of whether any others are to be brought in is a matter which can be dealt with under the new Bill.

Sir H. Williams

Could not my right hon. and learned Friend clarify the position of the public utilities which do not know what part of their property is included under Clause 40 or what part is going to fall under Part II? I have quoted the example of the electricity meters, which represent probably £50,000,000 worth of value, and everybody is in doubt as to where they stand. It is on that question that some clarification would be very helpful.

The Attorney-General

That must be a matter of law. If there is to be any dispute, which I hope there will not be, there will have to be a test case about it. I will put the point to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot ask him to decide in advance on a difficult point of law.

Sir H. Williams

What I want is some assurance that we shall make a law which everybody can understand, because we are the law-making body.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 41, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Destination of payments in certain cases)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 31, at end, insert: (4) Where a value payment is to be made in respect of war damage to a hereditament and immediately before the occurrence of the damage a person had a right to remove from the hereditament an article comprised therein to which he would have been entitled on removing it, and either—

  1. (a) there was subsisting in the article a proprietary interest owned otherwise than by that person or owned by him otherwise than in the capacity in which he had the right to remove the article (being an interest against which his right to remove it was exercisable); or
  2. (b) the article was included in a mortgage of a proprietary interest in the hereditament, and that person's right to remove it was exercisable against the mortgagee;
then, for the purposes of Section Nine of this Act the article shall be dealt with as a separate part of the hereditament, and
  1. (i) in a case falling within paragraph (a) of this Sub-section, the said Section Nine and the other provisions of this Act as to the vesting and devolution of the right to receive a share of a value payment shall have effect as if the proprietary interest mentioned in that paragraph had been owned by the person who had the right to remove the article, or owned by him in the capacity in which he had the right to remove it, as the case may be; and
  2. (ii) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of this Sub-section, Sub-section (4) of the said Section Nine shall not have effect in relation to the share of the value payment attributable to the article."

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

I do not think the House will want me to go through this in detail. It makes provision to cover the case of what are called removable fixtures. Such things as separate mantel-pieces, a traveling crane, or a market gardener's greenhouse, I believe, have also been held to be removable fixtures. The point about them is that prima facie they go with the land but the tenant has the right to remove them. If the scheme of compensation did not cover them, the person might not have a right to remove them. This Amendment accordingly makes general provisions the purpose of which will be apparent to the House.

Mr. Bellenger

I can quite see the equity of compensating the real owner of removable fixtures, but previously in debate we have heard that, generally speaking, compensation will only be paid where a contribution has been paid. What is the position of the tenant owning a greenhouse? The learned Attorney-General has told us that he would be compensated in the event of damage occurring, but does he contribute anything at all to the cost of the war damage insurance premium, or does the whole burden of the contribution for the premises plus the removable fixtures fall upon the owner? It is quite conceivable that the greenhouse might be very valuable, perhaps worth £400 or £500, and if that is included in the contribution to be paid at the rate of 10s. per cent. by the owner, the latter will not directly benefit by the compensation if war damage to the fixture in question occurs.

The Attorney-General

I said just now that compensation would not be paid unless a contribution had been received. I did not say it must necessarily have been received from the person who gets the compensation. If there is a long lease, a lease of any value, the contribution, of course, will have been paid. I agree that in the case of a short lease there will have been no contribution from the tenant. These cases, I think, will not come to very large sums of money; and it would be introducing unnecessary complexity to provide a rather elaborate procedure, allowing for recovery in part of compensation in respect of movable fixtures, but, no doubt, landlords who have movable fixtures on their property will have their eye on that point.

Mr. Bellenger

It will not be a comparatively small sum that is involved. Often mantelpieces and panelling, for instance, which are tenants' fixtures, are valuable. The point is that if you are going to make a provision to compensate the tenant, it is only fair that the tenant should make his contribution to the premium. I ask the Chancellor to bear this point in mind when he brings up Amendments, as he probably will, at some later stage. If inquiry is made of the Land Society and of the Auctioneers' Society, he may get figures in respect of tenants' fixtures and fittings which will convince him that there is a considerable sum involved, especially in the country areas.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton-Brown)

This Amendment raises a matter of Privilege.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 44, line 13, agreed to.

