Lords Sitting of 22 July 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill: Marriages Provisional Orders.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Finance.

Goods and Services (Price Control).

Isle of Man (Customs).

Local Government (Financial Provisions).

Repair of War Damage.

London Midland and Scottish Railway.

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council.

Portsmouth Water.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

INDIA AND THE WAR.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are contemplating any measure to associate India more closely with the conduct of the Indian war effort.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I have been asked to reply on behalf of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, who is unfortunately unable to be present in the House owing to a longstanding engagement in Glasgow. I think that the best answer to the noble Lord's
884
question will be to read the text of an announcement issued by the Governor-General of India, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, to-day. I should add that this announcement is being published as a White Paper, and should be available to your Lordships this afternoon.
The announcement is as follows:
"As a result of the increased pressure of work in connection with the war it has been decided to enlarge the Executive Council of the Governor-General of India in order to permit the separation of the portfolios of Law and Supply and of Commerce and Labour and the division of the present portfolio of Education, Health and Lands into separate portfolios of Education, Health and Lands and Indians Overseas, and also the creation of portfolios of Information and of Civil Defence. His Majesty the King has approved the following appointments to the five new seats on the Council:
Member for Supply: Sir Hormusji Peroshaw Mody, K.B.E., M.L.A. (Central).
Member for Information: The Rt. Hon. Sir Akbar Hydari, Privy Councillor.
Member for Civil Defence: Mr. E. Raghavendra Rao.
Member for Labour: Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon, K.C.I.E.
Member for Indians Overseas: Mr. Madhao Shrihari Aney, M.L.A. (Central).
"2. For the vacancies which will occur when Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan and Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai take up the posts to which they have recently been appointed His Majesty has approved the following appointments:
Law Member: Sir Syed Sultan Ahmed.
Member for Education, Health and Lands: Mr. Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, M.L.A.
"3. In pursuance of the desire of His Majesty's Government to associate Indian non-official opinion as fully as possible with the prosecution of the war, approval on the recommendation of the Viceroy has also been given to the establishment of a National Defence Council, the first meeting of which will take place next month. The Council, the strength of which will be about thirty members, will include representatives of the Indian States as well as of the Provinces and of other elements in the national life of British India in its relation to the war effort. The following will be members from British India:
Ambedkar, Dr. B. R., M.L.A. Assam, Chief Minister of (the Honourable Maulvi Saiyid Sir Muhammad Saadulla, M.L.A.).
Bengal, Chief Minister of (the Honourable Mr. A. K. Fazlul Huq, M.L.A.).
Chhatari, Sir Muhammad Ahmad Said Khan, Nawab of, K.C.S.I., K.C.I.E., M.B.E.
Chettiyar, Kumararajah Sir Mutia, of Chettinad, M.L.A.
Darbhanga, the Honourable Maharajad-hiraja of, K.C.I.E.
Deshmukh, Mr. Ramrao Madhavrao, M.L.A.

885
Gidney, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry, M.L.A.
Jehangic, Sir Cowasjee, Bart., K.C.I.E., O.B.E., M.L.A.
Khallikote, Raja Bahadur of, M.L.A.
Khuda Bakhsh Khan, the Honourable Malik, M.L.A.
Mehta, Mr. Jamnadas M., M.L.A.
Morton, Mr. G. B., O.B.E.
Mukerjee, Mr. Biren.
Naunihal Singh Man, Lieut. Sardar, M.B.E., M.L.A.
Nawaz, Begum Shah, M.L.A.
Punjab, Premier of (the Honourable Khan Bahadur Major Sirdar Sir Sikander Hyat Khan, K.B.E., M.L.A.).
Rajah, Rao Bahadur M.C., M.L.A.
Shah, Professor E. Ahmad.
Sind, Chief Minister of (the Honourable Khan Bahadur Allah Bakhsh Muhammad Umar Soomro, O.B.E., M.L.A.).
Srivastava. Sir Jwala Prasad, M.L.A.
Usman, Khan Bahadur Sir Muhammad, K.C.I.E.
The names of the Indian States members will be announced separately."

COLONIAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE (GUARANTEES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to guarantee schemes of insurance of commodities against war risks in Colonial Dependencies with insufficient financial resources to carry this liability unaided. Noble Lords will see, if they look at the Bill, that schemes must be on the same general lines as schemes under the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, Parts II and III. Happily, very few Colonies have yet suffered heavily from enemy action, and obviously the risk's to our Colonial Empire vary very much from one place to another. In the more threatened Colonies it does seem very desirable that traders should be able to ensure their stock-in-trade in the same way as is open to traders in this country. Accordingly, last autumn, the late Lord Lloyd secured the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the institution of schemes with the backing of His Majesty's Government. In each case Colonial funds will be set up. If in temporary deficit, the Treasury will make up the necessary funds, but at the end of the war surpluses will all be at the disposal of the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury. In this way it will be possible to spread the risks, and when the time comes to
886
decide how and from what sources, to repay any deficits which have accrued on the individual funds. This for various reasons is thought to be a much more practicable, satisfactory, and economic scheme than having a centrally operated fund.
Already there is a scheme in being in Kenya and Uganda. It has been in force since the beginning of the year. It was set up on the assurance of the then Secretary of State that this Bill would be passed. The backing of the Treasury has been promised for schemes in Palestine and Hong Kong, but they have not yet come into operation. I am glad to say that in Malaya, which is, of course, a district that might be affected, a scheme is under consideration, but they do not find it necessary to ask for Treasury backing. Schemes must be compulsory, as they are here, so as to ensure the widest possible spreading of risks. Rates of premium will be subject to approval by His Majesty's Government, and the schemes will be cheaply administered through the local insurance companies. I feel sure that the House will wish to extend to the Colonies this measure of assistance against aggressive enemy action seeing that the Colonies are sharing to the best of their ability in our war effort. It is, of course, impossible to forecast the financial results, but I trust the House will agree that it is right to accept this rather uncertain liability as part of the necessary costs of the war. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Moyne.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I rise only on a small question of form. It is, however, a not unimportant one from the constitutional point of view. The Secretary of State said he had informed the Colonies that these funds would be established on an assurance from the Government that this Bill would be passed. No Secretary of State can give an assurance that any Bill will be passed, and I submit that the assurance should have been that the Bill would be submitted to Parliament.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I stand corrected. I was not Secretary of State at the time the assurance was given, and I have no precise knowledge of the form in which it was given, but I am sure it

