HL Deb 11 March 1941 vol 118 cc636-58

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD RANKEILLOUR

My Lords, may I take this opportunity of raising—I hope very shortly—a matter which is strictly relevant to the Bill but is not capable of being dealt with by Amendment to the Bill? If I had been able to do so I ought to have raised it on Second Reading, but I was away on work which I may say is work of distinctly national importance. I am a trustee of a mutual indemnity society. That society is worked by a management company in which I have no interest either as a director or as a shareholder, and as admittedly the company will have to cease operation on the passing of this Bill such interest as I have as trustee is not affected. This company was formed last year when the whole policy of the Government was against any comprehensive Government scheme, or any Government scheme, to insure against war damage. The Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Weir, had reported in October, 1939, that no such scheme as is now put forward was practicable, and the same attitude was taken by the representative of the Government in reply to a deputation sent by industrial and commercial interests. Therefore the field was open, and it may be almost said that private effort in this direction was encouraged by the Government attitude.

This company and the trust involved started early last year, the greatest possible attention having been paid to the drafting of the trust and of the scheme as a whole, which was passed by the Board of Trade. For the first few months it met with great success—with great and growing and encouraging success—until the statement made in September last by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government were proposing a comprehensive scheme. This has placed the company in a position of great difficulty. Possibly some of your Lordships are directors of insurance companies, and if so you will know that the expenses of running such companies are extremely high. Forty per cent. is a very low rate of expenses, but the working of this trust prescribed a rate of not more than 25 per cent., which was, as work of this kind goes, exceptionally low. But, of course, the preliminary expenses were extremely high. The result has been that the company finds itself landed, owing to the sudden cessation—the compulsory cessation—of its operations, with a heavy loss, and I submit that there cannot be under the text of this Bill any equitable claim. They took' the utmost care in forming the scheme by submitting it to the Board of Trade and by taking counsel's opinion, and the text of the typograph was gone over time after time. In the natural expectation of business the expenditure incurred was perfectly justified. If they had had premiums for a second year the expense would have been very soon wiped out. Now I do not ask the Lord Chancellor to say anything about this on the present occasion, but I do put it to him that it is an equitable claim and that the Government in considering other claims arising out of the war ought not to forget this.

On Question, Motion agree to.

House in Committee accordingly

[The Earl of Onslow in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Constitution and functions of War Damage Commission.

1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall be constituted a Commission, to be called the War Damage Commission (in this Act referred to as "the Commission") consisting of persons appointed by the Treasury in accordance with the First Schedule to this Act, which shall be charged with the duty of executing the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the making of payments in respect of war damage to land, and shall exercise such other functions as are conferred upon them by this Act.

LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), after "Treasury," to insert "and by the Board of Trade with the approval of the Treasury." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the other two in my name on this clause stand together and raise a very important point of administration. I called attention to it in my speech on the Second Reading and I have put Amendments on the Paper in order, I hope, to elicit an appropriate statement from the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill. Of course the drafting of the Amendments is designed, quite clearly, to raise a point, and the point is this. Under the Bill as it stands there are three insurance schemes. Houses, land and property—that is land and houses and buildings standing on it—are compulsorily insured. This scheme is to be administered by a body, to be set up under the clause which is called the War Damage Commission. Later on in the Bill there are two other insurance schemes; one compulsory and one voluntary.

The compulsory scheme is the one which secures the insurance, under Clause 59, of the goods of a business, "goods" being widely interpreted, and I am not concerned now with that interpretation. There is another scheme in the same clause, administered by the Board of Trade, which is called the chattels insurance scheme—clothes, personal belongings and so on, which I need not particularise. And there is also, we are glad I am sure to know, a scheme for the free insurance of clothes and suchlike, of people's persona belongings below a certain amount. There are, therefore, these three schemes, one as to land and houses administered by the Land War Damage Commission, another as to business belongings coming under the scheme administered by the Board of Trade, and chattels voluntary insurance also administered by the Board of Trade. Well now, if we were to go out into the streets anywhere we should see the results of a bomb, and while not in every case but in a large proportion of cases, we should find that the bomb involved all three classes of things. We should find that property was bombed, that the house was destroyed, or partially destroyed or damaged, that the people living in it, if it was a business house, would certainly have had some of their business goods destroyed, and in a very large number of tragic cases that the people had lost all their personal belongings as well.