CLAUSE 48.—(Power to raise capital for defraying contributions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 44, line 21, at the end, insert: (6) Any expenses incurred by the Admiralty in discharging any liability as a direct or indirect contributor arising in respect of lands vested in them by virtue of the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1865, or the Naval Knights of Windsor (Dissolution) Act, 1892, or as mortgagees of a direct or indirect contributor arising by reason of an exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section Forty of the said Act of 1865, may be defrayed out of cash standing to the credit of the Greenwich Hospital capital account; and for that purpose the Admiralty may from time to time convert into money any securities for the time being held by them for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital and all money produced by any such conversion shall be paid into the Bank of England to the cash account of His Majesty's Paymaster-General, who shall carry it to the Greenwich Hospital capital account.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This affects Greenwich Hospital, and gives power for a contribution to be paid out of capital. Similar powers have already been granted to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, the Duchy of Cornwall, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 27, at the end, insert new Clause A: (Liabilities to repair chancels, etc., not to extend to war damage.)

  1. (1) A liability to which this Section applies to repair a chancel of a church or to repair any other ecclesiastical building or any part thereof, shall not extend to any repairs required for making good war damage.
  2. (2) Where war damage occurs to a chancel of a church or to any other ecclesiastical building in respect of which such a liability exists, then, in so far as the discharge of that liability, as modified by the provisions of the preceding Sub-section, is, having regard to the extent of the war damage—
    1. (a) impracticable, or only practicable at a cost which is unreasonable in view of all the circumstances; or
    2. (b) of no substantial advantage; the liability shall be suspended until the war damage is made good to such an extent that the discharge thereof is practicable at a reasonable cost and is of substantial advantage.
  3. (3) Where, under the preceding provisions of this Section a liability is modified or suspended, all rights and remedies arising out of the non-discharge of the liability shall be modified or suspended accordingly.
  4. (4) The preceding provisions of this Section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine.
    5. 472
  5. (5) Where war damage occurs to a chancel of a church or to any other ecclesiastical building in respect of which such a liability exists, or to the church of which such a chancel forms part or to premises of which such a building forms part, the Commission shall, in exercising the powers conferred on them by Sub-section (4) of Section Thirty-Nine of this Act in relation to that damage, have regard to the circumstances affecting the church or those premises as a whole, and may make pro vision under that Sub-section in relation to the church or to those premises as a whole.
  6. (6) This Section applies to a liability arising as mentioned in Section Thirty-One of the Tithe Act, 1936, or in any other manner what so ever except by virtue of a contract providing expressly for the execution of repairs required for making good war damage or by reason of a person's holding property upon trusts which authorise its application in the execution of such repairs."

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The effect of this new Clause would be, as from the outbreak of war, to relieve anyone liable to the repair of a chancel or any other ecclesiastical building from the responsibility to make good war damage. It would also enable the Commission to treat the church and the chancel as one unit, which is common sense. It does not affect many people, because there will not be many cases where this obligation rests.

Mr. Graham White (Birkenhead, East)

I am glad that this new Clause has been brought forward, because it will be of great value to college authorites and others. Does this Clause, in fact, relieve the lay rector of all liability for war damage for all time? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman remarked that it did not affect many people, but this question relates to one of the most extraordinary and obscure sections of our law. This new Clause refers to the Tithe Act, 1936; but the obligations of lay rectors derive, I think, from papal bulls. There was a case in which the chancel of a church had become insecure, and inquiries showed that 400 persons had liabilities in respect of it, and that most of them were quite unaware of those liabilities. If this new Clause relieves such persons of liability for all time, it will be very useful.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 46, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 58.—(Interpretation of Part 1).

Lords Amendment: In page 48, line 1, leave out Clause 58.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It is proposed to re-insert the provisions of this Clause in a new Clause, which will include interpretations for the whole of the Bill. It has been represented that this would be much more convenient.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I take it that any alterations which appears can be discussed at a later stage?

