Lords Sitting of 18 March 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MILK DISTRIBUTION.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government a private notice question—namely, whether they are in a position to make a further statement about milk.
THE MINISTER OF FOOD (LORD WOOLTON): My Lords, some time ago I undertook that I would announce to Parliament the decision at which His Majesty's Government had arrived on the recommendations of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Perry on the cost of distributing milk. I am personally grateful to the noble Lord and to those who served with him for the clear and illuminating Report which they presented, and which I have discussed in detail both with the trades concerned and with other members of the Government whose Departments, directly or indirectly, are affected or might come to be affected, by the proposals put forward. The chief recommendations of the Committee were to the effect that the margin allowed for distribution of milk should be drastically curtailed in the interests of the consumer. The average consumption of milk in this country is one gallon per family per week, and if the recommendations of the Perry Report could be put into operation, the saving to the consumer would be, at the most, fourpence per family per week.
This Report was written under conditions that were largely analogous to those of peace. Almost before the ink had dried on the Report the conditions changed considerably as a result of the heavy aerial bombardment of last autumn. It would only be prudent for us to assume that those conditions will continue during the remainder of the war. The experience of this last winter has shown us that there will be other conditions affecting the milk trade of which we are bound to take notice. It will be necessary for the Government considerably to extend their control over the conservation and the
786
utilisation of milk, with consequent repercussions on the operations and on the finances of milk distributors. These are circumstances which members of both Houses of Parliament, who have inquired as to the decisions of His Majesty's Government on the recommendations of the Perry Report, must have before them in coming to a conclusion.
The noble Lord and his colleagues have in their Report made observations on the economic structure of the milk trade, which very rightly caused widespread interest; and I admit freely that in the light of that Report there seemed to be openings for the reconstitution of the milk trade. But the noble Lord, Lord Perry, with his very intimate knowledge of the problems that are facing the Ministry of Food, to which he himself rendered great service, will I think not be surprised when I tell him that there are so many things the responsibility for which already falls very heavily on my Department that I hesitate at this juncture to add unnecessarily to the burden that we have to carry, unless there is evidence that it will be in the public interest for us to do so. The measure of the public interest in this case is a saving of a maximum of fourpence per family per week.
Much has been said about the costliness of the organisations of the milk trade. I have to take trades as I find them. Without making any defence for the maintenance of the status quo, I must pay tribute to the work which the milk trade has done during the conditions that have operated in this country since last September. In spite of all the conditions of aerial bombardment, the disorganisation and the disturbance of rail transport, the closing down of stations, and the breaking up of roads, this country, almost without interruption and almost without delay, has been supplied every morning with its milk. The milk trade has rendered us good public service and, at any rate for part of the time, it must have been rendering that service at a financial loss to itself. These conditions will probably continue. My primary responsibility is to secure that the people get their food. The milk trade of this country has shown that it is capable and willing under such conditions to secure that people receive the supplies that they need. Moreover, there has been no profiteering in this trade. The trade has produced considerable

787
evidence that under present conditions traders would find it impossible to continue in business under the margins recommended by the Perry Report. There is no alternative machinery at hand, and I should find it difficult in these circumstances to justify a line of policy which would certainly throw many people into financial difficulties and disturb the organisation of distribution which it is my primary duty to the community to maintain.
On these grounds, therefore, His Majesty's Government have decided that in these abnormal times it is not possible for them to adopt the recommendations my noble friend and his colleagues put forward. But there are other circumstances which your Lordships would like, I think, to bear in mind in this respect—namely, the conditions under which this trade will operate in the future. It may be convenient to your Lordships if I take this opportunity of reaffirming in this House the importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the production and the maintenance of milk supplies in this country. There must be no possibility of these supplies breaking down either at the productive or at the distributive stage. Especially for women and children milk is a vital foodstuff. Your Lordships are very well aware that milk supplies cannot be secured without planning ahead. The farmer must decide nine months ahead how much milk he expects to produce. It is on these grounds that His Majesty's Government announced, as early as February 12, the prices which they propose to pay to milk producers right up to March 31, 1942. These prices were encouragingly high. We want the milk, and therefore we must pay the farmer to produce it. The prices fixed for 1941–42 give an average increase against pre-war prices of nearly 4½d. a gallon for summer months and 11½d. a gallon for winter months. But in spite of all the steps that we can take, we must expect difficulty in maintaining milk production at the present level. The shortage of imported feeding stuffs is likely to become more acute, and there are certain other difficulties arising from the war, all of which will tend in the direction of a shortage of milk.
It is therefore necessary that the country should have clearly before it a
788
policy governing the consumption of milk as well as its production. That consumption policy is so important that it is proper I should announce it to your Lordships. It is, first, to ensure a full supply of liquid milk to those who most need it; secondly, to compensate, in part, for the difficulty of importing dairy products, and, thirdly, to conserve, by converting into storable form, some of the summer production against the needs of the coming winter. The first priority consumer is provided for by the National Milk Scheme which I introduced in July, 1940, and which gave preference to nursing mothers and young children. Ten million gallons of milk are distributed monthly under this scheme to a total of 2,800,000 people. About one-third of the beneficiaries receive the milk free and the others pay 2d. per pint, which is rather less than half of the retail price. The margin allowed to the distributor under this scheme has been fixed at 10d. in England and Wales and 9d.in Scotland, and is designed by the trade to represent a contribution on their part to the war-time needs of the people of this country.
The Ministry of Food has assumed responsibility for the milk-in-schools scheme since the expiry of the Milk Industry Act at the end of 1940. With the co-operation of the Health and Education Departments, it has been dealing with the difficulties that have arisen as a result of war conditions and conditions of evacuation in operating this scheme. I hope that many of these difficulties have now been removed. By maintaining an unrestricted supply of milk to nursing and expectant mothers and to young children and children under the milk-in-schools scheme, we shall be giving priority to, and I taking care of, some 5,500,000 people. I am also making arrangements which will secure the maintenance of supplies to hospitals and, under prescribed conditions, to certain types of people who are ill. Having done that, I must then conserve the balance of our milk supplies in order that they may be available where the need of the nation is greatest.
I have decided to restrict the consumption of milk by the ordinary man and woman who do not come under the categories I have already described. I am asking dairymen, from the middle of April, to reduce their domestic sales by approximately one-seventh. Owing to

789
the units in which the milk trade operates, it is impossible to secure that each household will receive exactly six-sevenths of its normal consumption. The milk traders, however, have assured me that they will use their best endeavours to arrange that this average reduction shall be made over a period of time and in accordance with the instructions which I shall issue. I appeal to the public to support the milk man in carrying out these instructions. This reduction in the turnover of the domestic milk trade is going very considerably to reduce the profit-earning capacity of that trade. The trade has undertaken to give its best support to this scheme, and I am bound to acknowledge the very ready spirit in which its members have met me. The milk thus saved from domestic consumption will be used to increase during the summer months the production of cheese and the production of condensed milk, both of which are usually imported foods and both of which we shall certainly require next winter. In addition to reducing the consumption of domestic milk—I include in domestic milk milk supplied to catering establishments—I propose to require bakers and flour confectioners to dispense with the use of milk. I propose to continue the ban on the use of fresh cream, to continue the ban on the use of milk in the manufacture of synthetic cream and, in the manufacture of ice cream.
I am taking these precautions against the demands that we may have in the future. There is every evidence that we shall have during the summer more milk than we require for normal domestic consumption, and I think it is proper that I should use that surplus of milk for what seems to those who advise me to be in the best interests of the nation. In process of doing it I shall have to disturb many trades. I have already met the traders concerned and I am bound to pay tribute to the good will with which they have met me, although in many cases it does result in the partial closing down of those trades. But national interests are bound to override personal considerations of this nature, and I count myself fortunate that the trades which are to have their interests so affected have come forward so cordially in supporting this measure. I have given your Lordships, I am afraid, a rather lengthy outline of our milk policy
790
because it has an immediate effect on the consideration of the Perry Report. When the noble Lord, Lord Perry, went into his survey of the milk trade, neither he nor I had any idea that the conditions of that trade during this recent period and during the immediate future would be anything approximating to what they have proved to be. I am sure that he himself will therefore have felt no surprise in finding that His Majesty's Government are unable to accept the Report. I am glad to see the noble Lord is present to-day. I hope he was here at the beginning of my speech, when I paid a tribute to the work that he had done for us.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with, for the purpose of passing the War Damage Bill through its remaining stages.—(Lord Moyne.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House what is the reason for this haste? Does he remember that the Third Reading always offers opportunity for Amendments in this House, though not in the other? During the passage of this Bill new and very important points have arisen, and, very properly, the representative of the Government has asked for time to consider them. If this Motion is now passed any new point that may arise in the debate to-day which cannot be immediately resolved will be lost. I venture to suggest that there is not such haste as all this for the Bill.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I am advised that it is very important that this Bill should pass. I am afraid I cannot give any details as to why it is considered so important, but it has been very specially requested that this House should pass the Bill at the very earliest possible moment. I think the noble Lord will be able to make any comments that may arise from what is decided to-day before the Bill does leave this House.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, has not the noble Lord overlooked the fact that one of the clauses in this Bill deals