887
was given in the appropriate form, as suggested by the noble Viscount. The Government would certainly do their best to pass the Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Parliament, I am sure, will honour the obligations.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Provisions as to short tenancies.
(5) If the local authority in whose area any such dwelling-house is situated issue a certificate that the dwelling-house has been repaired to the extent mentioned in the last foregoing subsection the production of the certificate shall, at any time while the certificate remains in force, be sufficient evidence that the house is lit for the purposes of this section at that time, unless the contrary is proved:
For the purposes of this subsection, an instrument purporting to be such a certificate as aforesaid and to be signed by an officer of a local authority shall, without further proof, be deemed to be a certificate issued by the local authority, unless the contrary is proved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): The first Amendment on the Paper is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("as is")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert in subsection (5), at the beginning of the last paragraph:
"The functions of a local authority under this subsection may be exercised on their behalf by such officers as may be authorised in writing by the authority, and"
The noble and learned Viscount said: It has been suggested that, as the Bill
888
now stands the provision which is contained in Clause I empowering the local authority to issue a certificate that the dwelling-house is fit would require a solemn meeting of the whole local council every time such a certificate is required. That was not the intention, and in order to make matters quite plain, I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, at the beginning insert ("The functions of a local authority under this subsection may be exercised on their behalf by such officers as may be authorised in writing by the authority, and")—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("issued by the local authority") and insert ("duly issued").—(The Lord Chancellor).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Conditional Notice of Retention.
(2) As soon as the War Damage Commission have determined whether the payment under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of the war damage to any land to which a conditional notice of retention relates is to be a payment of cost of works or a value payment, they shall serve a notice on the tenant stating their determination, and if the Commission determine to make a value payment subsections (2) and (3) of Section eight and subsections (1) to (3) of Section nine of the principal Act (which relate to the effect of a notice of disclaimer) shall have effect as if—
(a) the conditional notice of retention were a notice of disclaimer served on the date on which notice of the Commission's determination was served;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after the second "effect," to insert "as from the date on which the determination becomes final." The noble and learned Viscount said: The first Amendment on this clause is to insert the words on the Paper, but in truth this Amendment is only one of a number of small Amendments the substance of which comes out in the Amendment on Clause 8, page 11, line 39. If I may have your Lordships' permission I will refer to that now. By a number of Amendments, a

889
difficulty is resolved which the Bill as reaching this House from another place might leave in doubt. Your Lordships may recall that on Second Reading I explained that a tenant might hesitate whether he should disclaim his lease until he knew whether there was going to be a money payment in respect of the damage done. If public funds are going to provide for repairing premises, that would be a reason why he should retain his lease; if instead he is only to get his share, at the end of the war, of compensation, that may be a reason why he would hesitate to retain his lease. It is, therefore, necessary to provide what the Bill describes, I think, as a conditional notice of retention.
That is what these Amendments do, but in order to make that machinery effective it is necessary that the War Damage Commission should make their award in a form which the parties concerned will know is final, because there are certain rights of appeal and, as the result of the exercise of the right of appeal, the original decision might be varied. The effect, therefore, of this bundle of Amendments is to secure that the tenant who wants to preserve his light to disclaim may exercise that right when he knows what is the final determination, and may not be caught as it were, by an intermediate decision that might afterwards be varied. That explanation, I think, is sufficient to justify the Amendments on the Paper right down So Clause 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 4, after the second ("effect") insert ("as from the date on which the determination becomes final").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out from the first ("on") to the end of line 7 and insert ("that date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, leave out ("notification under subsection (2) of this section of the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, at end insert:
"((8) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, the provisions of the principal Act which relate to the effect of a notice of retention shall, pending the determination of the War Damage Commission with respect to the kind of payment to be made in respect of the war damage to the land, apply to a conditional notice of retention in like manner as they apply to an unconditional notice of retention, and, in a case where the Commission do not determine to make a value payment, shall continue so to apply").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Leases comprising separate hereditaments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: All the Amendments upon this clause are consequential, and I move that they be agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("to") and insert ("determine")
Page 6, line 40, leave out ("notice was served") and insert ("determination became final")
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("notice of")
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("been served") and insert ("become final")
Page 7, line 11, leave out ("notice of")
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("was served") and insert ("became final")
Page 7, line 24, leave out from ("and") to end of line 27 and insert ("as if the date on which it becomes final were postponed for one month or, in a case where an application has been made under subsection (1) of this section, for such longer period as the Court may fix").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Obligation to reinstate in case where payment of cost of works is made]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The two Amendments to this clause down in my name are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 8, line 14, after ("deemed") insert ("as from the date on which the determination becomes final")
Page 9, line 45, leave out ("of their determination") and insert ("on which their determination became final").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Provisions where tenant retains lease and value payment is made]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("of the Commission's determination") and insert ("on which the Commission's determination became final").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("notice of") where those words secondly occur.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is a third consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, leave out ("being served") and insert ("become final").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Notification by War Damage Commission of determination, etc.]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert after subsection (1):
"(2) For the purposes of this Act, a determination of the War Damage Commission with respect to the kind of payment (if any) to be made under Part I of the War Damage Act, 1941, in respect of war damage to land comprised in a lease shall become final—

(a) in a case where no appeal against the determination is brought, on the date when the period within which such an appeal may be brought expires; or

(b) in a case where such an appeal is brought, but does not affect the determination of the Commission in any respect material for the purposes of this Act, on the date when the appeal or (if there is more than one) the last such appeal is finally determined or abandoned, or the date when the period within which such an appeal may be brought expires, whichever is the later.

(3) Where any such determination of the War Damage Commission is affected in a material respect as the result of such an appeal, the determination shall cease to have effect for the purposes of this Act and the War Damage Commission shall, as soon as the new
892
determination has been made, give notice thereof in accordance with this Act."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is the substantial Amendment to which I referred just now, and if your Lordships look at it you will see that the series of Amendments previously made are mere definitions in order that this principal change may be effected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, at end insert the said new subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Application of principal Act to ground leases.
10.—(1) The principal Act shall apply to ground leases in like manner as it applies to other leases, and accordingly Sections thirteen and fourteen of that Act shall cease to have effect.
(2) A notice of disclaimer, a notice of retention, or a notice to elect may be served under Section four of the principal Act in respect of war damage to land comprised in a ground lease, whether the damage occurred before or after the passing of this Act.
(3) The following provisions shall apply with respect to notices served before, or proceedings pending at, the passing of this Act:—
(a) a notice of disclaimer, a notice of retention or a notice to elect served before the passing of this Act in relation to any lease shall not be deemed to be of no effect on the ground that the lease is a ground lease, unless the Court has so determined before the passing of this Act under Section fourteen of the principal Act, and in that case the determination shall be without prejudice to the serving of a new notice; but nothing in this section shall affect any order of the Court made before the passing of this Act under Section thirteen of the principal Act
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), after "Act," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or the parties have so agreed (whether expressly or impliedly) before the passing of this Act." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment seems to be needed to meet a small point which has been raised by those who have examined the Bill. A notice of disclaimer or retention may have been served before the passing of the Bill in respect of a ground lease and, on a landlord pointing out that the notice is bad, the tenant may have accepted that view and withdrawn

893
the notice That may have been done expressly as the result of an interchange of letters or agreement, or it may have been done tacitly as a result of the tenant not proceeding with his notice and continuing to pay rent. I am informed that actual cases of this difficulty have been brought to the notice of the Attorney-General. In such cases the notice ought to be treated in the same way as a notice which is determined by the Court to be a bad notice. It ought not to stand in the way of the service of a new notice. That result is secured by the Amendment I now move and by a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 4, after ("Act") insert ("or the parties have so agreed (whether expressly or impliedly) before the passing of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("determination") and insert ("serving of the said notice").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"and the Court shall not exercise its powers under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section nine of the principal Act—

(i) in a case where a notice of disclaimer in respect of a lease which appears to the Court to be a ground lease has been served before the passing of this Act, so as to make the surrender of the lease, or of, any sublease derived out of the term created by the lease, take effect on a date earlier than the date when the notice was served; or

(ii) in a case where a notice of disclaimer is served after the passing of this Act in respect of such a lease as aforesaid, so as to make the surrender of the lease or of any such sub-lease take effect on a date prior to the passing of this Act."