At the smaller houses where a man has had a shop and has lived on the premises, it would be found, most probably, that all three have gone together, the house, the goods of his business—his stock-in-trade—and his clothes and furniture—the whole lot. These are the losses which the Bill is designed to meet. Now, under the Bill as it stands, the people who have suffered such losses will be able to recover compensation from the War Damage Commission as regards the house and buildings, and from the Board of Trade, under the goods insurance scheme, in respect of the business stock, and also under the chattels scheme if they insure their chattels. What I have been wondering is how the ordinary citizen is going to get his money—how is he going to proceed? I am rather appalled at the prospect and I want to get some simplicity into it if I can. That is the purpose of these Amendments. I can see that unless we are very careful this kind of thing is going to happen. There will be somebody or other established in an office, in the first place, let us say an office set up by the local authority—and as we know a very large number of people have been very splendidly and promptly helped by the local authorities or various administrations which have had a room in the town hall or somewhere else to which they have been able to go to get advice.

There were difficulties at first, that was inevitable, but here we shall have these Commissions—I do not know whether they will have separate offices or not—and the first thing people will have to do will be to find out who they have to go to and where they have to go. Then there will be various forms to fill up; various claims will have to be made, and someone will have to advise the people as to how to fill up the forms. We all know, even those of us who are accustomed to these matters, like Parliamentarians, what difficulty there is in filling up forms sometimes. I do, anyhow. But the ordinary rank and file of the people who have suffered damage will be caused great distress and they will find themselves in a great dilemma. If a man has had his house, his shop goods and furniture all bombed, as has happened in hundreds of cases, he may find that he has to go to at least two offices and fill in three different sets of forms because there are different schemes of insurance. I do not want the average well-meaning citizen who has suffered all this devastation to be exposed to any more worry and bother than we can avoid. I think we all sympathise with him. We have all had a very bad time. We do not want to compel our fellow-citizens to have to go to two offices at least and fill in at least three sets of forms. They will have to do so under the Bill as it stands.

That is explanatory of my Amendments. What I want in these Amendments—and what I believe is the right thing—is that we should have one Commission to deal with the lot; that is really what I am getting at. Under the Bill as it stands, by Clause 59 the Board of Trade will administer the two insurance schemes, relating to business goods and to chattels. Subsection (3) of Clause 59 says: The War Damage Commission shall exercise such functions for the purposes of this Part of this Act as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury, direct. In other words, the Board of Trade may say to the War Damage Commission, who will administer the scheme of insurance of property: "You look after the business goods of these people," or they may ask the War Damage Commission to see to everything; or they may do nothing effective. I am sure that the Board of Trade will do their best, as they always do; but there is nothing to show that this Commission will act with regard to business goods. It is quite impossible to act, however, without taking account of the contents of the shop. A man may have his house destroyed as well, and lose all the groceries on the shelves in the shop and in a room at the back. In ascertaining the loss which he has sustained you must take account of the whole affair; that is inevitable.

It is quite impossible to expect that the scheme of insurance in such a case shall be administered by two separate bodies. I think, therefore, that we ought to aim at so adjusting the constitution of the War Damage Commission set up under this clause that it will be competent to deal with all the three classes of insurance. There will be, of course, various reservations. It will be subject to such powers as may be remitted to it, as the clause sets out, for the purposes of this measure; but the whole point of this series of Amendments which I have put down is to try to secure that we shall have a War Damage Commission on which the Board of Trade will be represented, because it will be dealing with the Board of Trade group of insurances as well as with the others. It is necessary, therefore, to have a combined Commission with representation of the Board of Trade upon it, competent to deal with every class of case.