791
with private chattels and is a voluntary clause? One can only insure voluntarily, consequently it is of the utmost importance we should get this Bill through. If the Bill is not passed and if by any chance we should have an unfortunate raid and buildings or other property are destroyed, the people who have had their property destroyed will find themselves in great difficulty in establishing the fact that they wanted to insure, as this is a voluntary scheme. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will support this Motion.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, of course I do not wish to obstruct business in any way and if it is really of such great importance that the Bill should pass through this House to-day I have no more to say.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I perhaps might explain to the noble Lord that it is proposed that the Amendments shall be taken in another place at an early date, and it would very much upset the time table if we were not to pass the Bill through this House to-day.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

PUBLIC AND OTHER SCHOOLS (WAR CONDITIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
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:
Power to make orders with respect to certain schools.
(2) As respects any other school, being a school with respect to the endowments of which the Board of Education has power to make, or to establish, or to approve and certify, a scheme under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1908, or under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1925, the Board may by order, upon the application of the governing body of the school, make such provision as appears to the Board to be necessary or expedient as aforesaid.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this section, any Order
792
in Council or order made thereunder with respect to any school may in particular provide for enabling the governing body of the school—

(a) to apply, during the war period, the income or capital of any endowment of the school for purposes other than those for which, apart from the provisions of the order, such income or capital might be applied;

Provided that any Order in Council or order conferring on a governing body the powers mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (6) of this subsection shall provide that those powers shall not be exercised—

(i) in the case of an Order in Council without the consent of the Lord President of the Council; or

(ii) in the case of an order, without the consent of the Board of Education.

LORD QUICKSWOOD LORD QUICKSWOOD moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that no Order in Council or order by the Board of Education made under this or the preceding subsection shall affect any property or capital held under any trust or other instrument of endowment, except in respect to the income derived from it in the war period,".
The noble Lord said: The subject of the Amendment which I now propose appears under various headings in this Bill, but they are all essentially one, the subsequent Amendments being purely consequential. It deals with a matter which was discussed on the Second Reading, and it has been to some extent discussed in the Press. I am, therefore, able to condense what I have to say by way of answer to the arguments that were then put forward in favour of the Bill as it stands. My proposal is strictly in accordance with the principle of the Bill and with its main purport, to confine the operation of the Bill to the war period and not have anything in it which will have effect after the war period is over.
That I conceive to be the general purpose of the Bill, and the introduction of a power to use capital, which is alien to that general purpose, is an excrescence which can be removed without any injury to the main body of the Bill. The case made by the Lord Chancellor in this House, and made in the Press and elsewhere, is that in the emergencies that the war has brought upon some schools it would not be sufficient to take merely the income which arises from trust funds, which will naturally not very often be usable, and in any case might fairly be

793
taken for the temporary purpose in view, but that the capital also should be taken. The Lord Chancellor mentioned the case of funds that might have been collected with a view to rebuilding a chapel, or building a new chapel in a school, and said that if the old chapel had been destroyed by a bomb it might be more desirable to build a new chapel than to restore the old one. That is a case, I suppose, which is not of the Lord Chancellor's imagination but a matter of record, and if so it surely can very easily be dealt with by two resources. There is first, of course, the provision of money under the War Damage Bill which will be shortly in force. They will be able to have money to repair that chapel given them like other people who have suffered war damage. Even if there is delay in making payment—I do not quite know how long the delay may be—(there is really no difficulty in borrowing money to a small amount by a school which has good credit.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said borrowing is impossible in war-time. I think that comes from his laving been a Minister accustomed to deal with vast millions. No doubt a school which wanted to borrow a million pounds or even £100,000 would find it difficult, but a loan of a few hundreds would be easy, especially if it were known that the money would be paid back in compensation for war damage. I do not think, therefore, that any difficulty would arise under that head. I saw with great suspicion a letter in The Times which referred to "obsolete endowments," and I think that expression was repeated in another letter. If there are obsolete endowments they should have been dealt with long ago. There is abundant provision under the ordinary law for going to the proper authority—the Board of Education, I think, in the case of education charities—and obtaining a scheme by which whatever is obsolete may be removed and something more useful substituted for it. Why was that not done? Why should it be done now in the midst of war without any of the safeguards which the ordinary law provides?
I cannot help feeling a suspicion that those who advocate this kind of use of capital are prompted by the motive which we often see of using a great national event—sometimes it is a calamity, sometimes it is a festivity—to effect some improvement
794
which has really nothing whatever to do with the calamity or the festivity, but which by being connected with it may be made an object which will appeal to the generosity of private persons. I do not think schoolmasters are so unscrupulous as the parochial clergy, but I think they are very possibly subject to some temptation of that nature. Whenever anything sensational happens the parochial clergy are forward in suggesting that the event may be commemorated by an improvement which they had long desired on grounds that have nothing to do with public interest. So I cannot help fearing, when I hear of obsolete endowments, that there is an intention of carrying through an improvement which may be very proper but which ought to be done under the ordinary law, subject to the safeguards which the ordinary law provides.
I do not know that there is any other argument that has been put forward. A piteous picture is drawn of schools at the last gasp which can only be saved if they are able to use the capital of trust funds to carry them over the war period. I do not myself belief that any school is quite in that position. As I said just now, it is quite easy for a school with reasonable credit to borrow now and in peace-time, to pay back when presumably pressure will not be so great. At any rate the whole theory of this Bill is that pressure will not be so great when peace-time returns. If there really is a school in that position then, as I ventured to urge on Second Reading, is it not better that it should close down at once? No pillaging of trust funds will be more than a temporary resource. If they cannot borrow money even to carry them over the war period, they must be in such a position that whatever happens they must go under. They must, that is to say, reconstruct, they must go and get some plan of amalgamation with another school, which is very often proper, or they must get from the Board of Education a scheme under which they will pass from the class of independent school to the class of school which is grant aided. The trust funds are not so ample that by robbing them you could really save a school threatened with bankruptcy. Therefore, on every ground it seems better to confine assistance from trust funds to the income.
That is reasonable. It keeps the Bill within its proper sphere, the sphere of the