The noble and learned Viscount said: The matter dealt with in this Amendment and the expressions in it are technical and perhaps your Lordships would wish me to explain in a sentence or two the broad results. This Amendment meets a point which has been raised in connection with this Bill that the Court may, as matters stand, exercise its powers under Section 9 (1) (a) of the principal Act so as to antedate a notice of disclaimer given in
894
respect of a ground lease and give a greater measure of retrospectivity to the section than was intended. It is understood that some County Courts have already used this power so as to date a disclaimer back to the occurrence of the damage. They may be persuaded where notice is given after the passing of this Bill to give retrospective effect so as to include a substantial period before the passing of the Bill. If they did, it would mean that a landlord would be deprived of his rent in respect of a period during which the principal Act did not apply to a ground lease, which is not the intention at all. It is perhaps not very likely that County Court Judges would do that, but now that the point has been raised it seems better to meet it. The two paragraphs deal with separate cases where notice is given before or after the passing of the Bill. I am aware that these are difficult things to follow, but I have studied this proposal carefully and I tell your Lordships that I am quite satisfied that it is right to insert this Amendment and that there is risk, if you do not insert it, that injustice may be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 20, at end insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I ask if the noble and learned Viscount is satisfied with the phrase "which appears to the Court to be a ground lease"? That is a new phrase to me as regards something which enables the Court to exercise powers. Would not the right phrase be something of this sort "which is proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be a ground lease"? What do you mean by "which appears"? It is, I think, a new invention. I may be wrong about that, but I cannot remember having seen the phrase before. Surely the Court can only act in a case of this kind on evidence. If the noble and learned Viscount will consider the matter before the next stage I shall be quite content. It is probably only a matter of form.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This Amendment raises a point which, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, deals with an extremely technical matter, but it affects very important interests. I hope, therefore, the Government will give us a short time between this stage and the next to appreciate how matters exactly stand.

895
I know that in these days the idea is to hurry legislation through as quickly as possible, but I cannot think that a short delay before the next stage of this Bill will be of very great importance, and it will enable your Lordships to do your work more satisfactorily to yourselves if time is given to see how the Bill stands after the Committee stage is finished.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not consulted the noble Lord the Leader of the House as to the future stages of this Bill, but speaking for myself I should certainly wish that the changes which may be made in Committee on what is admittedly a rather complicated matter, should be made in circumstances which give the House time to consider them. Certainly that consideration shall be borne in mind. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Viscount Maugham. The definition of what is a ground lease is, as I dare say he remembers, one of the definitions of the original Act, and I have no doubt he will look at that afresh and consider whether the suggestion he makes would be an improvement. My mind is quite open about it and on the Report stage we can give further consideration as to whether some substitution of words is desirable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, whether Clause 10, as amended, shall be agreed to?
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I should like to say a few words on the whole question of ground rents, as I was unable to be present at the Second Reading of this Bill. My sole desire is to see this extremely difficult question cleared up as far as possible and treated justly. The question of rack rents has, I think, been treated very fairly, but I cannot say the same for the way in which ground rents are being treated under this clause, and I confess that the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor on the last occasion did not make me feel any happier about it. Under the original Bill, if the lessee is not satisfied he goes to the Court, and there have been many cases, I am told, where this has been done, and in every case the Court has given the landowner some compensation—two, three or four years' rent as compensation. It is now proposed to wipe that out altogether, but, if the Court has been giving compensation in such cases, the landowner must surely have a right to something.
896
I agree that the way in which this matter is treated in the original Bill is not satisfactory, but the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, in dealing with that point, referred only to the question of subtenants. That is a very important point, I agree, because it usually refers to large blocks of flats which have been swept away; but in the case of ordinary houses, it is usually a tenant and not a sub-tenant who has to be considered. The noble and learned Viscount also said that the landlord should shoulder a share of the burden, but, under the arrangement now proposed, the landlord will apparently shoulder the whole burden; he will have to stand "the whole racket." The balance has been bumped down, so to speak, on the other side, and I am sure that many of your Lordships will agree with me that the worst way to correct an injustice is to cause another one.
I should like very briefly to remind your Lordships of how a ground lease runs. The noble and learned Lord Chancellor says that one of the difficulties of the Bill is that the margin between rack rents and ground leases is very small. I certainly do not wish to argue that point with one of his great legal knowledge, but personally, so far as my own small property is concerned, I have never come across any great difficulty on that point. The way in which it works is this. A man wishes to build a house, and he goes to the landowner and covenants to build a house which will be returned to the landowner at the end of a very long period—usually ninety to a hundred years. I believe that in some cases, even including the London County Council, the period is a good deal less, but that actually helps the landowner. This contract is more on the land than on the building, yet, because the building disappears, the contract is to be made null and void. That seems a very hard provision, and it seems to press more hardly on the small owner than on the large owner.
I quite agree that the lessee who has built the house has expended his capital and his enterprise in developing it, but we must also remember that the ground landlord has done exactly the same in the past, because he has made the roads, put in the sewers and so on to make the plot capable of being built upon. I think that that fact must be borne in mind, but