Having said that, I would direct attention to the words of my proposed Amendment. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 states that the War Damage Commission shall consist "of persons appointed by the Treasury," and I there wish to insert "and by the Board of Trade with the approval of the Treasury." Those words are taken out of Clause 59, under which the Board of Trade appoint the persons to deal with their insurance schemes with the approval of the Treasury. My next Amendment, which is to leave out the words "of this Part" in subsection (1) of Clause 1, and the subsequent Amendment, to leave out the words "to land" in the same subsection, are intended to provide that this body shall be charged with the duty of executing the provisions of this Act relating to the making of payments in respect of war damage. In other words, it is comprehensive. I sincerely hope that if the noble and learned Lord Chancellor cannot accept this Amendment—I hope that he will, though I do not say in this particular form, because I am not a Parliamentary draftsman—he will be able to give the assurance that people will not be saddled with the kind of embarrassment which, though only in the briefest outline, I have indicated, and that the procedure and the administration will be simplified and unified as far as is humanly possible.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, after (" Treasury ") insert (" and by the Board of Trade with the approval of the Treasury ").—(Lord Addison.)

LORD JESSEL

I am sure that we have all listened with the greatest care to the words which have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord opposite in moving this Amendment. I have considerable sympathy with him, and I hope that the Government will favourably view what he has said. It is perfectly true that as far as local authorities are concerned, you have only to go into the town hall and you can have all your requirements looked into under one comprehensive roof. If that could be done so far as the point raised by the noble Lord is concerned, it would simplify matters.

There is one other question in connection with this matter which I should like to put forward for the sympathetic consideration of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor. It is most difficult for people to know what to do in these circumstances. On the Second Reading I put various points to the noble and learned Viscount, and to most of my feeble points he was good enough to reply. One question which I asked was whether the Government, when this Bill is passed into law, would issue some memorandum for the guidance of the public as to what they were to do and how they were to do it. That would be of very great assistance; and I hope that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, when he replies on behalf of the Government on this Amendment, will give some indication of whether that point has been considered. It would be of the greatest benefit to everybody; it would do away with a great deal of misconception and also, I hope, with a great deal of red tape.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

I should very much like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addison, because I personally am interested in this matter and shall very shortly have to make these returns and ask for assistance from these various Departments. As this Bill stands at present, we shall, as the noble Lord has stated, have to apply to at least two Government Departments. I do not wish to criticise any Government Department, but they are all, of course, and especially the Treasury, very much overworked to-day. This Commission, which will have to deicide the questions which will be put to them in connection with the consideration of our claim, will certainly be overworked to begin with, because the claims will be multitudinous. We shall not only be kept waiting for a reply for a very long time, but we shall probably find the greatest difficulty in getting any of our claims settled. If the whole of the business could be placed, as my noble friend Lord Jessel said, under one roof and dealt with by one Department, with representation of the Board of Trade on the Commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Addison, suggested, the Commission would be able to deal with all questions relating to houses, furniture, chattels and, if necessary, goods, and that would simplify our business very considerably.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord opposite put his point, if I may be allowed to say so, very clearly and persuasively, and it is evident from the two speeches which have since been made that what he said is recognised as a very serious suggestion. I do not dispute that at all. He is in search of simplicity. Well, so are we all; the difficulty is not to decide what we are in search of but to decide what is the better organisation to arrive at it. My noble friend who has just spoken says he anticipates that there may be delay. I should be very sorry if that occurs. I am sure that everything possible will be done to prevent it. But is there going to be more delay or less delay if, in addition to the enormous burden which is put upon the War Damage Commission, you say that that is not enough, that it has got to take the responsibility for two other great departments of business which of course are quite distinct in their character, though I agree with Lord Addison that both may arise in a single case?

Observe that the Board of Trade, in dealing with Parts II and III of the Bill, is dealing with insurance policies and the collection of premiums. Not only is that class of matter quite obviously, as between Government Departments, a Board of Trade matter, but the Board of Trade has in fact very great experience of that class of work. They are doing it now in connection with commodity insurance, and they have duties in connection with many other forms of insurance, and manirestly those who have to deal with that part of the task must be helped by men of great experience and experts who are in the closest touch with the methods and duties of insurance business. I doubt very much whether you will really either simplify or hasten proceedings if you say, "No, I wish the whole of this Bill to be put in the charge of a single organisa- tion"—I mean the War Damage Commission. I recollect the other day that Lord Addison, in the kindest way, reminded me how, long ago, he and I as junior Ministers in another place had to do with national insurance. Yes we had, but it was divided into two parts there was national health insurance, which I think was the part which he more particularly attended to, and there was national unemployment insurance, which was the part that I particularly attended to. And ever since they have been separate, and I do not think anybody would suggest that you would have made a better thing of it if you had thrown the whole thing into the hands of a single body.