Sir K. Wood

Yes, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—(Insurance schemes).

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 30, leave out, "in the United Kingdom."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This Amendment raises a matter of Privilege.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next hang together. It affects people carrying on business abroad who have some property in this country. It was previously provided that goods insurable under the business scheme must not only be situated in the United Kingdom, but must be insurable by a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bellenger

Is there any question about the nationality of such persons carrying on business abroad and owning property in this country?

Captain Waterhouse

Not in this Bill, but there is a general provision in our legislation dealing with payments to enemies.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 50, line 30, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 25, and insert: in respect of war damage to goods insurable under the Scheme in question which appears to the Board of Trade to have occurred on any occasion if the amount recoverable under the Scheme in respect of the damage is less than two pounds.

Captain Waterhouse

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment gives effect to the principle contained in an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed) on the Committee stage. That Amendment was handed in at the last moment as a manuscript Amendment. It was quite clear that the reduction from £5 to £2 would have added a very great deal to the work of those who had to assess the damage, and I resisted the Amendment. I found, on further consideration, that it could be done; and their Lordships have, therefore, inserted £2, instead of £5.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords "Amendments to page 56, line 11, agreed to.

CLAUSE 63.—(Power of Board of Trade to obtain information.)

Lords Amendment: In page 57, line 7, at the end, insert: ( ) Where—

  1. (a) under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section Sixty-One of this Act a payment in respect of the destruction of or damage to any goods has been made under either of the schemes at an earlier date than would be allowable under Sub-section (1) of that Section, and the Board of Trade have imposed conditions as to the application of the sum paid; and
  2. (b) a person authorised by the Board of Trade for the purposes of this Sub-section has reason to believe that there are on any premises any goods acquired with the proceeds of the payment to replace the goods destroyed, or any goods repaired out of the proceeds of the payment,
the powers conferred by the last preceding Subsection shall be exercisable by that person in relation to those premises for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the said conditions have been complied with in relation to the goods as they are exercisable by a person authorised in that behalf by the Board of Trade in relation to such premises, and for such purposes, as are mentioned in that Subsection.

Captain Waterhouse

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment gives the Board of Trade further powers of investigation in certain cases. Clause 61 (3) provides that the Board of Trade may make provisions respecting the manner in which an immediate payment of indemnity under the insurance scheme is applied. The Amendment to Clause 63 will give the Board of Trade the necessary powers of investigation to secure that the provisions laid down under the Clause just referred to are properly observed. The powers of investigation to be conferred on the Board are similar to those conferred in the matter of the £1,000 limit. That is the only principle involved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 59, line 12, at end, insert new Clause B: (Meaning of owner in relation to certain property falling within definition of 'goods.') Where anything falling within the meaning in this Act of the expression ' goods ' has been so affixed to any land as to have become part of the land, it shall be deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be owned—

  1. (a) if there is any person who is entitled to remove it from the land, and would be entitled to it if he so removed it, by that person;
  2. (b) if there is no such person, by any person having the fee simple in, or a tenancy or right of occupation of, the land."

Captain Waterhouse

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is closely in line with the Amendment which the learned Attorney-General moved a few minutes ago and deals with the insurance of property which is removable or might, in certain cases, be removable from premises.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This Amendment raises the question of Privilege.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 62, line 28, agreed to.

CLAUSE 77.—(Miscellaneous amendments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 62, line 34, leave out from "thereof" to the end of line 39, and insert: (a) Would, apart from the provisions of this subsection, have been deemed for the purposes of this Part of this Act to be owned at any time by the person from time to time carrying on the business.

Captain Waterhouse

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is the first of a little series of Amendments—in page 62, line 44; page 63, line 10; page 63, line 39; and page 64, line 2. The object of the Amendments is to make clear who is responsible for insuring the different parts of a ship at different times of the ship's construction. If a contractor has a contract with a shipbuilder for part of a ship he is responsible for insuring that particular part until it is handed over to and accepted by the shipbuilder. If, on the other hand, the shipbuilder is responsible, the responsibility will continue with the shipbuilder until the ship is handed over to and accepted by the shipowner, and so on, with the sub-contracts. The intention is that of the original Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Amendment raises a question of Privilege and the necessary entry will be made in the Journals.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 64, line 2, agreed to.