897
sight is very often lost of it. Let me give one small instance. A very small owner has four or five houses, and a bomb comes clown and destroys them all. Then a second bomb, in the shape of this Bill, comes down and takes all the owner's money away, and he is left penniless. That does not seem a very fair proposal. Take another case. One or two houses in a row may be destroyed. As the contract has been completely swept away, it is improbable that anyone will ever construct a building in that empty space, which will it seems to me, be left as a memorial to Herr Hitler. That does not seem a very good arrangement either.
There is another point on which I should be very grateful for some information. What is the position of the mortgagee? Mortgages on ground rent have always been looked on as one of the primary securities, but surely if ground leases are to be disclaimed in this way, that security becomes nothing at all. There again I think that we have the rather curious anomaly that the big man who is able to build his house with his own money may disclaim, but the man who has to get a mortgage in order to build his house may not be able to do so, because, as I understand it, he would have to go to his mortgagee to obtain leave to disclaim. There may be some trouble there with regard to this clause.
All I ask is that the Government will watch this whole matter very closely. I do feel that there are many hard cases which are going to arise, and I think it is quite probable that the law will again have to be altered. If I may make one suggestion, it seems to me that some arrangement might have been made whereby no rent would be payable until the house was rebuilt at the end of the war, when compensation has been paid, and then a similar number of years might be added at the other end to the period of the lease. The Government might also help in this matter with regard to the payment of insurance and compensation. I understand that there will probably be a new Bill in the autumn on value payments and similar matters, and perhaps something could be done then to help in regard to what I feel is an undeniable hardship as things are at present. I noticed in the Press a few weeks ago that a member of the Government, dealing with one of the War Damage measures—
898
I think that it was this one, but I am not sure—said that it would create rough justice. I am very doubtful about the justice, but I think it is extremely rough on the landlords.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the House is grateful to the noble Earl for raising this matter—it is a very important matter and a very complicated matter—and for raising it in such moderate terms. The noble Earl, in the course of his speech, said that he recognised that the present law on this subject is not satisfactory, and it really is not, but unless you have some provision such as you find in Clause 10 what would the result be? This would be the result. You have war damage inflicted by German bombing on a particular plot of ground on which a house is built. The law already provides that, in those circumstances, the tenant notwithstanding the terms of his lease, his covenant, has the right to say: "I disclaim any further interest in this property. This is a misfortune which has overwhelmed my house, and I am no longer able to regard myself as tenant." He is entitled to do that, and if he does he is not under any liability to pay rent any more to his landlord. That is the position as it is in respect of ordinary tenants and ordinary landlords.
The question is, can you really have quite such a difference as between ground landlord and ground lessee? The ground landlord might have let the plot, let us say, for ninety-nine years to a ground lessee, who covenants that he will build upon the plot a house. Can you say—the law being what I have just described—by way of exception that in the case of the ground landlord and ground lessee, the whole of the loss is to fall on the ground lessee, and that he has got to go on paying his rent to the ground landlord just as though nothing had happened? It is true, of course, as my noble friend pointed out, and as we all understand, that really rent is only being paid for the ground. Still the ground lessee undertook to pay rent because he was going to build, indeed he was bound to build, a house upon the site from which he was going to get increased rent. As between the occupier of the house and the ground lessee the law provides that, if there is sufficient damage by enemy bombing, the occupier may repudiate any further liability to the ground lessee and leave him to look after

899
himself. Could it in these circumstances be right to say: "Yes, we do not want to interfere with that, that is all as it should be, an occupier ought to be at liberty to refuse to pay any more rent to his ground lessee, and as for the ground lessee he has got to go on paying rent to the ground landlord"? This is the real question with which this clause deals. The real principle of this clause is that when misfortune of the sort to which I have referred occurs it really has got to be borne by all who are interested. It cannot stop at the point of the ground lessee.
There was perhaps something more to be said for the other view originally, because that was formed before there had been any war damage scheme carried by the Government, and before there was any possibility of insurance. But I must submit to the Committee—and we all want to be entirely fair in this matter and to have no prejudices—that it does not seem to me to be justifiable that in the event of enemy bombing destroying a house, the tenant may be able to wash his hands of the business and say: "I pay no more rent," that the lessee must accept that decision and, therefore, be without any source out of which to pay his own rent to the ground landlord, but that the ground landlord should be entitled, whatever happens, to the house to say: "My rent has to be paid in respect of the ground. The ground is there, and you must continue to pay me until the end of the period." I do not think that the general sense of the community would recognise that as fair; it would, no doubt tend to agree with the noble Earl, who said that he did not agree with the existing arrangements as being entirely justified.
There is a further difficulty. It is so easy to speak about these things in general term, but it taxes the ingenuity even of a Government draftsman—and there is nobody more ingenious than a Government draftsman—to define what exactly you mean by ground lease, for there are endless cases in which there are interposed all sorts of intermediate interests which make it difficult to determine at what moment a long lease is a ground lease. The present law says:
"'Ground lease' means lease at a rent (or, where rent varies, at a maximum rent) which does not substantially exceed the rent which a tenant might reasonably have been expected,
900
at the commencement of the term created by the lease, to pay for the land comprised in the lease, excluding any buildings, for a term equal to the term created by the lease."
That does not cover everything because in normal practice the ground lessee is bound to build a house, a house of particular value, and that of course indirectly contributes to the value of the ground. My own view is that this clause, on the whole, will be found to be justified. I am sorry, and I say this with all sincerity to my noble friend, if some rough justice is involved. I do not deny that there must be under arrangements of this sort cases of some hardship. The best that Parliament can do is to make the rule in the form which on the whole conforms to the equities of the case. I think nobody will justify the law as it at present stands.
I look at the present position in this way, in regard to ground owner, ground lessee and everybody else concerned. They are all of them interested in the totality which you may call "building on site," and they ought all to be required to shoulder the loss in proportion to their prospective interests. That is the substance of what is here being proposed. It has the effect of putting ground lessees in the same position under the principal Act as other lessees. I venture to say that this is a very complicated and very important matter, and, as the noble Marquess has suggested, there ought to be a little opportunity to consider it. Very great interests are involved—not only the interests of ground landlords, but the interests of many other people, including building societies. All we want to do is to do the fair thing, and that involves a great deal of care and consideration. I think it is generally agreed that the law as it stands to-day is not in the right form. It makes an exemption which is not justified. I know that in another place great efforts were made by the Attorney-General and others to put this clause in the best form practicable. It may be that there are other matters in connection with this to be considered, and, if so, and they are pointed out to me, I shall be very willing to consider them. I hope that for the time being, however, your Lordships will allow Clause 10 to stand part of the Bill.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Will the noble and learned Lord Chancellor tell us what is the position as to mortgagees? Of

901
course, I think it is clear that this notice of disclaimer cannot be given without the consent of the mortgagee of the property in question
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my noble friend will allow me, I would prefer not to make an impromptu answer to this question, though I think I know what the answer is. It is better not to put oneself on record until one is thoroughly assured. IE this matter is raised on the Report stage I will then give an answer.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I thought that, possibly, it would be better, now, to remind the noble and learned Lord Chancellor to look into this matter. With regard to the substance of the suggested Amendments, I would venture to suggest this to the noble Lord, that it may he possible to frame Amendments to the present system, not touching the general principle involved in the amended Bill, because I can conceive there might be cases where injuries suffered by a ground landlord would be so great that there should be some satisfaction given to him in the matter. But so far as the principle is concerned, I confess that my view at present is that what the Lord Chancellor has said has got very great weight. I would only add, by way of apology for myself, that I had something to do with the principal Act, and I must admit quite frankly that I think in this respect the present Bill is an improvement.
On Question, Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:
Apportionment of rent in case of war damage to leased premises.
". Where—