I agree, of course, that if you have a disaster of this sort it may very easily bring into play not only Part I of the Bill but Part II also. That is a perfectly fair point. But the question is, What is the best way to deal with those two matters? They are in one Bill, but they are in different Parts. And the view the Government deliberately formed—because I am not improvising on this matter; it is naturally one of those fundamental things which was gone into at an early stage and has been considered since—was that the War Damage Commission should be a body which is created and staffed with a view to dealing with compensation, which brings in the use of valuers. I do not know that we shall find it easy to get a sufficient number of experts to deal with the whole thing at once, and administer this immense collection of clauses in Part 1. Then Part II deals with policies of insurance—of course Part I is not insurance, it is compensation paid in return for a class of contribution but it is not based on insurance. Part II is insurance. You pay a premium, which is related to the value of the thing which is going to be paid for. All that is familiar ground for the great Department of the Board of Trade, and there is no reason in the view of the Government why you would make things either more simplified or quicker by putting them both into one control.

There is an important subsection to which the noble Lord, Lord Addison, referred, in Part II. It is subsection (3) of Clause 59, which does provide in order to get a contact that: The War Damage Commission shall exercise such functions for the purposes of this Part of this Act."— that is, the insurance scheme— as the Board of Trade may, with the approval of the Treasury direct". That does provide for a shifting, if need be—experience will show—of whatever it is thought well to shift, and therefore, after due consideration, the view has been clearly adopted that it is right to set up this War Damage Commission to deal with the enormous problems of Part I, but that Part II is better dealt with by the Department which is naturally associated with insurance.

I hope what I have said shows that I am not in any way scouting the noble Lord's suggestion, but of course he is proposing a fundamental change in the whole Bill, and I must say quite firmly that, having considered it, the Government are not able to approve of that suggested re-arrangement. As regards my my noble friend behind me, who asked me whether or not there could not be some sort of child's guide to the Bill created, well, it world be a fine work, but since he made the suggestion the other day I am informed that the matter has been actively considered, and that if it proves advisable, as it well may, it is perfectly possible for us to try to get a simple and abbreviated statement. But, as far as these Amendments are concerned, the arrangement which is usually associated with the name of Pooh-Bah, by which all the offices fall into one hand, is not necessarily the best way to get simplicity and speed, and I hope the Committee will, after that explanation allow us to get our teeth into this delightful menu that is awaiting our consumption.

LORD ADDISON

The noble and learned Viscount has given the reply which I of course expected. I knew very well that the Amendments related to a fundamental matter, and I put them down, not with the anticipation that they would be accepted, but in the hope that I should be able to elicit a statement from the Lord Chancellor as to the importance of simplifying the procedure from the point of view of the ordinary citizen to the utmost possible extent, and of unifying that procedure, as it is provided in Clause 59, to the utmost possible extent also. I was not quite so reassured by his speech as I had hoped. Because I was not proposing that the very important insurance function of the Board of Trade should be transferred to this Commission. That is not suggested at all. The Commission would be charged with duties relating to the making of payments in respect to war damage, that is to say, after the damage has occurred. The business of the Board of Trade—assessing value, collecting the insurance and all the apparatus of collecting and administering the insurance scheme—is entirely apart, and not included, or intended to be in-eluded, in my Amendments. These Amendments merely relate to simplifying the procedure in the case of the citizen who has suffered damage. However, I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. With the admonitions which we are suggesting for the authorities concerned, I hope that we shall get a child's I guide, if it can be so described, for a measure of this kind, as simply expressed as possible for ordinary people to use. I hope, too, that the procedures will be made as simple as may be. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Payments under Part I and hereditaments that are to be units for purpose thereof.