795
war period. Income that is consumed will be renewed in the natural way after peace comes; but if you take capital you will no longer have endowments to help in the difficult period which will follow after the war. Reasonable prudence surely dictates that the Legislature should not enable governing bodies to spend money out of capital for a temporary emergency—always an imprudent financial device—but should confine them to the use of income which will be renewed. It is said that governing bodies may be trusted in this matter. They may of course be trusted in a great many matters, but this is precisely one in which they cannot be trusted because they are people who want to use money, which was given by certain benefactors under certain restrictions, without regard to those restrictions. They are the very people to whom the motive of cupidity appeals. You might as well say that the thief should be trusted in respect of the safe which he is breaking open. He is the very person against whom safeguards are designed. The law which protects trust funds is precisely framed in order that a governing body should not do what, under this Bill, it is proposed they should be able to do. They want to go in flat contradiction of the whole purpose of the original benefaction and of the legal trust which protects it, and I do not see any case for so revolutionary a change.
I have not discussed the Amendments that appear on the Paper in the name of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, and others, which no doubt would be a mitigation. I know that the standard of relevance is rather lower in your Lordships' House than that which prevails in the House of Commons—it more resembles that with which I am familiar in the Church Assembly—but I do not want to go beyond the rules of order. In so young a member of your Lordships' House that would be very unseemly. Therefore, I will not discuss them until they are properly moved before the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, after ("aforesaid") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Quickswood.)
VISCOUNT SANKEY: Although I admit that the Amendment which has
796
been put down in the name of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has greatly eased the situation, I rise to support the Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend, although not quite for the same reasons which he has given. I had the honour of attending every debate in your Lordships' House for over six years and I noticed that in this House no member speaks unless he has some knowledge or experience of the subject under discussion. My title to address your Lordships to-day must be the fact that I happen to be, and have been for a great many years, a member of the governing body of four or five great public schools. One of them ranked among the three or four oldest and most famous schools of the Kingdom; the others are of more modern foundation. How far the headmasters of those schools wish for this Bill I do not discuss, or how far the governors wish for it I do not discuss, but I venture to think that there are many arguments why this Amendment would be supported.
Will your Lordships forgive me for occupying your attention for two minutes only upon the magnitude of the problem which you are discussing? In the Headmasters' Conference 215 public schools are represented. Thirty of them are Dominion overseas schools, seven or eight of them are either in Northern Ireland, Eire or Scotland; the number of public schools in England and Wales is 173 or 174. The number of boys in these schools is just over 70,000. The largest boarding school is Eton and the largest day school is Manchester Grammar School, each with 1,100 boys. There are in those 173 schools a great number of day schools with very large numbers. There are over seventy with numbers of 400. But I am not going to talk at the present moment about day schools. Their problem is entirely different from that of the boarding schools, and in the boarding schools you have 20,000 boys at the present moment from I most of whom you draw candidates for the important positions held in the Kingdom. That may be altered later on. But with regard to that 20,000 permit me to say that the public schools are not in such a desperate condition as to need desperate remedies.
I should be very sorry to approach any problem, whether a public school problem or any other public problem, in a

797
defeatist spirit, but I venture to support this Amendment because, although it may, for the moment, seem good, I have great fear as to what the ultimate effect of allowing capital to be used may be. Now there are two sorts of capital. Many of these public schools are very old ones which have some endowment, but the great majority of them are of comparatively recent foundation; many of them about the years 1848–1850. All of them, I believe, have been able to accumulate some reserve funds, all of them have been able to accumulate some, not much, capital, and that capital is usually devoted to enable boys to go to the schools—either sons of old boys or sons of members of the professions, or different classes of His Majesty's subjects. There can be no serious objection to any public school altering he use of capital which it itself has accumulated. It may not be a wise thing to do. You may do it under pressure of events which has made you afraid for the future of the schools. But it is quite another question when you want to interfere with capital which has been left on trust for the purposes of the school.
Will your Lordships permit me to put before you several particular cases to show that, although this endeavour to appropriate capital may seem a great help at the present time, it is likely in the ultimate result to do great harm to the schools? I want to approach it from two points of view; first the point of view of the donor of the capital, and next the point of view of the good of the school. Now as to the donor. Supposing a man has put down a large sum of money to enable boys to go to his old school or to enable members of his old school to go to Oxford or Cambridge; it will be possible to take it away and devote it to payment of past debts or to payment of expenses which ought not to have been incurred. I will deal in a moment with what are supposed to be safeguards, but I ask, is that fair to the donor? It is said "Oh, but both Houses of Parliament can pass judgment on the scheme." Supposing the donor is not a member of either House of Parliament, what is he going to do? It would be another thing if you had to go before a Court and get the sanction of some Judge before whom you could appear. But a man may have given large sums of money; these may be taken away and the purposes for which he intended them will
798
never be accomplished. Do you think that is likely to encourage future donors?
That is the first example. Let me put another before you. I suppose that everyone of us is very much attached to his own part of the country, and his own county. Some of us have to come to London to endeavour to get on, but we always have a great love of our own county and our own home. Supposing you leave a sum of money to enable boys of your own county or neighbourhood to go to any public school—that is to say, for the purpose of benefiting them. Let us say you have become a rich man, that you are one of the lucky ones, but you do not happen to have children of your own and you leave a sum as large as you can afford, the interest of which may be devoted to sending boys to a public school or to Oxford or Cambridge. Under this Bill all that money can be taken away. True that proposal can be opposed in Parliament, but that is not likely to bring you any great satisfaction, especially if you have no opportunity of being heard yourself because you are not a member of either House of Parliament. May I give a third instance? Supposing one of your Lordships makes a will to-day and leaves a considerable sum the interest of which is to enable boys to go to your old school, and supposing—though God forbid it should happen—that you were killed to-morrow, that money may never reach the people to whom you left it. That means that, although you have left money in your will and although you have said it is to be given to certain people to enable them to send their sons to your old school, your desire is frustrated.
I agree that one cannot expect one's will to prevail for ever. I agree that, supposing money was left five hundred years ago and has been faithfully administered for hundreds of years, different circumstances may apply to-day, which may mean, as pointed out by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that the trust has failed. A scheme can always be promoted in the Court of Chancery to apply funds of this sort to a proper purpose. But it is one thing to take old endowments which have ceased to be of any utility because the objects to which they were to be devoted have ceased to exist, and quite another to take modern endowments left or given in the last twenty or thirty years. It may be, under pressure, perfectly