CLAUSE 79.—(Definition of "war damage")

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 2, at the end, insert:

  1. " (3) References in this Act to the occurrence of war damage shall be construed as references to the taking of the action or measures specified in subsection (1) of this section from which that damage results.
  2. (4) In determining the value of a hereditament, or of a proprietary interest in a hereditament, in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of war damage, it shall be assumed that all war damage which is known at the time when the valuation is made to have resulted from the taking of the action or measures in question could have been foreseen immediately thereafter."

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The reference in the Bill is to the occurrence of war damage in places where what is meant is the date when the bombs fall. Under that definition war damage might occur through water and other things afterwards, and it is important to make it clear that where these words are used it means the moment the bomb falls. There are other conditions in the Bill under which the Commissioners will consider the value of properties immediately after the occurrence of the damage. When they come to make that calculation they have also to consider all the damage which is within the definition of "war damage," some of which might not have occurred immediately after the occurrence of the bombing. This is really a drafting amendment to clear up these two points.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 16, after "loss," insert "of."

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 80.—(Avoidance of duplication of payments in respect of war damage.)

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 39,after "His Majesty" insert: or by a civil defence authority acting as such.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment, the one in line 44, and the one in page 66, line 15, stand together. The House may remember that Sub-section (2) of Clause 80 as it now stands prevents duplication of payment for war damage in the case of payments made by the Crown. The Sub-section is mainly of importance in connection with ex gratia payments. It has been pointed out to us that local authorities also make ex gratia payments in two classes of cases in connection with their Civil Defence functions. These payments rank for grant or reimbursement out of public moneys and should be provided for in the same way as payments are made by the Crown. The two classes of cases are as follow: (1) Where the local authority has hired or borrowed vehicles for Civil Defence purposes, it makes payment for war damage for the vehicle; and (2) where the local authority also makes payment to Civil Defence personnel for war damage to their clothes which has occurred while they are on duty. In both these cases the payments are made in accordance with the directions of the Ministry of Home Security.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 65, line 44, after "His Majesty" insert: ''or by a civil defence authority acting as such

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The Clerk will make the necessary entries in regard to the two preceding Amendments.

Lords Amendment: In page 66, line 15, at the end, insert: In this Sub-section the expression ' civil defence authority ' means a local authority on whom functions have been conferred or imposed by or under the Civil Defence Acts, 1937 and 1939.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Question put, and agreed to.

Captain Crookshank

I beg to move, as a consequential Amendment to the Lords Amendment just agreed to, in page 79, line 23, at the end, to insert: Section eighty shall have effect as if for the reference to the Civil Defence Acts, 1937 and 1939, there were substituted a reference to the Civil Defence Acts (Northern Ireland), 1938 and 1939. This Amendment stands on the Order Paper and is consequential to the Lords Amendment in page 66, line 15. The Third Reading in the Lords was taken immediately after Report, and it was not possible in the time available to consult with the appropriate authorities. This consequential Amendment now remedies that fact.

Mr. Benson

Is it possible for the Government to put an Amendment down at this stage? We are considering the Lords Amendments, which is by no means a Committee stage.

Captain Crookshank

It is consequential.

Mr. Benson

Even so, is it permissible under the Rules of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I think a consequential Amendment is permissible. We do not have formally to disagree with the Lords.

Major Milner

I take it that this Amendment will have to go back to the House of Lords, as it has not previously been before this House or the House of Lords. Am I correct?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I believe that the Lords will have to agree to it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 82.—(Payments under Parts I and II to be subject to conditions in case of non-residents.)