2.—(1) Payments shall be made by the Commission, subject to and in accordance with theprovisions of this Part of this Act, in respect of war damage to land occurring during the risk period: …

LORD ADDISON had given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (1)—namely, to leave out "to land", and to substitute "period of the war" for "risk period". The noble Lord said I am sorry to have to intervene again so soon, but your Lordships will see from the Order Paper that you will not be troubled by my interventions very often. This Amendment relates to another equally fundamental matter. It is put down, not because I expect the noble and learned Viscount to accept it, but because it is the only way in which I can raise the point. Your Lordships may not be aware—at least, I was not aware, and I am sure the general public were not aware—that this is not an insurance Bill at all in respect of this class of property—land and houses—after August 31 next. The compensation provided in the Bill is for properties damaged up to and including August 31. That is to say, if your house is damaged at 11.55 p.m. on

August 31 you will be entitled to compensation, but if it is damaged at 1.5 a.m. on September 1 you will not. Nevertheless, you will go on paying premiums for five years; it does not make any difference so far as that is concerned.

What I want to know is what comfort can the Government offer to us as to what is to happen after August 31? I do not suppose any of us are sanguine enough to expect that no damage will be caused after August 31. We must expect a great deal of damage to be inflicted after that date but those on whom the damage is inflicted will not be entitled to be compensated under this Bill at all. The money provided by the payments to be made by everybody according to the value of their property, with the Government contribution, if need be, is designed to provide a fund necessary to compensate damage which has been committed on or before August 31, 1941. If, as we may expect, damage is inflicted after that date, additional funds will have to be provided in order to pay for that damage. These Amendments which I have put down on this clause are in order to obtain from the Lord Chancellor, if I can, some statement as to what the Government contemplate will be done in respect of property damaged after August 31. That is the point.

The first Amendment proposes to omit the words "to land" in order to make the clause comprehensive. The "risk period" is defined in a later clause, as your Lordships may not have discovered before the Second Reading of the Bill, and as my noble and learned friend assisted us to discover, as up to and including August 31, 1941. The whole scheme is limited to what happens before that date. If these words were omitted, as I propose in another Amendment, the Bill would extend to the period of the war. Of course the funds provided under the Bill would no doubt be completely inadequate for the purpose. There are thus two points on which I hope we may get some statement from the noble and learned Viscount—namely, whether the Government have in contemplation any particular plan for continuing this scheme of giving compensation for damage committed after August 31, and, if they have, whether the Lord Chancellor can indicate whether the Government will be able to give us definite information on the point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 8, leave out ("to land")—[Lord Addison.]

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord who has just moved this Amendment raised the point, as your Lordships will remember, on the Second Reading, and I shall repeat, perhaps more precisely, what I endeavoured to say then in reply. The scheme of the Bill is to cover damage for two years. It begins on September 3, 1939, and goes on to August 31, 1941. That is a very considerable period, and I do not think, when we are dealing with such enormous sums of money, and when the factors which will be involved are still so uncertain in amount, that there can be any great surprise that it was thought wiser to proceed by stages. But it does clearly involve, and it is the Government's intention, that unless conditions so change that this becomes unnecessary, there should be provision made for the period which will follow after. It is not possible to define now exactly what the provision will be, because it is one of the advantages of causing the present Bill to operate for a risk period that terminates at the end of August that we shall by that time, all of us—administrators and critics alike—discover where the present scheme can be improved. It may be found that the rate of contribution is unnecessarily high, it may be found that other arrangements can be changed for the better, and of course all that will be taken into account in the new Bill; but it is the definite intention of the Government to introduce, in case of need, further legislation for a further period which would make provision for war damage after August 31 next.

While I cannot fix a date for that legislation, I would suppose that such legislation must be not only introduced, but in a fair way to completion, by about that date. At any rate it would be better if it were so. How far the scheme applicable to the present risk period may have to be amended is obviously a question we can all decide much better together when we have had experience of the working of this Bill, but the Committee may be assured that the Government's proposals for the future will be framed in the same spirit as that which prompts the present Bill—that is to say, with the desire and intention tion that the repair or replacement of the building or business property of all our citizens should be assured to the fullest extent compatible with all aspects of the public interest.

LORD ADDISON

I am exceedingly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the most important assurance he has given to us, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Payments t o be either of cost of works or by reference to value.