799
proper to take income, but recollect what you are doing if you do take income. Supposing a sum of money is left to enable boys to go to a public school, and you take that away, you are going to deprive the present boys, boys of thirteen, fourteen and fifteen years of age, of any chance of going to a public school. It is quite one thing to take away income temporarily; but to take away capital for all time surely is not a thing which will commend itself to your Lordships. Do you think that this provision is likely to increase the gifts to schools? Do you not think that it will undermine public confidence? What is wanted in the public schools is rigid economy, a simpler life and reduction of expenses. As I say, I am a member of five or six governing bodies and I know the temptations, and I ask whether you think, if we are entitled to take capital in this way, that it is likely to promote economy in the public schools. It is an easy way out.
Let me put this point. After the last war, many schools overbuilt. They have large debts, which they will gradually pay off by means of a sinking fund. What a temptation it is, however, to seize this opportunity of taking capital! "Hope springs eternal in the human breast," and of course they hope and intend to replace it; but is it to be supposed that after the war any of us will be in a position to leave large sums of money to anybody? If the public schools who have a little endowment now are going to find themselves without any endowment, but merely with the hope that later on it may be replaced, then heaven help the public schools!
The last argument is this: Would not you rather see your public school saved than that it should go down? That is an argument derived from the war of nerves; it is an argument of defeatism. If the public schools are determined upon this matter and reduce their expenditure, as many of them have, they will pull through. But is it wise to give them this power? As I have said, the Amendments to be moved by the Lord Chancellor have eased the situation, but I have already pointed out that those Amendments are not really likely to bring any help, and, so far as certain persons are concerned at any rate, these persons will have no
800
chance at all of objecting to their money being diverted from the purposes for which they gave it. I therefore hope that your Lordships will have faith in the future of the public schools, and will not promote this desperate remedy for a situation for which it is really not necessary. I ask you to recollect that you will be creating a precedent which later on may recoil upon you, not only to the disadvantage but to the destruction of many of the public schools of this land.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): We have all listened very carefully, of course, to what has been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken, but I must interpose at this point briefly to state what is the view which is taken by the Government and by the Board of Education. I hope that I may be forgiven if I say to my noble and learned friend whose powerful speech has just finished, that I really think that in this matter he is unduly alarmist. If you choose to stand by the principle that never in any circumstances must the provisions of any trust be even temporarily interfered with as long as the trust can operate, that at least is a principle; but that would, of course, apply to the provisions of this Bill about the transference of income as well as to the provisions of this Bill about the transference of capital; and I really do not think that the proposal in the Bill which is now being criticised can be fairly judged unless a slightly more extended reference is made to the other provisions in the Bill, and to the Amendment which I am to propose, largely to meet these anxieties.
My noble friend Lord Quickswood spoke as though a reference to this would be some departure from the strict rules of relevance, but, with great humility, I venture to think that it would be strictly relevant in the House of Commons, and it is strictly relevant to any argument based on common sense. If it was true that what this Bill proposed was to give to the thief seeking to break open a safe—I think that that was the elegant expression used; in other words, to the governing bodies of our public schools—full licence to commit this act of robbery without check, without supervision and without authority other than his own, then perhaps these rather violent expressions could be understood; but the fact of the

801
matter is, as everyone who has looked at the Bill and at the Order Paper knows, there is a series of very strict safeguards suggested.
I draw the sharpest distinction between the case of income and the case of capital, because unquestionably to lay hands on capital in any circumstances is a specially serious matter; and for that reason, adopting in part a proposal which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, in the Second Reading debate, I have put down an Amendment to this effect, that if there be any order made which touches in the least degree any trust capital of a school, then that order cannot come into effect at all until the terms of it, specifying what is the maximum that might be taken, specifying the purpose for which it is now being used, and specifying the new purpose for which it is proposed to authorise it to be used during the war, are laid upon the Table of both Houses for forty days, with the opportunity—certainly in this House, where we have time for it—to challenge, if thought right, the particular proposal. I do not think it gives a fair account of the matter to the Committee to-day unless that proposal is at least put into the scale, and I think that that should relieve the minds of those who are afraid that the governing bodies of these great schools, or of many smaller schools, are likely, as my noble and learned friend said just now, to succumb to this terrible temptation. What a temptation to dangle before the eyes of people who are merely members of the governing body of a great public school! Here is a chance of getting some money which they ought not to get! I really cannot adopt that view of the matter at all; it seems to me quite outside everything that is reasonable.
The actual circumstances are these—end here I speak both with the authority of the Board of Education and also on the basis of some inquiries which I have myself made. If this Amendment is carried, my noble and learned friend who spoke last will not find, I think, that he is right in supposing that all the great public schols will find it so easy to carry on. I do not, of course, want to mention any names, and I can well believe that the great institution of Eton is far above these mere financial difficulties; but there are great public schools, so I
802
am informed by the Board of Education, that are terribly anxious as to how they are going to meet the most urgent liabilities, connected, it may be, with the fact that in the public interest they have had to remove to another part of the country, or connected with the fact that some of them have suffered particularly in connection with the war. There are public schools which may well desire to ask whether some help can be given them in this way; and, if they ask for it, they will not get it unless the Lord President of the Council, acting on his personal responsibility, thinks it right, and unless the Order in Council is one which the Government are prepared to accept, and unless the Board of Education, examining the matter, are prepared to agree.
Is it reasonable in this Committee to take the view that the Board of Education in this matter will merely help the thief who is seeking to break open the safe? Is it reasonable to assume that they will be anxious and willing on all occasions, and without due cause, to enable the governors of schools, who find themselves overwhelmed by this "temptation" of which we hear, to succumb? I do not think so. I apprehend that without some such provision it would not even be possible for the governors of a school to raise money on the security of any fund of this kind which they hold. While I agree with my noble friend who spoke first that the raising of a few hundred pounds (I think he said) might well be within the borrowing powers of many of these institutions, we must not imagine that we are dealing in this Bill solely with the great historic public schools. As my noble and learned friend who spoke last said, there are great numbers of schools which may come under the provisions of this Bill. We must not slam the door on them all; we must not say, "I do not care what your difficulties are; I stand by the principle that in no circumstances is one farthing of capital ever to be affected by the provisions of this Bill." I would most willingly fall in with the views already expressed, or with the general view of the Committee, if that were the case, if it were not that in this matter I have a duty to discharge. My duty is this. I have been entrusted on behalf of the Government with the conduct of this Bill, and it is contrary to my conception

803
of my duty to say, "Very well then, strike out capital and leave many of these institutions—as I am assured they would be left—without even the possibility of the help which in very extreme circumstances they might need."
I will not say more now, but I have endeavoured to assure your Lordships that there are considerations on the other side, considerations which were stated, both yesterday and to-day in the columns of The Times newspaper, considerations which I can well believe do not affect in the least one or two or a limited number of great institutions, but which vitally affect some of those bodies which I believe to be carried on with very great devotion and great public spirit by their governors; and certainly many of them have got headmasters who, to my knowledge, are greatly concerned to know whether this Bill is in this respect going to be carried into law. I therefore regret I have to take a different line. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, says that what is wanted here is rigid economy and the cutting out of waste. Well, that is no doubt very just, but is he suggesting that these schools—some of them that are most hard pressed—are not being carried on with the most rigid economy? Has he informed himself as to how far masters' salaries have been reduced and every other sort of extra service has been cut down in some of these institutions? And are your Lordships really going to say that you are not going to give one of these schools the chance to get what it regards as necessary help, with all these safeguards contained in the Bill and the further safeguard which I am prepared to move if this Amendment is not made?
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I rise to support this Amendment. I think we must all be grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the Amendments which he has put down, because they do act very definitely as safeguards in the matter of the expenditure of this money. But I had hoped from what we heard from his lips on the last occasion that he had rather an open mind as between the expenditure of income and capital, and I hope that if your Lordships do decide that it would be a mistake to interfere with capital he will be of the mind which I thought he showed on the occasion of the
804
Second Reading. I am glad that the Amendment reduces the sum of money which any governing body can propose to employ. My fear is that a proposal might be made by one or other governing body to spend some of the money now put within their reach on subsidising the fees of boys. If that were carried very far it would alter the whole character of the school, and it might do by a side-wind what it appears to me ought to be done by a definite Bill introduced for that purpose. The income that the governors have put into their hands by this Bill should be quite enough for any ordinary subsidies, and at some of the schools with which I am acquainted money is paid, up to a certain limit, to those who seem specially entitled to it, especially, for example, boys whose fees are paid in full when their fathers are alive but who, on the death of the father, have to be immediately withdrawn from the school unless some help is given to them.
However, we are assured that the phrase "for other purposes" will be rigidly examined and carefully dealt with by the Board of Education in certain cases and by the President of the Council in others. Again I gratefully read the Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has put down and I think your Lordships will probably accept it. But I am not sure that the Committee have fully appreciated the great temptation there is in schools short of pupils before the war to see in this Bill a chance of repleting their ranks and saving themselves from the disaster of having to close the school, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Quickswood, suggested, might otherwise be in front of them. I may, however, point out that in one school with which I am acquainted there is a way in which the capital can be used to help the income as suggested, because there is no objection to the capital of the school being invested under the Acts which govern such things. I know one school where the capital of the school is from time to time loaned, as required, to the school for the purpose of carrying on, the capital being repaid, or to be repaid, at the right time and the interest being very low. That appears to me to be a very reasonable plan, and it is one of which I have some knowledge; but outright to say that the capital should be used by the governors both in the ways plainly indicated and in other ways that