Lords Amendment: In page 67, line 11, at the end, insert: (3) Regulations made for the purposes of this Section may contain such provisions (including penal provisions) as appear to the Treasury to be necessary for securing the due operation and enforcement of the regulations.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Clause 82 enables the Treasury to make regulations laying down the amounts and conditions of payments to be made to persons who were not resident in the United Kingdom when the payments fell due, and the Amendment now proposed is because it is necessary that there should be sanction for the observance of the conditions imposed upon the making of payments by persons abroad. The form now proposed in this particular Amendment is the same as in Section 1, Sub-section (3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I was interested to know that there is a precedent for the use of these words, but is there any limit to the power of the penalties which the Treasury can impose, or are we entirely dependent upon the good will of the Treasury? I do not suppose that the Treasury will impose improper penalties, but it seems to me that if there is no limit, we are handing over a very big power to the Department. I shall be glad to know what, if any, are the limits imposed upon the Department.

Sir K. Wood

I understand that these regulations have to be laid before Parliament.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 67, line 29, agreed to.

CLAUSE 86.—(Provision as to certain mutual insurance schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 69, line 15, leave out "the private chattel scheme," and insert: either of the schemes.

Captain Waterhouse

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This and the next Amendment are designed to allow private insurance schemes to cover risks which are not coverable under the business scheme. Any private insurance company may form a scheme to insure any chattel, jewellery, picture or work of art of a value above the limits of the Government schemes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 69, line 18, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 7, at the end, insert: ( ) Where the persons entitled to participate in the distribution of any such fund as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection, or the shares in which persons are entitled to participate in the distribution of the fund, are, under the deed or instrument regulating the application of the fund, to be ascertained by reference to any date specified in the deed or instrument, the deed or instrument shall be construed, for the purposes of a distribution made by virtue of the last preceding subsection as if the said date were the date of the passing of this Act.

Captain Waterhouse

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment deals with the winding-up of mutual insurance companies and is consequent on this Bill. The new Subsection to Clause 86 is to cover cases where the articles of mutual insurance societies do not provide sufficiently for the winding-up of the Fund during the war. This contingency was never expected when the companies were formed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 71, line 4, agreed to.

CLAUSE 94 — (Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 72, line 14, leave out Clause 94 and insert new Clause C:

(Interpretation.)