(a) any lease is deemed to have been surrendered by virtue of Section eight of the principal Act (which relates to the effect of a notice of disclaimer); or

(b) the rent payable under any lease ceases to be payable for any period by virtue of Section ten or Section eleven of the principal Act (which relate to the effect of a notice of retention and a notice to avoid disclaimer respectively), or, in the case of a short tenancy to which Section one of this Act applies, by virtue of that section;

the rent payable in respect of the period during which the surrender takes effect or the rent ceases to be payable as aforesaid shall be
902
apportionable, whether the rent under the lease is payable in advance or otherwise, and any rent paid by the tenant in respect of that period in excess of the amount apportionable to the part of the period preceding the date on which the surrender takes effect or the rent ceases to be payable, as the case may be, shall be recoverable by him."
The noble and learned Viscount said: This new clause which is printed on the Paper is to meet a case which has been mentioned to the Government and which undoubtedly may often arise. It is a case where the rent is paid in advance. If the rent is paid at the end of a period which causes it to be due, then the existing provisions of the law about disclaiming operate perfectly well. A tenant, for example, may disclaim his lease in the middle of a quarter, and the result will be that he ceases to be tenant from the time he disclaims, and the rent due will not be the rent for the whole quarter but a proportionate part. Supposing a lease is one in which he has to pay his rent in advance, it is much more difficult to determine whether any financial adjustment has to be made. Obviously a financial adjustment ought to be made. In the end he ought to be liable to account for rent which is proportionate to the period for which he retains his lease. That is the effect of this clause.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Tlie Lord Chancellor.)
LORD NATHAN: May I ask the Lord Chancellor whether he would consider making that provision retrospective? I think some hardship has already resulted from the operation of the law as it stands at present.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I certainly will consider what the noble Lord has suggested. I am not quite sure how the matter stands now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

COMMUNICATION WITH JERSEY AND GUERNSEY.
LORD PORTSEA LORD PORTSEA had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, I, whether the privilege granted to prisoners of war in

903
Germany and to prisoners of war in England to send and receive letters or postcards by air can be extended to the prisoners in Jersey and Guernsey; 2, whether parcels of food can be sent to the prisoners in Jersey and Guernsey.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will take these two questions together, if my noble friend who is going to reply does not object, and I do not think he will. In another place the other day it was stated that a letter-card or post-card would be on sale to-day and subsequent days at the price of 3d. by which people in this country could write to British prisoners of war in Germany and in Italy, and even internees in this country could send those cards, and they go the whole way by air. I want to ask my noble friend if there is any reciprocity in this arrangement; can a prisoner of war in Germany, if he can get the cards, write to his friends in this country so that his letter or postcard can go by air the whole way, in which case he can receive and return a post-card in the space of a very few days, or at any rate in a week?
A further point, the point that I really wish to ask your Lordships, is: Can a prisoner of war in Jersey and Guernsey use the air-cards in writing to his people on this side of the Channel, so that again he may receive an answer in what I may call a reasonable space of time? If he cannot do this, or if we cannot write to him, by the use of these cards, why is there any differentiation between prisoners of war, who are not prisoners in any way by their own fault? Why is a prisoner of war in the islands differentiated against as compared with a prisoner of war who is in Germany or Italy, or an internee in those countries? I presume there is no question that the people of the Norman Islands are prisoners of war. I have looked up the definition of a "prisoner of war," and such a person is described as "one who has fallen into the hands of, or surrendered to, or been surrendered to, an opponent; a captive." There is little doubt that these poor people come under one of those heads, and they are suffering severely in consequence. At the present moment, through the courtesy and the good work of the Red Cross, we can send from this country messages to the islands. Those
904
messages are limited to twenty words. If you try to write a letter of twenty words once a week to a friend in any part of the country, it is an exceedingly difficult thing to do, and when they receive these messages—and only then—they are allowed, under restrictions, to send a further return message of twenty words. These messages and replies take not less than four and a half to five months.
That is a very long time for those on this side who want to hear from their relatives, and perhaps worse for those in the islands who wish to communicate with their friends that they are well. It leads to a great deal of unnecessary—I may almost call it torture, in this way. More than two months ago a London newspaper of repute published a paragraph that a lady in Jersey—a lady of a very old family—had been sent to a concentration camp in Poland. Naturally it caused on this side terrible anxiety. The editor of the paper, a very charming person, as is to be expected in the case of a newspaper of repute, said his information came from a good source, and he saw no reason to doubt it. Of course, it plunged us all into almost agony of mind to think that a delicately nurtured woman should be sent to a concentration camp in Poland, of all places in the world, which we knew at that moment to be ravaged. But there was nothing to be done. The editor, with the best intentions in the world, said that he could do nothing. If we could have had some means whereby one of these cards could have produced a reply in less time than is the case to-day, we should have been spared an immense amount of suffering.
Now for the second part of the question. The few messages we receive are severely censored. They are censored in the islands, they are censored in Geneva, and they are censored here, and I should not like to say that the censorship here is any milder than it is in-Geneva or Jersey. They give us the information that all these people are fairly well treated, according to the German standard, which is not our standard, that food is very scarce, that the gardens are ransacked for food, that no fishing is allowed except for shrimps, mussels, and such like things along the shore—in short, that the people are feeling their fate very severely. So far as I can make out, nothing is being done on this side for them. No parcels of

905
food, of course, can be sent to these prisoners of war. Prisoners of war in Germany, Italy, and elsewhere are well provided with food and clothing. I read that thousands of parcels are waiting at Geneva for those prisoners who need them, and that the American Government are prepared to send, or are sending, 400,000 tons of food a month for the benefit of prisoners In Germany or Italy. None of that food, as far as I know.—and I think I do know—has yet reached Jersey or the people for whom I consider we are, in a very great measure, responsible, as it is we who have put them in the position in which they find themselves. They had no choice, as your Lordships know. Their young men volunteered, and arms were taken away from the older men. I want my noble friend to give, not only his consideration, but his sympathetic consideration to the matter, so that whatever is possible may be done. I am sure he will, but I appreciate that he is not entirely a free agent. My two questions can be answered very simply and very shortly by my noble friend.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire is unfortunately away, and has asked me to reply on his behalf. At the outset of his remarks my noble friend Lord Portsea departed a little from the two questions he placed on the Paper. While I am quite certain your Lordships have sincere sympathy with the inhabitants of these islands in these critical days, I would ask my noble friend to let me deal quite shortly with the questions as set down. In the first place, I do not think we can compare exactly the position of prisoners of war and the position of inhabitants of occupied territory. The situation as regards messages is this. A message may be sent as frequently as one likes, provided, as the noble Lord said, it is not more than twenty words in length. It goes from here to Lisbon by air, then by train to Geneva, and through the Red Cross service to the islands. All messages of which we have knowledge have received a reply within approximately three months, and the total number of messages received up to the end of June was 25,000. As regards the second part of
906
the noble Lord's question, I am afraid there are great difficulties about sending parcels to these islands. His Majesty's Government regret very much at this moment that they cannot hold out any hope of being able to get over these difficulties in the near future.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, if I may just add a word to what Lord Portsea has said, and an addendum to what the noble Duke has said, I should like to ask whether the Government are taking any active steps to remedy matters with regard to these islanders? It is really an appalling state of affairs, and I am sure all your Lordships share the indignation of Lord Portsea about the fate of these poor people, our fellow subjects. Cannot we do something through neutral States? We have succeeded in alleviating the lot of our officer prisoners in Germany through the good offices of the American Diplomatic Service, for which we must be grateful. Can nothing be done in the case of these Channel Islanders?
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I shall certainly pass the noble Lord's remarks on to my noble friend when he returns.