805
might be imagined, would I think be rather a mistake. I therefore support the Amendment, and I hope that the Lord Chancellor will come back to the frame of mind I thought he showed on the Second Reading.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I shall detain your Lordships only for a few minutes for the purpose of putting the views, or at any rate the interests, of certain schools which have suffered very, very severely owing to the present war. But before mentioning that aspect, I should like to say that I think there would have been a great deal to be urged in favour of the Amendment but for the Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has put down. Because there was perhaps a risk under the Bill as it stood that the power to use capital might be abused. I cannot help thinking that anybody who carefully reads the Amendment in the name of the Lord Chancellor will see that really that risk has now been taken away. With the safeguards proposed by the Lord Chancellor, if they should be accepted by the Committee, I take the view that capital will be employed in only a very small number of cases, but I cannot take the view that the interests of the schools in those cases ought to he disregarded.
I can imagine wealthy people thinking that the interests of their class are not going to be affected by a particular measure, and I can imagine that that to some extent influences the minds of those who are concerned with the interests of very wealthy schools; but I know schools which are in debt It is easy enough to say that they can borrow money, but they have already been borrowing money, and the patience of bankers is soon exhausted. I am thinking in particular of schools on the coasts of Kent and Sussex which have either had to be removed at great expense and with great difficulty to parts of the country which are supposed to be safer, or which have suffered by the not unnatural fact that parents have removed their sons in order that they should not be exposed to the danger of almost daily bombing from German aeroplanes. The air of Kent and Sussex, as your Lordships may be well aware, has always been a very favourable one, owing to belief in its very healthy character, for modern schools.
The question your Lordships have to consider on this Amendment is whether
806
any harm would be done having regard to the great safeguards which it is proposed to impose by the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, leaving the clause in other respects as it stands. I can assure your Lordships from my own personal knowledge that there are schools which will be greatly affected by the carrying of this proposal which, as I see it, can do no harm to the wealthier schools, and will do a great deal of good to those who are in a very unfortunate position owing to the circumstances of the war.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: It has been stated by a correspondent in today's Times that I am associated with Lord Quickswood in his present distrust of this Bill. I should like to intervene just to make it clear that the right reverend Prelate who expressed that distrust was not I but the Lord Bishop of Norwich. I am in favour of this Bill and against this Amendment. I would associate myself much more with another letter in The Times to-day written by my successor, as Headmaster of Repton, but I do not wish to enlarge on the reasons for; opposing this particular Amendment. We have had cases quoted in which it would be regrettable that capital should be used. No doubt there are a, vast number of cases in which capital should not be used, but there arc ample safeguards to see that proper care is taken before leave is given for spending any part of the capital. I have been a headmaster, and I trust headmasters as a class to value, above everything else, the interests of their schools. I am a member of more than one governing body, and I trust governing bodies to do everything possible for the best interests of their schools. Beyond that I know the Board of Education, from long experience, is, as indeed is its duty, extraordinarily careful to see that the best interests of every school are safeguarded. With all these safeguards my instinct, as always, is to trust those who know.
LORD QUICKSWOOD: I am not quite convinced by these arguments, but it would be an inconvenient course to challenge a Division, and therefore I shall allow the Amendment to be negatived.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (3), after "Provided that," to insert:

807
"'(A) any Order in Council or order conferring on a governing body the powers as to capital mentioned in paragraph (a) this subsection shall state specifically the maximum amount of the capital that may be applied by virtue of the powers, the purposes for which it may be so applied and the purposes for which it could have been applied apart from the provisions of the order; and, where such an Order in Council or order is proposed to be made, a draft of the Order shall not be presented to His Majesty in Council, or the order shall not be made, as the case may be, until a copy thereof has lain before each House of Parliament for a period of forty days, and, if either House within that period resolves that the draft be not so presented, or that the order be not made, as the case may be, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon; and (B)'"
The noble and learned Viscount said: I now move the Amendment which does provide, I think it will be admitted, a very substantial additional guarantee, and I should like at the same time, if I may be allowed, to express to Lord Quickswood my own feelings of gratitude that, after the forcible case which he advanced, he has accepted what I believe to be the more general view in the Committee. That makes it the more necessary, therefore, that the Committee should insert the additional protection which I have put on the Order Paper. The proposal is that, so far as any touching of capital is concerned, it shall not be possible to deal with it merely by the consent of the Lord President of the Council or by an Order in Council without a further opportunity being given to each House of Parliament to examine what is proposed. Consequently, before the Order in Council or the other order is made, it shall, in draft, lie on the Table of each House for a period of forty days, as now ordinarily calculated, and also the Paper which is laid is not to be a mere general Paper, but is to be one that will state the maximum amount of capital that may be applied by the powers, the purpose for which it may be so applied, and the purposes for which it could have been applied apart from the provisions of the Order. I trust your Lordships will feel that this addition very materially strengthens the Bill, and I believe it will give a measure I of real satisfaction to those who have felt more doubtful about the merits of the proposal than I have done myself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, after ("that") insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: May I ask the Lord Chancellor why no provision is made for the replacement of capital after the war? Every letter in The Times has inferred, as a matter of course, that there will be replacement; but there is no provision to ensure it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not proposed in the Bill that that should be made a condition. It would be very difficult to draw such a clause and insert it in the Bill, but obviously the consideration which the noble Earl has just mentioned, and which is an important one, is one that will be weighed and borne in mind in determining whether or not authority in a particular case shall be given.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The three following Amendments on this I clause are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 16, after ("powers") insert ("as to income")
Page 2, line 17, at the beginning insert ("the powers mentioned in")
Page 2, line 22, at end insert:
("'(4) In reckoning for the purposes of proviso (A) of the last foregoing subsection the period of forty days therein mentioned, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Application to Scotland]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (c), after "Provided that," to insert:
"'(A) any order conferring on a governing body the powers as to capital mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall state specifically the maximum amount of the capital that may be applied by virtue of the powers, the purposes for which it may be so applied and the purposes for which it could have been applied apart from the provisions of the order; and no such order shall be made until a copy thereof has lain before each House of Parliament for a period of forty days, and, if either House within that period resolves that the order be not made, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon; and (B)'"
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is a corresponding provision to apply to Scotland.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, after ("that") insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The remaining Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 33, after ("powers") insert ("as to income")
Page 3, line 34, at the beginning insert ("the powers mentioned in").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Amendments agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS (POSTPONEMENT OF FINANCIAL INVESTIGATION) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).

