WAR RISKS (INSURANCE BY TRUSTEES) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 14 March 1916)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD BUCKMASTER)
My Lords, this is a small and unambitious measure which I hope will meet with your Lordships' approval. By the Trustee Act of 1893 a trustee of any property is at liberty to effect insurance of the trust estate up to two-thirds of its value, but that insurance would not cover insurance against loss due to hostile aircraft or bombardment or any of the risks incident to the war. This measure is intended to give trustees power to insure against those risks as well. As I have stated, the limit under the Act of 372 1893 is two-thirds of the value of the property. By this Bill the insurance to be effected may be to the full value. An ordinary outbreak of fire does not necessarily involve complete destruction, but a bomb from aircraft generally devastates the whole property and leaves nothing standing. It is proposed in this Bill that trustees should have power to insure up to the full value of the building or property against any damage that may be caused by hostile aircraft or bombardment, and also against any damage that may be caused by missiles from our own guns in attacking hostile aircraft. I trust that your Lordships will think that the Bill merits a Second Reading.

§ LORD MUIR-MACKENZIE
My Lords, as no noble and learned Lord has risen to make any observations upon the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill, I hope your Lordships will allow me, only a comparatively learned person, to say one or two words. In the first place I feel sure that your Lordships must be well satisfied that this Bill has not been introduced in the manner with which we have become familiar in the case of other measures that are sometimes called War Bills, but that it is apparently to proceed according to the well-established rule and practice. It has not come up in the dead of night to be passed through all its stages the next day without either consideration or comprehension. That this Bill ought to be read a second time I do not think anybody can doubt. If it is right for other persons to insure their property against war risks, and especially against damage by hostile aircraft instead of being adequately defended against attacks, surely it should apply in the case of trustees. It is an absurd thing that under the law as it now stands trustees cannot insure without first getting the permission of the beneficiaries, who may sometimes be very numerous and may not be easy to get at. I therefore wish, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to support the Second Reading of the Bill, and to say that there can be no doubt that it ought to pass.
I should like; if I might be allowed to do so, to mention one or two small points which perhaps the Lord Chancellor will consider before the Committee stage is taken. In the first place, I presume that 373 there is no doubt that the Bill applies to the Public Trustee. That official must hold a great deal of property which he would think right to insure in this way. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor would regard it as undesirable to mention the Public Trustee in the Bill, but I think there might be some advantage in doing so. The second point which I desire to raise is whether the words "from the commencement of the present war" are happily chosen. Of course, there is not here raised the same kind of difficulty which has been felt when words have been used in other Acts about "the end of the war." Still one knows how very minutely Bills of this class are considered and how much they are contested, and it would be quite open to anybody, I should think, to say that he did not know exactly what was legally meant by "the commencement of the war." I venture to suggest that it would be advisable to insert a date. Next I desire to refer to the words at the end of the first paragraph, "and that section shall apply accordingly with the necessary modification of the limit on the amount to be insured." There can be no doubt that any one who studied the Act of 1893 would understand what that meant, but I should have thought it would have been better to state more precisely and exactly the meaning of this without reference to the other Act. The last point with which I will trouble my noble and learned friend is in connection with the next paragraph, which may be called the definition clause. I would ask whether it corresponds with any other definitions that exist as to what constitutes war risks. I feel almost ashamed to ask him this, for if I had studied the Acts I could probably have found it out for myself, but other people equally ignorant with myself might be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord at the next stage of the Bill whether that is so or not.

§ LORD WRENBURY
My Lords, it occurs to me that the last sentence of the first paragraph of Clause 1 is redundant. Nothing is added by the words "and that section shall apply accordingly with the necessary modification of the limit on the amount to be insured." I would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to consider whether the operation of those words is not entirely included in the preceding sentence. I take further objection to these words in this sense. 374 Section 18 of the, Trustee Act, 1893, consists of three subsections; the first is that which has reference to insurance against risks by fire, and subsections (2) and (3) refer to different matters. It seems to me that the word "accordingly" in the concluding part of Clause 1 of this Bill might well be taken to mean that Section 18 shall apply so far as relates to the subject-matter before mentioned in this clause, which would exclude subsections (2) and (3). I take it for granted that this is not the intention. I think that if any such words are to stand it would be better to say "and the whole of that section shall apply," adding, if it is thought requisite—though I should have thought it was already provided for by the previous words in the clause—"with the necessary modification of the limit on the amount to be insured." I hope that before the next stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord will consider this point.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I will do my best to consider the various suggestions that have been made, but at the moment I cannot say that I am convinced that any amendment of the Bill is necessary. Between now and to-morrow, however, I will see whether it is possible to meet the views of the noble Lord who spoke first and those of Lord Wrenbury. As to Lord Muir-Mackenzie's point regarding the Public Trustee, if the Public Trustee is not a trustee it is difficult to know what he is. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be better to introduce a date instead of the phrase "from the commencement of the present war," and I think that "from August 4, 1914," would be convenient words to introduce. Lord Muir-Mackenzie wants to expand the words at the end of Clause 1, and Lord Wrenbury wants to leave them out. I think it would be better for the noble Lords to put down Amendments and then the matter could be discussed. As to the definition of the expression "war risks," I do not think it matters what the definition of these risks is which appears in any other Act. The question is what is the definition here, and here the expression is defined to cover the particular kind of loss against which insurance is desired.