RELATIONS WITH FINLAND
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON asked His Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to continue diplomatic relations with Finland, and whether it is the case that an assurance has been received that the funds sent from this country last year to Finland will not be handed over to Germany. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this question on the Paper in consequence of the extremely malicious statements which have been circulated with regard to the present attitude of the Finns, who are more friendly to this country than any other nation I know. It has been stated, for instance, that money sent from this country has been diverted from its purpose and allowed to fall into the hands of the Germans, and it has also been said that British subjects in Finland have been subjected to harsh and unjustified treatment. I do not believe there is a single word of truth in these statements. There may be someone to corroborate what I have said, and I trust I shall get an acknowledgment from the Government that what I have said is correct.
It is perfectly obvious that the object of these statements is to persuade us that the Finns are in the same position as those former Allies who have betrayed us—in a word, that they are as bad as the Vichy politicians. Let me point out that there is no analogy between the two. In the case of France, we had a solemn Treaty in which it was enacted that neither side would make peace without the consent of the other. The Vichy politicians not only broke their word and made a separate peace, but they have shown constant malignity and hostility to this country, as if we had been their enemy for years. I firmly believe that if Admiral Darlan and M. Laval were to express their real opinions, they would have no hesitation in saying that they regard us as a greater enemy than Germany. With regard to the Finns, there is a great deal more to be said for them than would appear to be the case. In the autumn of 1939 they were suddenly subjected to an invasion without having committed any offence whatsoever or giving any provocation for an attack of any kind. We all know what happened, and we also know that the indignation felt in this country at this unprovoked attack was so great that assistance was sent in the form of money and munitions to Finland. It was actually proposed to dispatch a military expedition to Finland to assist them in the war. The Swedes then intervened and refused to allow passage to our troops, and by so doing rendered us valuable service which they probably were not aware of at the time. For if we had sent the expedition there can be no doubt it would have suffered a disaster as did similar expeditions sent elsewhere.
We all know what happened. The Finns made a most determined, courageous, and resolute defence, but they were eventually worn down, partly through the assistance of the Germans to the Russians, and were obliged to make peace. The peace was a disastrous one in every way. It was a kind of peace which has been described by the Germans as a Carthaginian peace. The Finns were deprived of a large portion of their territory, and they were obliged to submit to unjustifiable and extortionate terms. Next they were set upon by the Germans, who came to them and said: "Unless you give passage to our troops from Norway
908
through Finland we will occupy your country." What were the Finns to do? What alternative had they? On the one hand they were subject to the grinding tyranny of the Russians and on the other hand to the threats of the Germans and the prospects of a German occupation of their country. They did what I maintain any other country would have done in similar circumstances. They went to war with the Russians, but they did so with extreme reluctance. In these circumstances I do not feel that we can be too hard upon them. I regard them myself as having been the most hardly used country at the present moment.
The position, of course, has altered in consequence of the Anglo-Russian Treaty, and with regard to that Treaty I have no hesitation in saying that it is fully approved of and applauded by every sensible person in this country, and all the more so because it is strictly confined to the operations of war. We now feel that the Russian cause is our cause. We have made them our Allies, and I feel perfectly certain that the Russians can feel assured we shall not behave to them in the way that the Vichy people have behaved to us. The intervention of the Finns in the war is obviously not the result of a pure desire for military adventure on their part. I do not like to criticise the conduct of an Ally too much, but the complicated position which has arisen has arisen from the fact that the Russian policy during the last two or three years was of a very foolish nature. It is quite evident that the Russians realised the German danger. That is apparent from the fact that they have shown themselves prepared to resist this absolutely unjustifiable onslaught upon them, to which they are making a gallant resistance, in which we wish them well.
We are much indebted to the Russians, but it is not to be expected that the Finns should entertain the same views. They see a prospect of getting back part of what was taken from them. They have not gone to war because they wanted to go to war, but for the purpose of recovering territory taken unjustly from them, and in point of fact they are actually fighting in that territory at the present moment. This is an extremely complicated position, and I think it is extremely hard on the Finns and very disagreeable to us. Is there no way out? I said that the Russian policy—I repeated it with fear

909
and trembling in the presence of the champion of the Soviet Government, Lord Strabolgi—was foolish, and to maintain that policy was quite plainly an extremely foolish thing, but they obviously realised that they were going to be invaded and attacked some day by the Germans. In spite of that they agreed to make a Pact with Hitler. In the meanwhile the Russians unfortunately exasperated not only Finland but other countries as well. The result is that they have around them a belt of nations which is welcoming the German advance and assisting the German progress.
Is there any way out of the difficulty? It seems to me that there is. I observe that the Russians, conscious of the mistake they have made, are now approaching a nation which they formerly attacked. If I am not mistaken they are in process of negotiating with Yugoslavia, with Czecho-Slovakia and with Poland. Is there any reason why they should not approach the Finns themselves? I am of course aware that there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries, but there ought to be some possibility of getting the matter broached, and it might be taken up, not perhaps by ourselves but by somebody else. What I feel is that the Finns would be only too glad to retire altogether from the struggle if the Russians could give them some sort of assurance that the Treaty forced upon them a year ago would be reconsidered. If that were done, I imagine the Finns would be only too glad to retire from the war and take no further part in it. There is a great deal to be said on this subject, but I wilt spare the House any further remark, as there may be other noble Lords who wish to speak on this subject. I will, therefore, content myself by merely asking the question, and will say no more.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, in the absence of the President of the Finland Fund, Lord Plymouth, I venture, as Chairman of that; Fund, to deal in a few words with the second part of Lord Newton's question. The Finland Fund was formed on a strictly non-party basis with the specific objects of succouring the sick and wounded and affording relief to civilians who suffered owing to the invasion of their country. The response of the British public both at home and overseas manifested the admiration which was virtually unanimously felt for the
910
gallant resistance of the Finnish people, a resistance which I think was described by the present Prime Minister as "sublime." In the result the sympathy of the public was manifested to the tune of £301,000 and this large sum was applied as follows. I give these figures because there have been loose insinuations in the Press that the money has found its way into undesirable hands.
In the first place, to the purchases of supplies through the British Red Cross and payment of equipment and expenses of relief expeditions, the sum of £86,500 was devoted. Then there were purchases of clothing and other supplies for the needs of the refugees, £44,000; purchases of ambulance aeroplane, field kitchens, fire engine and fire' fighting equipment and expenses of the fire volunteer crew, £16,500; paid to the London representative of the Finnish Red Cross, £7,000. These items amount to £154,000, and may be said to be the amount spent during the short period of the Finnish War, and chiefly through the Finnish Red Cross. Meanwhile, on the Finnish side, a body known as Suomen Huolto or Finnish Relief was set up by the Finnish Government under ex-President Cajander to administer relief, and in particular relief for the 475,000 refugees from the provinces ceded to Russia. Noble Lords will remember that only something under 10 per cent. of the population of the ceded provinces elected to remain behind under Russian rule.
The unspent balance of the Fund was therefore devoted to various charitable objects after consultation between ex-President Cajander and the Finland Fund's representative, Mr. Henry M. Bell. These moneys were paid to the Bank of England by the Finland Fund, and the sterling so acquired was in fact used very largely for purchases from this country, whilst corresponding credits in Finnish marks were opened in Finland. In the result, the Salvation Army in Finland, which had suffered severe losses through bombing of its buildings and other enemy action, and which has all along given most devoted service under the leadership of Mr. and Mrs. Sladen, received £5,000. The maintenance of hospitals for evacuee children accounted for £15,000; the fund for war wounded £40,000. This has all been spent. The fund for the education of the children from the ceded provinces received