(4) The amount of a value payment shall be an amount equal to the amount of the depreciation in the value of the hereditament caused by the war damage, that is to say, the amount by which the value of the hereditament in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of the damage is less than its value in the state in which it was immediately before the occurrence of the damage.

(5) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection the value of a hereditament in the state in which it was at any time shall be ascertained by reference to prices current at the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and shall be taken to be the amount which the fee simple in the hereditament in that state might have been expected to realise on a sale thereof made in the open market on the said day with vacant possession and free from any incumbrance, other than any restrictive covenant, easement, quasi-easement, or other right inuring for the benefit of other land, to which the hereditament was subject at that time:

Provided that provision may be made by regulations made by the Treasury for the valuation by reference to such matters as may be therein specified of hereditaments consisting of or comprising premises of a kind not normally the subject of sales in the open market, or having a value winch could not be fully realised on such a sale.

(6) The amount of a payment of cost of works shall be reduced by an amount equal to the value of any articles which formed part of the hereditament and become available as materials in consequence, whether directly or indirectly, of the war damage, and in computing the amount of a value payment the value of any such articles shall be included in the value of the hereditament in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of the war damage:

Provided that—

LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (4), after the first "damage," to insert "including the non-payment of rent." The noble Lord said: This is the last Amendment standing in my name. It only happens by chance to have come at the beginning with the others. This deals with a very subordinate matter, and I have put it down again in order to elicit, if possible, a statement from the Lord Chancellor. If your Lordships will refer to subsection (4) on page 3 of the Bill, you will see there are references to the amount of a value payment, which, it says, "shall be an amount equal to the amount of the depreciation in the value of the hereditament caused by the war damage." I was asked by the treasurer of a large friendly society of which I happen to be the senior trustee—the Liverpool Victoria Society—to inquire what the extent of that was because, like many other friendly societies, this society has very large investments in ground rents and such like things. I put the Amendment down, not to press it, but in order to elicit a statement from the noble and learned Lord Chancellor as to whether the damages inflicted will cover cases of the non-payment of rent. As we know, in large numbers of cases these people go away and do not pay any rent, and I do not blame them for that, because they have no property left to pay any rent for. But the land is left, and I should have; thought it would in the future have the same potential value. At all events, in order to get a statement from the noble and learned Viscount, I move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 28 after ("damage") insert ("including the non-payment of rent").—(Lord Addison.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is natural that the question should be raised, and it is convenient that it should be raised in this way by an Amendment, but there can be no doubt as to the answer. The scheme in Part I of the Bill is a scheme for making provision against physical damage to buildings and so forth, and it is not a scheme for offering compensation for loss of profit in any form. If once we were to embark on that particular adventure, we should in Part I have to compensate not only landlords who had not got payment of their rent, but also professional men who had lost their business, hotel keepers who had lost their customers, and everybody who could show loss in connection with some property or other or who were suffering business loss. The scheme is a scheme in respect of compensation for physical damage. I may perhaps remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister, who was, I think, the first to make a statement on this general subject of Government intention, when he made that statement said most emphatically that what was contemplated was compensation in respect of physical damage to buildings and land, cutting out altogether these other considerations. There are of course other provisions of the law which may help on the tenant's side. There are provisions in the existing war code which may enable him to be protected against pressure to pay rent for property which has been destroyed, and there are many other provisions, but this Bill, if I may say so, already contains quite enough, and I am unable to receive as an extra cargo all these suggested claims for compensation for loss of profit.