WAR DAMAGE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Nature and amount of payments.
(3) In this Part of this Act the expression "proper cost" means in relation to any works, such cost as is reasonable, having regard to the prices of materials and rates of remuneration for services current when the works are executed and to all other relevant circumstances and in computing the proper cost of any works the cost of the necessary employment of an architect, engineer, surveyor, land agent, or other person in an advisory or supervisory capacity, in connection with the; execution of the works shall be treated as part of the cost of the works.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I should like to move the first Amendment, which is in his name, on the Order Paper [in subsection (3), before "engineer," to insert "chartered"]. I must say at once that I am
810
not myself certain of the merits and demerits of this Amendment, but I think it ought to be moved in order that the Government may express their opinion upon it. I understand that the object of the Amendment is to protect the public against the employment of any engineers who may not be fully qualified in that capacity. The acceptance of the Amendment would necessitate the person concerned belonging to one of the authorised bodies recognised by the engineering profession. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, after ("architect") insert ("chartered").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Earl that the Amendment should read "before 'architect' insert 'chartered'"? I will, if I may, put it in that form.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I differ from the noble and learned Viscount. I think the order of the words is correct as they appear upon the Paper. I wish the word "chartered" to apply to "engineers."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will deal with the Amendment on that basis. I do not know what the expression "chartered engineer" means. I do not think there is such an expression known to the law. I may have been mistaken but what I thought the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, probably meant was to confine the architects whose charges and expenses can be met to chartered architects. A chartered architect is of course a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects; but the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment is of course quite right in thinking that there are also registered architects under a recent Act, and indeed that the word architect can only be used to cover registered architects. If this Amendment refers to engineers then I must say that I think the introduction of the adjective "chartered" will not be at all appropriate, and for my own part I could not accept it. There are engineers of many kinds. If it is intended to be a qualification of the word architect I do not see any reason why a registered architect should not have his fees paid. There are institutions which include among their members many kinds of architects, and I think it

811
would be wrong to limit this to architects who are members of one particular organisation.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for making clear what is the meaning of the Amendment, and as that is the object with which the Amendment was drafted I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Determination of questions as to works and value.
6.—(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, any question arising in giving effect to the provisions of the three last preceding sections shall be determined by the Commission.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given notice of two Amendments to the clause—namely, in subsection (1), to leave out the words "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (3)" and to add the following subsection to the clause:
"(3) If any person is aggrieved by a determination of the Commission of any question which is under this section to be determined by them, other than a determination from which an appeal lies under subsection (2) of this section, he may appeal there from on any question of law to the High Court.
Provision may be made by rules of court for regulating appeals under, this subsection, and those rules shall provide for limiting the time within which such an appeal may be brought, for the determination thereof in a summary manner, and for requiring notice thereof to be given to the Commission, and may provide for the hearing and determination of any such appeal by a single Judge, and the Commission shall be entitled to appear and be heard on any such appeal."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which is in my name on the Paper. The object of this and of a somewhat similar Amendment which has to be repeated later on is to secure that questions of law which might arise in connection with a determination by the War Damage Commission may be suitably dealt with. The provision, as your Lordships see, is that a person aggrieved by such a determination may appeal on any question of law to the High Court. The proviso which follows is to enable arrangements to be made for appeals of this sort to be dealt with by a single Judge when that is desirable. There have been several cases in
812
recent years in which such a provision has been made, rather, I think, to the public advantage, because undoubtedly it is an advantage to bring a particular class of rather technical subject matter before a particular Judge who, by mere repetition, becomes familiar with what he is administering, and thereby reduces to a minimum the risk of conflicting and confusing views. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a desirable change. It is one that has been mentioned to me by at least one member of your Lordships' House, and I hope that the House will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 1 leave out ("subsection (2)") and insert 'subsections (2) and (3)")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On question, Amendment agreed it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, at end insert the said new subsection (3).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Land held for charitable purposes]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of subsection (7):
"Provided that the provisions of subsection (3) of Section six of this Act as to appeals to the High Court on questions of law shall have effect in relation to a determination of the Commission under this subsection as they have effect in relation to a determination of the Commission under that section."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the appeal to the High Court on questions of law. It merely provides a similar machinery to that in a later clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 9, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Land occupied for purposes of undertaking]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to delete subsection (5) in order to reinsert it after subsection (2). The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment down in my name to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 43, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said subsection at the end of line 22 after subsection (2).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Air-raid shelters]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert at the end of subsection (4):
"Provided that the provisions of subsection (3) of Section six of this Act as to appeals to the High Court on questions of law shall have effect in relation to a determination of the Commission under this subsection as they have effect in relation to a determination of the Commission under that section."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this is a repetition of exactly the same scheme in connection with allowing recourse to the Courts on questions of law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 19, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50:
Liabilities to repair chancels, etc., not to extend to war damage.
50.—(1) A liability to which this section applies to repair a chancel of a church or other ecclesiastical building shall not extend to any repairs required for making good war damage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is not here for the moment, I think I ought to move myself the Amendments he has put down to this clause. This is a very small point of interpretation. Clause 50 of the Bill as it stands was not quite clear to me, and I doubt if it was clear to the right reverend Prelate. Subsection (1) refers to the "liability to which this section applies to repair a chancel of a church or other ecclesiastical building." I think that might mean "chancel of another ecclesiastical building." That is not the intention. The intention was not that it should be a liability either to repair the chancel of a church or to repair the chancel of another ecclesiastical building. As the right reverend Prelate explained, the sort of case that was in mind was, for example, a particular aisle in a church, or it might be a private chapel, or something of that kind. I think, therefore, that the Amendments on the Paper should be made, but I venture to think that
814
there should be one further small grammatical Amendment, because strictly speaking, if we are to consider the repair of an aisle I doubt whether that would be repair of an ecclesiastical building. It would be a repair of a portion of it. I may have that indulgence I would move that further Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I gladly accept the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I will formally move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 2, after ("or") insert ("to repair any").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 2, after ("building") insert ("or any part thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 4, after ("or") insert ("to any").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 2, after ("or") insert ("to any").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Insurance schemes]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there arc two drafting Amendments on this clause. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 27, leave out ("in the United Kingdom").
Page 51, line 34, leave out ("as aforesaid").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question Amendments agreed to.
Clause 60 [Goods insurable under the schemes]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there are two Amendments to this clause which make a purely formal change. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 53, line 2, leave out paragraph (a).
Page 53, line 11, leave, out ("paragraph (b) of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 81:
Avoidance of duplication of payments in respect of war damage.
(2) Where war damage occurs to land or goods, and at the time when, apart from the provisions of this subsection, any payment (whether with or without interest) would be made to any person in respect thereof under Part I of this Act or under a policy issued under either of the schemes operated under Part II thereof, that person or any other person—

(a) has received (otherwise than by way of loan) in respect of the damage any sum paid on behalf of His Majesty, not being a sum paid by virtue of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, or of this Act; or

(b) is entitled to receive (otherwise than by way of loan) in respect of the damage any sum payable on behalf of His Majesty, not being a sum payable by virtue of either of the said Acts,

the payment under Part I of this Act or the policy shall be withheld or reduced, as the case may require, …
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "His Majesty," to insert "or by a civil defence authority acting as such." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, it is desirable to add to this clause the phrase "or by a civil defence authority" because otherwise it might be doubtful whether the cases were completely covered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 10, after ("His Majesty") insert ("or by a civil defence authority acting as such").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I bee to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 15, after ("His Majesty") insert ("or by a civil defence authority acting as such").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 68, line 31, at end insert—
("In this subsection the expression 'civil defence authority' means a local authority on whom functions have been conferred or imposed by or under the Civil Defence Acts, 1937 and 1939.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87:
Provision as to certain mutual insurance schemes.
87.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall, after such date as may be prescribed by order of the Board of Trade, take part in the promoting or carrying on of any business or scheme whereby persons are, or may become, entitled or eligible, either absolutely or conditionally, to or for any form of indemnification, whether total or partial, and whether by way of a money payment or not, in respect of war damage to land or to goods which are insurable in relation to those persons respectively under Part II of the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, or under either of the insurance schemes operated under Part II o£ this Act:
Provided that—
(b) the said provisions shall not apply in relation to any business or scheme which operates only so as to insure persons, in respect of goods insurable in relation to them under the private chattels scheme operated under Part II of this Act, against losses in respect of which, by reason of the provision of policies issued under that scheme limiting the indemnity provided thereunder, they are unable to recover under the scheme irrespective of the amount for which they are insured;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to have to move Amendments to this clause in manuscript form, but the necessity for them was only noticed very late. The first Amendment I have to move is in subsection (1) (b), where it is proposed to leave out the words "the private chattels scheme" and to substitute the words "either of the schemes." It has been decided that a limit will be imposed on the amount recoverable under the business scheme in respect of certain classes of goods, and it is therefore desirable that paragraph (b) should extend to the business scheme as well as the private chattels scheme. It is a common thing to find in an insurance policy, and a very necessary thing in certain cases, that a limit is put to the amount that may be recoverable in respect of certain classes of goods. In the case of a picture dealer's business for instance, you might have enormous amounts of money. The purpose is to make such a limit apply in both the private chattels and business schemes.
Perhaps I should add a further word of explanation. The clause is not one which is easy to construe. It has to do with certain private mutual insurance schemes.