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively, that is to say: — "agricultural land" and "agricultural buildings" have the same meanings as in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, except that "agricultural building" includes a farm-house occupied in connection with any agricultural land and any agricultural cottage so occupied which is on or contiguous to that land; "agricultural cottage" means, in relation to any land, a house used as a dwelling-house of a person who is employed in agricultural operations on that land in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled, whether as tenant or otherwise, so to use the house only while so employed; "building" includes a building in an incomplete state, and in relation to such a building the expression "use" includes potential use; "contributory property" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (1) of Section Nineteen of this Act, "contributory value" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2) of Section Nineteen thereof, "direct contributor" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2) of Section Twenty-Three thereof, and "indirect contributor" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (1) of Section Twenty-Five thereof; "Defence Regulations" means regulations made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, or the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940; "emergency powers" means powers conferred by Defence Regulations, by section fifty-two of the Telegraph Act, 1936, or by section seven of the Air Navigation Act, 1920, or exercisable by virtue of the prerogative of the Crown; and "exercise" includes, in relation to emergency powers, a purported exercise thereof; "family" means, in relation to any person, any one or more of the following, that is to say—
  1. (a) his wife, son, daughter, father, mother; and
  2. (b) any person, whether related to him or not, who is wholly or mainly dependent upon him;
 "goods" does not include money, negotiable instruments, securities for money, evidences of title to any property or right or of the discharge of any obligation, or any documents owned for the purpose of a business, but, subject as aforesaid, includes all corporeal property neither falling (whether generally or in relation to any particular land) within the meaning of the expression "land" as hereinafter defined, nor deemed, for the purposes of section forty-one of this Act, to form part of a highway; "land" means land in the United Kingdom, and—
  1. (a) includes any buildings or works other than plant or machinery excluded by paragraph (d) of this definition, and other than any works used mainly or exclusively for the exhibition of advertisements and comprised in any property as respects which the proviso to subsection (1) of section nineteen of this Act has effect by virtue of paragraph (i) of that proviso) situated on, over or under land;
  2. (b) includes anything which, on a valuation for rating purposes for the time being in force made by reference to the accounts, receipts, profits or out- 482 put of an undertaking, was treated as the subject of an occupation enjoyed by the person carrying on the undertaking;
  3. (c) includes, in relation to land not comprised in a hereditament for rating purposes which is the subject of such a valuation as is mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, such plant and machinery as would, if the land were a hereditament to which section twenty-four of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, applied, be by virtue of the provisions of that section and of the Plant and Machinery (Valuation for Rating) Order 1927, deemed for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of the said section to be a part of the land, or, where the land is a hereditament to which the said section applies, such plant and machinery as is so deemed for those purposes to be a part of the land;
  4. (d) does not include any plant or machinery other than such as is included by virtue of paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this definition;
  5. (e) does not include any crop, whether grown for food or not, and does not include trees, except trees forming part of a hedge and trees whose value for shelter or amenity is greater than their value for felling or for the growing of fruit for sale;
 "making good" includes, in relation to war damage, demolition or clearance requisite as a preliminary to, or in the course of, the making good thereof; "mortgage" does not include a floating charge, but, subject as aforesaid, includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth; "net liability" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-five of this Act; "owner," in relation to a proprietary interest, has the meaning assigned to it by Section forty-five of this Act; "prescribed"—
  1. (a) in Part I of this Act, means prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury; and
  2. (b) in Part II of this Act, means pre scribed by order of the Board of Trade;
 "proper cost" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (3) of Section three of this Act; "proprietary interest" means, in relation to any hereditament or property—
  1. (a)the fee simple in the land comprised therein or in any part of that land; and
  2. (b)any tenancy of that land or of any part thereof, other than a short tenancy;
 "rating authority"—
  1. (a) means a rating authority under Section one of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925;
  2. (b) in relation to London, has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2) 483 of Section seven of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928;
  3. (c) in relation to the Isles of Scilly, means the Council of the said Isles;
 "relevant date" has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2) of Section twenty of this Act; "risk period" means the period beginning with the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and ending with the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-one; "Schedule A" and "Schedule D" have the same meanings as in any enactment relating to Income Tax; "short tenancy" means a tenancy granted for a term of seven years or less(without aright of renewal which would enable the tenant to prolong the term thereof beyond seven years), and includes—
  1. (a) a tenancy granted for a term of more than seven years but subject to a subsisting right of the landlord to determine the tenancy at or before the expiration of seven years from the beginning of the term;
  2. (b) a tenancy from year to year;
 "Special Commissioners" has the same meaning as in the enactments relating to Income Tax; "temporary works payment" has the meaning assigned to it by Section five of this Act; "tenancy" includes a tenancy under an under-lease and a tenancy under an agreement for a lease or under-lease, but does not include an option to take a tenancy and does not include a mortgage; "war damage" has the meaning assigned to it by Section seventy-nine of this Act; "works" includes any structure.
  1. ("2) For the purposes of this Act an activity shall not be deemed to be other than a business by reason only that it is of a professional nature, or that it is not carried on for gain.")
  2. (3) In considering for the purposes of this Act the length of time which any tenancy, other than such a tenancy as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of the next succeeding sub-section, has still to run at any date, it shall be assumed that the tenant exercises all options to renew the tenancy which are avail able to him at that date or fall to become available to him thereafter, and does not exercise any similar power to determine the tenancy, and that the landlord exercises any power to determine the tenancy which is available to him at that date or becomes available to him thereafter.
  3. (4) For the purposes of this Act—
    1. (a) a tenancy which by virtue of subsection (6) of Section one hundred and forty-nine of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which relates to leases for lives and similar tenancies), takes effect as a tenancy for a term of ninety years determinable in the manner provided by that sub-section shall be treated as having, at any date, twenty or more, but less than twenty-five, years to run: and
      2. 484
    2. (b) a tenancy granted for any term, but subject to a power to determine the tenancy on or after the happening of any event, shall be treated as having still to run, at any date, a period of twenty or more, but less than twenty-five, years:
    Provided that where at that date less than twenty years of the term is unexpired, the tenancy shall be treated as having then still to run a period equal to so much of the term as is then unexpired.
  4. (5) References in this Act to any other enactment shall, save where the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment as amended by or under any subsequent enactment, including this Act."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker

This is a Privilege Amendment.