LORD ADDISON

I thank the noble and learned Viscount for the very clear statement he has made. It will, I think, render a useful service because it was quite clear that the Bill was designed to deal with physical damage and not with these other potential claims. I think it is very useful that the statement which the learned Viscount has made should be put on record.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR had on the Paper several Amendments to the clause, including three to subsection (5), which proposed to substitute "subject to" for "and free from any incumbrance, other than"; to insert, after "land," the words "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, after "time," immediately preceding the proviso, to add "but free from any other incumbrance." The noble and learned Viscount saidWith the permission of the Lord Chairman I think that this Amendment and the two Amendments following it could be quite well taken together. The first of these three Amendments is drafting, and I need not say any more about it. The purpose of the second Amendment is as follows. If noble Lords will look at Clause 3, subsection (5), they will see that it provides that the depreciation in the value of a hereditament caused by war damage is to be ascertained by comparing its market value before the damage occurred with its value after the damage occurred. It will be manifest that the valuation that is needed for that purpose is a valuation of the hereditament as a whole, not of the particular interest in it, whether it is the interest of owners, tenants, mortgagees and so on. Therefore, account must be taken of incumbrances that diminish the value of the land as such. As the subsection is now worded it is defective because it only requires account to be taken of such incumbrances in so far as they consist of restrictions inuring for the benefit of other land, such as a private right of way which one piece of property might have over another, and does not cover public and statutory rights that would diminish the value of the land. The purpose of the Amendment is to cure this defect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 40, leave out from ("possession") to the second ("any") and insert ("subject to").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I now move the second Amendment which I have already explained.

Amendment moved— Page 3, 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 exactment.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD STRABOLGI

If I am not mistaken I think a word is left out which is necessary to make this clause scan. It seems to me that the Lord Chancellor's second Amendment is at fault and requires either the word "and" or the word "or" in front of "any public right of way." May I read the subsection to show that unless some word of that sort is put in it will not read? Beginning at line 39 it now reads: thereof made in the open market on the said day with vacant possession subject to any restrictive covenant, easement, quasi-easement or other right inuring for the benefit of other land and it is now proposed to add any public right of way, right of common, or other right inuring for the benefit of the public … Am I not right in saying we ought to have either "and" or "or" in front of the second part?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

In its amended form it will be a list of several things—(a), (b), (c), (d), (e). It is only between the penultimate one and the last one that you want to insert a word, as it is inserted, and that is the word "or"—"or other right." I need not say I will ask the draftsmen to look at it, and perhaps if there is anything to be done it can be done on Report.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I now move the third Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 43, at end insert ("but free from any other incumbrance").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (6), after "value," where that word first occurs, to insert "ascertained in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury." The noble and learned Viscount said: Here again I think it would be convenient to take this Amendment and also the following one on line 8, to insert "ascertained as aforesaid," together. The point is a simple one; it is this. Subsection (6) of Clause 3 required the value of debris which is available as material to be taken into account in settling the amount of a cost-of-works payment or a value payment. It has been represented to us that doubts may arise as to the manner in which the value of the debris is to be ascertained, and as to the time at which the value is to be ascertained. We wish to make that clear. The provisions required are, however, really of a detailed and technical character, and it is, therefore, proposed that they should be made by Treasury regulations. I think this is a case where the House will accept the introduction of regulations by the Treasury. I may point out that all such regulations are subject to control by Parliament.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 5, after ("value") insert ("ascertained in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury"),—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I now move the next Amendment on line 8.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 8, after the second ("value") insert ("ascertained as aforesaid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Cases in which payments of cost of works and value payments respectively are to be made.

4.—(1) Subject as provided by subsection (2) of this section the question whether a payment under this Part of this Act (other than a temporary works payment to be made under Section five of this Act) is to be a payment of cost of works or a value payment shall be determined as follows, that is to say—

(b) in the case of a hereditament not being a developed hereditament the payment shall be a payment of cost of works in a case only in which the permissible amount of that payment would be likely to be less than the amount of the depreciation in the value of the hereditament caused by the war damage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "(other than a temporary works payment to be made under Section 5 of this Act)." The noble and learned Viscount said: The words which I propose should be omitted from this subsection are misleading because there are other special classes of payment provided by the Bill. For instance, there are payments in respect of tenancies in hereditaments of exceptional site value, and payments in respect of land held for charitable purposes. I move this Amendment in order that the reference should be correct.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 27, leave out from ("Act") to ("is" ) in line 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out "the depreciation in the value of the hereditament caused by the war damage" and insert "a value payment in respect of the damage." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper are drafting Amendments which are really consequential on the insertion in the Bill in another place of a provision by which the value payment in certain cases will not be got at simply by reference to the deprecia tion in value. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 14 provides for the possibility of compensation being extended if there is a serious change in the value of money.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 43, leave out from the first ("of") to end of line 44 and insert ("a value payment in respect of the damage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The next Amendment is consequential, as I have explained.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 19, leave out from ("amount") to ("and") in line 20 and insert ("that would have been payable if a value payment had been the appropriate payment").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Provisions for securing the public interest in the making of payments]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 41, leave out ("that purpose") and insert ("making good war damage").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Time when payments may be made.

(2) Interest at the rate of two and a half per cent. per annum shall accrue on a value payment from the time of the occurrence of the war damage, and shall be payable when that payment is discharged.

LORD MONKSWELL moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: Provided that, if on application to the County Court, a direct contributor to whom such interest is due, can establish that owing to the destruction of his property he is no longer able to meet his liabilities, including the cost of the expert assessment of such damage, he shall be entitled to payment when such interest falls due.

The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment in a form which I am sure is not satisfactory, but I had to do it in that way so as not to propose new expenditure. I put the Amendment down in order to call attention to what appears to me to be a rather serious grievance. The position, I am informed, is that before the Government will do anything in the matter of value payments they insist upon a professional valuation. I understand that the charge for a professional valuation is 5 guineas per cent. That is to say, if a person has a house worth £10,000 and that house is completely destroyed, it is necessary to pay a valuer £525 before anything can be done at all. I may be wrong, but if that is the position it certainly seems to me most astonishing.

I hope the noble and learned Viscount will be able to tell me that I am wrong, but if I am right it seems most unsatisfactory. I know a case in which a woman, living in a country town, had put all her savings amounting to £800 into the purchase of a house. That house was completely destroyed. She had to employ a valuer, who sent in a bill for 40 guineas. All she has to live on now is 3s. a day, which she earns by her own labour. Of course, that woman is bankrupt at once. It seems to me most unsatisfactory, and I hope the Government will be able to assure us that they will take action in some way, either by appointing their own valuers, or by cutting down very drastically the ordinary percentage charged as a fee, or in any other way open to them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 13, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Monkswell.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sure your Lordships will feel the sympathy which I myself feel for the sort of case which the noble Lord has described, but I am afraid it is quite impossible to accept such an Amendment as the one he has proposed. In the first place I think the Amendment is to some extent based on a misapprehension. It is intended apparently that there should be added a proviso to subsection (2), which provides that: Interest at the rate of two and a half per-cent, per annum shall accrue on a value payment from the time of the occurrence of the war damage, and shall be payable when that payment is discharged.

LORD MONKSWELL

I began by saying that I did not think the form of my Amendment satisfactory, but I had to put it in that form in order not to propose new expenditure.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not making any criticism on technical grounds but I war t to point out to the noble Lord that the value on which interest depends is not necessarily ascertained immediately. Indeed, there must be cases in which an interval, and it may be a considerable interval, will elapse before it is ascertained, "Therefore it will be quite impossible to pay 2½ per cent. on the value payment when that payment in itself has not been finally ascertained. There is a further consideration. It really cannot be regarded, I am afraid, as within the scope of this Bill, or of the work that we can do in trying to improve the Bill, to proceed as the noble Lord suggests in regard to the appointment of valuers. The Government most certainly does not make any stipulation of the" kind suggested by the noble Lord. The scheme in most cases, and especially in regard to small houses, ought to be a very simple one.

The claim, I presume, in such a case would be that a man had a house in a certain situation, that he had bought it for a certain sum of money, and all material information would be given that can properly be given. It is the Government valuer who will do the valuing and who will say what the property was worth at a particular date before it was smashed and what it is worth after the smash. Every possible assistance ought to be given to the claimant, and particularly to the poor and small claimant, but it is a misconception on to suppose that we could pay 2½ per cent. interest as it were in the dark. The best that can be done is to see that this Bill is worked as rapidly as we can and that the valuation is done fairly and properly. I could, if necessary, give the noble Lord further illustrations of the difficulties, but I realise that he has put this Amendment down rather to call attention to a difficulty than to propose an actual remedy. What he says will certainly be carefully considered, but I cannot accept this Amendment.

LORDMONKSWELL

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SNELL

I think that this might be a convenient time to break off consideration of the Bill. I beg to move that the House do resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

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:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Shipley).

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.