911
£40,000. This has been largely spent in replacing technical schools lost by the partition of the territory. The erection of two homes for orphans and homeless children accounted for £12,000, and I am assured that this money has actually been handed over to the institutions concerned. A sum of £15,000 was paid over to the Finnish Red Cross and nearly all expended in America to pay for purchases in that country. And finally there was a grant of £1,000 to the children's home in Rovaniemi and the home for aged women in Viborg.
The total thus accounted for is £128,000, which, added to the £154,000 spent during the war, brings us to a total of £282,000. Various small miscellaneous purchases accounted for another £3,000, and the balance to make the total of £301,000 is accounted for by the overhead expenses of the Fund, which amounted to only £6,400, the remainder being retained as a reserve, partly for the repatriation of the volunteer fire crew. I would only add that I have the highest assurance that all funds sent for relief purposes to Finland had been allotted under the supervision of the Fund's representatives to the objects which I have stated by December, 1940. I have thought it right to make this somewhat detailed statement, for which I apologise to your Lordships, in order that our subscribers may rest assured that of the large sum of money so generously sub-cribed by them none has passed into German hands.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, in reply to the first part of the question on the Paper in the name of my noble friend, I may say that the relations between this country and Finland have been under constant review since Finland engaged in hostilities against our Ally, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, side by side with German troops, large bodies of whom are stationed in Finland. After very careful consideration His Majesty's Government have decided at present to maintain diplomatic relations with Finland. But they have left the Finnish Government in no doubt that this decision to continue relations may at any time be reversed in the light of events. They have, of course, ceased the issue of Navicerts for goods destined for Finland, and no facilities are being given for ships to proceed to that country.
912
As regards the second part of the question it is not quite clear what funds the noble Lord has in mind, but presumably it was the so-called "Finland Fund," concerning which my noble friend Lord Phillimore has informed the House. This fund was collected in this country on private initiative at the time of the war between Finland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for the purpose of supplying comforts, medicines and drugs to Finland and which amounted as has been stated to £301,000. More than one half of this amount was expended on purchases in the United Kingdom. This fund was a purely private enterprise, and His Majesty's Government neither contributed to it nor were responsible for the allocation of the money collected. When the war ended in 1940, there was a considerable balance of this fund left over, and this was applied to various charitable purposes arising from the war, such as the care of orphans, and the like. The bulk of the fund, which is administered under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, has now been expended, with the exception of a reserve of about £10,000 which has been kept in this country in anticipation of expenditure connected with the repatriation of a number of persons sent out to Finland at the expense of the fund at the time.
While, therefore, it cannot be said that specific assurances were received, either then, or subsequently, that the fund would not be handed over to the Germans, there does not appear to be the slightest reason for assuming that this would happen, even if most of the fund had not already been expended as appears to be the case. In addition to the Finland Fund, smaller sums of money were sent to Finland by the Finnish Aid Bureau in this country for the maintenance of the volunteers who proceeded to Finland from this country at the time and most of whom are now in Sweden. These amounts were expended practically as soon as they reached Finland, so that there can be no question of handing these over to the Germans.

DIOCESAN REORGANISATION COMMITTEES MEASURE, 1941.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON moved to resolve. That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the