The Attorney-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This brings together the Definition Clauses in the original Bill. There is some slight change in the definition of land which deals with plant and machinery. In regard to tenancies, they are defined as not to last more than seven years. Under the Bill as it was originally drafted a tenancy covered a longer period and the landlord was given the right to break it at the end of seven years. This Amendment provides that should it last longer, it should not be regarded as a tenancy within the Bill.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

I quite appreciate that where a tenancy gives a landlord the option of breaking it at the end of seven years, that is a short tenancy during the first seven years, but the question arises if a landlord has not, in fact, broken it at the end of the first seven years. The Amendment we are now discussing reverses the position in that respect. These tenancies are rather unusual. I remember that when I was discussing the matter with the late Lord Snowden, neither he nor the Department believed that there were such tenancies, but I was able to convince them, from my own experience, that there were. The fact is that where I live I have a tenancy of this kind, and to that insignificant extent the question is one that affects my own interest. The common form of these tenancies is that the tenancy is for 21 years with an option, equally on the landlord with the tenant, that it can be broken either at seven years or at 14 years, and therefore, for all legal pur- poses, except for the extra stamp on another agreement, it is really a question of a succession of septennial tenancies, because after the first seven years, if the tenancy is not broken, it again becomes a seven-year tenancy, which can be broken at 14 years, and again, if not broken, it goes on to the end of the twenty-first year.

In my opinion, such a tenancy, throughout the whole of its existence, ought to be treated as a seven-year tenancy. It is clearly a seven-year tenancy in the first period; then one comes to the second period; and in effect, the landlord and the tenant agree to a tenancy of seven years. 1 take exception to this sweeping Amendment. I feel that it ought not to go as far as it does. We ought to make it clear that where a tenancy can be terminated by either party at the end of the second seven-year period, even in that second period it ought to be regarded as a short tenancy. I understand the case for the other side. It is that where a tenancy is for a longish period, and a great part of the period has run, the fact that it is to be terminated in the course of two or three years does not make it a short tenancy. But as I have said, in effect it is a question of a succession of septennial tenancies, and I do not see why the Amendment should go as far as it does. I think it would be better if it were modified to the extent I have suggested.

Mr. Benson (Chesterfield)

I wish to support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Where there is power on both sides to break the lease, it really cannot be held to be a long lease. Let me give the House the analogy of an ordinary annual tenancy which can be terminated by either party every 12 months. One might as well argue that an annual tenancy which has run for seven years and has not yet been terminated should be regarded as an eight-year lease. The fact that neither party is bound beyond a certain date seems to destroy the whole basis of the idea of what a normal lease is, and certainly it cuts at the root of the idea of the ownership of rights in property under this Bill.

Mr. Bellenger

I wish to raise a point concerning short tenancies. I take it that this provision will not apply to the end of a long lease, with less than seven years to run, but what will be the position where, as sometimes happens, there is just less than seven years to run, arising out of the unexpired portion of a long lease, and the tenant decides that he would like to carry out certain alterations, to which the landlord says he will agree if the tenant will surrender the balance of the long lease and enter into a new lease at a higher ground rent? Would this be construed as a short tenancy merely because the balance of the long lease, which had less than seven years to run, had been surrendered and a new lease granted for the exact term which had to run under the old lease, but at a higher ground rent? Another matter to which I want to refer is the definition of "mortgage," which states that the word "mortgage" does not include a floating charge, but, subject as aforesaid, includes any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money's worth. Am I right in assuming that, generally speaking, this includes bank mortgages? The Chancellor will remember that at an earlier stage in the proceedings on this Bill we asked for bank mortgages to be included as having to pay their proportion of the premium.