817
They are to stop generally speaking, but there is no reason why they should stop, and the Government have no desire to stop them, so long as they are only insuring an excess which might not be covered by the Government: scheme. There is a form of policy which is very familiar at Lloyds known as an excess policy which only begins to operate after the insurer has covered a certain amount of loss otherwise. If mutual schemes are schemes which cover business or private assets beyond the point at which the Government scheme ceases to give cover, they arc justified, and this Amendment will secure that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71 line 35, leave out ("the private chattels scheme") and insert ("either of the schemes")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is a consequential Amendment that is necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 38, leave out ("that scheme") and insert ("the scheme in question").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Restriction on disclosure of information]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the Amendment on the Paper needs no explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 28, after ("thereof") insert ("and any appeal to the Special Commissioners under Part I thereof").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [interpretation]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is an Amendment to this clause giving a discretion which I think will be manifestly approved by the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this Act an activity shall not be deemed to be other than a business by reason only that it is of a professional nature, or that it is not carried on for gain.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Alness, I beg to move the Amendments which stand on the Paper in his name. The object of the first Amendment is to add to the clauses excluded from application to Scotland Clause 50. That clause, which was added to the Bill in the Committee stage on the Motion of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, deals with liability for the repair of chancels of churches and other ecclesiastical buildings arising under the Tithe Act, 1936, and otherwise. The clause is inapplicable to Scotland, but it is nevertheless desirable to make express provision for its exclusion as has been already done in the case of Clause 49, which confers powers on the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Queen Anne's Bounty regarding repair of war damage to land belonging to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
Amendment moved—
Page So, line 22, after ("forty-nine") insert ("fifty").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the next Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 11, leave out from ("to") to ("were") in line 12, and insert ("occupation of land").—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE. PART I.
Ultimate Incidence of Liability to Contributions.
5. For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, the fraction of the instalment in respect to any property attributable to any part of the property shall be taken to be an amount which bears to the whole amount of the instalment the same proportion as the annual value of that part bears to the annual value of the whole property.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in paragraph (5), to leave out "this Part of". The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, a noble Lord during the Committee stage said he thought that the Fourth Schedule would be easier to read if we omitted from it the subdivision into

819
Part I and Part II. He thought it might be confused with other Parts of the Bill. I think perhaps this Amendment will produce the result which my noble friend wanted.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 39, leave out ("this Part of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 44, leave out ("this Part of").—[The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 47, leave out ("set out in Part II of") and insert ("annexed to").—(Tlie Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIN having been suspended:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty to signify to the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the War Damage Bill, gives his consent as far as His Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
I therefore now move that this Bill be read a third time. I shall not need to detain you with any speech on the subject, but there are perhaps two matters which I might mention for the purposes of completeness and record. Much interest was taken on the Committee stage on the question of how the Boy Scout and Girl Guide organisations should be dealt with. My noble friend Lord Hampton, raised the matter and I suggested that he should take the opportunity of seeing me and representatives of the Treasury about it, with a view to ascertaining whether there was really going to be any controversy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer subsequently considered the case and an agreement has been reached which, while it will not give the Boy Scouts Association all they
820
ask, is, I understand, acceptable to Lord Hampton. He himself referred to a decision given in the High Court of Justice by Mr. Justice Clauson in which the learned Judge stated that the Boy Scouts Association was an educational charity. Well, we live under a system by which when a thing has been decided it is accepted without question, until a higher Court feels bound to differ. I do not think that there will be any tendency to challenge the learned Judge's view. The Inland Revenue will therefore be entitled to treat the Boy Scouts Association as an educational charity, which means that they will not pay full contribution but will pay one-third of the full rate only. Instructions will be given to the Inland Revenue to follow the law accordingly. That I think will give satisfaction to those interested in Boy Scout institutions, though of course they may regret that it has not been possible to exempt the Association from paying any contribution at all.
The only other matter I must mention arises from a reference I made, perhaps a little casually, to the position of building societies in reference to the mortgage clause. I said in reply to Lord Stamp, I think, in the debate on Wednesday last, as reported at the top of column 690 in the Official Report, that, while I did not imagine that the building societies were pleased at having to accept this burden, I thought they were not in a condition of violent protest but on the whole were prepared to acquiesce. I have since received representations from the Building Societies Association to the effect that while the societies were, with some misgiving, prepared to accept the liabilities placed upon them by the Bill as originally introduced in the Commons, they did express, from their own point of view, serious apprehension about the extension of those liabilities during the subsequent stages of the Bill. I am quite sure that whatever views the societies may have expressed during the progress of the Bill, they will, now that the matter has been decided by Parliament, whole-heartedly co-operate in its working. Thus we may take leave, as far as this House is concerned, of what is, I think it will be agreed, a very large, very complicated, remarkable and, I trust, most beneficient measure.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, on this Motion, before we part with this Bill, I should like to say that I am a complete supporter of it in principle. It is a remarkable and unusual Bill. I do not remember in all the years I was in the House of Commons, a Bill of which it was said that it had had to be tinkered up with 150 Government Amendments. I do not think that such a state of things confers much praise for foresight on those who drafted the Bill. They had plenty of time to lock into the matter. There were the Inter-Departmental examination of April, 1937, and its Report of June, 1938, there was the Report of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, which was on the Weir Report, and they provided the draftsmen and provided the Government with a large amount of information to show the draftsmen what could be done and what could not be done. There was also the guidance of the Uthwatt Report. Still we arc told the Bill had to be subjected to 150 Government Amendments.
I pass from that and I wish now to refer to the clauses which I believe are now 64 and 65 in this Bill. I think these two clauses constitute a grave blemish on the Bill. It will be remembered that Clause 47 in the Commons, dealing with personal chattels, was subjected to very skilled and patient examination, a combing-out examination for which the country ought to be grateful to the House of Commons. The members there did fine work on this Bill. Now we have here Clauses 64 and 65 which, I suppose, are meant to give effect to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. If my memory does not betray me, he said that the limit should be £10,000 instead of £1,500, and the motor car allowance; that there should be a few hundred pounds cover, to start with, which should be free, and that there should be special terms for jewellery and works of art.
My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack just referred to works of art in relation to this Bill. I think it is a dangerous reservation. I refer to works of art; I leave out jewellery because we all know what jewellery is. But who is going to define a work of art? One could speak for hours on the point. Is one going to say that a picture, painted by a Royal Academician thirty years ago—an oil painting in a gilt frame—is always a work of art, to-day, or ever? I doubt it. I
822
doubt whether some of the pictures of the modern French schools, which have cost collectors great sums of money, will be defined years hence as words of art. I therefore think that it would be much better if the "works of art" proposed reservation were left out, and a man allowed to do as he does in the case of ordinary insurance against fire and burglary"—specify the value of a certain and separate article, if it is very valuable, and within the £10,000 limit of this Bill, and pay the necessary premium on the individual item.
Clauses 64 and 65 are supposed to carry out what the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us would be done. But I regard Clause 64 as perfectly meaningless. Using the old nursery language, I would characterise this clause as saying "Open your mouth and shut your eyes and see what the Board of Trade arc: pleased to prescribe under Section 72." As the words are "may be prescribed" this is even hypothetical". It commits the Government to nothing. We are going into this chattel scheme blindfolded; we are passing this scheme as we might be buying a pig in a poke. We do not know what the Board of Trade are going to prescribe. It is not Parliament but the Board of Trade who arc going to prescribe. Then in Clause 65 we find this:
"Without prejudice to the generality of the power of the Board of Trade"—
not the power of Parliament—
"to determine the extent and nature of the indemnity …"
I should like to protest, before this Bill goes through, against allowing the Board of Trade to say what the limited amount is to be, how the scheme is to operate in detail, and what arc to be regarded as works of art. We are in fact placing ourselves in the hands of a Department without knowing what we are doing.
Again, if your Lordships will look at Clause 62 (6) you will see that it says:
"Where, under the prescribed form of policy"—
this is under the business scheme—
"the maximum amount recoverable in respect of any goods is, irrespective of the sum insured, less than the value of those goods, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect in relation to those goods as if that maximum amount were their value."
If anyone can understand that, I congratulate him! The noble and learned