913
Diocesan Reorganisation Committees Measure, 1941, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving the Motion which stands in my name, I must give a brief account of the Measure to which it refers. Last week your Lordships were discussing the problems of reconstruction, and the Minister of Works and Buildings said, among other things, that damaged areas must be re-planned as a whole, that the planning must begin now, that there must be planning control, and that the future carrying out of plans must not be prejudiced by intermediate uncontrolled action. The Measure applies those precise principles to the particular problem which confronts the Church by reason of the extensive destruction which has been done to churches and other ecclesiastical property.
I need not enlarge upon that problem. In London and other great cities, there are whole districts in which hardly a church remains untouched. It is neither possible nor desirable that every destroyed church should be rebuilt just as it was and where it was. Conditions have changed, old needs have disappeared, new needs have been created, and in many parts of our great cities there were before the war too many separate parishes and too many churches. It is clear that where there has been destruction there must be consideration of these areas as a whole and a considered policy before rebuilding is begun. That would be so in any case, but it is made even more necessary by the passing of the War Damage Act. Under Section 39 of that Act, in respect of buildings used for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes the payment by way of compensation is entirely at the discretion of the War Damage Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said on the Second Reading that in the case of religious bodies it might be possible to provide payments by way of compensation which need not be applied for replacing exactly what had been destroyed or for rebuilding on the same site. He was clearly thinking, as the Chairman of the War Damage Commission is now thinking, not in terms of separate isolated claims made by parish after parish, but in terms of claims correlated in a general rebuilding plan for a particular area. It follows that there must be
914
in each diocese a responsible and authorised body which can survey separate parochial claims, see them in relation to one another and to a general plan, and deal on behalf of all the parishes with the War Damage Commission.
Accordingly, this Measure provides that in every diocese there shall be a diocesan reorganisation committee with two main functions. The first—I put it generally—is to act on behalf of the parishes in presenting and negotiating claims for compensation, in receiving payments made by the War Damage Commission and in allocating such payments, after consultation with the parishes and subject to any conditions made by the War Damage Commission. The second function is to do the planning which is necessary preliminary to the negotiation of such claims. These committees arc charged with the duty' of making recommendations in respect of what I may call reconstruction areas for the rearrangement of pastoral supervision, including recommendations for the alteration of parochial boundaries, the holding of benefices in plurality, the union and disunion of benefices, the re-allocation of endowments and so forth. That may sound a large order, but there is no kind of doubt that in many damaged and devastated areas the replanning will have to be very extensive and thorough.
I would ask your Lordships, however, to note two things. The first is that in making recommendations, these committees must by the Measure consult as far as possible with the incumbents, patrons and parochial church councils of the parishes concerned. Secondly, these committees have power only to recommend. So far as this Measure goes, their recommendations can be put into effect only by using the existing machinery of the Union of Benefices Measures, and so forth, with the multiplicity of safeguards which that machinery contains. It may well be that the Church Assembly will later on be moved to invent some more expeditious machinery for use in these devastated areas, so that they may be set going on their reorganised plan as rapidly as possible after the war; but so far as this Measure goes, there are no new powers of that kind at all. The Measure gives power only to plan and to recommend.
To that I must add one exception. The Measure does give power in certain cases to delay action for the time being. Lord Reith's principle that the future carrying out of plans must not be prejudiced by intermediate action applies very strongly here. The reorganisation of devastated areas from the Church point of view would be prejudiced if in the meantime, and outside any considered plan, destroyed churches were to be rebuilt by private enterprise or fresh freeholds were to be created. The Measure therefore provides that, if a committee recommends that a damaged church shall not be restored pending further consideration, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may, at the request of the Bishop, make an order deferring the restoration of that church for a period not exceeding five years, and while the order is in force the church shall not be restored without the consent of the Bishop. Similarly, if where such an order has been issued the living falls vacant, no presentation of a clerk to fill the benefice shall be made without the consent of the Bishop for a term of five years from the date of the Measure. There are similar provisions about the rebuilding of parsonage houses. It will be seen that this power of delay—that is to say, the power to delay for five years in certain areas the rebuilding of a church, or the creation of a fresh freehold by appointing a fresh incumbent to a vacant living—is necessary to keep the way clear for such reorganisation and replanning as may in the end be decided upon; but those delaying provisions are entirely temporary and do not extend beyond that period of five years.
That, I think, covers the main provisions of the Measure. I hope it may be agreed that it is a wise and necessary Measure, and that we are doing in regard to Church property what must be done on a wider scale for the nation as a whole. I need only add that in the Church Assembly the necessity for such a Measure was at once recognised, that it was passed through all its stages in one session as a matter of the greatest urgency, that the points of criticism were, I think I may say, all met by agreed amendments between the movers of the Measure and the critics, and that in the end the Measure
916
received final approval with no dissentient voice at all. The Ecclesiastical Committee regards the Measure as expedient, and is of opinion that it should become law. I therefore beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Diocesan Reorganisation Committees Measure, 1941, be presented to His Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Bishop of London.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ALIENS IN THE PIONEER CORPS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the first question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the practice to permit enemy aliens serving in the Pioneer Corps to apply for transfer to a combatant unit and, if so, how many such transfers have been effected.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD CROFT): My Lords, enemy aliens are normally enlisted for service in the Pioneer Corps only. The rule governing transfers of all Army personnel is that transfers shall be in the interests of the Service. As aliens perform most useful work in the Pioneer Corps, there are few cases in which transfer to a combatant corps would be of any advantage to the Service. There is no absolute rule against such transfers, but applications are not encouraged, as only in very exceptional cases could they be granted. No such transfers have so far been carried out. This does not apply to enemy aliens with technical qualifications, who are eligible for transfer to special workshops of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, arising out of that answer will my noble friend say whether that does not conflict with a statement previously made that, when weapons become available, these men, who did such splendid work at the time of Dunkirk, would be allowed to enter a combatant unit?
LORD CROFT: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' permission to do so, I will answer the noble Lord's supplementary question. I do not think that my answer is in any way contrary to the fact that we have stated—and so far as I know there is no change in the policy—that when we have a surplus of arms over those which are required for the expanding combatant forces of this country, there is no reason why they should not be handed to the Pioneer Corps. I have always been in favour of that being done.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the second question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government if there is any foundation for the allegation that it is the policy of the War Office to draft British conscientious objector; who have been ordered by the Tribunals to undertake service with the Pioneer Corps into those units of the Corps which consist mainly of aliens; and whether they are aware that resentment is being caused among the alien volunteers as a result of this practice.]
LORD CROFT: My Lords, there is no foundation for the allegation that as a matter of policy British conscientious objectors ordered for attachment to the Pioneer Corps will be drafted to Pioneer companies consisting of aliens. British conscientious objectors are sent to a training centre for equipping, documentation and formation into companies for the field, and at this centre they are placed into an entirely separate company. For reasons of efficiency and economy aliens and British combatant personnel are also at this establishment, but they are in quite separate companies. In view of what I have said the noble Lord may rest assured that there can be no resentment or cause for resentment on this subject among the alien volunteers.

POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION.
LORD DAVIES: My Lords, I beg to ask the third question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether, with the object of facilitating reconstruction after the war, any steps have been taken to obtain plans or models of buildings of historical or architectural importance likely to suffer damage through enemy action.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister of Works and Buildings is detained elsewhere by business of national importance and has asked me to reply on his behalf. The National Buildings Record, under the chairmanship of the Master of Rolls in England and of the Marquess of Bute in Scotland, is cataloguing existing plans, drawings, photographs and models of such buildings and, where necessary, making new records.

SIR MALCOLM ROBERTSON'S REPORT.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will publish the terms of reference to and the Report of Sir Malcolm Robertson on the proposed reforms in the Diplomatic and Consular Services.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated in another place that he was reluctant to publish the Report since it dealt with certain specific matters which he had defined. He further stated that when the time came to put the proposals in detail he would give a full description. In further explanation I should say that the Report contains general recommendations submitted to the Secretary of State for his private personal consideration and not detailed proposals which could be immediately adopted. It is, therefore, necessary to work out the application of the principles advocated by Sir Malcolm Robertson. As soon as this work is completed and detailed practical proposals have been elaborated, Parliament and the public will be duly informed.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask

919
whether the full statement which is promised will give the reasons for the recommendations contained in the Report?
LORD SNELL: My Lords, if it is a full statement it probably will include that. I do not know what the statement will contain, however, and I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot answer the noble Lord's supplementary question.

WAGES POLICY.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, before we adjourn I think perhaps I should tell your Lorships that, in view of the publication to-day of the White Paper on Price Stabilisation and Industrial Policy, the Motion which was in Lord Elton's name for your Lordships' consideration tomorrow, in which he asked for a statement of Government policy "with regard to industrial wages," will be postponed.
House adjourned