The Attorney-General

The definition of "mortgage" goes much wider than the Clause which deals with the payment of a proportion of the premium, and covers the mortgages involved in many other parts of the Bill. As far as the payment of a portion of the contribution is concerned, bank mortgages are excluded.

Mr. Bellenger

Does not this definition include them?

The Attorney-General

Bank mortgages are excluded by the express provisions of the Clause which deals with contributions. This is a general definition of "mortgage" wherever mortgage is mentioned in the Bill and where the Clause in question does not expressly exclude a definite class of mortgages. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenǵer), if a person enters into a five-year lease, it is a short tenancy and it does not matter what sort of negotiations may have led up to that lease. If I correctly followed the case which he quoted, I think the posi- tion would be that if the lease had not come completely to an end and was surrendered, and then a further lease was entered into on the lines suggested by the hon. Member, it would be a short tenancy.

Mr. Bellenger

Not necessarily.

The Attorney-General

If the hon. Member will look at the definition, he will see that a short tenancy means a tenancy granted for a term of seven years or less. If the case is one in which a lease is granted for seven years or less, it is a short tenancy. I am sorry that in making a small change which we think is fair on the whole, we have done a thing which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) thinks is a mistake. I agree it is a matter on which one can argue both ways. It may be that I shall not be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept my view, just as he has not quite persuaded me to accept his; but I think there is a difference between parties sitting down and clearly contemplating a period of 21 years and parties sitting down aud providing simply for seven years. One may say that it is a fine difference in law, but I think that in practice it is a substantial difference. There are also some leases in which the landlord has a right to break, but not the tenant, and I think that on the whole the provision is a right one. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will want a long discussion on this matter. It is, I think, on the whole fair, and in any case there will not be many people affected by it.

Question, ''That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 95.—9( Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 73, line 27, after "Health, "insert: or to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or to the Board of Education.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment, and the next page of Amendments, down to and including page 76, line 34, to leave out Sub-section (20), are Amendments to the Scottish application Clause, and in every case they are consequential upon decisions which this House has already taken. I shall be glad to answer any questions which may arise.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

When the Lord Advocate says "consequential," does he mean that these Amendments are consequential on other provisions, excepting the Lords Amendments?

The Lord Advocate

What I mean is that the changes here embodied have all been rendered necessary, either by changes which this House has made on the Recommittal stage, or by Amendments made in another place with which this House has now agreed. There is no new point raised in these Amendments.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 76, line 34, agreed to.

CLAUSE 96—(Application to Northern Ireland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 77, leave out lines 37 and 38, and insert: ( )Section eleven shall have effect as if in Sub-section (1) thereof for the word 'area' in the first place in which that word occurs there were substituted the word' district', and as if for the words' In this Subsection the expression "area" means the area of a local authority for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act, 1936,'there were substituted the words 'In this Section the expression "district" means the district of a local authority for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act (Northern Ireland), 1939.' ( )Section nineteen shall have effect as if in the proviso to Sub-section (1) the words from ' so, however' to the end of the proviso, and the proviso to Sub-section (2), were omitted.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment, and some subsequent Amendments, relate to the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland. The only Amendment of substance is that contained in the second Sub-section to be inserted in page 78, line 9, which adapts the Clause in relation to tenement blocks in Northern Ireland. The need for special provision in the case of Northern Ireland arises out of the fact that in Northern Ireland these blocks are not treated as one contributory property, but as several, owing to the difference of the manner in which Schedule A assessments are made there.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 79, line 9, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 86, line 37, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE—(Payments under Part I in cases of Repeated Damage.)

Lords Amendment: In page 86, line37, at end insert: 7.In this Schedule references to wardamage occurring, or sustained, on any occasion shall be construed as including references to war damage that results subsequently from the taking on that occasion of such action or measures as are specified in Sub-section (1) if Section seventy-nine of this Act.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it dear that reference in Schedule 3 to war damage occurring on any given occasion includes damage resulting from the falling of a bomb or other events which took place on that occasion, whether arising immediately or accruing, or revealed subsequently.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.