823
Viscount on the Woolsack has said that parts of this Bill could not be judged by the rule of three. Reading these words, it is as if this Bill were to tell us that we must find the latitude and longitude of the rule of three! Although this deals with the business scheme, it will be, I suppose, applicable to the chattels scheme also as a guide in operating the chattels scheme. I hope that the other House, when this Bill returns there, will take note of the fact that, although we were led to understand by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there would be a limit of a fixed amount, and that there would be so many hundred pounds allowed free and that there would be reservations for jewellery and works of art, not a word of all that appears here in the Bill. We are to open our mouths and shut our eyes and be thankful for what the Board of Trade are pleased to prescribe under Section 72. I protest against this method of legislation.
There are two or three technical questions which I should like to ask. I know nothing about insurance law, and I must ask my noble and learned friend to put into proper words what I can express only in a chaotic way. I have, as a manufacturer, shipped goods abroad, and I know that under a marine policy there is what is known as "F.P.A."—freedom from particular average. How is this proviso going to apply to the insurance which is to be effected under this Bill? Let me assume, for the sake of argument, that the limit is going to be, as I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it would be, £10,000. Let me take an extreme case. A man says" I am going to insure and pay premium to provide cover against £10,000 worth of war loss less the £300 or £400 free, on all my household chattels wherever they are." Is that what is! intended? Is it to be a general personal insurance? Or is it to be an insurance of this type, that if a man has twenty houses and parts of his chattels in each, if one of those houses is bombed and everything destroyed, does the amount of his cover for the rest of the nineteen houses become reduced in aggregate to £8,000?
Again, let us say a man owns £15,000 worth of chattels and he can insure up
824
to £10,000 and does in fact do so; if his house is bombed and £10,000 worth of his chattels, as agreed by the assessors, destroyed, is he to be allowed cover for the £5,000 worth of chattels which still remain in his house? If so—I do not object to it—he will apparently have received cover for £15,000; that is, £10,000 plus £5,000 for the premium on £10,000. That point will have to be settled when the Board of Trade are kind enough to prescribe what we are going to do.
With regard to the third point, let me take an extreme and hypothetical illustration to show what I have in mind. Suppose a man has a large old home in the country, full of chattels which are not works of art but an accumulation of household goods, valued at £30,000. He takes out his insurance for £10,000, as he is allowed to do under this Bill, and the whole of the contents of his house are bombed and destroyed. How does the insurance law, if it is not provided for in this Bill, operate? He has had £30,000 worth of chattels at risk and has been insured only for £10,000, so that he is under-insured to the extent of two-thirds. Does he himself bear a part of the loss, as he would by the average clause under a marine policy or a fire policy, in view of the fact that he has been able to insure only for £10,000 on £30,000 worth of chattels? Finally, does a loss which has released cover, permit transfer of that cover to other existing chattels? I shall not detain your Lordships further. I have mentioned several points which I think ought to be brought before your Lordships' House, so that if possible the draftsmen and my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, or even the House of Commons, may look into them if thought fit.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I desire to speak on what I may perhaps call a more generous note in relation to this Bill. It is a most remarkable Bill, and everyone must have been amazed at the skill with which it has been drafted. It has raised, from my point of view, many intricate questions concerning churches, chapels and religious bodies, and I have been entrusted with the task of watching their interests generally. I have already expressed the gratitude that we feel to His Majesty's Government for the particular arrange-

825
ments which they have made for charitable and religious bodies, and I wish before the opportunity passes to say a word of special appreciation of Treasury officials and Government draftsmen for the assistance which they have given to those of us who are particularly concerned with the interests of the Church. As I have said, the particular questions which arose were most intricate and very difficult, and they required research and close attention. Those of us who have acted in this matter for the Church have found quite astonishing understanding and help from the Treasury officials and Government draftsmen, and T think it is right to make some acknowledgment of that at this stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must interpose for a moment for two purposes. First of all, I want to thank the right reverend Prelate very sincerely, on behalf of those who cannot sneak for themselves, for the tribute which be has paid to them, and which I know from my own observation is not more than is deserved. This is such a complicated matter that I do not feel it is surprising that a great many Amendments have had to be made after the Bill was printed. I do not think the number is unique. But at any rate it is better to get these things right, and if it is important to get the legislation carried through promptly we must submit to the inconvenience, if inconvenience it be, of considerable amendment in the course of the passage of the Bill. I am not myself convinced that in all cases it is an inconvenience. There must be many instances where your Lordships have had your attention particularly called to a clause of the Bill because it had to be briefly explained on Amendments when you might have passed a feature of the Bill quite unnoticed had nothing been said about it at all.
My noble friend Lord Mancroft has, naturally I think, called attention to the extreme generality of some of the clauses in Part II of the Bill. I think it is quite right so to describe them, but I am completely satisfied that, however much time was at our disposal, Parliament would never wisely undertake the concrete decision of the details, to some of which he pointed. In effect the Board of Trade is being authorised by Parliament to become
826
a great insurance company, and you can no more lay down by Act of Parliament or in Schedules of an Act of Parliament what are the provisions in the different kinds of policy that they may have to issue, and what are the sometimes very technical remedies they have to impose, than you could if you were incorporating by a Private Act of Parliament a private insurance undertaking. In this matter one has to have a great deal of confidence in a great Government Department, and we have this security, that if it does it badly, well then, it is quite certain to hear more about it from Parliament itself.
The question which he put specifically to me is not, therefore, to be answered by looking at the terms of the Bill, but I will gladly tell him what is the intention. He put the point that if there is a limit of £10,000 as the maximum sum that can be secured by a private chattels insurance, how will it stand if the owner has a much larger quantity of chattels than £10,000 worth if they happen to be destroyed? The insurance is intended to be general. If, for example, he is insured for £10,000 and he has six houses he will get his loss on any one up to £10,000.
LORD MANCROFT: Do I understand that he is only to get £10,000 if, to take an extreme case, he has a house in Kent, a house in London and a house in Lancashire? Is he only to have £10,000 for one of these houses and the others will not be covered?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will ascertain the point; it may not have been actually decided. May I deal with his next point? He will get £10,000 if he has lost £10,000 and he will be allowed then to take out a further £5,000, but he must not have more than £10,000 outstanding at any one time. The policy will be a first loss policy, that is to say, he will not be subject to average. I£ his chattels are worth £30,000 and he loses the whole of them, he, will get £10,000 if he has insured for that amount. I am not quite sure how the other matter would stand, but possibly the noble Lord will let me have a word with him afterwards. I did, in fact, in view of some questions he raised on the Committee stage, write him a letter, but evidently it has not, reached him yet. In conclusion, let me

827
say that now that this Bill goes back to another place I feel it will be recognised that the very hard work that this House has put into it will greatly improve the Bill, and I presume will make it satisfactory in another place?
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move that this Bill be now passed.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill passed accordingly, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned.