Sitting of 25 February 1941

Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

DEATH OF A MEMBER.
Mr. Speaker:made the following communication to the House:
I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Arthur Harbord, C.B.E., J.P., Member for the Borough of Great Yarmouth, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
KENT ELECTRIC POWER BILL (By Order).
Second Reading deferred till the first Sitting Day after 9th March.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  EXPORTS TO JAPAN.
  Mr. A. Edwardsasked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs what minerals, and what quantity, have left Canada in the last 12 months to the nearest date for Japan; and what quantity of scrap-iron has left Australia in the last six months for Japan?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare):With regard to the first part of the Question, I am not in a position to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 22nd October. With regard to the second part, it was announced by the Commonwealth Government on 27th November that exports of scrap-iron and steel would thereafter be prohibited to other than British Empire destinations.
  Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister not concerned about the enormous quantities of valuable minerals still leaving the. Dominion of Canada for Japan?
  Mr. Shakespeare: If the hon. Member will read the long statement made on behalf of the Canadian Government, he will see that the position is now satisfactory.
  Mr. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of materials capable of being used as, or in the manufacture of, munitions of war, has left this country for Japan in the la. 12 months?
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lyttelton): During the period of the war no licences have been issued for the export from this country to Japan of war material as such.
  Mr. Edwards: Could the Minister say whether he has reason to suppose that other commodities which could be used for munitions of war have been exported?
  Mr. Lyttelton: No, Sir. Great care is taken over that point. Of course, we cannot give a general assurance that nothing exported can be capable of conversion.
  Mr. J. J. Davidson: Can the Minister say what he means by "war material as such"?
  Mr. Lyttelton: Material which can be identified as being for war purposes.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    MACHINERY AND WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT LICENCES).
    Mr. A. Edwardsasked the President of the Board of Trade how many licences to export machinery, arms and munitions have been applied for in the last 12 months; and how many have been re fused?
    Mr. Lyttelton::In the 12 months ended 31st January, 1941, approximately 4,500 licences were issued to export machinery, and approximately 200 applications were refused. Not all types of machinery are subject to export licence requirement. In the same period 365 licences were issued for the export of war material and four applications were refused. The bulk of the licences of war material were for exports by the Service Departments to Allied and other foreign countries.
    Mr. Edwards: What does the Minister mean by "Allied and other foreign countries"?
    Mr. Lyttelton: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the description. There are some foreign countries which are not Allies, but to which export is desirable.

    COMMODITY INSURANCE SCHEME.
    Mr. Higgsasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that large catering firms who carry considerable stocks of linen, china, glass, silver, etc., at central establishments to meet the demands for replacements by their branches and suffer damage by enemy action are not paid compensation for loss of these and other similar commodities, although the premium has been paid: and whether he will consider amending the definition of stock in order that such establishments can limit the premium to the articles on which compensation will be paid?
    Mr. Lvttelton: Speaking generally, the commodity insurance scheme covers only those goods owned by a seller or supplier of goods which are held for sale or supply in the course of that business. It docs not extend to goods which are of the nature of plant or equipment used in the business. These goods are at present un-insurable and no premiums are payable in respect of them but they will become insurable under the business scheme provided for in Part II of the War Damage Bill now before this House, when the Bill becomes law.

  ECONOMIC WARFARE (RUMANIA).
  Mr. Manderasked the Minister of Economic Warfare what has been the policy of his Department towards Rumania in recent months?
  The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dalton): When Italy entered the war, all outstanding navicerts and export licences for Rumania were revoked. His Majesty's Government could not consider the issue of new ones while there was danger of goods destined for Rumania falling into Italian hands. Nor were shipping arrangements offered to us which would have provided the necessary security. At this time, moreover, Rumania was already passing under German economic control. No goods have therefore been allowed to go through our controls to Rumania since last June.
  Mr. Mander: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that similar treatment
  342
  will be meted out to other countries likely to be drawn into the German orbit?
  Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I think the precedent set in this case might usefully be followed.
  Mr. Robert Gibson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether that policy is being applied to Bulgaria at present?
  Mr. Dalton: Perhaps my hon, and learned Friend will put down a separate Question.
  Mr. Thorne: May I take it for granted that the Minister knows that materials sent to Rumania will be "pinched" by the Germans?
  Mr. Dalton

  BRITISH ARMY.

    FIRE WATCHERS (WAR OFFICE BUILDINGS).
    Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements for fire watchers have been made at the War Office and at other buildings under War Office control?
    The Secretary of State for War (Captain Margesson): Sentries are always on watch on the War Office roof, and one of their duties is to watch for and report the presence of incendiary bombs on any building in the immediate vicinity. A trained volunteer fire fighting staff is available during office hours, whilst a member of the Ministry of Works and Buildings fire brigade, supported by a minimum of 15 male volunteer air-raid precautions personnel, is available from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. daily, including Sunday. Similar arrangements have been made in all other buildings occupied by War Office headquarters staff, except that in one case it has been necessary to make joint arrangements with a neighbour.
    Sir W. Davison: Do I understand, then, that in view of the considerable public anxiety as to the Horse Guards being adequately watched, there is a satisfactory fire-watching patrol of the Horse Guards and the other War Office buildings?
    Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir, that is so.

    PUBLICATION (INQUIRY).
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a magazine called "Bless 'Em All," recently published under the auspices of the non-combatant labour corps, attached to the Pioneer Corps, the contents of which and in particular an article on Armistice Day have given serious offence both to soldiers and civilians; and what action is being taken in the matter, having regard to the fact that the magazine is circulated from a military camp?
    Captain Margesson: My attention has been drawn to this matter, and I have called for a report from the Command concerned.
    Sir W. Davison: Is it not desirable that matters of this kind should be dealt with promptly, as very serious feeling has been caused by statements in this paper disparaging Armistice Day, and great offence has been given to soldiers and the public, coming as it does from a military camp?
    Captain Margesson: That is the reason why I have called for a report.

    PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War the conditions under which members of the Armed Forces, whether officers, men or women, can become Parliamentary candidates; and whether in any cases permission has been refused?
    Mr. McGovernasked the Secretary of State for War on what grounds Private McEwan, of the Army Pay Corps, was refused leave to enable him to become a Parliamentary candidate for Dumbartonshire; and whether he is prepared to make a statement on the subject?
    Mr. Gallacher:asked the Secretary of State for War why permission was refused to Mr. Robert McEwan, a private in the Army, to contest the current by-election in Dumbarton, in the interests of the Scottish Nationalist party, in view of the fact that permission has previously been granted in more than one instance since the outbreak of hostilities to serving officers to contest parliamentary vacancies; and whether any differentiation is
    344
    made in such applications between commissioned officers and other ranks?
    Captain Margesson: An Army officer or soldier or a woman in the military service of the Crown who wishes to become a parliamentary candidate is required first to obtain the permission of the Army Council through the normal channels. This is in order that prospective candidates may be prevented from unintentionally infringing the requirements of the Servants of the Crown (Parliamentary Candidature) Order, 1927. No differentiation is made between officers and other ranks, and no application submitted in this way has been refused. In the case of Private McEwan, the application was received by his commanding officer on the day of the nomination, and it was explained to the applicant that Army Council permission would be necessary and could not possibly be obtained in the time available.
    Mr. Mander: Am I to take it that permission is granted automatically, at the same time?
    Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. Practically speaking, that is true; as I say, no application submitted in this way has been refused.
    Sir Hugh O'Neill: With regard to the ordinary peace-time custom, by which an officer has to be seconded from his regiment in order to stand for Parliament; is it necessary then to get permission from the Army Council?
    Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. I think it is in order that when a serving officer or soldier becomes a candidate, he is transferred to the Reserve, at least for the day on which he is publicly announced as a candidate.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that Private McEwan had made his application before nomination day, in the appropriate way for a private, to his immediately superior officer by word of mouth, and that there was no instruction to him that he must apply to the Army Council or anything else?
    Captain Margesson: No, Sir, he does not apply to the Army Council. He applies through the normal channels. In this case the application was received by

    345
    his commanding officer, which is the normal channel through which application is made on the day of the nomination.
    Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that Private McEwan applied orally days before nomination day, and then two or three days later was told that he must put in the application in writing—that was on nomination day—and then he was told by a sergeant or somebody of that sort that it was refused?
    Captain Margesson: That is not the information which I received. The application was received by his commanding officer on the day of the nomination. However, I will have further inquiries made.
    Mr. Maxton: It may be that it takes several days for an application to go from a private to his commanding officer, but it was certainly put forward by Private McEwan well before nomination day.
    Captain Margesson: As I say, I will make further inquiries.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Can the Minister say whether the application which was received was oral or in writing?
    Captain Margesson: From my information, I take it that the application on the day of the nomination was an application in writing.

    VACCINATION AND INOCULATION.
    Mr. James Hallasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a driver of the Royal Army Service Corps at a barracks, of which he has been in formed, has had his leave stopped because he objected to being vaccinated and inoculated; and will he take steps to put a stop to the form of intimidation?
    Captain Margesson: I am making inquiries and will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as I can.

    COMMISSIONS.
    Mr. Liddallasked the Secretary of State for War what is the present maxi mum age limit for appointment as officers; what distinction is made in the case of those possessing previous military experience; and what course is adopted to offer appointments to those already serving rather than to those outside the Army and with no previous military experience?
    Captain Margesson: In the case of men appointed to commissions from the ranks without being required to undergo further training in officer cadet training units, the upper age limits vary from 43 to 55 according to the branch of the Service No upper age limit has been prescribed for admission to officer cadet training units, but, other things being equal, preference is given to those under 30. In the case of those appointed to commissions from the Army Officers' Emergency Reserve, the upper age limit, unless the candidate has very special qualifications, is 55, and, except for technical corps where special qualifications are required, previous military service is required. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Sal-ford (Mr. Emery) on Wednesday last, of which I am sending him a copy.

    VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS (RESIGNATIONS).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the resignation of many auxiliary nurses from the British Red Cross and St. John Ambulance Detachment; and why Red Cross Voluntary Aid Detachment nurses are made to spend many hours washing and cleaning floors and performing other menial duties?
    Captain Margesson: There has been a considerable number of resignations by members of Voluntary Aid Detachments, many of which are due to private reasons, such as difficulties resulting from the bombing of homes. Many are due to marriage. The duties of nursing members of Voluntary Aid Detachments are those of a probationer nurse in a civil hospital, which include washing, cleaning and general ward duties.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say approximately how many resignations have taken place?
    Captain Margesson: I am afraid I should have to ask for notice of that question.

    CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (INQUIRY).
    Mr. Maxton(for Mr. McGovern)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he intends to publish the report

    347
    of the committee of inquiry recently held into the alleged brutal treatment of conscientious objectors at Dingle Vale Camp at Liverpool; and, if not, what are the reasons for refusal?
    Captain Margesson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to his Question on this subject on 28th January.
    Mr. Maxton: Was it that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would consider the matter?
    Captain Margesson: I did not say I was considering it. I said it would be a subject for court-martial.
    Mr. Maxton: I understood that the commanding officer was not to be subject to court-martial but that it was only a somewhat junior officer.
    Captain Margesson: I am answering Question No. 14. There is another Question later about the commanding officer.
    Mr. Maxton(for Mr. McGovern) asked the Secretary of State for War on whose authority a military representative went to the Edinburgh Appellate Tribunal for Conscientious Objectors and gave evidence in favour of certain conscientious objectors, giving the impression to the court that Private S. G. Tomlinson was not a genuine objector as no evidence was given in his favour; and is he satisfied that no improper action was taken in order to secure a further term of imprisonment for this man because of the leading role he had played at the committee of inquiry and his refusal to serve?
    Captain Margesson: In all cases of serving soldiers appearing before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 13 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, J939, the established procedure is for an officer of the unit to which the soldier belongs to be present at the hearing to provide such information regarding the soldier as the chairman and members of the Tribunal may require. As regards the last part of the Question, if my hon. Friend is referring to the Court of Inquiry relating to Dingle Vale, I cannot find that Private Tomlinson took any part in that inquiry.

    CHURCH HALLS (REQUISITIONING).
    Professor Savory(for Dr. Little) asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in providing accommodation for the military, he will issue an order to the effect that, where other suitable buildings are available, the religious and social work of the churches should not be interfered with by the taking over of church halls, and in cases where such has been done and equally good accommodation can be obtained that it be taken and church halls handed back?
    Captain Margesson: This is already the policy of the War Office.

    HOME GUARD.
    Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for War what are the compensation arrangements for a member of the Home Guard if he should be injured whilst doing fire watching duty?
    Captain Margesson: Fire watching in the normal sense is not a duty of the Home Guard, and members of the Home Guard have been exempted from compulsory enrolment for these duties. A member of the Home Guard undertaking voluntary fire prevention duty in his capacity as a citizen would be dealt with under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme administered by the Ministry of Pensions. If, however, it happened that he was injured while assisting in analogous duties under orders in his capacity as a member of the Home Guard, he would be dealt with under the arrangements for disablement allowances and pensions for members of the Home Guard.
    Mr. Frankelasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that in order to circumvent the decision that only those at present in the Home Guard would receive consideration for a commission, there is a rush to introduce newcomers before the Selection Board meets; that one person was enrolled recently and made immediately second in command of the 10th Battalion over the heads of all the commanders who have been working for the Home Guard since Dunkirk; and whether he proposes to take any steps to stop this practice?
    Captain Margesson: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me have particulars of the case he has in mind, I will lave it investigated.
    Mr. Frankel: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I asked him a Question on this subject three weeks ago, that he then promised a full report, and that we have not yet had that full report? Is he aware that there is widespread discontent all over the country in the Home Guard, and that damage is now being done, and will he give an assurance that he will carry out the declared intentions of the House in regard to this matter?
    Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir. I certainly think it would be entirely contrary to the intention of the House that a practice of this sort should be indulged in, but what I did ask the hon. Gentleman was that he should let me have full particulars of this particular instance, so that I could have it looked into.
    Mr. Frankel: I will certainly do that, but I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would bear in mind that the matter to which I drew his attention three weeks ago has not yet been reported on to the House.
    Mr. Manderasked the Secretary of State for War what compensation for loss of earnings will be given to members of the Home Guard in the event of their being called up for whole-time service?
    Captain Margesson:I would ask my hon. Friend to await a statement which is shortly to be made by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, on this and other matters connected with the Home Guard.

    COOKS (TRAINING).
    Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for war, what steps he is taking to secure more and better cooks for the Army?
    Captain Margesson: Every unit has its own cooks, the number depending on the number of men in the unit. These cooks are trained by experts at schools of cookery and cookery training centres, of which there are now 112 as against 4 at the beginning of the war, and more are to be added, as necessary. The output from these establishments is now between 3,500 and 4,000 cooks a month.
    Sir T. Moore: In developing this scheme, will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that it is not quantity of food that makes a soldier happy
    350
    and contented and keeps him in good health, but palatable, wholesome and well-cooked meals?
    Captain Margesson: I am aware of that, and that is why we have introduced these training centres, so as to get better cooking.
    Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend also bear in mind the large number of cooks now on the labour market through the bombing and destruction and bankruptcy of hotels during the last 12 months, and will he consider drawing on this supply of good cooks?
    Sir Francis Fremantle: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend see that the cooks understand a little better how to thaw chilled meat?
    Mr. Leach: Is there any difference between "cucks" and "cooks"?

    RATIONS.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the discrepancy between the rations allowed to civil workers and those issued to the troops, and the urgent necessity to conserve our food supplies, he will state what further changes he proposes to make in the rations issued to the troops stationed in this country?
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will ensure that soldiers in uniform engaged solely on sedentary work should receive the same rations as civilians; and whether he can now make a statement with regard to this?
    Captain Margesson: The matter is now under examination, and I hope to be in a position to make a statement at an early date.
    Sir T. Moore: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he will bear in mind that it is very difficult to justify greater rations being allowed to soldiers on demolition work than to civilians employed on practically the same kind of work?
    Sir W. Davison: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that these regulations as to the feeding of troops are carried out, because in the last war certain commanding officers did not realise that that was part of their duties?
    Mr. Higgs:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if rations were considerably reduced, a lot of waste could be eliminated?

    DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. Ammonasked the Secretary of State for War whether the family allowances of soldiers' dependants now living in the Channel Islands are being paid into an account or will they be allowed to accumulate until such time as they can be paid to the persons concerned?
    Captain Margesson: The normal family allowance is intended to assist in meeting the current costs of maintenance of soldiers' families and it is not issuable in respect of families in enemy-occupied territory. Arrangements have, however, been made by which a soldier may, if he so desires, have placed to his provisional credit a special separation grant in respect of his family under certain conditions, one of which is an appropriate allotment from his pay. These amounts will only be withdrawable at the discretion of the War Office. Permission to withdraw will usually be given when the family returns from enemy-occupied territory, or restrictions on remittances to the territory are withdrawn. I will circulate particulars in the Official Report.
    Mr. Bellenger: May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in what way these allowances, which are paid to the credit of the soldier, differ from the allowances generally given to a soldier's dependants?
    Captain Margesson: I am giving full details of the scheme in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:
    The general conditions of the grant in respect of officers' and soldiers' families residing outside the sterling area are as follow:
    As a special war-time scheme, when the family of an officer or soldier is residing in an enemy-occupied country, or elsewhere outside the sterling area, and family lodging allowance or family allowance, as the case may be, is withheld owing to his consequent inability to make remittances through normal channels for their support, a special separation grant may, if he desires, be placed to his provisional credit under the following conditions.
    The members of his family in respect of whom this provisional credit may be given are his wife, and legitimate or statutorily-adopted children or step-children under the age of 16 years in the case of an officer or 14 years in the case of a soldier; a soldier's child who has reached the age of 14 years but not that of 15 may also be admitted for this purpose if he or she is not gainfully employed.
    An officer or soldier situated as in the first paragraph who desires to come within the scope of this scheme will be required to make formal application and to give authority for an amount to be withheld from his pay equivalent in the case of officer to two-sevenths of his current pay and in the case of a soldier to a rate not less than would be required as a qualifying allotment if family allowance were in issue.
    When authority is given for the application of this scheme to an officer or soldier, the amount withheld from his pay, together with a grant from army funds at the rate of 21s.* a week in the case of an officer or 13s.* a week in the case of a soldier, will be placed to his provisional credit.
    This grant will be known as a "Special Separation Grant."
    The amounts provisionally credited will only be withdrawable when War Office sanction has been given, and under such conditions as may then be prescribed. This permission will normally be given when the family returns to the sterling area, or when the restrictions on remittances to places outside that area are removed. In any event, the release of these credits will be effected as soon is circumstances permit after the end of the war.
    *If family lodging allowance or family allowance would, under normal conditions, not have been issuable in respect of the officer's or soldier's wife, and for only one child, this credit will be at only one-half of the normal rate stated above.

    CIVIL COURTS (JURISDICTION).
    Sir Herbert Williamsasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the submission by an officer to the Northampton Borough Bench, on 19th February, to the effect that the court was not competent to deal with the case of a soldier charged with driving an Army lorry dangerously; and

    353
    whether the action of the officer was in accordance with existing Army Regulations?
    Captain Margesson: I have seen a newspaper report of the case. There is no doubt that civil courts are competent to deal with such a case, and a submission made to the contrary effect would be wrong.
    Sir H. Williams: Will that be conveyed in due course to the officers concerned?
    Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir; I am taking the necessary steps.

    CADET FORCE.
    Colonel Sandeman Allenasked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will consider the free issue of uniforms to cadets;
    (2) whether he will consider the granting of the King's Commission to cadet officers?
    Captain Margesson:Certain proposals with regard to the Cadet Force are now under consideration by the Army Council, and I hope to be able to make an announcement in the near future.
    Colonel Sandeman Allen: Should I put a Question down next week?
    Captain Margesson: Perhaps I might communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

  CIVIL DEFENCE.

    BOMBED HOUSES (HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS).
    Major Sir Edward Cadoganasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the comment made by a West London magistrate, during a recent trial, in sentencing a man for looting a bombed house, to the effect that it seems to be nobody's business to protect household effects left exposed by enemy action from the air; and whether more precautions can be taken to safeguard the property of private citizens whose houses have been destroyed?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Mr. Mabane):The primary responsibility for recovering and protecting goods and articles from a damaged building rests with the owner or his legal personal repre-
    354
    sentative, but local authorities have been asked to give such assistance as may be required, particularly where persons are rendered homeless.
    Sir W. Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that very often, when these buildings are in process of demolition, the occupiers having fled, the furniture is thrown about, without being protected in any way? Could not something be done to save the furniture?
    Mr. Mabane: Local authorities have been asked to do that. Any expenses incurred are reimbursed to them.

    DETENTIONS.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Home Secretary how many married couples are now detained under Regulation 18B; whether he has considered the copy sent to him of a letter addressed to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes and signed by 12 detained husbands in a camp at Ascot complaining that their wives are detained under prison conditions, only a fortnightly visit of half-an-hour is permitted, and that rent-free premises for the detention and security of married couples have been responsibly offered to the Home Office; and will he give the reason for this continued separation of married couples detained under Regulation 18B while internment in company is granted to married alien couples?
    Mr. Peake: There are 18 married couples detained under Defence Regulation 18B. I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for letting me see the letter addressed to him by some of these people; but I know of no foundation for the suggestion in that letter that premises have been offered to the Home Office which would be suitable on security and other grounds for the accommodation of these couples. Nor can I accept the suggestion that because it is hoped to provide married quarters for selected couples who have been interned because of their enemy nationality, similar provision ought to be made for persons who have been involved in such specific activities that their detention under Defence Regulation 18B has been thought necessary for purposes of public safety.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I, personally, have no knowledge of any of these individuals,

    355
    and have never heard of or from any of them before, and that similar letters have reached other Members of Parliament? Bearing in mind the treatment of alien married couples, the treatment of these people seems rather fair, in view of the fact that only the Minister and a few other people have any real knowledge of what they have done.

    DOCTORS' CARS (LIGHTING, RURAL AREAS).
    Mr. J. Hendersonasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been directed to the increasing difficulties of medical doctors practising in rural areas who are compelled, in answer to urgent calls, to motor to patients resident in remote country districts during the hours of darkness; and whether he will sanction the use of an additional screened headlight in such cases?
    Mr. Mabane: I have been asked to reply. The Answer is, No, Sir.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister realise the great strain that is imposed upon these doctors in having to drive in certain conditions; and will the Minister go further into the question with a view to affording to them the same facilities as are afforded to motor omnibuses, namely, two screened headlights?
    Mr. Mabane:Motor omnibuses have two screened headlamps, but these together do not emit more than the light of one, and the only result of this concession would be to enable motorists to reach a higher pace, and that, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, is not desirable.

    SHELTERS (GRANT).
    Mr. Henry Strauss(for Sir Reginald Blair)asked the Home Secretary the cost to the Exchequer if the scheme-making authorities received the whole cost of public air-raid shelters erected or contracted for before 16th October last instead of the grant of 60 per cent.?
    Mr. Mabane: The rate of grant is not uniform but varies in different areas. It is estimated that the additional cost to the Exchequer would be —9,000,000.

    INTERNEES (DIETARY).
    Mr. Thorneasked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the broadcast in English on the German radio about the
    356
    matter, he will publish the daily rations of the Germans interned in the camps in the Isle of Man?
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): Yes, Sir. I am circulating a statement in the Official Report.
    Following is the statement:
    ISLE OF MAN INTERNMENT CAMPS.

    DIETARY.

    (To operate from 14th October, 1940.)

    To be issued daily in respect of each internee in the Camp.

    Bread

    14 oz.

    Flour

    2 oz.

    *Meat (fresh or frozen)...

    4 oz. on

    5 days a week.

    †Fish (fresh, smoked or salt-cured)

    10 oz. on

    2 days a week

    Margarine

    6/7 oz.

    Tea

    2/7 oz.

    or Coffee

    ¾oz.

    Sugar

    1 1/7 oz.

    Milk

    ½point

    Salt

    ½oz.

    Pepper (black)

    1/100 oz.

    Oatmeal

    2 oz.

    Mustard

    1/100 oz.

    Jam

    2 oz.

    Macaroni or Spaghetti

    ½oz.

    Potatoes

    14 oz.

    Rice or Beans or Split Beans

    1 oz.

    Fresh Vegetables (other than potatoes) —

    Green

    2 oz

    Root

    2 oz.

    †Cheese

    1 oz. on

    2 days a week.

    Internees working outside the Camp on approved schemes of manual work will receive the following additional ration:

    Bread

    6 oz.

    Cheese

    1 oz.

    *In the event of Kosher Meat not being obtainable to those internees who decline other meat, the following may be issued in lieu: —

    Fish

    10 oz.

    or Lentils

    2 oz.

    or Cheese

    1 oz.

    or Rice

    2 oz.

    †Fish and cheese will be issued on Tuesday and Friday.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.
  Major-General Sir Alfred Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will issue a leaflet for circulation among next-of-kin of officer prisoners of war, giving a clear explanation of the deduction authorised to be made from the pay of prisoners and the exact scale of

  357
  payment due from the German Government to each rank of British officer prisoners?
  Captain Margesson: Everyone who makes an inquiry at the War Office on this subject—and there are not many such inquiries—is given an explanatory statement, and information is also obtainable from the Army agents and the Army Pay Office at Manchester through which all officers' pay is issued. I do not think that it is necessary to circulate a leaflet.
  Sir A. Knox: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know that several of these Army agents have been unable to explain to relatives what deductions are made? I have received several letters to that effect. It is said that the War Office keeps it secret.
  Captain Margesson: It is certainly not secret, and I will see that the Army agents art; given full information.
  Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that the War Office gives the exact deductions made from each officer's pay according to his rank, together with the equivalent in German marks?
  Captain Margesson: Yes, Sir, that information is given to the Army agents' offices.
  Sir H. O'Neill: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is now permissible for the relatives of prisoners to send money?
  Captain Margesson: No, Sir. I answered a Question on that subject some time ago.

  CHANNEL ISLANDS' REFUGEES.
  Mr. Ammonasked the Home Secretary what assistance is given by His Majesty's Government to Channel Islands refugees in this country?
  Mr. Peake: As my hon. Friend has already been informed, provision was made for the accommodation and maintenance; of those refugees from the Channel Islands who were unable to make their own arrangements, and steps were taken to help any who wished to find employment. I am glad to say that a large measure of success has been attained in
  358
  finding suitable employment for such persons. As regards those who are still in need of assistance, the help given to them is fully comparable to that which is given to those people in this country who have lost their homes as a result of enemy action.
  Mr. Ammon: Is that additional to help given to them out of the Channel Islands Refugees' Voluntary Fund?
  Mr. Peake: Yes, certainly. As the hon. Member is aware, board and lodging are provided through the arrangements made by the Ministry of Health, and cash relief is given also through the Unemployment Assistance Board.
  Mr. Ammon: Is the hon. Member aware that that cannot be widely known, because I have had quite a number of letters from people who say they have had no assistance through that particular fund?
  Mr. Peake: If the hon. Member has any particular cases in mind, perhaps he will send me details.

  COAL SUPPLIES.
  Commander Sir Archibald Southbyasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that it is almost impossible for householders and others to obtain adequate supplies of coal and anthracite at the present time, and that there is widespread exasperation at the present failure to assure proper distribution; and whether he will take immediate steps to co-ordinate the various Ministries concerned in order to ensure a solution of the difficulty?
  The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): It is true that at times during the winter there have been local shortages of coal, especially coal of particular types, mainly as a result of the impact of war conditions on our transport system. But I do not accept my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion that consumers generally are finding difficulty in obtaining coal sufficient for their essential needs, or that there has been any widespread failure to ensure proper distribution. Special arrangements on the lines suggested in the last part of the Question were made in October last, and it is owing to those

  359
  arrangements that difficulties in connection with the supply of coal have been so largely prevented or overcome.
  Sir A. Southby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will not carry conviction to a large number of people who to-day are unable to get sufficient coal? I can give instances of truck loads ordered in July which have not been delivered, and of homes where it has been impossible to get coal to light a fire and cook. Will he again look into the matter? If he does, he will find that there is still a great shortage of fuel throughout the country.
  Mr. Attlee: This matter was discussed at considerable detail in this House on the 19th of this month. A special committee was set up in October, which has co-operated with the Ministers concerned in dealing with the difficulties.
  Sir A. Southby: Would it not be better for the committee to do something instead of just co-operating with the Ministers in not providing the coal for the people?
  Mr. Charles Williams:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases the coal is of such a quality as to be quite unusable? It is waste of transport sending dust from A to B.
  Sir A. Knox: Is it not largely a question of transport? When the Minister himself applies for the necessary transport, who is the super-co-ordinator who decides whether he shall have that transport or not?

  EMPIRE BASES (LEASE TO UNITED STATES).
  Sir A. Southbyasked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to give time for a Debate in Secret Session on the whole question of the bases in the British Empire which it is proposed to lease to the United States of America, including their future administration?
  Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no such intention at the present time.
  Sir A. Southby: When is the House of Commons likely to be given an opportunity of expressing its views on this very important subject?

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    POST-WAR RE-EMPLOYMENT.
    Mr. Caryasked the Prime Minister whether he will reaffirm the undertaking given by the Government in 1939, to those who would be affected by the Military Forces Act, that their jobs in civilian life will be kept open for them after the war; and that no step would be taken which will prejudice the chances of re-employment in their respective trades?
    Mr. Attlee: Statutory provision for reinstatement in civil employment after the war already exists in Section 14 of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939. The practical possibilities of such reinstatement must, however, be affected by industrial changes which the war necessitates.
    Mr. Cary: Could something more be done to protect the interests of small businesses? Big undertakings, such as the railways, insurance companies and banks, will be able to carry on, but many of the smaller interests are threatened with extinction.
    Mr. Attlee: Obviously, that is a matter which will have to be considered.
    Mr. Cary: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that what is left will be spread over as great a number of businesses as possible, and not concentrated in the hands of a few big businesses?
    Mr. Attlee: I would like to see that Question on the Paper.

    CASE FOR INQUIRY.
    Mr. Frankelasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that before Private A. L. Flynn, T13044165, Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps, was examined and passed Grade 2, he had been for 12 months in a mental home, and was still under observation while in civilian employment; that after four and a-half months of Army life he has had to be sent back to the mental home; whether he will have inquiries made as to how this boy was passed Grade 2; and whether, in the circumstances, his widowed mother is entitled to any allowance in respect of her son?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Assheton): My right hon. Friend is making inquiries in conjunction with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Pensions and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Dr. Edith Summerskill: Can the Minister say why no examination was made of the mental condition of the recruit, and whether there is a rule that doctors with special knowledge of mental diseases should sit on the medical board?
    Mr. Assheton: 1 cannot accept exactly what the hon. Lady has said, but, at any rate, I think that that is another Question, which must be put upon the Paper.
    Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Ministry of Labour have the responsibility in regard to these medical boards, in view of the fact that there is some doubt in the matter?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    PURCHASE TAX.
    Sir George Broadbridgeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the customs authorities have in contemplation any change in the present method of payment of Purchase Tax by registered persons; have they consulted with all representative trade organisations to ascertain their views; and will he give an undertaking that in any rearrangement of procedure steps will be taken to ensure that registered persons are not called upon to finance the tax?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood):This matter is under consideration. Various representative trade organisation are being consulted, in order to ascertain the system of paying the tax that would be most convenient. In regard to the last part of the Question, I would point out that the extent to which manufacturers and wholesalers can be said to finance the tax depends on the credit which they allow their customers. This is entirely a matter for arrangement between the parties concerned.
    Mr. Davidson: How long does the right hon. Gentleman expect the negotiations to go on?
    Sir K. Wood: I will see that they are expedited as much as possible.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will it be possible to amend the procedure in the next Finance Bill, or will a separate Bill be necessary?
    Sir K. Wood: I think it will be possible to deal with it in the Finance Bill.
    Mr. T. Smithasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that NDK dentalvis, a medicament for teeth and gum troubles, has been classed by the Inland Revenue as a toilet preparation, and consequently subject to Purchase Tax; and whether he will have this decision reconsidered?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury(Captain Crookshank): This preparation is advertised as "used as an ordinary dentifrice." Toothpastes are toilet preparations, and are in law chargeable (whether they are medicated are not) with tax at the rate of 33⅓ per cent, ad valorem.

    REQUISITIONED SECURITIES.
    Mr. Liddall(for Mr. Critchley)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can devise a method to secure for war financing the cash received by holders of the requisitioned Indian and other similar securities by giving them the option to take, as payment, those Government securities of which the permitted holding by one beneficial holder is now limited, provided the requisitioned securities have been in the possession of the beneficial owner for not less than one year?
    Sir K. Wood: Arrangements designed to facilitate subscriptions by holders of requisitioned securities to the various Government loans on offer are already in operation. I cannot, however, see my way to permit any extension of the limits of holdings of National Savings Certificates and 3 per cent. Defence Bonds which carry specially favourable terms designed to encourage saving by the smaller investors.

    CIVIL SERVANTS AND OFFICERS ON ACTIVE LIST (BROADCASTING FEES).
    Mr. Stokesasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether civil servants and officers on the active list of the Army, Navy and Air Force receive

    363
    fees from the British Broadcasting Corporation for broadcasts delivered by them on subjects pertaining to their official duties; and, if so, whether he will arrange for such fees to be surrendered to the Exchequer, less any appropriate deduction for expenses incurred by the individual in making the broadcast?
    Captain Crookshank: The general practice is that no fees are payable to a civil servant or officer on the active list of the Navy, Army or Air Force for broadcasts which are necessary or desirable to enable the responsible Department to carry out its recognised duties to the community. In cases where the talk serves no such purpose, the general practice of Departments is to allow the officer concerned to make his own terms with the Corporation, whether or not the subject of the talk pertains to his official duties. All talks on matters pertaining to the officer's official duties require the prior approval of higher authority. These arrangements are not wholly appropriate in present conditions, and, in conjunction with the Departments chiefly concerned and the B.B.C., I have been considering what modifications are needed. When agreement has been reached regarding the revised arrangements, I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Stokes:Can the Financial Secretary say when it is likely that agreement will be reached on this matter, as it is causing some concern in Civil Service circles?
    Captain Crookshank: I have not heard anything about causing concern, but I do not think it will be very long now before agreement is reached.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (WAR DAMAGE) ACT, 1939.
  Mr. W. H. Greenasked the Attorney-General whether resulting from promised active consideration it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to afford some protection to tenants of houses rendered uninhabitable by enemy action from the payment of full rent for such houses?
  The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The answer is, Yes, Sir, I have already stated m reply to previous Questions that the Government are proposing to introduce further legislation to
  364
  that contained in the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939, to deal with the rights of those whose houses have been damaged through enemy action. The particular instance to which the hon. Member refers will be dealt with in this legislation.
  Mr. Green: While I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, will he appreciate the need for expedition, in view of the distressing conditions under which thousands of these tenants are now labouring, as a result, in some cases, of living in their shelters while the full rent is being demanded for their houses; and, further, will such legislation include ground rent as well as house rent?
  The Attorney-General: Of course, I cannot anticipate what will be in the legislation. I do appreciate that this is a problem wih which it is desirable to deal as quickly as possible, but I am sure the House will also appreciate that the War Damage Bill at present before Parliament has its effect on this problem, and it is impossible to come to a final decision until we see what form the Bill will take.
  Sir W. Davison: Will the Attorney-General pay attention to the special case of boarding-house keepers who have suffered so much?
  Mr. Craven-Ellis: May I ask the learned Attorney-General whether, in a case occurring in Southampton, where the tenant has been summoned and judgment has been given, the tenant, who has no money with which to pay, can seek protection under the Emergency Powers Act?

  CANALS AND INLAND WATERWAYS(INVESTIGATION).
  Mr. Thorneasked the Minister of Transport whether he can give any information in connection with the investigation into traffic on British canals and inland waterways and what salary will be paid to Mr. Frank Pick, the investigator?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Montague):The investigation into the carriage of traffic on canals and inland waterways has already commenced and is being proceeded with as a matter of urgency. Mr Frank Pick is receiving salary at the rate of £2,000 per annum.

  FOOD SUPPLIES.

    UNRATIONED FOODSTUFFS.
    Sir A. Southbyasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that retailers of unrationed foodstuffs were allocated 75 per cent. of their pre-war supplies, and that their quota has not been increased in all the localities where the population has been substantially augmented by evacuation; and what steps he is taking to increase such supplies, which are now totally inadequate to the needs of the people in these evacuation areas?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George):My hon. and gallant Friend does not specify the commodities or the areas he has in mind and I am therefore unable to comment on the figure in the first part of the Question, except to say that it does not represent any standard of allocation among unrationed foodstuffs generally. Manufacturers are now supplied with figures of movement of population to help them in adjusting their allocation of unrationed foodstuffs, and my Noble Friend has reason to hope that a more even distribution of these foodstuffs is now being effected.
    Sir A. Southby: If I bring specific cases to the notice of my hon. and gallant Friend, will he look into them?
    Major Lloyd George: Certainly, Sir.
    Mr. Frankel: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House how often re-allocations are made and the last time that any re-allocation took place?
    Major Lloyd George: The figures from all over the country have only recently— I think in the last month or six weeks— been given for the first time to manufacturers, and as a result of these figures, manufacturers are now re-allocating, or they have done so, their allowances to the various shops.
    Mr. Frankel: Are we then to understand that since the "Blitz" took place and the great changes of population which have taken place all over the country no re-allocation has been made?
    Major Lloyd George: It would be entirely contrary to the facts to say that, but we are trying to make it as perfect as possible. The hon. Gentleman will
    366
    appreciate that the figures do not remain constant and that people come and go, and that is one of the difficulties.

    MEAT RATION.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that up to 13th instant the total supply of meat to the Consett, Lanchester and Weardale area, county Durham, equalled only 6|d. per head, when it was subsequently raised to 1s. c???d., including bone and offal; and, as the workers in these areas are largely in the heavy industries and considerable discontent prevails, are immediate steps being taken to raise the supply to 1s. 2d. per head?
    Major Lloyd George: The meat ration is on a weekly basis, and the first figures quoted by my hon. Friend refer only to a few days' supply. For the week ending 15th February the amount of carcase meat and offals issued to the butchers buying groups for Consett and Lanchester was 74.9 per cent of their buying permits, which are on a basis of 1s. 6d., and 72 per cent. in the case of Crook and Willington, Tow Law and Weardale. These percentages are equivalent to 1s. 1½d. and 1s. 1d. respectively. Total issues of this amount in relation to a 1s. 2d. ration should normally be sufficient to meet the legitimate requirements of registered customers.
    Mr. Adams: Do I understand from that Answer that the Minister is disputing the figure that I have given to him, and that we are now to have the 1s. 2d.?
    Major Lloyd George: No, Sir, I am not disputing the figure; I am only disputing the basis on which the hon. Gentleman has made his calculation. I am referring to the week which commenced 15th February, and the figures which I have given for that week are the figures which in fact meet the requirements.
    Mr. Adams: All that I can say on the subject, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister is misinformed.

    CIVILIAN AND SERVICE PERSONNEL.
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can provide a table showing the present rations, respectively, received by officers of the fighting services working in non- Service departments, such as the Ministry

    367
    of Supply and Ministry of Economic Warfare, but paid by their respective service departments, and other officers working in the same departments and doing the same work but paid by the non-service departments themselves; and whether he can take steps to put an end to the present differentiation?
    Major Lloyd George: The Reply to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures, but with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission I will circulate it in the Official Report. The possibility of modifying the present position is already under my noble Friend's active consideration.
    Following is the Statement:
    The following are the rationed scales applicable to civilians and to serving officers of the fighting services working in civil departments and paid by their respective services who are not on the feeding strength of any unit:

    Weekly Ration.

    —

    Civilian Personnel.

    Service Personnel.

    Meat

    1s. 2d. (= 15 to 18 ounces).

    42 ounces

    Sugar

    8 ounces

    12 ounces

    Bacon.

    4 ounces

    8 ounces

    Butter and Margarine.

    6 ounces

    6 ounces

    Cooking fats

    2 ounces

    2 ounces

    Tea

    2 ounces

    2 ounces

    OFFALS.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether, in view of the fact that customers generally decline to use any part of their meat coupons for the purchase of offals, he will discontinue the rationing of the latter?
    Major Lloyd George:For the present it is essential that offals should form part of the supplies of meat available to meet the ration, and I regret that I am not prepared to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Cocks: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that at the present time the result of this is that offals are not being sold by the butchers at all, and that they are sent to hotels and restaurants and the ordinary purchaser cannot get them?
    Major Lloyd George: I am not sure that is so. As a matter of fact, such offals as
    368
    there are play an important part in keeping the ration figure stable.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the Minister investigate this question and ensure that offals are obtainable?
    Major Lloyd George: That is another question.

    COMMUNITY KITCHENS.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has considered the proposal to increase the popularity of communal feeding centres by giving them various attractive titles?
    Major Lloyd George: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd) on 13th February.
    Mr. Cocks: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what was the Answer on that occasion?
    Major Lloyd George: The Answer was that a number of local authorities had already adopted this suggestion, and my Noble Friend would be very happy if they could all adopt it.
    Mr. Cocks: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman understand how much more popular it would be if, instead of saying ''Meet me at the community feeding centre,"people said,"Meet me at the Woolton Head ' or the 'Gwilym Arms'"?

    NUTRITION (CALCIUM).
    Mr. Cocksasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is satisfied that the addition of calcium to bread will not be injurious to public health?
    Major Lloyd George:I would refer my hon. Friend to the Reply on this subject which I gave on 19th February to my hon. Friend the Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little).
    Mr. Cocks: Has the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman been drawn to an article in the "British Medical Journal" suggesting that calcium is injurious to health, especially in kidney trouble?
    Major Lloyd George: I would like to call my hon. Friend's attention to a statement in the "British Medical Journal"

    369
    which says exactly the opposite. It says that the country is suffering from a lack of calcium, and that it is likely to become more serious in war conditions if we cannot make it up. I shall be very glad to send my hon. Friend a copy of it.
    Mr. Cocks: I view of the obvious conflict of medical evidence, will the Minister be very careful about this matter?

    MILK.
    Mr. David Adamsasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Medical Officer of Health for North umberland states that the position regarding milk generally throughout the county is unsatisfactory; that of 112 registered cow-keepers in the Castle Ward Rural District, Northumberland, a few only have cowsheds which comply with the Ministry's standard, and that this is representative of the county generally; and what steps he proposes to protect the public against the risks of milk produced under such conditions?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): As my hon. Friend will be aware, the enforcement of the provisions of the Milk and Dairies Order relating to methods of production is a matter which is in the hands of the appropriate local authorities. My right hon. Friend will, however, cause inquiries to be made into the case to which my hon. Friend refers in order to see if there is any action which he can usefully take.
    Mr. Adams: Is the hon. Lady aware that it is from these farms that dangerous milk is produced, that veterinary inspection is not obligatory and that thousands of cows have never been inspected by a veterinary officer?
    Miss Horsbrugh: I think my hon. Friend is going further in what he suggests than can be done under our present legislation, but my right hon. Friend is making inquiries in the particular case which he has in mind.
    Mr. Adams: May I put down a Question shortly with a view to getting to know what is being done?
    Miss Horsbrugh

    SHELTER CANTEENS.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that most of the foodstuffs sold in shelter canteens are
    370
    predominantly of a starchy nature and deficient in other necessary dietetic qualities; and whether he will take steps to remedy this and cause to be made available in the shelters other foodstuffs necessary to a balanced diet and good health?
    Major Lloyd George: I have been asked to reply to this Question. The standard of catering in shelters is less satisfactory than I should like it to be, partly owing to reductions in the supplies of meat, cheese and fruit available for shelter caterers, and partly to fluctuating numbers in the shelters making it necessary for caterers to restrict the amount of perishable foodstuffs for sale in order to avoid waste. It must, however, be remembered that regular shelterers bring from home the more nutritious part of their meal. There will shortly be issued to all shelter caterers a pamphlet with recipes for nutritious snacks made from readily procurable commodities. Supplies of the concentrated soup specially prepared for emergency use will also be made available in the near future.
    Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman keep a special watch on this problem, in view of the fact that large quantities of foodstuffs at the present time do represent an unbalanced diet?

  JAPANESE FOREIGN MINISTER (MEDIATION OFFER).
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the precise terms of the offer made by Japan to mediate between the belligerents in the present war and the reply of His Majesty's Government?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): In a recent communication to my right hon. Friend, the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, after referring generally to the European war, observed that Japan was fully prepared to act as mediator or to take whatever action was calculated to restore peace and normal conditions not only in Greater East Asia but anywhere in the world. The Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, in subsequent public statements (made, he has said, after consulting Germany), has indicated that his words were not to be regarded as an offer of mediation in the European war. In any case the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs

  371
  has been informed by the Prime Minister that in a cause of the kind for which we are fighting—a cause in no way concerned with territory, trade or material gains but affecting the whole future of humanity—there can be no question of compromise or parley.
  Mr. Davies: May we take it then that His Majesty's Government are not afraid of peace dawning upon Europe very soon?

  WEST AFRICAN TROOPS (WELFARE).
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction felt at the lack of suitable amenities for West African soldiers serving in East Africa, both in contrast to that provided for European troops and also to the circumstances of their West African life; and whether he will take steps to secure the recognition of the distinctive cultural standards previously existing between the natives of West and East Africa, respectively, and the necessity for improving recreative and other facilities for West African troops serving away from their own native area?
  Captain Margesson: I have been asked to reply. I have not received any expressions of dissatisfaction in this matter. A welfare fund controlled by the General Officer Commanding East African Forces caters for the welfare and comforts of African troops in the East African theatre. In addition, the Governments of Nigeria and the Gold Coast contribute to Lady Moore's Comforts Fund in respect of personal comforts for Nigerian and Gold Coast troops. Proposals are under consideration to raise a comforts fund in this country to supplement the funds subscribed locally in East and West Africa.
  Mr. Sorensen:Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in one of these African papers a letter did appear from a West African soldier dealing with the points involved in my Question, and will he try to get hold of this paper to see exactly the nature of the complaint?
  Captain Margesson

  SCOTLAND.

    ANIMAL RATIONING SCHEME.
    Captain McEwen(for Mr. Snadden) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the widespread discontent in Scotland in connection with the Animal Rationing Scheme, because of the fact that sales of cereals effected prior to 1st February, 1941, are deprived of the right to earn ration coupons even when they pass from surplus to deficit range; that an immediate reduction in the milk of herds has resulted; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this injustice?
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): May I remind my hon. Friend that the Animal Rationing Scheme was devised to ensure a fair distribution in the national interest of the limited supplies of feeding stuffs available? Sales of cereals before 1st February do not confer a right to issue of coupons as the scheme assumes that in cases such as those referred to by the hon. Member the farmer was able to obtain all his current requirements before that date under the arrangements then prevailing. In cases where sales before 1st February have left farmers without the necessary feeding resources the scheme provides that the Agricultural Executive Committee will, on appeal, arrange for the issue of the appropriate coupons where such action is justified. Coupons are being issued in such cases with the utmost expedition.
    Mr. R. Gibson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that straw from cereals, which before the war was being sold by farmers at 15s. per ton, is now being held up by them for £5 per ton, although it is urgently required for paper making in Scotland? Will he look into that matter?
    Mr. Johnston: That is obviously another question.

    AIR-RAID SHELTERS (COST).
    Captain McEwen(for Mr. Snadden)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now considered a communication addressed to him by the county clerk of the Perthshire County Council, urging that reimbursement in full of the cost of public air-raid shelters and shelters at schools should be made to local authorities, whether they have been

    373
    erected under contracts entered into after 19th October, 1940, or not; and what reply he has made?
    Mr. Johnston: Yes, Sir: a reply was sent to the County Clerk's letter on 17th February. He was referred to the replies given to Questions on this subject on 12th November and 17th December last and on 28th January on the Government's policy on the subject. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the correspondence.

  SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVE RECRUITMENT).
  Mr. Creech Jonesasked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there is any proposal to raise, in any of the South African Protectorates, African contingents for service in other parts of Africa?
  Mr. Shakespeare: Two companies of Native Military Police have been recruited in Basutoland and Swaziland for service in the Union of South Africa as military guards, and arrangements have recently been authorised by the High Commissioner for the recruitment of further natives in the three High Commission Territories for service in a Native Military Corps which is being formed in the Union and which will be employed on non-combatant duties with the Union Forces in Africa.
  Mr. Creech Jones: If it is proposed to raise any troops in the Protectorates for service in other parts of Africa, will my hon. Friend try to safeguard their health standards, allowances and pensions if casualties should arise?
  Mr. Shakespeare: I think the Dominions authorities will have that point in mind.

  CHILDREN'S OVERSEAS RECEPTION SCHEME.
  Mr. Maxton(for Mr. McGovern)asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of persons engaged on the work of evacuating children overseas; the number who draw more than £400 per year; the monthly cost of this Department; the total amount expended since the scheme was inaugurated; the number of children evacuated to each Dominion and to the United
  374
  States of America; and future intentions in regard to this work?
  Mr. Shakespeare: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
  Mr. Maxton: Is the organisation still in being?
  Mr. Shakespeare: Yes, it is still in being.
  Following is the reply:
  The number of persons employed by the Children's Overseas Reception Board for England and Wales is 22, including messengers and typists. In addition to this there is a Scottish Branch where eight persons are employed and there is one United Kingdom representative of Children's Overseas Reception Board in each Dominion. The total number of officials drawing salaries over £400 per annum in England, Scotland and Wales is three and in the Dominions four. The total monthly salaries paid by the Board amount to £1,078. From the information at present available the total expenditure to date is £55,000, excluding cost of passages and salaries of staff seconded temporarily. Towards this expenditure the amount received from parents in weekly contributions is £10,600. This does not, however, fully represent the total amount recoverable as all parents' contributions for that period have not yet been received. These contributions are on a fixed weekly basis and will continue to be made. In addition, donations have been received towards the expenses of this scheme both from home and overseas amounting to £33,509.
  The number of children evacuated to each Dominion is as follows: Canada 1,532, Australia 577, South Africa 353 and New Zealand 202. No children were sent to the United States of America under the Government scheme as it was suspended before the arrangements with the United States of America were completed, but 838 children were sent under the auspices of the American Committee for the Evacuation of European Children with the collaboration of this Board. It is not possible to state at this moment when conditions will make it possible to reopen the scheme.

  ISSUE OF WRITS (MEMBERS PRESUMED DEAD).
  Mr. Speaker: On Thursday last I informed the House that I had invited certain right hon. Gentlemen to serve on an Advisory Panel to determine the existence of vacancies as a result of the presumed death of Members on active service. I am glad to be able to inform the House that these right hon. Gentlemen have signified their willingness to serve on this panel. I have also to inform the House that I have invited, and received the acceptance of, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert).
  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Fifth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 56.]
Preamble
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAR DAMAGE BILL.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House," put, and agreed to. — [Sir K. Wood.]
  Bill accordingly considered in Committee.
  [SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  WAR DAMAGE BILL.

    CLAUSE 1. — (Constitution and functions of War Damage Commission.)
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Before you call the first Amendment, Sir Dennis, may I put to you a point of Order? We are now carrying through an unusual procedure, but one the reason for which we fully understand. The Bill has been recommitted, and we are to consider the Amendments in the name of the Chancellor, and in the names of other hon. Members, not on the Report stage, but in Committee. The reason is that a number of very important questions were left in abeyance on the original Committee stage. I think it would be of value to the Committee if, before the Amendments are discussed seriatim, you would permit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a somewhat wide statement on the scope of the major changes he proposes in the Bill. Subject to what any other hon. Member may say, I feel certain that, if you can see your way to permit the right hon. Gentleman to do that, it will very much facilitate the understanding of the Committee and no doubt, in the end, shorten the proceedings on the Committee stage.
    The Chairman:I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. A convenient method of enabling such a course to be taken is provided for in our procedure. The proper method to enable the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make such a statement would be for him to move to report Progress, and the statement could be made on that Motion.
    Sir Irving Albery: May I ask for your guidance, Sir Dennis? Am I to understand from what has just been
    386
    said that the Motion, "That the Bill, as amended, be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House," is not debatable?
    The Chairman: The Motion was on the Order Paper to be dealt with by the House, and it has already been agreed to by the House. It has nothing to do with the Committee.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    I move this Motion in order that, in conformity with the wish expressed by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and other hon. Members, I may explain the principal changes in the Bill involved in the Amendments in my name on the Order Paper. There are, of course, a large number of Amendments on the Order Paper, some of them involving radical alterations, which show that we have made every effort to profit from the recent discussions in the Committee. Hon. Members will see that I have been able to adopt many of the suggestions that were made from all parts of the Committee. I should doubt if in connection with a Measure of this magnitude hon. Members have ever played such a considerable part in shaping and improving a Bill. There are some 150 Government Amendments on the Order Paper, the great bulk of them being designed to meet points that were made by the Committee in the course of the Debates. Some of these Amendments are of a minor character, some are more important, and some affect the scope of the Bill considerably.
    I want, first, to refer to Clause 1, which has an important aspect in connection with the administration of the Measure. Hon. Members will remember that it deals, among other things, with the relationship between the Treasury and the Commission, which, of course, also involves the position and authority of Parliament. The Committee desired to secure, first, that there should be publication of any regulations or directions concerning these matters, secondly, that the directions should be general, and thirdly, that Parliament should have control over any such directions as might be given. Therefore, the Amendments which I shall move provide, first, that the directions under this Clause shall be made by way of regulation, secondly, that they shall be

    387
    of a general character, and, thirdly, that nothing In them shall be construed as authorising the Commission to exercise any or its functions in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, and —by virtue of a new Clause to replace Clause 50 in the Bill—that they shall be laid before Parliament so as to secure the necessary control which the Committee thought desirable.
    The next matter to which 1 want to refer, which was the subject of considerable discussion in the Committee, is the position of claims under £5. I shall make new proposals dealing with the difficulties that may arise in connection with the provision that claims for payments under £5 shall not be admitted. I think there was general agreement that the justification for this limitation was that if there was a very large number of small claims, as one might perhaps expect and there was no limitation of this character, it would involve a general hold-up of the work of the Commission, and in any event a considerable dislocation in the assessment of claims. Accordingly, I considered the matter afresh in conjunction with my right hon. Friends, and I am now proposing, in the Amendments on the Order Paper which deal with this subject, certain Amendments designed to mitigate any hardships which may arise. I am suggesting to the Committee three or four alterations in that respect. Firstly, I am suggesting that a claimant may aggregate cost of works claims for repeated damage to the same property, whether a developed or an undeveloped hereditament. For instance, if the same house is damaged on three occasions to the extent of £2, £1 and £4 respectively, a total claim of £7 can be made.
    I am also suggesting an Amendment by which a claimant will be enabled to aggregate cost of works claims in respect of more than one developed hereditament in the same housing authority's area. A landlord, for instance, may have a number of properties in one such area which have suffered minor damage; the expenditure on individual properties comes, in a number of cases, to less than £3 a house. In that case the landlord will be able to aggregate his expenditure. Take the case of a local authority which carries out first-aid repairs—many of the houses, of
    388
    course, require only minor expenditure. Take an example which is quite frequent, say, that of 10s. per house. In that case the authority will be allowed to aggregate expenditure and present a total claim. I have had to confine the Amendment to particular housing areas, and that has had to be done. I do not think there will be any hardship. The arrangement is designed purely from the point of view of administration. I suggest that these Amendments will go a long way to meet the difficulty of the £5 limitation, especially when it is remembered that a very large proportion of the damage below £5 will be repaired by local authorities under their emergency powers; in which case, instead of the cost of repairs being charged to the individual, the local authorities will be reimbursed in bulk from the Exchequer. I am advised that the proportion of claims under £5 which are left uncovered by one or other of these arrangements will be very small indeed. There is another aspect of the matter which I will mention now. It may very well be that, after the war, when we are able to consider arrangements for the general replacement of temporary by permanent repairs, the Commission or the Government may be able to devise means by which they may be executed by some central agency, either the local authority or some other body, which will meet cases of small damage in a convenient and expeditious way. I hope the Committee will agree with me that this arrangement will avoid dislocation, and that the Amendment I have put on the Order Paper does, to a very large extent, meet the difficulties which my hon. Friends have raised in the earlier Debates on this Bill.
    I would now like to say a word or two on another matter which was a subject of considerable discussion—the question of value payments, particularly as compared with the assessment of the compensation to be made in respect of cost of works payments. My right hon. Friends, who were associated with me in connection with this Bill, and myself, did, of course, give careful consideration to this matter during the framing of this Bill. Quite recently we again examined the whole position, and I considered what was said on this subject in Committee. Criticism centred on the comparison between the amount of the value payment and the cost of works payment, and particularly on the fact that

    389
    value payments were to be made by reference to prices current in March, 1939. While the criticisms of the Clause put forward by the Government were such as 1 have indicated, the alterations proposed proved, in fact, impracticable and could not be sustained. The more one considers the matter the more one realises that the difficulty arises in endeavouring to say now what will be the position after the war. Many of my hon. Friends, in an endeavour to find a way out, have made suggestions by which there should be a certain percentage addition to the value payments. The fact remains that no one is in a position now to deal with the matter in that particular way. In other words, I suggest to the Committee that that matter must really be dealt with at the most appropriate time, and that is when the bulk of the value payments can be made.
    I have, therefore, Tabled a number of important Amendments which provide that when the time comes for the payment of value payments in substantial volume the matter shall be considered by the War Damage Commission. The next Amendment provides that if they consider, in the light of their experience—and, of course, no one will have better experience or greater knowledge than the Commission—that the value payments are inadequate, they shall report to the Treasury. I have provided in another Amendment that the report shall be published. Every one will then be able to see the consideration that has been given by the War Damage Commission to the matter and their recommendation. It will not only be a matter of communicating with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be for all plainly to see what has been done. There is also an Amendment providing for a further duty which, this time, will be on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It will be his duty to consider the report and then I propose that the Treasury shall have power, in the light of the recommendations which may be made by the Commission, to increase the sums which would otherwise be payable under this Measure. I also propose to ensure that any order that the Treasury may make increasing the value payments under the provisions of this scheme, shall be laid before the House and shall be subject to an affirmative Resolution. In other words, the final
    390
    decision must rest with the House of Commons and the matter must explicitly come before the House before anything can be done.
    I suggest to the Committee that by these provisions we ensure that this very important matter shall be considered at the right time. In the first instance, the whole matter will be considered by the body which must have the best knowledge of all the facts; secondly their report is to be made subject to consideration by the responsible Minister, and, finally, I commend this proposal to the Committee on the ground that the whole matter will ultimately be decided by the House itself. I say again, having given this question a great deal of care and attention and knowing the anxiety which has been expressed about it that the more I consider it, the more confident I am that we are not in a position to-day to determine this matter and I believe the new proposals will ensure the best and fairest way of arriving at a just conclusion.
    I would call attention to another important matter which deals with a different category of beneficiaries. That is the arrangement for advances under Clause 9 (4). In the first place, the Committee will appreciate the fact that these advance payments to people who are able to satisfy the Commission of the justice of their case will, of necessity, be payments on account of final compensation. We have always to bear in mind that that final compensation may be required for the rebuilding or repair of property and we must never forget, but always keep in front of us, the interests of the persons themselves. Therefore we consider—and I do not think there is any criticism of this—that these advances should be restricted to cases of necessity and should be limited in amount. Otherwise, advances on account of final compensation might be made to such an extent that when the time came for the repair or reconstruction of the property, all that the person concerned was entitled to would be gone. Thus not only would the benefits of the Measure not come to him, but, from the national point of view, the whole object of the Measure to a large extent would be defeated. Therefore, as I say, these payments must be limited to cases of necessity and also limited in amount.

    391
    1 have, however, considered a suggestion which was made from all parts of the Committee that the original limit of £500 as the measure of advance was on the low side, especially in the case of a business. I shall, therefore, move an Amendment to raise the maximum amount of such advances to £800. A person who is in need both of a new home for his family and of new premises for his business will, if my Amendment receives approval, be able to secure advances up to the maximum of £800 under each of those heads. I think that easement of the position will, at the same time, preserve the national interest and be of considerable assistance to large numbers of people. An advance of this character will enable people in many cases, either to rent a new house or new business premises or in some cases to purchase. I hope the Committee will think that I have met them in that respect while, at the same time, preserving the general tenor of the Measure, namely, that compensation should, as far as possible, be used not only in the interests of the individuals but in the national interest.
    I pass to another important Clause which was also subject to considerable discussion in Committee, namely, Clause 20, which deals with the contributions of mortgagees in certain cases. I think there were two main criticisms of the original Clause, first, that the methods proposed to determine the respective liabilities of mortgagor and mortgagee were not flexible enough to get a fair apportionment between the parties, and second that the Clause, as then drafted, would create great difficulties in that it left the mortgagee and mortgagor to find out for themselves the value of the mortgaged property—the figure which would determine their respective liabilities for contribution, and therefore very important. It was also urged that the Clause should be widened by increasing the limit on both residential and agricultural contributory properties. In the light of these constructive criticisms we have accordingly reframed the Clause. Under the Amendments which appear on the Paper in my name, the area will be widened in which contribution by mortgagees will be made and the amount of some of those contributions will be increased. It is also proposed that the scope of cases in which the mortgagee
    392
    will contribute should be widened by increasing to £150 and £500 the figures of annual values for non-agricultural and agricultural properties respectively. These new figures, of course, compare with the original figures of £100 and £250; therefore I have again made a considerable extension in that matter.
    Perhaps more important still is the new scale which I am now proposing so far as the contribution of mortgagees is concerned. These contributions will now begin where the interest of the mortgagee is more than 33⅓ per cent, instead of where the interest is more than 50 per cent., and it is proposed that between 33⅓ and 50 per cent, the mortgagee will contribute a sixth, that between 50 and 66⅔ per cent, he will contribute a third, between 66⅔ and 75 per cent, he will contribute a half and above 75 per cent., if he has that interest in the property, he will contribute two-thirds. That is a very considerable alteration on the original proposal. There will also be a new provision applicable to special conditions existing in Scotland to provide for contributions by mortgagees in the case of tenement properties comprising small dwellings of a rateable value not exceeding £35, which will be explained by the Lord Advocate when he deals with the Scottish Application Clause.
    I have also, at the suggestion of many hon. Friends, who have been most helpful, remodelled the valuation provisions required for the purpose of ascertaining the mortgagee's contribution. The Clause in its original form involved the valuation of each property as at 31st March, 1939, in order to establish the relationship between that valuation and the amount of the mortgage. In the light of the discussions on the Clause it is now proposed to substitute the purchase price for the March, 1939, value except that in case of properties acquired before 1st January, 1932, the value is to be taken instead of the purchase price in cases where the value is less than four-fifths of the purchase price. This is necessary in order to deal with the fact, that in the case of many properties more than nine or ten years old it is only to be expected that there will be a substantial divergence between value and purchase price and to take the purchase price in such cases would not only be artificial but would be unfair to the mortgagor.

    393
    There is one further alteration that I should mention. In the course of the discussion it was suggested that there ought to be some simple method enabling the value of residential property to be ascertained without recourse to the courts, and, to meet that suggestion, it is now proposed that, in the event of a dispute, and at the request of the parties concerned, the Inland Revenue, who, of course, have no interest at stake in the matter, may determine the value for parties who are not able to agree, and in that event their decision shall be taken as final.
    Mr. Barnes: Do both parties have to agree to that request?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes. If they cannot agree, there is no recourse but to go to the Courts, but I should think most people would be reasonable as this independent valuation is available and it would be cheaper.
    The last matter I want to refer to is one which also received a good deal of attention in Committee and is of considerable public importance—that is, the private chattels scheme. The President of the Board of Trade and I have given much attention and consideration to the criticisms and suggestions made in the House and outside concerning this very vital matter to so many people. All the criticisms and suggestions which have been made up to the present, though various people had various ideas how it should be done, were directed to securing that such a scheme for the insurance of chattels should give the widest protection possible and that the charges should be such, whether compulsory or voluntary, as really to be within the financial capacity of the persons concerned. It was strongly urged on the Government that we should make every effort so that such a scheme should be on broad and generous lines, covering the largest amount of effects, and broadly comparable with the cover which has already been given in respect of personal injuries and which we are now about to give in respect of property under this Bill. In other words, the great desire of the House was to see whether we could not bring the scheme up to what we are in fact doing in relation to personal injuries, and what we are doing; as far as property is concerned in the first part of the Bill. Compulsion was not urged upon the
    394
    Government for compulsion's sake but because many of my hon. Friends, although others disagree with them, thought that the widest and cheapest scheme could be secured if compulsion was adopted. That is really what animated them and others who had their own suggestions to make.
    Sir I. Albery: I think the right hon. Gentleman ought not to leave out that a further consideration was that all who have property of that kind should make some contribution.
    Sir K. Wood: And should make it with a view to getting the premium as low as possible. If that was not secured, there would be no object in levying any contribution of that kind.
    There is already provision by way of free grants in respect of essential furniture and clothing to those whose incomes fall below £400 if married or £250 if single. That is the scheme which is now established, and I do not think anyone would suggest that we should go back upon such a provision, nor do I think it could be suggested that compulsion could be applied as a practical measure to the insurance of the remainder of the chattels of those people. That would be too difficult altogether. People within those income limits are already getting essential furniture and clothing free, and it would be practically impossible from an administrative point of view to contemplate imposing insurance upon that large section of the community as regards the remainder of their chattels.
    With that consideration in mind it is estimated that the total value of the furniture owned by persons not falling within the free grants limit may be something between £600,000,000 and £700,000,000, but even that figure must be reduced as it is plain that compulsion should not be applied to such things as costly furniture and antiques. Therefore, when you exclude such, items and measure the scope of the field you come down to something of the order of £400,000,000 or £500,000,000 worth of furniture in respect of which any compulsory scheme could operate. When you have arrived at that conclusion, and take as premium a figure which has been suggested in this House but which would not be satisfactory to everybody, a

    395
    premium of £1 per cent, charged by way of compulsory levy, the revenue which I should receive as Chancellor of the Exchequer might be put at between £4,000,000 and £5,000,000 a year. But, of course, there would have to be an upward limit as regards compulsion, and on such an assumption the yield would be further reduced, and I am advised that, broadly speaking, the amount which I receive would by that time have come down to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000.
    I will not detain the Committee with estimates of what the cost of such a scheme would be, because we all have our own ideas about it, but that £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 must obviously be reduced again by the considerable charges there would be for collection and for the strict enforcement of premium payments. I will content myself by making this further observation, that it is obvious that so small a yield must fall below the liabilities of the scheme. If we were able to do anything at all in connection with such a proposal the rates of premium would have to be increased, and we know that in fact they could not be increased to what would be anything like a proper figure. Therefore, I am bound to come to the conclusion, and all my friends agree with me, that with such a small yield from the premiums the bulk of the money would have to come from the general taxpayers. That is quite obvious to anyone who gives the problem any examination.
    With all those considerations in mind my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have come to the conclusion that it is in the general interest that a scheme should be devised which should be simple in character and follow the lines of the Personal Injuries scheme, that such a scheme should give free cover and protection up to a certain sum to all owners of chattels irrespective of income, and that beyond that amount it should be made possible for voluntary insurance to be effected up to a reasonable amount. This, of course, is a very important departure. We propose that every householder in the country should receive free compensation up to £200, together with an additional £100 for his wife and an additional £25 for every child under 16. and for persons who do not come within those categories—like lodgers and
    396
    persons living in hotels—there shall be free compensation up to £50. In addition to the free grants it is proposed that people should be able to insure at the following rates: Up to £2,000, £1 per cent.; from £2,000 to £3,000, 30s. per cent.; from £3,000 to £10,000—I took the highest limit put on the Order Paper by hon. Members—£2 per cent. The only restriction I would make would be the obvious one that the amount of cover should be limited in respect of such things as jewellery, antiques and specially valuable articles.
    Sir Frank Sanderson: May I ask whether the category of other persons in the house covers domestic servants?
    Sir K. Wood: Yes, we shall make provision by which they can be included. I have given the outlines of the scheme to the Committee. The grants scheme will, of course, under the provisions of the Bill, be subject to Regulations to be made under Clause 60 and the whole thing therefore will in fact be laid before Parliament. I suggest, for reasons which I will give in a minute, that the scheme will bring much relief and assurance to the people of this country. It can be said that the contents of a house are of as much moment as is the house itself. In any event, the protection which the State is generally affording in many directions to our citizens will not be regarded as complete and adequate unless we make due and ample provision in this direction.
    I will give two or three examples of what will follow as a result of this scheme. A husband and wife with two children will receive free protection for their furniture and clothing, up to £350. Further, the existence of the free grants means that the net burden of the voluntary insurance is much reduced. For instance, a married man will be able to cover his chattels up to £600 in effect at 10s. per cent, or £3; or, if he wanted to insure his furniture, valued at £900, he could do so at 13s. 4d. per cent, or £6. That is a tremendous consideration to a number of people who are in the category which is so often neglected by the State. Everybody can make his own judgment on the matter, but, from the figures that have been provided, it can be said that we shall be covering by the free grants the majority of the householders in the country. Of

    397
    the rest, all but a very small proportion will be able to claim lull cover for what, 1 think, in the circumstances of the time, we may well call the modest premium otf£1 per cent.
    Further particulars of the scheme will appear in our draft Regulations. I suggest that the proposals I am outlining show that we have responded to the suggestions which were made in Committee on the original Bill. I have endeavoured to bring forward a scheme which I hope and believe will receive the support of the whole country. I am reminded that the essential furniture part of the original scheme, by which we gave free protection for that and for essential clothing, disappears. Persons in those categories will receive cover for their furniture, irrespective of whether the furniture is essential or not. We will now cover what I would describe as staple furniture. There was a good deal of criticism of how the definition of essential furniture was to be arrived at The very important major alterations in the Bill will, I hope, show the Committee that I have been prepared to give consideration to all points that were put forward. I hope that the new proposals will commend themselves to the Committee
    Sir I. Albery: What machinery is to be set up in connection with chattel insurance?
    Sir K. Wood: For the voluntary side of the scheme we are proposing to utilise the services of the fire offices of the country, that is for the collection of premiums. The actual assessment of claims will have to be carried out by representatives of the Inland Revenue because that is a matter in which the State is involved, in regard to compensation.
    Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am sure that the Committee are very much indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the broad picture he has given of the scope of the Amendments which he proposes to move. No good purpose would be served by going at this moment into the detailed consideration of them; we shall have our opportunity to do so when the individual Amendments are moved. So far as I can see. the Chancellor of the Exchequer has succeeded in meeting; nearly all the criticisms which were levelled at the Bill in
    398
    the earlier Committee stage, and to that extent he deserves our hearty congratulation.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Chairman: I should like to make a suggestion to the Committee. Before very long we shall be getting to whole strings of Amendments which all deal with one particular point. After the first Amendment, the rest of the batch will be consequential. It may save the time of the Committee if I do not separately call on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor to move all Amendments of that kind, but merely put the Amendments to the Committee and now and again the Committee may possibly assent to my putting the Amendments in blocks. I would warn hon. Members that, if that procedure is followed, they should watch their papers very carefully in order to interrupt me if they want to raise a question on any particular Amendment.
    Amendment made: In Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert:
    "(2) The Commission shall, as respects such matters as may be specified in regulations made by the Treasury, exercise their functions under this Act (including any discretionary power exercise able by them) subject to and in accordance with the provisions of regulations so made:
    Provided that any regulations made for the purposes of this Sub-section shall be of a general character, and nothing in this Sub-section shall be construed as authorising the making of any regulations requiring the Commission to exercise any of its functions in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Act." — [Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 2 (Payments to be made in respect of war damage.)
    Amendment made: In page 2, leave out lines 5 and 6. — [Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 3. — (Claims for payments.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 4. —(Payments to be either of cost of works or by reference to value.)
    Amendment made: "In page 3, line 13, leave out from the beginning, to" shall,"in line 15, and insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act a payment to be made there under."—[Captain Crookshank.]
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, at the end, to insert "engineer."
    I must apologise for the Amendment being in manuscript form, but there was a slight misunderstanding between those who are interested. I think, however, that the Amendment will meet with the general acceptance of the Committee. It is simply to insert the word '' engineer '' at the end of line 46. I think it will be admitted that engineers must invariably be employed in constructional work, and hitherto, as the Clause stands, there is no mention whatsoever of the word "engineer." It has been suggested that one might qualify the word "engineer" by "structural" or "civil" or something of the sort, but we thought it might be a limiting quantity, so that the word "engineer" only has been placed before the Committee.
    Major Milner (Leeds, South-East): Could not that be covered by "other persons"? One can imagine a number of professions which might conceivably be included in this list. I should have thought that''engineer'' would be covered by the heading "or other persons."
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): That might be so, but I am prepared to have the word inserted here.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, to leave out from "that," to the end of line 24, and to insert:
    "provision may be made by regulations made by the Treasury for the valuation by reference to such matters as may be therein specified of hereditaments consisting of or comprising premises of a kind not normally the subject of sales in the open market, or having a value which could not be fully realised on such a sale."
    In the previous Committee stage it was suggested that the proviso to Subsection (5) of the Clause was too widely drawn. We are now substituting a new
    400
    proviso which makes it clear that the normal principles of valuation will be departed from only when the property in question, by reason of not normally being subject to sale in the open market, cannot be dealt with under the normal principles.
    Sir I. Albery: I would like to ask whether we could have a brief idea as to the matters which the Financial Secretary and the Attorney-General have in mind.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I recollect that there was a discussion on this point. The hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) and one or two other hon. Members suggested that the Clause was too widely drawn, in that it enabled the Treasury to override the normal principles of valuation. This Amendment was inserted to make it clear that the power will be resorted to only when the open market is not available.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made. In page 4, line 45, at the end, insert:
    "or which would have been so payable if a claim there for had been duly made under that Act." — [Captain Crookshank.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 5. — (Cases in which payments of cost of works and value payments respectively are to be made.)
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from "which," to the end of line 14, and to insert:
    "the hereditament, with the damage not made good, would have as a site."
    This Amendment arises out of a point to which our attention was called by the hon. Member for the Abbey Division (Sir H. Webbe). The words in the Bill as it now stands do not fully carry out the intention which we have in mind. Therefore, we should like to take them out and insert the words in the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 22, leave out "national," and insert "public." — [Captain. Crookshank.]
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "those persons," and to insert "the persons aforesaid."
    This is little more than a drafting point. Our attention was called to the point by an hon. Member who said that the words in the Bill were ambiguous, because it was not quite clear which persons were referred to. By putting in "the persons aforesaid," it will be clear that the only persons referred to are those in front of those words.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 6. — (Additional payments in respect of temporary works.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, to leave out from "works" to "the," in line 18, and to insert:
    "has been notified to all persons having an interest in the hereditament who have made a request in writing to the Commission to be notified thereof, or, if no such request has been made."
    This Amendment is in order to secure that all persons who might be interested should have notice if a value payment is to be made.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 7. —(Determination of questions as to works and value.)
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, to leave out "the claimant for the payment in question,'' and to insert:
    "the person who is entitled to receive the payment in question or any share thereof or who would be so entitled but for the subsistence of a mortgage;"
    This Amendment arises from a point which was raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon). At the time, we said that his point might be dealt with in the Regulations, but on reflection we thought it better to make it quite clear in the Bill itself. I think it is now made clear by the Amendment which I have moved. The rules which will be made under paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule dealing with references to the Reference Committee will, of course.
    402
    secure that if two or more parties appeal, the appeals will be dealt with together.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, after "question," to insert:
    "or
    (b) as to the value which a hereditament would have in the circumstances specified in paragraph (a)of Sub-section (1) of Section five of this Act, at the instance of the owner of any proprietary interest in the hereditament, of any mortgagee of any such interest, or of any other person who has incurred cost which would be the subject of the payment of cost of works if it were made."
    This Amendment meets another point raised by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and provides that there may be an appeal on the question of value under Clause 5 (1, a). That figure will be an important one, because upon it may depend whether a cost of works or a value payment falls to be made.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 8. — (Provisions for securing the public interest in the making of payments.)
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 6, line 30, to leave out "to the Commission directions,"and to insert "directions to be observed by the Commission."
    This is really consequential on the Amendment which we moved in page 1, line 16. It is necessary, as the directions referred to in that Clause are to be converted into regulations, to insert words at the beginning of this Clause to oblige the Commission to observe the directions made under that Sub-section.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, after "services," to insert:
    "and of agriculture, the preservation of amenities."
    This answers two points that were raised in regard to Clause 8, it having been pointed out that it was desirable to have an express reference to agriculture and also to amenities. Both these suggestions have been adopted in this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 37, leave out "national," and insert "public." — [The Attorney-General.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, to leave out from"and,"to the end of line 39, and to insert
    "such other matters as may be prescribed."
    This ensures that the extra matters shall be prescribed, and, under the definition Clause, that means prescribed by Regulation, so that they will come before the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 6, line 41, to leave out "such," and to insert:
    "the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes or such of them as may be appropriate in the case of the notice in question, and in such other."
    This Amendment was on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) but was not called. However, we should have accepted it then, so I move it now.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 30, leave out "such that a value payment in respect thereof," and to insert:
    "in respect of which a value payment." — [Captain Crookshank."]
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 7, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that the power conferred by paragraph (a) of this Sub-section shall not, except in relation to a sum paid during the period whilst the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, continues in force, extend to the imposition of any condition as to the location of any substituted building."
    On the Committee stage there was some criticism to the effect that the powers conferred under Sub-section (3) of this Clause were too wide in regard to the powers taken for imposing conditions as to the location of buildings. My right hon. Friend said that he proposed to limit this particular power for the period of the war, and this Amendment is moved in order to carry out that assurance.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, at the end, to add:
    "( ) The provisions of the Land Charges Act, 1925, shall apply to a notice published
    404
    under Sub-section (2) of this Section specifying a particular area (in this Sub-section referred to as ' the specified area ') as if the notice were a local land charge, and the notice shall be registered accordingly by the proper officer of the council of any county borough or county district the area of which comprises the specified area or any part thereof, or, if the specified area or any part thereof is comprised in the City of London or any other part of the administrative county of London, by the proper officer of the Common Council or of the London County Council, as the case may be
    It shall be the duty of the Commission, as soon as may be after they have published any such notice as aforesaid, to inform the proper officer of any such council as aforesaid, the area of which comprises the specified area or any part thereof, of that fact, and to furnish to him any information relating to the notice requisite for enabling him to discharge his functions under this Sub-section."
    Under Clause 8 (2) the Commission have power to declare, in regard to certain areas, that they must be notified before any work is done. This Amendment provides that any notice of that kind shall be registered in the same manner as a local land charge. That will enable anybody who is thinking of taking a mortgage on property in the area, or who is otherwise interested in property there, to know that that area is subject to requirements under Clause 8(2).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, at the end, to add:
    "( ) In determining whether, and the manner in which, any of the powers conferred upon the Commission by this Section is to be exercised in cases in which it appears to them that an exercise of the power would be likely to affect the exercise by a local or public authority of any of their functions the Commission shall afford' to the authority, or, where the matter in question is one in which a number of such authorities are concerned, to such representative body as appears to the Commission to be appropriate, an opportunity of making representations to them, and the Commission shall consider any representation made to them by any such authority or body with respect to the exercise by the Commission of any of the said powers, and any such authority shall at the request of the Commission furnish them with any information in the possession of the authority which the Commission may reasonably require in connection with the exercise by them of any of the said powers."
    This Amendment proposes the addition of another sub-paragraph which requires the Commission to give an opportunity for representations by any local authority on matters which affect the exercise of the

    405
    function of that authority or authorities. This is a point which was raised by the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) on the Committee stage. This Amendment therefore deals with consultation between the Commission and the local authority. Of course, there will also be the necessary consultations between the Treasury and local authorities, but that can be done in the normal way through the Ministry of Health.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 9. —(Time when payments may be made.)
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 13, to leave out from "payments," to the end of line 15, and to insert:
    "the time of the completion of the works, or where payment is to be made by instalments, of the relevant parts thereof, or the expiration of such period thereafter as may be reason-ably requisite for enabling the Commission to ascertain whether they have been duly completed and what was the proper cost thereof;"
    It was represented in Committee that this Clause as drafted imposed no time limit within which the cost of works payment must be made and, under the words here proposed to be left out, it might have been made at any time after the work had been done. This Amendment meets that point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 8, line 17, to leave out "the Treasury may direct," and to insert
    "may be specified in regulations made by the Treasury."
    We had considered that there should be an Amendment here on the Committee stage, but it was not moved. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade referred to making Regulations as to the time of payment, and we think it is a reasonable suggestion that, instead of directions, Regulations should be here provided for as to the time of payment, so that this House should have the opportunity of putting questions on the subject if it should so desire.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 8, line 19, to leave out Subsection (2).
    This Sub-section gives power to the Commission to direct that the right to a payment shall be forfeited if works are not completed by a certain date. It was represented that that was a drastic, and perhaps unnecessary, power; and, on reflection, my right hon. Friend thought that it was unnecessary.
    Mr. Silkin: I am one of those who thought the Sub-section rather drastic, but it seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has now gone too far the other way. If the Subsection is deleted, there will be no sanction to compel a person to carry out repairs to his premises. This Bill has been brought forward in the public interest. We are making an exceptionally favourable cost-of-works payment, because we believe it to be in the national interest that the works should be carried out, but now there will be no reason why a person should not wait 10 or 20 years— I agree that he is not likely to do so— before carrying out the repairs. Is it proposed to put anything into the Bill in place of this Sub-section; or could a person, hypothetically, come along 10 years later, and get the cost-of-works payment?
    The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. Member's point, but I think this is a matter which could be appropriately dealt with by the procedure which will govern the Commission's regulations. We do not propose to put anything into the Bill in substitution for this Sub-section: it is difficult to think of any substitute which would not go just as far as the Sub-section does; but I have the point in mind, and it will be kept in view when the Regulations are drawn up.
    Amendment agreed to
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, to leave out "five," and to insert "eight."
    This Amendment was dealt with in the general statement that my right hon. Friend made. It raises the possible amount of the advance in both cases from £500 to £800.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 9, line 10, leave out "five," and insert "eight."
    In line 17, leave out "made," and insert "paid." — [Captain Crookshank.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Brigadier-General Clifton Brown(New-bury): Some of us moved an Amendment providing that the interest should be paid at half-yearly intervals, instead of at the end of the period. The Government have gone so far as to provide that this payment should be made on completion of the works. I do not know whether the Chancellor has considered the question of whether the interest on value payments ought not to be paid more regularly than is at present provided.
    The Attorney-General: I would point out that one will not know whether a payment is to be on a cost-of-works basis or a value basis until after the war, when the building situation and values become apparent. Still less will one know what the amount of the value payment will be.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Persons to whom payments are to be made.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 9, line 36, leave out from "Subject," to end of line, and insert "as hereinafter provided."
    In page 10, line 39, leave out "owner of that interest," and insert "person entitled to that interest subject to the mortgage." — [Captain Crookshank.]
    Mr. Robert Gibson: I beg to move, in page 10, line 49, at the end, to insert:
    "(5) Notwithstanding any provision in this Section the Commission is hereby empowered to ensure that in no case will the owner of the property receive no share of the value payment and it shall be within the discretion of the Commission to pay such proportion of the value payment to the owner as may seem to them fair and equitable having regard to all the circumstances."
    Millions of owner-occupiers are very much concerned about the effect of this Bill on their interests in the houses in which they live. These houses have been built by them, but the finance has been obtained elsewhere. There is great apprehension that they will receive no share of the value payment, and that the whole of
    408
    the payment will go to those who have, in the first instance, provided the finance for the erection of these houses. I submit that something should be done to remove that fear. This Bill is brought forward to deal with a very special evil, arising at a very special time, namely, damage by enemy action. It is right that special provision should be made against that contingency. I submit that the Committee ought to take the step proposed in this Amendment, and to give some safeguard to the owner-occupier in connection with the value payment. There is suggested in this Amendment a double power. The first part of the Amendment empowers the Commission to ensure that in no case will the owner of the property receive no share of the value payment. The second part of the Amendment gives a discretionary power to the Commission to decide what proportion of the value payment shall be made to the owner, that discretionary power to be exercised in the ordinary way, so as to ensure that what is done will be fair and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. I am very anxious that whoever speaks on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in replying to this Amendment will give an assurance that the discretionary power that is sought in the Amendment shall be made available to the Commission in dealing with this matter.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend has, of course, in mind the owner-occupier, and 1 think everybody agrees that the owner-occupier buying his house by instalments or mortgage in the manner with which we are very familiar in the case of the building society is one of those cases which merits further consideration in regard to the application of this Bill. That is one of the reasons why the building society type of mortgagee has been made a contributory to the annual payments, which from the point of view of the mortgagee might have been regarded as something with which he was not concerned. I think that what has been done in favour of mortgagors against mortgagees in this type of case is relevant in considering this Amendment.
    Before coming to the actual principle which we discussed in Committee, I would like to point out that an Amendment of this kind would really be unworkable. For one thing, the share would be very

    409
    small, and, to the mortgagor, would be quite useless. I cannot see on what fair and equitable principles the Commission could decide as to what proportion was to go to them. The important position surely, is that in the case that is being considered the mortgagor owes a certain sum to the mortgagee. If the full payment will extinguish that debt and leave something over, or to the extent to which it extinguishes the debt, it is directlly contributing to the risks of the mortgagor and enables him to get rid of liability or enter into negotiations with some building society for providing him with reconstruction, or alternative accommodation. I have great difficulty in seeing how this Amendment could be worked or how it would really advance the interests of the mortgagor if you were to give him the £100. He would still remain owing £100 to the mortgagee, if the house was gone. I agree that we have to consider the building-society case with care and sympathy, but I cannot think that the principle embodied in this Amendment is the proper one, nor do I think that it would be workable.
    Sir Joseph Lamb: I hope that the learned Attorney-General will not accept the Amendment. It would affect not only mortgagees connected with building societies, but local authorities which themselves, under Building Acts, have given out large sums of money.
    The Chairman: Does the hon. and learned Member press the Amendment?
    Mr. Gibson: I do not propose to press the Amendment, but one would have thought, when dealing with a broad question like this, that the very broad principle of sharing one another's burdens might have been carried a little further than the learned Attorney-General proposes to carry it. But in view of the statement that he has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, to leave out from "than," to "an," in line 24.
    The hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) raised the point in respect to assignments, and this Amendment does what he wished; that is to say, that no assignment, other than one not affecting any beneficial interest, will now
    410
    be permitted without the approval of the Commission.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE II— (Payments in respect of tenancies in hereditaments of exceptional site value.)
    Amendment made: In page 11, line 29, leave out:
    '' such that the appropriate payment in respect thereof,"
    and insert:
    "in respect of which the appropriate payment." — [The Attorney-General.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 12, 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15— (Properties liable to contribution.)
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 13, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that a property shall not be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as a contributory property if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this Sub-section are satisfied as respects the property by reason only of the use of any land for the exhibition of advertisements or for the erection of any hoarding, frame, post, wall or structure used for the exhibition of advertisements."
    This proviso has to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who told us of the difficulties which were bound to arise under the Bill as it then stood in regard to advertisement hoardings and the like. We have had an opportunity since then of discussing the matter very fully at his suggestion, or by arrangement with him, with representatives of the advertising industry who explained to us some of the points they had in mind. The Amendment which I move is designed to exclude from contribution any cases where the contributory property is an advertising station and nothing else. For example, the hoarding on a vacant building site. That really does meet precisely the point that my hon. Friend made, but he added another suggestion however that the hoardings themselves should be made insurable under the business scheme since otherwise they would fall between two stools. We pro-

    411
    pose to deal with that by amending the definition of "land" in Clause 51, to exclude hoardings from Part I of the Bill, so that as a result of their being definitely excluded from Part I they will fall under Part II which will meet the second part of his desire.
    Sir Herbert Williams: I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for what he has said and for the efforts that have been "made to meet what is obviously a very difficult problem, but I am sorry to have to say that apparently the problem is not quite met. The billposters, who had had long discussions with the Inland Revenue, came to see me yesterday and explained that about 70 per cent, of the stations are not on hoardings constructed for the purpose but on buildings which exist for other purposes. The result is that the building that has hoardings on it has an increased Schedule A valuation attached to it, but there is no physical addition to the value. Apparently in 70 per cent. of the cases these people would be paying 2s. in the £ on that part of Schedule A valuation which arises out of the use of the structure for billposting, and in the event of demolition there could be no compensation at all because what would have gone, would be merely the surface. The physical structure belongs to the owner of the property.
    While, as I have said, I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what has been done, the issue is not yet adequately met, and the effect may be adverse. The industry is very much depressed at the moment owing to shortage of paper. The landlord in the first place would be called upon to make payment, and he could get out of it only by giving notice of the termination of the agreement with the billposter, and I believe that the effect would be that a large number of these agreements would be terminated. Therefore, the Chancellor will collect a great deal less income, and on the grounds of revenue, and not merely to meet the regard of what may be called the selfish interest of this industry, I ask that this matter shall be further looked into, so that when the Bill goes to another place an Amendment may be made to spread it a little wider.
    412
    I realise that there would be certain administrative difficulties, because it means splitting the Schedule A valuation, but that should not be too difficult, because I am told that bill-posting sites are rated separately. Therefore, in most cases there is a known value, and further valuation arising from the use of a bill-posting station could, in fact, be dealt with. I believe the matter could be put right by the insertion in line 5, after "erection," of "or use." I understand that if an Amendment of this kind was moved in another place, it would not raise a question of Privilege, because it does not involve a charge, but even if it did, no doubt Privilege could be waived. Although the Chancellor's intentions are good, they leave 70 per cent. of the problem unsolved, so I am told, and therefore on account of the complex situation I ask that the matter should be looked at again.
    Captain Crookshank: I am afraid I cannot say on behalf of my right hon. Friend that we can go any further. We have gone a long way to meet this point, and although I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety with regard to the revenue, I am sure that he appreciates that my right hon. Friend's anxiety is even greater. We have gone as far as we reasonably can to exclude contributions where the properties in question are advertising stations and nothing else. If you went further you would get into difficulties in trying to divide up how much was or was not due to advertising and there would be further difficulties in regard to corner sites which' people might say could be potential advertising sites. I hope my hon. Friend will leave the matter where it is.
    Sir H. Williams: I put. this point forward very reasonably, and the answer does not meet my complaint. An attempt to solve a legitimate problem which leaves 70 per cent. of the problem untouched is no attempt at all. In rating advertisements their separate value is established. The facts are capable of ascertainment, and the administrative problem is quite easy. It seems to me that it is on purely legalistic grounds that this matter is being resisted, and I ask that it should be further reconsidered.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: in page 13, line 43, leave out "is," and insert "was."— [The Attorney-General.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 14, line 1, after "more," to insert: "or
    "(b) A property which, in the opinion of the. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries consisted throughout the risk period of waste land or land valuable only for the purpose of taking fish, game or other animals fit for human consumption or land whose value for other purposes is small in comparison with its value for the said purpose, but the property comprised a dwelling-house."
    This Amendment and the following Amendment and five Amendments on Clause 16 all deal with the same point raised in Committee, which was this: It was suggested that the sixpenny rate should be extended to waste land used for sporting purposes, commercial fisheries and so on. It was pointed out that if a bomb falls in the sea, the cost of putting the sea back in the condition in which it was before the bomb fell is negligible, and the same thing applies to the Cairngorms. The Amendments are a little complicated, but I hope they meet the points raised and cover the cases which were put forward. I think the Committee will agree that they are obviously fair. We have made provision that in connection with a sporting estate a dwelling-house or shooting lodge will pay the 2s. rate, but so far as land or water and other accessories, covered by these Amendments, are concerned, it seems reasonable that they should pay the sixpenny rate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 14, line 2, after" thereof,"insert:
    " or, as the case may be, the dwelling-house and its offices (if any) and the site thereof."— [Captain Crookshank.]
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 14, line 13, after" 1936,"to insert:
    " and less any sums on which relief would have been allowable in respect of an annuity under Section four of the Tithe Act, 1918, or of payments in respect of the redemption or reduction of an annuity under the Tithe Act, 1936, if relief in respect of so much of such an annuity or such payments as represents interest were in all cases given by way of reduction of an assessment under Schedule A in lien of being given by a right of deduction of tax."
    This Amendment covers the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Mem-
    414
    ber for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) with regard to the complications of annuities under the Tithe Act. It is a very technical point, but in the case of compulsory redemption of annuities under the Act of 1936 the interest portion of the annuity is allowable as deduction in arriving at the Schedule A assessment. On the other hand, the payer of an annuity under the Act of 1918 gets relief in another way—by deduction of tax on the interest portion and not by an allowance of the interest in arriving at the Schedule A assessment. It is clear that these two different methods of relief should be dealt with in the same sort of way for these purposes. My hon. and gallant Friend pointed out that the second of these methods is too high, and so the present Amendment corrects that inequality by providing for an allowance of the interest portion. It is only a small and technical point, but it is worth making in the interests of justice.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 16. — (Contribution to be payable by instalments.)
    The Chairman: The Amendments to be moved to this Clause on behalf of the Chancellor are merely consequential.
    Amendments made:
    In page 14, line 35, leave out from "property," to the end of line 36.
    In line 37, after (a), insert "which consisted throughout the risk period of.
    In line 38, after (b), insert "which consisted throughout the risk period of.
    In line 39, at the end, insert:
    "or

    (c)which in the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries consisted throughout the risk period of waste land or land valuable only for the purpose of taking fish, game or other animals fit for human consumption, or land whose value for other purposes is small in comparison with its value for the said purpose; or

    (d)which falls as to part thereof within any of the preceding paragraphs and as to the remainder thereof within any other of those paragraphs; or

    (e) which consisted of such rights as are mentioned in Section six of the Rating Act, 1874 (which relates to shooting, fishing and other rights)."

    In line 46, at the end, add:
    "as being comprised in a property used mainly or exclusively for the purpose mentioned in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (4) of that Section; and nothing in the proviso to this Subsection shall apply to a dwelling-house which is by virtue of the said Section to be treated as a separate property as being comprised in such a property as is referred to in paragraph (b) of the said Sub-section (4)." — [Captain Crookshank.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 17. — (Alteration of contributions.)
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 15, line 29, to leave out paragraph (a)and to insert:
    "(a) there shall be left out of account contributions and payments made in accordance with Section thirty-three, thirty-four, or thirty-five of this Act;"
    This Amendment directs the Treasury, when making an estimate of receipts and payments which they have to make under Part I of the Bill, to disregard contributions and payments made with regard to charities, public utility undertakings and highways. The reason for not taking into account charities is that the ordinary property owner, on whom may fall the burden of increased contributions, should not be required to make payments to bodies paying one-third or no contribution. With regard to public utilities and highways, they will both be separate schemes, and contributions will be made to those schemes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 18. — (Persons primarily liable for instalments.)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 15, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    "save as otherwise provided in this Part of this Act."
    This is a drafting Amendment. The words to be inserted are required in view of the exceptional arrangements concerning contributions in respect of shooting and fishing rights.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 20. —(Rights over against mortgagees in certain cases.)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 16, line 18, to leave out from "than ' to the end of line 25, and to insert:
    "one third of the price of acquisition of that interest he shall be entitled to be indemnified by the mortgagee to the following extent, that is to say—

    (a)if the amount secured by the mort gage at the relevant date does not exceed one half of the said price, against one sixth of his net liability;

    (b)if the said amount exceeds one half but does not exceed two thirds of the said price, against one third of his net liability

    (c) if the said amount exceeds two thirds but does not exceed three quarters of the said price, against half his net liability;

    (d) if the said amount exceeds three quarters of the said price, against two thirds of his net liability."

    This is an Amendment which I explained to the Committee in considerable detail in my general statement, when I dealt with all the Amendments in relation to mortgagors, mortgagees, and similar matters.
    Mr. Barnes: I should be obliged if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would elucidate one point concerning arbitration or valuation. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a fair number of disputes may arise between borrowers and building societies. Whereas two individuals, in equal circumstances, would probably see the advantage of avoiding any legal costs and avail themselves of the arbitration procedure, it might be that, although the majority of building societies would adopt a reasonable attitude in such matters, some societies might adopt an arbitrary attitude or rule concerning a certain category of cases. As the majority of borrowers from building societies are people of small means, who would not venture to assert their rights in the courts, the building societies would have the advantage of going to the courts, and the mortgagors would be at a disadvantage. Can the Chancellor indicate whether, in a matter of this sort, the building societies will be expected to take a reasonable view? I know that one cannot take away from them their rights within the law, but sometimes, in matters of taxation and so on, the Chancellor gets a general understanding that a benefit will be passed on to the consumers or users. Therefore, I ask

    417
    whether we may have a general assurance that the building socieies will treat these provisions in the spirit which the Committee intends.
    Sir K. Wood: The Committee will remember that in my statement I said that if the parties agreed, there was a certain procedure that could be adopted, but that if they did not agree, the ordinary rights of going to the courts would apply. I feel sure hon. Members will agree with me when I say that we could not deprive the subject of the right of going to the courts in such circumstances. In reply to the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), I have every reason to think that the building societies will operate these provisions in the spirit in which I am sure the Committee desires them to do so. I have had many conferences with the building societies concerning this Bill, and I can say that they have endeavoured, while having regard to their own proper interests, to consider my proposals from the point of view of the national interest. If a case arose in which I thought they were not carrying out the intention of the Measure, I would not hesitate to speak to them about it, but I have not the slightest reason to think that at any rate the great majority of the building societies, who have only the public interest to serve, will not have regard to the wishes of the Committee. If occasion arose, I would undoubtedly point that out to them, but I hardly think it will be necessary.
    Amendment agreed to
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 17, line 17, leave out "value," and insert "price of acquisition."
    In line 18, leave out "value of all the," and insert
    "of the price of acquisition of the interest and of the value of all the other—[Sir K. Wood.]
    The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of SIR K. WOOD:
    "In page 17, line 20, leave out subsection (4), and insert: —
    " ( ) In relation to a case—

    (a)where the mortgage was created on the occasion of, and in connection with, the execution of any such works as aforesaid, or was substituted for a mortgage so created; or

    (b)where the mortgage was created on the occasion of, and in connection with, the acquisition of the interest at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred
    418
    and thirty-two, or was substituted for a mortgage so created, and (in either case) the value of the interest is at the relevant date less than four-fifths of the price of acquisition of the interest; or

    (c) where the mortgage was created on the occasion of, and in connection with, the acquisition of the interest, or was substituted for a mortgage so created, and at the time of the acquisition of the interest the person acquiring the interest was entitled to a tenancy which on the acquisition merged in the interest acquired,

    the foregoing provisions of this Section shall have effect as if any reference to the price of acquisition of the interest were a reference to the value of the interest."
    The Chairman: In relation to this Amendment and the Amendment in page 17, line 47, I have received a request which really amounts to asking that these two Amendments should be dealt with in a different form so as in effect to be new Amendments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given his general explanation, and I think the Committee understands and approves what is meant; but it would have been a little unfortunate, if this matter were going 'to be debated, that these new Amendments should not have been put on the Order Paper. I think it is necessary in present circumstances that I should explain the point exactly to the Committee so that they may be aware of the proposed Amendments. In page 17, line 20, there will be an Amendment simply to leave out Sub-section (4) and not to insert any words. When we reach the Amendment in page 17, line 47, there is on the Paper an Amendment to add at the end a long passage—that will now be to add that passage with the insertion therein of the words which are not being moved in on this Amendment in line 20, but which it is now intended shall be brought in as part of the words to be moved in on the Amendment to line 47.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 17, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (4).
    I regret any inconvenience which may have been caused in this matter. It is a question of the Amendment having been put down in the wrong place. I think the Committee will fully appreciate that the draftsmen have had a considerable task in dealing with these Amendments.
    Amendment agreed to
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 17, line 29, after "hundred," insert "and fifty."
    In line 32, leave out "two hundred and fifty," and insert "five hundred."— [Sir K. Wood.]
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 17, line 42, after "created," to insert
    "to secure a capital sum (whether with or without interest)."
    It may happen that on the sale of an interest in consideration of a rent charge a mortgage, as defined by Clause 83, is created to secure the payment of the rent charge. Clause 20 does not quite fit this case, and on the analogy of the exclusion of rent charges from Clause 18 and the Fourth Schedule—and also, of course, there is no question in such a case of a relation analogous to that of landlord and tenant—there is no case for the mortgagor receiving an indemnity. The Amendment rules out such cases by confining the claim to mortgages to secure a capital sum.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 47, at the end, add:
    " Provided that this Section does not apply to a mortgage which was created on the occasion of the acquisition by a person of an interest in, or on the occasion of the execution of any such works as aforesaid for the benefit of, more than one contributory property, or was substituted for a mortgage so created.
    ( ) Where a claim for indemnification under this Section is made by a direct or indirect contributor in respect of a contributory property to which this Section applies, as being a property which consists of or comprises premises used, or suitable for use, for residential purposes, and a dispute arises as to the value of the interest of the contributor or of any other property subject to the mortgage, then, if a request in that behalf is made to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by the contributor and the mortgagee, the Commissioners may certify the value of the interest or other property in question, and the determination of the Commissioners shall be final and conclusive as between the contributor and the mortgagee.
    ( ) For the purposes of this Section—

    (a)the price of acquisition of an interest of a direct or indirect contributor which is subject to a mortgage which was created on the occasion of, and in connection with, the acquisition of the interest, or was substituted for a mortgage so created, shall be taken to be the amount of any capital sum paid as consideration for the acquisition in question;

    (b)the amount secured by a mortgage at any date shall be taken to be the capital sum secured thereby, together with any arrears of interest so secured;

    420

    (c)the value of any property (including the interest of a direct or indirect contributor) which is subject to a mortgage to which this Section applies shall be taken to be the value which that property would have had in the open market at the end of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, if it had then been subsisting with the like incidents in all respects as it had on the relevant date, other than its being subject to that mortgage;

    (d)a mortgage shall be deemed to have been substituted for another mortgage if it was substituted for a mortgage which itself was substituted there for.

    ( ) In relation to a case—

    (a)where the mortgage was created on the occasion of, and in connection with, the execution of any such works as aforesaid, or was substituted for a mortgage so created; or

    (b)where the mortgage was created on the occasion of, and in connection with, the acquisition of the interest at any time before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, or was substituted for a mortgage so created, and (in either case) the value of the interest is at the relevant date less than four fifths of the price of acquisition of the interest; or

    (c)where the mortgage was created on the occasion of, and in connection with, the acquisition of the interest, or was substituted for a mortgage so created, and at the time of the acquisition of the interest the person acquiring the interest was entitled to a tenancy which on the acquisition merged in the interest acquired,

    the foregoing provisions of this Section shall have effect as if any reference to the price of acquisition of the interest were a reference to the value of the interest." — [Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 21 and 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 23—(Indemnities to be paid notwithstanding covenants to pay outgoings.)
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.— [Sir K. Wood]
    Clauses 24, 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 27. — (Power to pay contribution in advance)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 20, line 23, to leave out "interest at the proper rate," and to insert "the proper interest thereon."

    421
    This Amendment, and the following Amendment on the Order Paper, must be considered together. In this connection 1 should like to express my indebtedness to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). He suggested that the interest on a pre-payment contribution should be charged to Income Tax by direct assessment and not by deduction. This Amendment gives effect to his proposal, which we consider simplifies the computation of the interest.
    Amendment agreed to
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 20, line 26, after "instalment,' insert:
    "the balance, together with the proper interest thereon, shall be applied."
    In line 28, leave out "so reduced," and insert:
    "reduced by reason of any payment in advance under this Section."
    In line 32, leave out Sub-section (2), and add:
    "( ) For the purposes of this Section—

    (a) the proper interest on any sum paid under this Section is an amount equal to one halfpenny for each complete pound of the sum paid for each complete month in the period beginning with the date of the payment and ending with the day before the date of the instalment next falling due;

    (b) the proper interest on the balance remaining after the discharge of any instalment is an amount equal to one halfpenny for each complete pound of the balance for each complete month of the period beginning with the date on which that instalment fell due and ending with the day before the date of the instalment next falling due

    ( ) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, the full amount of any interest allowed under this Section shall be allowed without deduction of Income Tax; but the person to whom the interest is allowed shall be assessed and charged to Income Tax under Case III of Schedule D on the full amount of the interest." —[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 28.—(outstanding instalments to be deducted from value payments.)
    Amendment made: In page 20, line 43, after "as," insert "one instalment."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 29 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 33. —(Property held for charitable purposes.)
    The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move, in page 24, line 35, after "education," to insert "learning,"
    The purpose of this Amendment is to meet a request made to us by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) to improve the literary flavour of the Bill. We can hardly resist this request, coming from such a quarter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. R. Morgan: I beg to move, in page 25, line 4, to leave out "science."
    I move this Amendment in order to extract a statement from the Chancellor. Scientific bodies are very jealous of their rights, and they feel that they cannot possibly accept all that is implied by the conditions referred to in this Clause in connection with the decisions of tribunals of whose constitution they have no knowledge. I have been asked by some of these societies to put the following points to the Chancellor. Does it mean that the tribunals will decide what shall be the site of a school, and that they can alter the State grants to a school? Will they have any authority in altering places, the curriculum and the appointment of staff? We tried, at an earlier stage, to obtain an exemption from contributions, but I understand that that is impossible. Another point I wish to put to the Chancellor is that if any of these bodies are dissatisfied with the conditions imposed upon them by the tribunals, is it possible for them to have retrospective payments?
    Sir K. Wood: We did not have an opportunity to look at this Amendment until this morning. We understood that it sought to eliminate from the charity Clause charities for the advancement of science whereas charities for the advancement of education, learning and research are to be retained. I am not very clear what my hon. Friend has in mind. I would say at once, however, that so far as I am concerned I would not ask the Committee to accept this Amendment. I think possibly my hon. Friend is more concerned to obtain an assurance than to suggest that it would be fair or right for the charities concerned to be treated first under the provisions of this Clause and then to be able to say we do not like this very

    423
    much so may we start all over again under the earlier provisions of the Bill. I cannot contemplate procedure of that kind, but I think my hon. Friend can be assured that these authorities will be treated with fairness and consideration. There will be consultations between the Commission and those concerned, and I do not think he need have any apprehension about the matter. In practice I do not anticipate that there will be difficulties such as my hon. Friend represents. I hope with that explanation he will not press the Amendment further.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made: In page 25, line 4, after "education," insert "learning."
    In line 10, after "in," insert paragraphs(a) and (b) of."— [Sir K. Wood.]
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 25, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "(including, in the case of an interest in respect of which there is a one-third net liability for contribution, the owner thereof)."
    This deals with a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who wanted it to be secured that in the case of an educational charity the Commission should consult the owner of the contributory interest before making their decision as to payment. This ensures that that should be done.
    Mr. Edmund Harvey: The Chancellor's concession will give considerable satisfaction.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 25, line 41, at the end, to insert:
    "(6) A proprietary interest held—

    (a)by a body having power to levy a rate or to issue a precept to a rating authority, for purposes for which it has that power;

    (b)by a government department, for purposes for which public moneys may be applied; or

    (c)by any person, for purposes the expense of the execution of which is defrayed wholly out of moneys being either moneys raised by rates or public moneys;

    shall not be treated for the purposes of this Section as held for charitable purposes."
    This Amendment again meets a suggestion put by hon. Friends opposite and behind me, and it excludes from the pro-
    424
    visions of the Clause charity land held by rating authorities, and Government Departments for purposes for which public moneys may be applied, or by other persons for purposes the expense of which is defrayed out of rates or public moneys. Charity lands in these categories will accordingly pay full contribution and get the ordinary rights of compensation under Part I of the Bill. Examples of the three categories are respectively local authorities' relief administrations and schools; Unemployment Assistance; and approved schools managed by voluntary bodies, but financed half by local authorities and half by the State. Of course, the justification of this exceptional treatment is that the charities in this position are only charities by accident. They are in effect public social services, and their essential nature is proved by the fact that their expenditure is met out of rates and taxes. For that reason I felt able to meet my hon. Friends in the way I have done.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 25, line 43, after "in," insert "paragraphs (a) and (b) of."
    In page 26, line 2, after "education," insert "learning." — [Sir K. Wood]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Woodburn (Stirling and Clackmannan, Eastern): Has the right hon. Gentleman ascertained that it is possible to exempt schools run for poor children, maintained by charities and local authorities? Are they covered by the powers in the Bill?
    Captain Crookshank: It all depends on the facts relating to each of the individual nursery schools. Some will probably come within the Clause, others will not. It all depends on the circumstances of the individual case.
    Mr. Woodburn: So you have power to exempt them?
    Captain Crookshank: If they are within the definition, yes.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 34. — (Properties occupied by public utility undertakings)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 26, line 4, to leave out "the whole or any part of."
    These words appeared on the Order Paper as a Government Amendment. It was, however, pointed out that they would take out of contribution a large block of offices in which the undertakers leased one set of rooms. Owing to shortness of time an alternative Amendment to insert "mainly or exclusively" in line 5 was moved in manuscript, but apparently the original Amendment was moved as well.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 26, line 6, to leave out "by public utility undertakers."
    There is a tremendous list of Amendments to this Clause which all really relate to the same point. Public utility undertakings are dealt with under a separate scheme and have little to do with this Bill. The reason for this provision as regards contributors is that public utility undertakings are normally rated not on Schedule A but on the basis of their profits. Since the decision was taken with regard to public utility undertakings it has been brought to our notice that there are some other forms of property which are also rated in that way and do not come suitably under the provisions for contribution in the earlier part of the Bill. The most notable cases are undertakings of mining and quarrying and there also was one of broadcast relay companies. They have to be brought in, and the gist of these Amendments is to bring them, into this Clause. There are special circumstances which may arise when we draw up a scheme about the form and the amount of contributions that mines and quarries make, and notably underground minerals may require special treatment. That will come forward later on. I hope that by all these Amendments we shall clear up the difficulty which we foresaw may arise. There is really nothing further of great importance in them.
    Sir H. Williams: I have tried to read all these Amendments, and as far as I can make out they improve the Clause very much, but may I repeat a request which I have already made in regard to public utility undertakings? Including the
    426
    many municipal enterprises, they represent a capital of about £3,000,000,000. They all know that there is to be another Bill dealing with them, but, in the meantime, they have to make financial provision for contributions in respect of a period some part of which has already passed. That is causing considerable difficulty because they do not know what their obligations will be. They want to know what reserves they will have to provide in anticipation of the Bill. I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is yet in a position to give some indication, at least, of what the obligations will be. It is a matter which affects most municipalities in this country and a very large number of companies.
    Sir K. Wood: I shall be prepared to say something about that on the Third Reading of this Bill. I must ask the hon. Member to wait until then, when I will see what I can say.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown):I do not want to disappoint the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I must remind him that on the Third Reading of a Bill the Debate is confined to what is in the Bill.
    Sir K. Wood: Then it will have to be said in another place.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 26, line 6, leave out "carrying on their," and insert "the carrying."
    In line 7, after "undertaking," insert: "and either—

    (a)that undertaking is a public utility-undertaking; or

    (b) the contributory property was the subject of a valuation for rating purposes made by reference to the accounts, receipts, profits or output, of that undertaking;"

    In line 10, leave out "under this Part of this Act."
    In line 13, leave out "undertakers," and insert "undertaking."
    In line 14, leave out "persons," and insert:
    "of the following undertakings the carrying on of which is."
    In line 15, leave out from "order" to "any," and insert "that is to say."
    In line 19, leave out "or," and insert "and the undertaking of."
    In line 19, leave out from "authority" to "except," in line 25.
    In line 26, leave out "public utility."
    In line 27, after "undertaking," insert "being a public utility undertaking."
    In line 30, leave out from the second "hereditament," to "no," in line 32, and insert:
    "is occupied mainly or exclusively for the purpose of the carrying on of an undertaking, and either—

    (a)that undertaking is a public utility undertaking; or
    (b)that hereditament, or the greater part of it, was the subject of a valuation for rating purposes made by reference to the accounts, receipts, profits or output of that undertaking;"

    In line 38, leave out "public utility undertakers," and insert "the persons carrying on the undertakings in question."
    In page 27, leave out line 7
    In line 7, at the end, insert
    "and in relation to any mining or quarrying undertaking."
    In line 14, leave out from "undertaking," to the second "the," in line 15.
    In line 17, at the end, insert:
    (g) in relation to any other undertaking, such Government department as the Treasury may determine."— [Sir K. Wood.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. R. Morgan: I had put down an Amendment to include toll bridges, but it was not called, and I should like to take this opportunity of asking whether they come within the category specified by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Toll bridges are a public utility service, and as they do not pay rates and taxes, I do not see how they are to be included in the Bill unless specially mentioned.
    Captain Crookshank: I wrote to my hon. Friend on this subject yesterday, but perhaps he did not get my letter in time. I do not think he is quite right in saying that all toll bridges do not pay rates and taxes. There are some of one sort and some of another. Also, I am not sure what are his fears on this subject. If his fear is that because they do not pay rates and taxes and, therefore, are not contributory properties under the definition of those which have to pay contribution, they will not get compensation if they are damaged, he need not have that fear. Compensation does not de-
    428
    pend upon whether or not you are a contributory person. You get compensation whether you are or not. It would be very nice of those concerned to want to be contributors, but I should think that most people who will get the benefits without contributing will prefer not to contribute. In any case, the compensation is there, whether they are technically contributory undertakings under the Bill or not, and I am prepared to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that in the further legislation required in regard to these public utility undertakings, it may be found necessary to say something specific about tolls. We shall then have an opportunity of discussing the matter, but at the moment they do get the benefits of the Bill in the matter of compensation.
    Sir William Davison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is intended to introduce this further legislation dealing with public utilities? I regret to ask that question if a statement has already been made, but I have come back as quickly as I could. It would be a great help to the public utility undertakings if they could know within the next week or two.
    Sir K. Wood: I cannot give a specific date now, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we are doing our utmost to expedite the introduction of the Bill.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 35. — (Highways.)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 29, line 35, at the end, to insert:
    "and
    (b) a place of refuge in a highway, a lamp, lamp post, or other materials or apparatus affixed on or near a highway for the purpose of illuminating it and a traffic sign (as defined by Sub-section (9) of Section forty-eight of the Road Traffic Act, 1930) placed on or near a highway either by a highway authority or in accordance with the provisions of a scheme under Section eighteen of the Road, Traffic Act, 1914."
    This Amendment provides that street lamps and traffic signs shall be deemed to be part of the highway for the purposes of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 29, line 42, to leave out Sub-section (13).

    429
    This is the Sub-section which makes the necessary adaptation for the application of the Clause to Scotland, and the proper place for it is in the Scottish Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    CLAUSE 37.—(Requisitioned land.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 31, line 1, after the first "used," insert "or occupied."
    In line 1, at the end, insert, "or occupied." — [Sir K. Wood.]
    Mr. Harvey: I beg to move, in page 32, line 12, at the end, to add:
    "(4) It shall be an obligation on the competent authority, which has exercised emergency powers on behalf of His Majesty, to notify the owner of the requisitioned land of any war damage occurring during the risk period immediately after such occurrence."
    I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the view that an Amendment already accepted covers this point, but it would be very satisfactory if it could be made quite clear that there is an obligation on the requisitioning authority to inform the owner of damage done. It is easy to see that there may be cases where the owner has, in consequence of the war, removed to a considerable distance. He will have no means of knowing about the damage, and his position will be materially prejudiced if there is not an obligation on the requisitioning authority such as is indicated in the Amendment.
    Captain Crookshank: The same point was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) who was satisfied with the assurance then given, so I was rather perturbed when I saw that the question was being raised again. The short point is that, of course, it is everybody's interest that the damnified person should be notified as soon as possible if anything has happened to his property, and that is the administrative practice now. The Office of Works make every effort to get into touch with everybody concerned, and as recently as last November the War Office sent out special instructions to the same end. Generally speaking we all want to let people know
    430
    if their requisitioned property is damaged. No doubt the Committee and the hon. Gentleman will accept our assurances on that point. It is rather different, however, to put it as an obligation in the Bill. You might get the complication that this would be an obligation against the Crown.
    There is the further point that in certain circumstances—I do not say that it has yet occurred— damage might be done to property which is under requisition when it would be in the public interest that nobody should know that the damage had been done. It would have to be repaired quickly and secretly, but if there were an obligation on someone to go running round to find out to whom he should notify the damage, it would not be long before it got out that there had been damage. I hope the Committee will rest content with the Government's assurance as to our intention, but we cannot accept an obligation to do it in all cases. We are at war, and it might sometimes be against the public interest, upon security grounds, to do it.
    Mr. Harvey: On the last ground mentioned by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the public interest might be involved, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 39. — (Destination of payments in certain cases.)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 33, line 9, at the end, to insert:
    "( ) A devise or bequest of an interest in, or in the proceeds of sale of, land which sustains war damage in respect of which a value payment is made, or in, or in the proceeds of sale of, a tenancy in respect of which a payment is made under Section eleven of this Act, contained in a testamentary disposition made before the occurrence of the war damage shall, in the absence of any contrary intention expressed therein or in any other testamentary disposition made by the testator, have effect as if it had included a bequest of any such payment, or of any part of any such payment, to which the testator might become entitled in respect of that interest."
    This Amendment concerns an important matter. It deals with cases where interest in land, or in the proceeds of land, which has suffered war damage, passes, under a will made before the war

    431
    damage occurs. If the interest left to a person by the will is a freehold or a tenancy that goes on, and if the property is so badly damaged before the testator's death that a value payment is made in respect of it, the person to whom it is left will suffer the loss of taking a badly damaged property and the persons to whom the residue of the testator's property is left will suffer nothing. It is, therefore, right that the value payment should go to the former. If the interest left is a tenancy which the testator disclaims after the damage, the person to whom it is left would, apart from this Amendment, take nothing. The Amendment assumes that the testator would intend the beneficiary to take something and in effect substitutes the value payment for the destroyed interest. This will prevent the testator's intention being defeated by inadvertence. If the testator adverts to the matter and desires to revoke the gift in the altered circumstances, the Amendment leaves it open to him to do so by altering his will. No provision of this nature is needed for cost of works payments or for value payments, etc., for land which sustains war damage before a will in respect of it is made. In the former case, the person named in the will will take the property and any expense that he incurs in repair will be made good to him. In the latter, the testator has the opportunity of making express arrangements as to the disposal of the payment.
    I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment as reasonable, in the circumstances in which we are faced.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 33, line 9, after the words last inserted, to insert:
    "( ) Where a hereditament sustains war damage at a time when an interest therein is the subject of a contract of sale or of a notice to treat served under an enactment authorising the compulsory acquisition thereof, any value payment in respect of the damage, or share of such a payment, or payment under Section eleven of this Act, payable to the vendor in respect of that interest, shall, unless the contract is rescinded or the notice ceases to have effect, be held by him upon trust for the purchaser:
    Provided that any lien upon that interest to which the vendor is entitled by virtue of the contract shall extend to that payment or share."
    432
    This Amendment deals with the case of property which sustains damage at a time when it is the subject of a contract of sale or a notice to treat, under compulsory acquisition procedure, and a value payment or a payment under Clause 11, in respect of a tenancy in a property of exceptional rate value, falls to be made. Under a contract of sale the property sold belongs in equity to the purchaser, and is at his risk, from the date of the contract. The vendor will be entitled to the purchase money, notwithstanding the destruction of the property, and his only substantial interest in it after the contract is made is that he is entitled to a lien on it to secure the payment of the purchase money. In these circumstances, justice requires that the purchaser should have the benefit of any value payment or payment under Clause 11, except that the vendor should have a lien on it until the purchase money is paid. Probably the general law would bring this about if the Amendment were not made, but it is desirable that the rights of the parties should be made clear. The legal position is in substance the same when a notice to treat for a compulsory acquisition is served as it is when a contract for sale is made, and it is therefore treated in the same way under the Amendment. The general law would conduce to that result, but it is desirable that it should be clearly stated in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 33, line 18, leave out "five," and insert "five hundred." — [Captain Crook-shank.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 40 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 45. — (Power to raise capital for defraying contributions.)
    Amendment made: In page 35, line 39, leave out Sub-section (1). — [Captain Crookshank]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Resolved,
    "That the Clause, as amended, be transferred to end of line 42, page 33. as Clause 41 of the Bill." — [Captain Crookshank.]
    Clauses 46 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 50. —(Regulations to be laid before Parliament.)
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

    CLAUSE 51.—(Interpretation of Part I.>)
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 38, line 45, after "machinery," to insert:
    "excluded by paragraph (d) of this definition and other than any works used mainly or exclusively for the exhibition of advertisements and comprised in any property falling within the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section fifteen of this Act."
    This Amendment, and the two which follow, are designed to improve the definition of "land," particularly in its application to machinery forming part of public utility and other undertakings, to which I referred just now. The present definition is defective. The result of the Amendments will be, broadly speaking, that, in the case of a property not rated according to profits, the land will include only the plant and machinery covered by the 1927 Order. In the case of property rated according to profits, the definition will include anything covered by the rating valuation of the undertaking concerned.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 38, line 45, at the end, insert:
    "(b) includes anything which, on a valuation for rating purposes for the time being in force made by reference to the accounts, receipts, profits or output of an undertaking, was treated as the subject of an occupation enjoyed by the persons carrying on the undertaking."
    In page 39, leave out lines 8 and 9, and insert:
    "(d) does not include any plant or machinery other than such as is included by virtue of paragraph (b) or (c) of this definition."
    In line 14, at the end, insert:
    "or for the growing of fruit for sale." — [Captain Crookshank.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 39, line 14, at the end, to insert:
    "'making good' includes, in relation to war damage, demolition or clearance requisite as a preliminary to. or in the course of, the making good thereof;
    'owner' in relation to a proprietary interest, has the meaning assigned to it by Section thirty-eight of this Act."
    434
    A point was raised in Committee as to whether the reference in the Bill to making good war damage would include demolition and clearance and my right hon. Friend said he would look into the matter. We think that probably such things would be included in the words originally in the Bill, but it is desirable that it should be made clear, and this Amendment does so.
    Amendment agreed to
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 52. —(Insurance Schemes)
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Waterhouse):I beg to move, in page 41, line 10, after "and," to insert "the cases in which and."
    This Amendment is largely a drafting Amendment. The Sub-section in question is designed to lay down the conditions which may be stipulated by the Board of Trade in any of these policies. It was thought that the words in the Subsection might not be quite so wide as we would like, and the words now proposed make it clear that the Board of Trade has very wide powers indeed, in stipulating any proper conditions in the policies.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir Stanley Reed: I beg to move in page 41, line 34, to leave out "five" and to insert "two."
    Captain Waterhouse: I hope my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It is a small point, but it would lead to a great deal of extra trouble. There would be a lot of damage between £5 and £2 which would be brought in if this Amendment were accepted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed aggregation in the case of real property, but that is different from damage to chattels. We do not want to be flooded by a great number of claims and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
    Sir S. Reed: I do not want to press the Amendment to the embarrassment of my hon. and gallant Friend, but there is a strong feeling that this Clause as it stands will cause a considerable amount of injustice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 53. — (Goods insurable under the schemes)
    Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, in page 42, line 10, to leave out "or right in security."
    These words were put in at an earlier stage as an Amendment in Committee to bring the wording into line, as it was thought, with Scottish law, but it is now found that they are unnecessary and I ask leave to strike them out.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, in page 42, line 11, at the end, to insert:
    "( ) For the purposes of this Part of this Act—

    (a) 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;

    (b) the carrying on of any activity by a corporation or unincorporated body of persons shall be deemed to be the carrying on of a business:

    Provided that goods which would, apart from this proviso, be insurable under the business scheme in relation to a corporation sole or a body of persons who are trustees, and would be so insurable by virtue only of paragraph (b) of this Sub-section. shall in such cases as may be prescribed, be deemed not to be insurable in relation to the corporation or body of persons under the business scheme."
    Paragraph (a) in this Amendment will make it clear that a business includes a profession, and paragraph (b) makes it clear that corporations or unincorporated bodies of persons shall be deemed to be carrying on a business. The Amendment is put down to meet points raised at an earlier stage.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 42, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "or other employee engaged for work in or about the household of the insured."
    The words in the Bill deal with goods "owned by or in the possession of such a member or servant." The Amendment seeks to add to that the goods of persons other than employés engaged for work in or about the house. There may be persons other than domestic servants —gardeners, for instance—who would not be covered by the Bill as it stands, and this Amendment seeks to provide that any property of theirs which happens to
    436
    be in the house at the time the damage was done, should also be covered.
    Captain Waterhouse: If the people whom the hon. Member has in mind live in the house where they are domestic servants, they will be eligible for insurance; and if they do not live in the house they must live somewhere else, and they still come under the scheme. I, therefore, do not think the Amendment is necessary.
    Mr. Silkin: If a domestic servant is not living at the house where he is employed and is living somewhere else, his goods at his employer's house are covered as well as those at home. Therefore, he is covered twice. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman permits that state of affairs in one case why cannot he permit it in this case?
    Captain Waterhouse: The intention is to avoid any duplication of insurance. A man's property will be insured either because he takes out a policy in respect of his own house, where he may have some personal chattels such as picks and shovels, or if he is living in his employer's house the employer may take out a policy and the picks and shovels will be included in that policy.
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: In page 42, line 35, leave out "or." — [Captain Waterhouse.']
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 54,— (Time for payment of losses under the schemes.)
    Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, in page 43, line 16, to leave out "the Treasury may direct," and to insert:
    "may be specified in regulations made by the Treasury,".
    This is the sort of Amendment which is always popular in the Committee, because it insists that a Government Department shall lay the papers on the Table before they become operative.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, in page 43, line 26, to leave out "national," and to insert "public."

    437
    This is almost a drafting Amendment. It was thought that the word "public" was rather wider than the word "national." The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) at an earlier stage asked us to change the words. My right hon. Friend said that he would consider doing so, and he has done so.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 55— (Insurance under business scheme to be compulsory.)
    Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, in page 46, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    "( ) The Board of Trade may undertake the liability of insuring, under the business scheme, persons owning growing trees which are goods within the meaning of this Act, but which are not owned by them in the course of a business, against war damage to such trees owned by them, in like manner as if the trees had been owned by them in the course of a farming business."
    This Amendment arose out of a point put by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). He was not quite sure whether standing timber owned by a landlord would be covered. There was a certain amount of doubt, although the intention was quite clear. These words have been drafted so as completely to cover that point.
    Earl Winterton: I am grateful to the Government for putting in the words, but I think that my hon. and gallant Friend has dealt with the matter in rather a euphemistic way. It is certain that timber owned by a private landlord was not covered by the original Bill. Without wishing to criticase the Ministry of Agriculture, they have shown singularly little thought in not calling the attention of the Government to this point. The owner of some timber might, by a single bomb, lose £2,000 worth of his property.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, in page 46, line 13, to leave out from "means," to "together," in line 15, and to insert:
    "the aggregate of the agricultural land occupied in connection with the carrying on of the business."
    This is a drafting Amendment, again made on the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb).
    Amendment agreed to
    Further Amendment made: In page 46, line 22, at the end, add:
    '' and less any sums on which relief would have been allowable in respect of an annuity under section four of the Tithe Act, 1918, or of payments in respect of the redemption or reduction of an annuity under the Tithe Act, 1936, if relief in respect of so much of such an annuity or such payments as represents interest were in all cases given by way of reduction of an assessment under Schedule A in lieu of being given by a right of deduction of tax."— [Captain Waterhouse.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 57.—(Limitation of indemnity provided under private chattels scheme)
    Captain Waterhouse: I beg to move, in page 47, line 35, to leave out from" of,"to" and,"on page 48, line 5, and to insert" such sum as may be specified in the policy."
    The two amendments on this Clause are designed to empower the Board of Trade to give effect to the undertaking which was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his explanation to-day. The Amendment is necessary only because the whole of our private chattels scheme has been recast. We have increased the limit up to which the insurance may be taken out, and the terms of the scheme will be laid on the Table of the House as set out in Clause 60.
    Sir F. Sanderson: I wish to raise one point on this Clause. My right hon. Friend has met the Committee to the extent that he has provided that the insurance companies will collect premiums and those premiums will be handed over by the insurance companies to the Board of Trade or to other Government Departments. He made a strong point, however, of the fact that he did not consider the machinery which the insurance companies have, in the ordinary mode of conducting their business, for assessing the value of damage sustained would be acceptable for the purpose of assessing the damage which might be sustained. It is regrettable that while my right hon. Friend was able to meet the Committee to the extent of premiums being collected by the insurance companies, he should state that the claims cannot be settled by the same machinery. If the insurance companies could also effect the settlement of the

    439
    claims, it would prevent my right hon. Friend from having occasion to build up a very large comprehensive organisation for the purpose of effecting those settlements. On the basis of economy, I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider —
    The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid he is not speaking on the Amendment. He may be speaking on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but not on the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 48, line 11, leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3). — [Captain Waterhouse]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. Sanderson: Having stated my case, I do not desire to reiterate what I have said already, but I hope that what I have said will be duly recorded, and I would like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he could not consider this point. If my right hon. Friend is unable to agree that that machinery should be used for the purpose of assessing the damage sustained, 1 believe the time will come when he will find it necessary to come to this House to secure the necessary power to do so. To have to build up an organisation merely for the purpose of assessing the value of the damage sustained, when you have this great organisation already in existence, seems unnecessary. I cannot think it is beyond the power of my right hon. Friend to prevail upon the insurance companies to do this work too, and I would ask him whether he could not reconsider it even at this late hour.
    Captain Waterhouse: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood. My right hon. Friend did not mean that we were going to cut out the insurance companies completely; what he did mean was that the responsibility for payment lay on the Inland Revenue who should therefore have the last word. I think there is no doubt that we shall use the invaluable experience of the companies in assessing damage.
    Sir F. Sanderson: If that is the intention of my right hon. Friend, it meets my point entirely.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clauses 58 and 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 60. —(Power of Board of Trade to make payments otherwise than under policies)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 48, line 36, to leave out "general directions given," and to insert "regulations made."
    This Amendment is necessary in view of a new Clause. The Amendment ensures that the Board of Trade payments under this Clause are made under regulations, which as such are subject to the approval of Parliament.
    Sir I. Albery: I should like to ask whether one would be in order at this moment in referring in rather general terms to the effect of these regulations, in other words, the changes which are taking place in the insurance of chattels? If not, I do not quite see what opportunity we shall have.
    The Deputy-Chairman: This is not the occasion on which to discuss a subject like that. These are matters which, without giving any Ruling, I would suggest that it would be in Order to discuss on the Third Reading.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 61 to 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 65. — (Insurance under Part II of War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, of certain goods)
    Amendment made: In page 50, line 36, leave out "and a right in security." —[Captain Waterhouse.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 66, 67 and 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 69. — (Miscellaneous amendments.)
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move in page 52, line 28, to leave out "in anticipation of action by the enemy," and to insert:
    "with a view to preventing or hindering the carrying out of any attack by the enemy;"

    441
    This Clause brings the scope of the commodity insurance scheme, in so far as the scope of risks is concerned, into line with the definition of "war damage" contained in Clause 71 of the present Bill. The Amendment is consequential upon the similar Amendment made to Clause 71 at an earlier stage. The object is to make it clear that war damage will not cover damage which results from measures taken for reasons of personal safety, such as damage to goods caused by the stoppage of work in order to take shelter, and matters of that kind.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 52, line 30, at the end, insert:
    "(iv) precautionary or preparatory.measures involving the doing of work on land and taken under proper authority in any way in anticipation of enemy action, being measures involving a substantial degree of risk to property." — [Sir K, Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 71.—(Definition of "war damage.")
    Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 54, line 18, to leave out "direct."
    The object of this is to see that damage which is done subsequent to the actual bomb-dropping shall be taken into consideration. This would include damage by weather, and so on. I mentioned this point at an earlier stage, and I was told by my right hon. Friend that he would look into it. If he says that such damage will be included, I shall be satisfied; but if not, I shall proceed with the Amendment.
    The Attorney-General: I think it better to leave in the word "direct." I can assure my hon. Friend that it will allow, what is our intention, that compensation for damage which is not directly due to the bombing itself, but which unavoidably follows, will, in fact, be included. If one took out the word "direct," and particularly if one also inserted the proviso in my hon. Friend's Amendment which contemplates payment being made for indirect damage, I think we should get into an area which it is not our intention to enter. For example, assume that a bomb hit a train on which the normal
    442
    night watchman of a building some distance away was injured. It might be by ill-fortune that, through his not getting to his destination, there might be a severe fire, which, if he had been there, might have been arrested in the early stages, with little or no damage. Obviously, we cannot go into indirect consequences of this kind, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that "direct" does enable to be included the class of damage which I think he has in mind, namely, damage due to weather, or to water in putting out a fire, or to another cause which operates to cause damage and more or less follows as an inevitable consequence of the damage done by the bomb. Therefore, we had much better stick to the wording, because I think it may tend to clarify and strengthen the Bill, and the presence of the word "direct" indicates to those who read the Bill the class of damage it is intended to cover.
    Mr. Silkin: I think that the learned Attorney-General devastated the Amendment, but I doubt whether he has made a case for the word "direct" itself. The Commission will only have the words of the Act to go upon, and in any interpretation that the Chancellor of the Ex chequer may put upon this Clause which is in conflict with the plain meaning of the Clause, the Commission will consider the meaning of "direct," and if, say, a direct damage means direct damage and not the thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said —
    The Attorney-General: I am assuming that they will give it the ordinary meaning it has in law in this class of conflict.
    Mr. Silkin: With very great respect and all humility, I have some doubts in my own mind whether the effect of weather, which might last a long time, on premises necessarily and inevitably can be interpreted as the direct result of action by the enemy. At least there is a strong element of doubt about it, and I do not think it is the desire of anybody to leave this in any doubt. I do not think that my hon. Friend himself would say that this is exactly the right form of words with which to deal with it, but I hope that something will be done to make the intention clear beyond all doubt whatever. I do not think that it can be said that it is beyond doubt by accepting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that it is desired to

    443
    include such indirect damage as he has described. I hope that it will be possible to look at it again so as to make quite sure.
    Mr. Spens: I would like to reinforce the remarks of my hon. Friend. I think everybody realises that the great difficulty is that when you get a direct result of a bomb and the inability of the local authority or anybody else to make immediate repairs, and inevitably three, four, five or six days go by, if they happen to be days of great storm and bad weather, the direct results of the bomb would be very much greater than they would have been if there had been fine, still weather. The anxiety of all of us is that, as long as this word "direct" remains in the definition Clause, we feel that not only the Commission, but if the new Clause to be moved later is passed by the Committee, the interpretation of the Act will go to the courts, and the same difficulty will arise there. Without any disrespect to my right hon. and learned Friend, we know that the expression of his intention carries no weight, unfortunately, with courts of law. In these circumstance I hope he will reconsider this matter and make quite sure, by some proviso or something of that sort, that any additional damage which occurs as a result of bombing—consequential damage, that is—must be included in compensation for these claims.
    Mr. Bellenger: I think the Committee accepts the intention of the Attorney-General and welcomes it, but I am wondering, when it comes to the assessment of the claim by the Commission, how they will decide whether it did include the damage referred to by the Attorney-General. First of all, they have before them the form B.O.W.I or whatever it will be called under the new Regulation. In that form will be specified the damage. What is the position at the present time? A house is bombed, and the roof is exposed to the elements. The owner or agent asks the local authority to put it right, but for some reason, either lack of labour or material, there is a delay. Then the rain gets in, and a few days later the agent or owner is notified. The rain has penetrated to the ceiling, but does not show itself for a month's time. Then, down comes the ceiling.
    444
    That is not included in the form if the surveyor has done his job almost immediately. When the Commission have the form in front of them they have to make up their minds whether the damage to the ceiling did occur as the direct action of the bomb. They may say that this was not damage occurring immediately after the bomb dropped, so that the claim may be whittled down. Those with practical experience of these matters know of hundreds of cases, where not only ceilings, but the structure itself has gradually decayed, and one could not say whether it was due to direct enemy action or not. I am not versed in the law as is the Attorney-General, but it is evident to me that there is some conflict of opinion as to whether leaving in the word "direct" does cover what the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself and we want it to cover.
    Sir I. Albery: I also am concerned about this word "direct," because I had an Amendment dealing with it on the first Committee stage. I want to ask my right hon. and learned Friend this. I have read it, and it says:
    "damage occurring as a result of action taken by the enemy."
    That is plain English. The only thing that does occur to me is whether the result would be satisfactory if the words in brackets— (whether accidental or not) "—were left out.
    The Attorney-General: I have devoted some time to considering this obviously important matter. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) talked about a house that was damaged in bad weather and said that in such a case the direct results of the damage by bomb were greater than in a case where the weather was fine, he chose the word "direct" to cover that very class of damage which I said would fall within the provision. The difficulty is that if one starts to make a catalogue of all the things, such as the weather, water to put out a fire, and so on, one excludes those other things that are not in the catalogue. It is vitally important that we should use words that will exclude the indirect results of war damage. When I say that, I mean indirect in the wider sense. That is the difficulty about simply leaving out the word "direct." Of course, there may be borderline cases

    445
    which some hon. Members may think ought to be included, and other hon. Members may think too remote to be included, but from such researches as I have been able to make, the word direct "seems to be as good a word as one could use. If there were any legal decision which went contrary to the intention of Parliament, the matter could always be dealt with. I want the Committee to realise that this is not an easy problem. I will look into the matter again, and if I can think of some proviso or form of words that will meet the apprehensions of hon. Members, without opening the door to the indirect damage which everybody wants to exclude, we can arrange for those words to be inserted in another place.
    Mr. Benson: I want to ask what will be the position of the Commission vis-a-vis the Treasury. As the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said, the courts are bound by the strict phraseology of an Act, and do not take any notice of the guileful promises of Ministers when they wish to get a Bill through. Is the Commission to be as it were, a court of law? Will its policy be decided in consultation with the Treasury, or will it have the right to administer these provisions without any prompting or advice from the Treasury? If the Treasury is to be ultimately responsible for the policy which the Commission adopts, we shall be able to get at the Commission through the House, but if the Commission is completely cut off from the Treasury, it will fall within the category of a court of law.
    Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) will remember that an Amendment was agreed to which provided that the directions should be of a general character, that they should be in the form of regulations, and that those regulations should come before Parliament, thus being made public. I want to make this observation to the Committee. This matter ought to be dealt with satisfactorily within the Bill. It would not be right for the Treasury to try to interpret the Bill, in its directions to the Commission, in a manner that was obviously out of line with what Parliament had enacted. I think we must examine the matter again in the light of the discussion and see whether we can deal with it in another
    446
    place. It is an important matter and I would much prefer that it should be dealt with in the Bill.
    Mr. Wedgwood: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that the whole of the Committee is anxious to leave out this word "direct." I think it would almost ruin the Bill if that were done. In the first place, it would open the door to an immense amount of litigation, and, in the second place, it would add an enormous burden on the taxpayers of the country. Undoubtedly, if the word "direct" were left out, the extent of indirect damage as a result of bombing would amount to far more than the damage anticipated under this Bill. We remember the case of the Alabama claim. The original claim was for £7,000,000, but when indirect damage was taken into account it reached something like £70,000,000. If the right hon. Gentleman leaves out the word "direct," the whole purpose of this Bill will be stultified, and the cost would be so much to the taxpayer that people would not be very pleased with the Mover of this Amendment.
    Sir Robert Tasker: This proposal is far more important than the right hon. gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) seems to realise. As a matter of fact, in a hundred, and probably a thousand, cases it is impossible to formulate a claim in 30 days, and one has to apply for an extension. I defy any Member who has seen extensive damage to ascertain precisely what that damage is. It is impossible to find out until the debris has been cleared away. What is the position now? One goes to a local authority and tells them that there is a hole in a wall, or in the roof, and asks them to protect the premises from wind and weather. The local authorities do their best, but they cannot do the impossible, with the result that one has to wait for weeks, perhaps months, before anything is done. The owner who attempts to repair the damage himself meets with control. If he protects his property then he is liable to prosecution if the cost exceeds £500. Surely it is possible, if an incendiary bomb falls on property and there is a conflagration, that wider damage may be caused by water in putting out the fire than the immediate effects of the bomb itself. This matter really requires reconsideration. None of

    447
    us wishes to see the taxpayer robbed, but we want common justice done. Anyone who has taken part in arbitration knows perfectly well that it does not matter what the Attorney-General or anyone else says_. in the House of Commons; it is what is in the Act. I foresee that when the Commissioners are faced with this problem, they will say "Never mind what the intentions were; it is what is in the Act." I urge upon the Government, between now an the Report stage, to find some kind of definition to cover damage which results as an after-effect of a high explosive bomb. Amiable explanations here will not protect the building or victim; good intentions will not compensate the owner for his inability to obtain consent for employment of material or labour to perform the necessary work to protect his building; ardent desire on our part to ensure justice does not compensate for injustice. It is a case of justice to the individual. I ask the Chancellor very seriously to consider the effect of the Clause as it now stands because it is a very important matter.
    Sir J. Lamb: In view of criticism from most influential constituents of mine, I think I ought to be given permission to say why the word '' direct '' appears here for the second time. I received an undertaking in Committee from the Front Bench that the matter would receive full consideration again. No Amendment appeared on the Paper, consequently I put it down again, in order to give them an opportunity to tell the Committee what consideration they had given it. I was not satisfied with what the Attorney-General said, but I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his later speech in which he said he desired that the solution of this very important problem should be in the Bill. In view of the undertaking that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 72-—(Avoidance of duplication of payments in respect of war damage.
    Amendment made: In page 56, line 10, leave out the second "of," and insert "or."-—[The Attorney-General.]
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 56, line 22, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:—
    448
    "( ) Where war damage occurs to any land or goods in the United Kingdom and it is certified by the Secretary of State or other Minister in charge of a Government Department that the damage arose out of action taken on behalf of or by agreement with, or under the direction of a person acting on behalf or by agreement with, the Crown, being action taken for purposes with which that Department is concerned, no damages shall be recoverable for—

    (a) the damage to the land; or

    (b) the damage to the goods, in so far as payment in respect thereof falls to be made under the provisions of this Act or under a policy issued under either of the schemes operated under Part II thereof,

    on the grounds that the damage was attributable to negligence, nuisance or breach of duty.
    ( ) For the purposes of the last preceding subsection a certificate purporting to be issued by the Secretary of State or other Minister in charge of a Government Department, and to be signed by him or on his behalf, shall be receivable in evidence and shall be deemed, until the contrary is proved, to be a certificate of the Secretary of State or Minister."
    I moved the Sub-section which is now in the Bill, but we came to the conclusion that it was too widely drafted and it is now proposed to substitute this new Sub-section. It is intended to deal with a class of case in which, for example, a railway company may be carrying explosives for national purposes in excess of those allowed by the by-laws. Someone might seek to bring an action against the railway company for damage due to breach of the by-law.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 73.—(Contributions and premiums to be treated as capital outgoings)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Sir F. Sanderson: Do I take it that a company will be in order in reducing the amount of premium over a period of years; in other words, that the premium will be treated in precisely the same way as any ordinary capital expenditure is treated at present?
    Sir K. Wood: I shall have to look at that point and will try to say a word later.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 74—(Payments under Parts I and II to be subject to conditions in case of non-residents)
    Amendment made:
    In page 57, line 5, leave out Sub-section (3).—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 75, 76, and 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 78 —(Provision as to certain mutual insurance schemes.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 59, line 26, after "any," insert "such."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 80.—(titleInformation as to Schedule A assessment and rating valuation.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 60, line 32, leave out "land," and insert "any land or other property."
    Leave out lines 35 to 42.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 82.—(Provisions as to Board of Trade.)
    Amendment made:
    In page 61, line 11, leave out Sub-sections (2) and (3).— [Sir K. Wood.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. Spens: Sub-section (3) which has just been deleted from the Bill provides that an order of the Board of Trade shall be laid before Parliament. I assume that there is some other Act of Parliament or Regulation which requires that the Order shall be laid before Parliament.
    Captain Crookshank: A new Clause dealing with all Regulations is to be moved, and that is why this Sub-section has been deleted here.
    Question put, and agreed to

    CLAUSE 83—(Interpretation)
    Amendments made:
    In page 62, line 14, leave out "not," and insert "neither."
    In line 16, at the end, insert:
    "nor deemed, for the purposes of Section thirty-five of this Act, to form part of a highway.''
    In line 21, at the end, insert:
    "rating authority"—

    (a)means a rating authority under Section one of the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925;

    (b)in relation to London, has the meaning assigned to it by Sub-section (2) of Section seven of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928;

    (c)in relation to the Isles of Scilly, means the Council of the said Isles.

    In line 22, leave out "has," and insert "and ' Schedule D ' have."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 84,ߞ(Application to Scotland)
    Amendments made:
    In page 63, leave out line 3, and insert "immediate and any superior."
    In line 29, leave out "' mortgage debt,'" and insert "' mortgagor.'"— [The Lord Advocate.]
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 64, line 7, to leave out "Section eleven" and to insert "Sections eleven, thirty-eight and forty-one."
    The Clauses now numbered 38 and 41 were added at an earlier point in the Committee stage, but neither of them is required, or could reasonably be adapted for Scotland. The Amendment is put forward expressly to exclude them.
    Amendment agreed to.
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 64, line 7, at the end, to insert:
    "( ) In arriving at the net assessment of any contributory property or of any farm under Section fifteen or Section fifty-five, there shall be deducted from the full annual value as ascertained for the purposes of an assessment under Schedule A, in addition to the sums directed by those sections to he deducted, the amount of the stipend payable in respect of the property or farm during the year for which such assessment was in force."
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has already referred to certain adjustments that were made for England,

    451
    in regard to an annuity, chargeable in lieu of tithe rent charge. The object of the Amendment, with which I am sure all Scotsmen will agree, is to ensure that the contributions of Scotland are no higher than the contributions in England for similar purposes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made:
    In page 64, line 9, leave out "a net annual value," and insert "the net annual value of a property."
    In line 10, leave out "a gross annual value," and insert "the gross annual value of a property."
    In line 11, after "less," insert "(i)."
    In line 15, after "A," insert:
    "and
    (ii) the amount of the stipend payable in respect of the property during the year for which such valuation roll was in force." —[The Lord Advocate.]
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 64, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "( ) Section twenty shall apply, in addition to the contributory properties specified in Subsection (5) thereof, to any contributory property which consists of a tenement comprising dwelling houses the rateable value of none of which exceeds thirty-five pounds.
    ( ) Where the interest of a direct or indirect contributor in respect of a contributory property to which Section twenty applies is at the relevant date subject to two more heritable securities to which the said Section applies, and which rank pari passu, those heritable securities shall for the purposes of the said Section be treated as one heritable security, and the amount of any indemnity to or in which the creditors in such heritable securities may be entitled or liable shall be divided among them in proportion to the respective amounts secured by their securities."
    The Sub-sections which it is now proposed to insert, although different, relate to the Clause, about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said a good deal in his initial statement, dealing with the rights of mortgagors and mortgagees. This is one of the additional alterations, over and above those to which he referred, and I almost feel that I ought to apologise to those Members who wish that the Clause could be reprinted incorporating all the Amendments on the Paper, so that we might better appreciate how the matter stands. I confine myself to this alteration, but hon. Members should also give their minds to the alterations which have already been made
    452
    When this Bill was in Committee my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Major Lloyd) moved an Amendment which it was not possible to accept, but I then indicated the feeling shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, that there was a special case for making some provision for the position which arises in certain parts of Scotland with regard to dwelling-houses, and particularly the poorer class of dwelling-houses, which are controlled under the Rent Restrictions Act. The provisions of that Act prevent owners recovering from the tenants increases in the owners' rates. As a result of that and other local causes, it is I am afraid only too notorious that a very considerable amount of property of that class is not only subject to a mortgage, or a bond we call it in Scotland, but is so depreciated in value that in many instances it may not be a case of the mortgage or bond representing say one half, two-thirds or three-quarters of the value, but that probably it considerably exceeds the value. The result is that owner and mortgagee or bond-holder have been for some time locked together inextricably in a situation from which they cannot escape because of the Rent Restrictions Act. Accordingly, it is a matter of very serious concern to ensure that no additional burdens should be imposed needlessly upon an owner, if the owner will, thereby, be prevented or hindered in keeping the property in repair and continuing to make it a contribution to the all-too-limited housing accommodation in the West of Scotland. From that point of view we thought it desirable that in relation to the class of property, included in the first of the two Sub-sections, in the phrase
    "tenement comprising dwelling houses the rateable value of none of which exceeds thirty-five pounds."
    The provisions of Clause 20 should enable the owner to pass on to the mortgagee or bond-holder a considerable proportion of the amount of the contribution. In the case of much of that property the only person who has a real interest in it is the mortgagee or bond-holder. The owner has become little more than a conduit pipe for passing on the rent to the mortgagee. It would obviously be unfair to ignore that position. I accept the possible criticism that this proposal, or indeed any proposal that might be made

    453
    to meet this situation, is nothing more than an experimental compromise. Wherever the line is drawn there will be cases on the wrong side of the line. I am afraid that is a thing we shall have to put up with, but I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will regard this Amendment as an attempt to meet a grievance which I fully recognise. The numerous Amendments which have been made to Clause 20 may make it necessary that the exact phraseology of this Amendment should be looked at a little more closely before the Bill is finally passed, but I have outlined the solution we suggest. The second Sub-section deals with a different point. It is a matter of machinery. Cases are common enough in Scotland— I am not sufficiently versed with English law to know whether they are common here or not—where there are two bonds which do not rank pari passu. There is a provision in the main Clause itself, but it is necessary in order to complete the scheme to make provision for the bonds to rank pari passu.
    Major Lloyd (Renfrew, Eastern): As one who has been pressing very strongly the Chancellor and the authorities in Scotland to make some concessions in the direction outlined by the Lord Advocate, I would like to express my gratitude, and I am sure it will be shared by those who are to benefit by these concessions, especially in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. We wanted more and we hoped to get more, but nevertheless we are thankful for what we have got. As the situation is studied by those concerned in Scotland, they will recognise that the Chancellor and the Lord Advocate have made a real endeavour to understand and meet the problem. I appreciate and am grateful for the consideration of the Chancellor and of the Lord Advocate in those respects.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 64, line 24, at the end, insert:
    "( ) Section thirty-five shall have effect as if—

    (i) for any reference to a county borough there were substituted a reference to a large burgh within the meaning of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929; and

    (ii) for any reference to a county district there were substituted a reference to a small burgh within the meaning of that Act;

    454
    and for the purpose of any contribution payable under the said Section a small burgh within the meaning of the aforesaid Act shall be deemed to be included within the county in which it is situated."
    In line 27, at the end, insert:
    "( ) Section thirty-nine shall have effect as if—

    (i) Sub-section (1) were omitted; and

    (ii) for references in Sub-section (2) to payment to the proper officer of the Supreme Court and of the county court there were substituted references to consignation subject to the orders of the Court of Session and of the sheriff court, respectively."—[The Lord Advocate.]

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 85.—(Application to Northern Ireland)
    Amendment made:
    In page 66, line 38, at the end, insert:
    "

    (11) In Section thirty-five—

    (a) the expression ' highway maintain able at the public expense ' means a road or street maintainable at the cost of the council of a county, county borough or urban district and includes any bridge, via duct or tunnel carrying a road or street, and any pedestrian subway or pipe subway, being a bridge, viaduct, tunnel or subway which is maintainable at the cost of such a council;

    (b) the expression ' highway authority ' means the council of a county, county borough or urban district; and

    (c) the expression ' expenses for general county purposes ' means county at large charges.

    (12) Section thirty-eight shall have effect as if in Sub-section (3) thereof for the reference to Section nine of the Administration of Estates Act, 1925, there were substituted a reference to Section fifteen of the Court of Probate Act (Ireland), 1859,—[Sir K. Wood.]

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 87.—(Amendment of2 & 3 Geo. 6, c. 34 (N.I.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 67, line 38, leave out"this Part,"and insert"Part I."
    In page 68, line 9, leave out"this Part,"and insert"Part I."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 88 and 89, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Commission not to be required to entertain claims for payment of under five pounds.)
    (1) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act, the Commission shall not be required to entertain a claim by any person for a payment in respect of war damage to a hereditament, being damage in respect of which a payment of cost of works is the appropriate payment, if the total cost of executing works on the hereditament in relation to such war damage which was incurred by him and which would apart from this provision be the subject either of a payment of cost of works or of a temporary works payment, is less than five pounds;
    Provided that, in the case of a person who has incurred such cost as aforesaid in relation to war damage sustained by the same hereditament on two or more occasions, or in executing works on two or more developed hereditaments in the same area, the whole of such cost shall be taken into account together for the purposes of this Sub-section.
    In this Sub-section the expression "area" means the area of a local authority for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act, 1936.
    (2) Notwithstanding anything in the pre ceding provisions of this Part of this Act, the Commission shall not be required to entertain a claim for a payment in respect of war damage to a hereditament not being a developed hereditament, being damage in respect of which the appropriate payment is a value payment, if the total amount of the depreciation in the value of the hereditament caused by the war damage, and of the cost of executing works on the hereditament in relation to such war damage which apart from this provision would be the subject of a temporary works payment, is less than five pounds.
    Provided that, in the case of such a hereditament which sustains war damage on two or more occasions, the said depreciation and cost attributable to the war damage occurring on those occasions respectively shall be taken into account together for the purposes of this Sub-section, and, if the hereditament also sustains war damage in respect of which a payment of cost of works is the appropriate payment, the amount of that payment shall be included in the said total for those purposes.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood:I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I have already explained this Clause, which relates to claims under £5
    Mr. Woods: I would like to say a word on behalf of a certain percentage of people who will be affected by this proposal. I think nearly all hon. Members will have had communications on this subject from people who have been paying to building societies for five or ten years and who are now in very
    456
    difficult circumstances as a result of the war. In many cases it is as much as they can do to meet the interest charges. On top of that, they have to meet the premiums. It may Happen that blast will remove the whole of the windows on one side of the house; the actual owner may not be living in it—he may be evacuated —and may not be in a position to carry out repairs. Where such cases arise, it seems to me that the parties should at least get some compensation. I appreciate the general desirability of cutting out frivolous claims, but what would otherwise seem a frivolous claim might, in these circumstances, be a very serious proposition, and the man may have to go further into debt to meet the cost of making good the damage. I should like to have some assurance on this human side of the question, for while the Committee is in general agreement with the Clause as a whole, it still seems possible that there will be cases of positive hardship, and that the whole intention of the Bill as far as these people are concerned will be frustrated.
    Sir K. Wood: I have already explained how these hardships would be mitigated by the other concessions in the Clause. I am allowing local authorities to aggregate claims in the same housing area, and I hope that the number of these claims will be reduced.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Notification of damage and claims for payments.)

    (1) Regulations may be made by the Treasury—

    (a) as to the notification of the occurrence of war damage to land, and of particulars of such damage and of the land affected thereby; and

    (b) as to the making of claims for payments under this Part of this Act, and the information to be furnished for the purpose of the investigation thereof and of the determination and ascertainment of the kind and the amount of the payment to be made in respect of any war damage and of the person entitled to receive the payment or any share thereof, and as to the manner in which such information is to be verified.

    (2) Regulations made under this Section may specify limits of time for the giving of such notification as aforesaid, for the making of such claims as aforesaid, or for the observance of the requirements of the regulations as to any other matter.

    457
    Provided that the Commission shall have power in their discretion to extend any limit of time so specified in particular cases:

    (3) Regulations made under this Section may provide for rendering the right to receive a payment under this Part of this Act, or a share of such a payment, conditional on the requirements of the regulations having been duly observed:

    Provided that the Commission shall have power to waive any of the said requirements in particular cases, and to make payments under this Part of this Act notwithstanding that any of them have not been observed.

    (4) The power to make regulations as to the matters specified in the preceding provisions of this Section shall include power to make regulations as to any of those matters in relation to war damage sustained before the coining into force of the regulations, and provision shall be made by the regulations for securing, so far as may be, that action taken before the coming into force of the regulations in relation to any of those matters shall not be required to be repeated after the coming into force thereof—[Captain Crookshank.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This new Clause brings together all the Regulations which may be made by the Treasury and which will therefore come before Parliament. Such Regulations may be made as to the notification of the occurrence of damage and as to the making of claims for payments. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) raised the point that the first notification should be quite simple as compared with the second and obviously more detailed document in regard to claims. It is provided by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause that there will first be a notification and afterwards the claim. Then Regulations may be made under Sub-section (2) specifying limits of time, and under Sub-section (3) rendering the right to receive the payment under this part of the Act conditional on the requirements of the Regulations having been observed, provided of course that there is a right of waiver in special cases. Under Subsection (4) there is power to make Regulations as to any matter in relation to war damage sustained before the coming into force of the Regulations, so as to cover cases in which claims have already been made or in which claims will be made hereafter, before the Regulations are
    458
    finally approved. I have here a whole catalogue of the different points made by hon. Members on the Regulations, and I think we have really met the probability of all of the things that they have in mind arising. Anyhow, Parliament keeps its control over the form of the Regulations.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to increase amount of value payments on Commission's report as to altered circumstances.)

    (1)If, when the discharge of value payments generally or in substantial volume has become permissible, it appears to the Commission that, having regard to any circumstances arising' since the passing of this Act, the amounts of any such payments computed as provided by section four of this Act are inadequate, the Commission shall make a report to the Treasury stating that they are of that opinion, the circumstances to which they have had regard in forming it. and the deductions which they draw there from.

    (2)On receipt from the Commission of any such report the Treasury shall consider the report, and shall have power by order to direct that the amounts of value payments which would otherwise be computed as provided by section four of this Act shall, either in all cases or in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order, be increased by a sum equal to such proportion of the amount computed as aforesaid as may be specified in the order.

    (3)An order under this section as to any value payments shall have effect in relation to any such payment whether made before or after the coming into force of the order.

    (4)The Treasury shall publish in such manner as they think fit any report made to them under subsection (1) of this section as soon as may be after they have made an order in pursuance thereof or have determined to make no order thereon.

    (5)An order under this section may be varied or revoked by any subsequent order made by the Treasury:

    Provided that no person shall be liable in consequence of an order made by virtue of this subsection to repay any sum paid to him before the coming into force thereof.

    (6)An order under this section may make provision for any such modification of the pro visions of this Act relating to the discharge of value payments, or to the computation of the interest thereon, as may appear to the Treasury to be requisite in consequence of the making of the order.

    (7)An order made under this section shall be of no effect until it has been approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.—[Sir K. Wood.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move,"That the Clause be read a Second time."
    I have already explained this Clause to-day.
    Major Milner: The Clause provides that the report of the Commission shall be published after the Treasury have made an order in pursuance thereof or have decided to make no order. I think it very desirable that the report should be published before the Treasury make their order or determine not to make an order, so that the general public may make representations upon the report. It is always difficult to obtain a reversal or a modification of an order after it has been made. The right hon. Gentleman has been very good m meeting all the objections which have been raised, and I ask him to consider whether the report might not be published before the Treasury come to a decision. The matter is clearly most important, as the right hon. Gentleman recognises.
    Sir K. Wood: I will certainly look into that.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    Mr. Douglas: How is the claimant to know whether he is entitled to a value payment or not? As I understand it, the scheme of the Bill is that the cost-of-works payment is the normal payment, but it is not to be made unless and until the work has been done.
    The Chairman: That does not arise on the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    Question put, and agreed to.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision for deduction from payment, etc., for failure to minimise damage.)

    (1)If war damage to a hereditament is in creased by failure on the part of the owner of, or any person interested in, a proprietary interest in the hereditament or any part thereof (including a mortgagee of such an interest) to take any steps for preserving the hereditament or that part thereof which he might reasonably have been expected to take after the happening of the event from which the damage re- suits, the following provisions of this Section shall have effect.

    (2)Where a value payment is to be made in respect of the war damage, both the actual depreciation in the value of the hereditament caused thereby and the depreciation that would have been caused if the damage had not been
    460
    increased as aforesaid shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections four and seven of this Act and the difference shall be deducted from the payment, or, if it is payable in two or more shares, from the share apportioned to the relevant proprietary interest:

    Provided that where the person in default was a mortgagee, if the mortgage is subsisting when the payment is discharged, the mortgagee shall be liable to account as if the payment or share had been paid in full, and. if it is not then subsisting, the payment or share shall be paid in full and an amount equal to the said difference shall be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty from the person in default.

    (3) Where a payment of cost of works is to be made in respect of the war damage the amount by which the proper cost of the works executed for making it good is increased by reason of the failure shall be determined by the Commission and that amount shall be deducted from so much (if any) of the payment as would otherwise have been payable to the person in default, and, so far as not so deducted, shall be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty from him.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause gives power to decrease the payment for damage or otherwise, to any person who has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent damage, and has, therefore, increased the extent of the damage to the property. That principle was suggested earlier, and will, I think, commend itself to the Committee. The Clause works in this way. It does not damage or prejudice in any way the claims of those persons who have not been negligent. The amount by which the damage is increased is deducted from the sum that would otherwise go to the negligent party, or if the amount of the aggravation of the damage by negligence exceeds the sum that he would receive, then it can be recovered from him as a civil debt due from him, and the amount will go to meet the just claims of the parties. I think it is a Clause which will meet with general acceptance. I might, I hope, without infringing the Rules of Order, suggest to those who were interested in the discussion just now, that the direct result of considering this Clause and its implications has some bearing perhaps on the construction of the words, giving them the wide construction it is desired.
    Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: On a point of Order. I do not know whether I shall be in order in handing in a manuscript Amendment, or whether that Amendment will be called or not.
    The Chairman: As no one else rose to speak on the main Question, I called the hon. and gallant Member in order that he might move his Amendment.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is it in order for an hon. Member to speak before you call the Amendment, or shall I be able to speak on the new Clause afterwards?
    The Chairman: If an hon. Member wishes to speak on the Clause generally, he can do so on the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," but I had already called the hon. and gallant Member who has an Amendment down, to move his Amendment.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Cause, in line 1, after the word "is," to insert "caused or."
    On the general question of this Clause the Committee ought to feel a great debt of gratitude that such a Clause has been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the Bill contains extremely few safeguards, and there is a likelihood of very large sums of the taxpayers' money being paid away unless some such safeguard as this is included in the Bill. I do not want to labour the wording of my manuscript Amendment nor to make the Clause unduly complicated, but it seems to me that if war damage to a hereditament is increased by failure, one has to realise that the war damage might equally well be caused by failure. For example, an incendiary bomb falls and does no damage at all if it is dealt with in the course of two or three minutes, or at all events certainly less than £5 worth of damage will be done, but if the bomb is allowed to get a good hold on a wooden floor or something of that kind, enormous damage may be done. I suggest that, if the words "caused or" are put in front of the word "increased," we shall have an additional safeguard, and it will make people still more careful. It is well known all over the country that a great deal of damage has been done because reasonable precautions have not been taken to prevent damage; therefore I suggest that the words "caused or"
    462
    should be put in front of the word "increased" in order to make owners of property who are mentioned quite clearly in the Clause even more careful than they are at the present time.
    The Attorney-General: I have only seen this Amendment for about two minutes, but I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend not to press it, because I think it may open up a question which we discussed before, namely, whether a person should be ruled out of the Bill altogether because he is not a fire watcher. I agree that we must have proper and adequate penalties for people who do not have fire watchers according to law, and if those penalties are not big enough, they must be increased. But if you say, "If you have no fire watcher you may lose your right to damage under this Bill," you will make it extremely difficult for the courts to deal with cases which come before them. It would be an impossible task to put it upon the Commission to inquire into all the aspects antecedent to the damage. They can inquire after the damage because at that stage the local authority is on the scene. Therefore, there are these two objections—one in principle, and one practical, to this Amendment. Another is that the Commission would have no evidence of what was happening in the building at the time a bomb descended, and while I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety that there should be appropriate and unpleasant consequences for those who do not fulfil their duty in this matter, I think the proper way is to strengthen, if required, the penalties which can be imposed if it is proved against them that they have not taken proper precautions.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: I only want to say that the Attorney-General has to a great extent convinced me, and if the effect of what he has said, and of what I rather haltingly put before the Committee, is to make people realise that they have to protect the public purse and the property of the State, so much the better. Quite recently a Minister of the Crown said, of individuals who had taken insufficient care and were guilty of contributory negligence in regard to their property, that they were "guilty of passive arson." I agree with that view, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, feeling confident that the law as it exists to-day will be sufficient to frighten

    463
    property owners into taking proper precautions for the safeguarding of their property.
    Amendment to the proposed new Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."
    Major Milner: This Clause endeavours to meet a number of points which occurred during previous Debates, but I think it contains a rather serious danger. Is it the Commission who have to decide what steps a man ought reasonably to have been expected to take in order to protect his property? Supposing my home is damaged by a bomb and the roof destroyed, is it to be considered unreasonable if I do not obtain and put on the roof a tarpaulin or a steel or wooden cover? If I happen to be unable, because of lack of means, to find the money necessary to take these steps, shall I be penalised as a result? If a person is reasonably expected to take certain steps for the protection of his property, is he to be relieved if he is unable to obtain the necessary labour or materials? Who is to be the judge in these matters? What court of appeal is there to be? There is no doubt that some provision of this nature is required, but it must be subject to every possible safeguard, for otherwise those who are perhaps not as careful as they might be about these things may be subject to serious deductions from the sum which they would otherwise receive. I suggest to the Chancellor that these questions ought to be answered, and that the public ought to know where they stand. It may be right to deduct sums because of a failure to minimise the damage, but I suggest that all leniency should be extended to those offenders and that all the relevant circumstances, including the financial circumstances of the claimant, should be taken into account. If we could receive some assurance on these lines, it might help us in coming to a decision.
    Mr. Bellenger: Enlarging the point that has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), I want to say that one can reasonably assume that owners of property will take whatever steps they can to protect their property as much as possible, for
    464
    the simple reason that they are the owners of the property. This applies more especially if they have a mortgage on the property. As the Chancellor knows, however, many of these properties have sustained slight damage and the tenants have evacuated them. There is no further income to be obtained from such properties, and the owner has to pay ground rent, mortgage interest and so forth. In such a case, probably he has no money to take even reasonable steps to protect his property. Another point which occurs to me—and perhaps the Attorney-General can give an answer on this—is more in the nature of a legal point. The provision not only throws the onus on the owner of the equity but also on any person interested in a proprietary manner in the property or in part of it—it may be a ground landlord, another lessor, or a chain of lessors. What right in law have any of these superior owners or landlords to enter on the property and do the repairs? At the present time the physical owner of the property, the equity owner, is in complete possession, and I do not know that anybody above him has a right under the common law to enter on the property and do repairs without his permission. A further point arises from this. One assumes that one of these people who is the owner of a proprietary interest is aware that the property has been damaged. He may be living near the property, or he may be living along way from it. How is it to be proved that he was aware that the property had been damaged, and therefore, could have taken the necessary steps? These points may or may not be substantial ones, but they will arise, and it would be as well to clear them up at this stage and not allow them to cause confusion later on.
    Sir I. Albery: I am in complete agreement with the principle involved in this new Clause, but I am a little anxious about the drafting. It. occurs to me that there may be some difficulty because people do not always know exactly, in the conditions under which we are existing to-day, who is the responsible owner. The Attorney-General referred back to the discussion we had on the word "direct," but as a matter of fact the omission or exclusion of a word in some of these Clauses makes a great deal of difference. I ask the Government to consider the question of including in this new Clause

    465
    the word "wilful," to make it quite clear that the penalties involved are to be imposed only for what might be termed "wilful negligence."
    Mr. Woods: There is another aspect of this question which I do not think has been considered. In many cases local authorities have bought damaged property purely for demolition purposes. We are being compelled to pay on that property, but the last thing in the world we wish to do is to waste time or further money in protecting it. The only ques-which arises in the case of this property is the dousing of any fires which may be started. The property is bought for demolition, and it cannot be expected that we shall expend further money in safeguarding or protecting it. I do not know what claims we shall eventually have, but I should like an assurance that after paying the premiums we shall, at least, have some contribution to the new property. It seems to me that unless there is some proviso in this new Clause, any claim we might have would be invalidated, because, quite properly, we should not be wasting time in protecting this class of property. I should like to have some assurance that we shall not be penalised in such cases.
    Mr. Douglas: I should like hon. Members to consider Sub-section (2) of this new Clause, which applies its provisions to cases in which a value payment is made. It seems impossible that a value payment could be increased by any neglect on the part of the owner of property, because the amount of the value payment is determined under Clause 4 as,
    "the amount by which the value of the hereditament in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of the damage is less than its value in the state in which it was immediately before the occurrence of the damage."
    Therefore there is no time limit in this computation by which the damage can be aggravated by the owner's neglect.
    The Attorney-General: My reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods) is that if the property was valueless and had been bought for demolition purposes, it was unlikely that any claim could be made for failure to keep the weather out —no doubt proper steps would be taken to see that the property did not catch fire. So far as the question put by the
    466
    hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) is concerned, I think the answer is that the value immediately after the damage would reflect the possibility of consequential damage. I will look into that, but I think that is probably the answer. Of course, there might certainly be cases in which a valuer discovered that a claimant had caused the damage to increase to such an extent as to alter the basis of payment.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an illustration of how that can be caused through the wilful negligence of some owner of a proprietary interest?
    The Attorney-General: 1 am not an expert on damage to property, but take the familiar case of a house with a skylight. The skylight could very well be covered by a tarpaulin. The local authority provides the tarpaulin, but the householder does not put it on, and, as the result, rain pours in. That goes on for week after week, and you might easily get a case in which, if the tarpaulin had been promptly put on, there would be a small amount of damage, but, through its being left open to the weather, it is almost irreparable.
    Mr. Bellenger: The local authority should complete the job and put it on themselves.
    The Attorney-General: It is not in all cases the duty of the local authority. I have done it myself. Local authorities have plenty of work to do in looking after the houses of people for whom it was not so easy as it was for me to get a tarpaulin and do the temporary repairs myself. Some people suggest that the Clause is a little too severe and that it ought to be "wilful" failure. I am not quite sure about that. This is a failure to take reasonable steps, but that question is not to be decided by the Commission. The Clause does not give the Commission a discretion to decide it finally, and it could go to the courts. If it was sough to be recovered as a debt, that may be provided for already. But I will undertake to look into the question. It may be that there is not a clear provision at present for taking a question of this kind to the courts in doubtful cases. I do not think the court, or indeed the Commission, are likely to set too severe a standard of what is reasonable, but I think it is a

    467
    salutory principle that people should realise that their compensation may be cut down if they do not take reasonable steps. There may be cases where the owner of a house, but for a provision of this kind, might think it to his interest to let the rain come in because he was going to get a cost-of-works payment.
    Major Milner: He would be running a great risk.
    The Attorney-General: This Clause is the risk that he will run, and that is why I think the principle is a sound one. It is not quite a case where the interests of the owner of property will necessarily force him to take reasonable care. It is like any other case where a risk is insured where it may be that, short of a provision of this kind, a man will say, "If I can get the money for extra damage, it does not much matter." Therefore, on the whole, I think it is better to leave it at "increased by failure." One must trust both the Commissioners and the courts, in this as in other matters, to apply a reason able standard in all circumstances. I hope I have now dealt with the various questions —
    Mr. Bellenger: There is the point about the various interests.
    The Attorney-General: I think there is a misconception there. A person interested may be a tenant for life: he is not the owner, but he is a person interested. He would normally be the person in occupation and therefore the person on whom the duty would fall. As regards those who are not on the spot— a mortgagee or a landlord who is living away—I think it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which they will be concerned with this Clause at all, because no duty is placed on them to deal with the premises. That must be the duty of the occupier. Normally they would not be on the spot at all.
    Major Milner: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said "the occupier." He means the owner, I think.
    The Attorney-General: No, I think that prima facie the duty is on the occupier.
    Mr. Douglas: Suppose the owner does the repairs in the normal course?
    The Attorney-General: Supposing that he is on the spot, then he goes round and
    468
    takes charge and is the person who is dealing with the matter, and it may well be found that he has failed to take reasonable steps. It is to some extent, as it must be, a question of fact as to which of the persons interested is the person on whom the duty falls, and therefore he may be guilty of a failure to take reasonable steps.
    Major Milner: With all respect to the Attorney-General, his reply is not, I feel, satisfactory. Obviously when he speaks of the various interests involved he is looking only at the interests of the individual on the spot, and he appears to cast some duty upon the occupier. Unless the occupier is either the owner or the mortgagee or has some other similar interest, he is under no obligation to do anything at all. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with that.
    The Attorney-General: There may be a misunderstanding, I fear. The question will be whether the person making a claim has failed to take reasonable steps which might otherwise have been taken to limit the damage. That person may be the owner or may be the occupier—if he is a weekly tenant probably he has no interest at all—or may be, though I think it is unlikely, a mortgagee in possession. The courts will have to be satisfied about the relationship of the person making the claim to the property and that he failed to take reasonable steps.
    Major Milner: The Committee are obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman who, I feel, has somewhat clarified the situation, but this is a most important matter. The Clause is, in effect, a penal one. It also, I think, operates retrospectively and may therefore cover many cases which have already taken place. Having regard to the way in which we have, in the main, agreed upon everything which has come before the Committee hitherto, I would suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should look into this again, because I am sure he desires to be fair and reasonable in the matter. I do not think it should go forth that claimants are to be penalised for every small piece of neglect which may have occurred, for one reason or another. In only the most extreme cases should the provisions of the Clause be brought into force. I hope that the

    469
    Attorney-General will look into the matter again from that point of view, because, as it is at present, the Clause might have very serious consequences, and if put into operation might cost a great deal more than would be gained by it.
    Mr. Bellenger: I support the remarks just made by my hon. and gallant Friend. I cannot even now, after listening to the Attorney-General, understand why the Clause has been put forward. His explanation seemed to show that there would not be a great possibility of cases being brought before the court to decide whether claimants had been negligent or not. As for his example of the claimant who, in order to get on a cost of works basis instead of a valuation basis, allowed deterioration to occur, I cannot see that point at all. I thought the Attorney-General said that a claimant might leave his skylight open, for the rain would pour in so that more damage would be done, and that then the claimant might get a cost of works payment. If he is to get a valuation payment it will obviously be less than the cost-of-works payment, and therefore I cannot see that the illustration was substantial and offered any reason for including the Clause.
    It all depends upon the interpretation given by the courts to the word "reasonable." I am not conversant with court practice in such a matter, but the Committee ought to have a proper explanation from the Government of why the Clause is being put in at all. In my previous remarks I think I said, and I hope I proved, that every owner who has hopes of getting benefit out of his property at some time, during or after the war, will take whatever steps he can to preserve that interest. I cannot see, therefore, that he is likely to penalise himself by what the Attorney-General called negligence. At any rate, I have not heard from the Attorney-General an illustration of what that negligence might be. He talked about his own house being supplied by the local authority with a tarpaulin to put over his skylight. I do not know whether that actually happened to him, but if so, he was taking steps to protect his own interest, probably his furniture as well as the property, for his own personal convenience. He put a tarpaulin or a piece of linoleum over the skylight for his own convenience, and that is what most occupiers would do.
    470
    The Government should look at this Clause again and make sure that, by putting it in, they are not merely hoping to catch a body of people who will not take steps to protect their own property, but that they may not be penalising many honest folk who, for reasons that any ordinary man can understand and over which they have no control, have allowed some slight, or increasing, deterioration to take place. I do not know what the interpretation of the courts may be, but such deterioration would be no real fault of the person concerned, or that they could remedy. I have already explained that many owners have not the means to take steps to stop deterioration of this kind. I hope that the proposed new Clause will not lay open the way to lots of court actions or lots of arguments before the Commission, in which case the value payment, or a considerable part of it, may be dissipated in costs. I hope also that this is not the intention of the Government, and that they will therefore take steps to look at the matter again
    Mr. Rhys Davies: 1 have seen this sort of thing actually in practice already, and I would ask the Minister to follow what happens. When a house is damaged by enemy action, the first thing an owner finds is that he cannot get anybody in the building trade to come to his aid and to put the house into such a condition that it will not deteriorate. I want the Government to understand this, because this is a very serious matter, especially to the man who owns the house in which he lives. Where a person owns a large number of cottages he has always got a contract with the builder, and the builder is in contact with him all the time and will repair his property, but I know of a little district outside Manchester where persons living in their own cottages have been completely unable to find people to repair their property and prevent its being damaged by snow and rain and wind. Can the right hon. Gentleman say that if such a person puts that argument before the Board, he will be regarded as coming within this Clause? In such a case the owner of the house simply goes to the builder, and the builder replies, "I cannot spare a slater or a plasterer or a joiner," and so the house deteriorates, but the owner will not be able to produce a single document to prove that he has done his best to prevent the house deteriorating.

    471
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point.
    Sir K. Wood: I will take into consideration what has been said, but I must say that I do not think there has been expressed here this afternoon the views held by a very large number of people in this country, if I am to judge from communications sent to me. My hon. Friend said that all owners were taking precautions. I think he had better make some inquiries in the City concerning that. He would have a very different story told him, as many of us know. Already we have had experience of a certain amount of damage that has been caused through people failing to take precautions which they ought to take, not only in their own interests, but in the interests of other people. A lot of people have written to me in most indignant terms and pressed me very strongly indeed. I want my hon. Friend to realise that this deals only with cases of negligence. In the case that he has cited it would not be held that a person was negligent. I will, however, see whether any further improvement can be made. That has been my attitude in regard to this Bill all the time. We will study the points that have been mentioned and, if necessary, make further suggestions.
    Earl Winterton: While I sympathise with a good deal that has been said by my hon. Friend on this side of the Committee and think there is a great deal in what he said, there is also a good deal in what the Chancellor said. I would like to go further than the Chancellor could go and argue against those who may be described as my own class—the property owners. I am sorry to say there is some evidence to show that certain owners of property, great or small, are only too anxious to see their property destroyed in order to get compensation. We have to remember that, because that to some extent nullifies the disadvantages that my hon. Friend sees in this particular proposal.
    Mr. Bellenger: I should like to say that if such is the case, particularly in the City of London, and if, because of neglect of owners which they themselves could remedy, damage is being caused not only to their own property but to others, I have not the slightest sympathy with
    472
    them. All I am concerned with is the case of people like myself, if I may say so, who are only too willing to do what they can but whose means are limited.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE —(Temporary use or occupation of land owing to war to bed is regarded for purposes of contribution.)
    Where the normal use or occupation of any land is such that it would fail within paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section sixteen of this Act, then if and so long as it is temporarily diverted from such use or occupation by reason of circumstances arising from war, the land shall be deemed for the purposes of Sections fifteen and sixteen of this Act to be used or occupied as it is normally used or occupied.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause enables the temporary use or occupation of land owing to the war to be disregarded for purposes of contribution. By Clause 16, Sub-section (3) agricultural land pays a contribution at the 6d. rate. The question has been raised of agricultural land being temporarily used for non-agricultural purposes owing to the war; for example, a barn being used for refugees. Despite the diversion of the land from its normal use it would still be liable to the ordinary agricultural rate of 6d., and this new Clause makes that point plain.
    Mr. Douglas: I assume that this Clause applies to cases where land is requisitioned by authority, and not to cases where the owner, for his own profit and benefit, diverts it to some other purpose? I do not know whether the wording makes that fact clear, but I think a distinction ought to be drawn.
    Sir K. Wood: I am not sure about that, but I will look into it. If an owner of land did divert his property in that way I do not think that he should be able to use his right under the scheme. Of course, it does not make a person any more beneficent to the nation if he, compulsorily, uses his property in a certain way, but on the other hand if it is being used as the

    473
    hon. Member has suggested, the point should be taken note of.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Air raid shelters.)

    (1)Works executed by a local authority for making good war damage to an air-raid shelter (in this section referred to as "a shelter"), shall not be the subject of a payment of cost of works or of a temporary works payment—

    (a) if the shelter is a building or structure erected by a local authority as a shelter, in respect of the erection whereof a grant was payable to the local authority either under the Air Raid Precautions Act, 1937, or by the Minister of Home Security out of moneys provided by Parliament (otherwise than under section twenty-two of the Civil Defence Act, 1939); or

    (b) if the shelter is comprised in a building and there were executed by a local authority works (being works in respect of the execution whereof a grant was payable as aforesaid) for the purpose of the provision of the shelter, so far as regards works the purpose of the execution whereof is the provision of a shelter.

    (2)Works executed by a local authority for making good war damage to a shelter shall not be the subject of a payment of cost of works or of a temporary works payment if the shelter is a building or structure which was elected by any person wholly or mainly with materials provided on behalf of His Majesty under the Air Raid Precautions Act, 1937, free of charge.

    (3) No value payment shall be made in respect of a hereditament consisting of any such building or structure as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section or in subsection (2) thereof, or which consists of a building or structure erected, wholly at the expense of the Board of Education, for the purpose of affording air raid shelter to pupils attending a school or educational institution, and so much (if any) of the value of a here ditament as is attributable to its comprising 0r being in the vicinity of—

    (a)a building or structure as to which the conditions specified in paragraph (a) or

    (b)of the said subsection (1) or in the said subsection (2) are satisfied; or

    (b) a building or structure erected, wholly at the expense of the Board of Education, for the purpose aforesaid; or

    (c) a shelter comprised in a building, being a shelter the works necessary for the provision whereof were executed wholly at the expense of the Board of Education;

    shall be disregarded.

    (4)Any question arising in giving effect to the provisions of this section shall be deter mined by the Commission.

    (5)In this section— the expressions "air raid shelter" and "an air raid shelter" have the same meanings as in the Civil Defence Act, 1939;
    474
    the expression "local authority" means the Common Council of the City of London, the council of a metropolitan borough, the council of a county, county borough or county district, or the Council of the Isles of Scilly.—[Captain Crookshank.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The object of this Clause is to remove from the scope of the Bill for contribution of compensation, air-raid shelters provided by local authorities at the expense of the Exchequer. I think that this is a commonsense proposition, like so many others in the Bill.
    Major Milner: I think we should like some explanation of this Clause from the point of view of who, in this case, will pay for the damage. Will the Treasury make a grant?
    Captain Crookshank: The Government will pay.
    Major Milner: I am obliged for that explanation, because the municipal authorities are very dissatisfied with regard to financial grants in respect of air-raid shelters. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, up to 19th October only a proportion of the expenditure was paid to the active municipal authorities who erected the air-raid shelters, and the laggards who had not troubled to erect shelters in the early days but who erected them since 19th October last year are receiving 100 per cent, from the Treasury. As I understand it, where the Treasury have contributed, whether it be in part or in whole, they would presumably contribute in the future in whole to the cost of reinstatement or re-erection of the air-raid shelters. I would like it to be made clear, if it is the case, that the whole cost of any reinstatement or re-erection will be borne by the State under the ordinary provisions with regard to air-raid shelters and not in any way in connection with this Bill.
    Captain Crookshank: There may be a difference between those two points of view, but I can say that the Association of Municipal Corporations has seen and discussed this matter and took no objection to it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE—(Shooting, fishing and other rights.)

    (1) An instalment of contribution becoming due in any year in respect of a contributory property consisting of such rights over any land as are mentioned in Section six of the Rating Act, 1874, shall in all cases be paid by the direct contributor in respect of the instalment of contribution for that year on the contributory property comprising the land, and the provisions of this Act relating to the recovery and ultimate incidence of instalments of contribution shall apply as if the instalment on the rights formed part of the instalment on the land:

    Provided that where the land is comprised in more than one contributory property—

    (a) i the same person is not the direct contributor in respect of all the contributory properties comprising the land, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, in consultation with the rating authority for the area in which those properties are situated, shall apportion to each property or group of properties having a separate direct contributor such proportion of the instalment on the rights as, having regard to the contributory values of the properties, they may deter mine;

    (b) the Commissioners, in consultation with the authority aforesaid, shall, on the application of any person interested as, or as a mortgagee of, a direct or indirect contributor in respect of any of the properties, certify the proportion of the instalment on the rights which, having regard to the contributory values of the properties, is apportionable to the property in question,

    and the provisions of this sub-section, other than the proviso thereto, shall apply as if the proportion of the instalment on the rights apportioned, or certified to be apportionable, to any of the properties were an instalment in respect of such rights as aforesaid over land wholly comprised in that property.

    (2) An instalment of contribution on a contributory property consisting of such rights as aforesaid shall be payable, notwithstanding that at the relevant date the rights no longer subsist, or are no longer severed from the land.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause covers cases in which the sporting or shooting rights are assessed separately under the Act of 1874 because they are in hands other than those of the occupier of the soil. The Clause provides that the contribution in respect of those rights shall be paid by the contributor in respect of the soil, which I think is ob-
    476
    viously right as the Committee will see in considering the two following parallel cases. In the case of a property of which the annual value is £200, including the sporting rights, the contribution is levied on that figure and covers the sporting rights as well. If the sporting rights are separate and are worth £20, £180 will be left on the occupier of the soil. As the compensation in respect of damage will go to the owner of the soil, it seems right that he should make the contribution in respect of the two interests when they are separate as well as when they are in the same hands. A proviso is added to cover cases in which sporting rights are in the hands of a third party when the land is comprised in more than one contributory property.
    Question "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.
    Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, in line 3, after "shall," to insert "subject to the provisions of this section,".
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has explained this and the following Amendments on the Paper to the proposed new Clause, so I need not bother the House with any details. In fact, he has recommended the Chancellor's Clause with my Amendments inserted.
    Amendment to the proposed new Clause agreed to.
    Further Amendments made to the proposed new Clause:
    In line 26, at the end, insert:
    "( ) Where a direct contributor in respect of a contributory property who would be under a liability under the last preceding subsection to pay an instalment, or an apportioned part of an instalment, on any such rights as are mentioned in that subsection proves that the contributory value of the property took into account the value of all or any of the rights, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall give to the contributor such relief, by way of reducing or discharging the said liability, as appears to them just having regard to the extent to which the rights were taken into account as aforesaid."
    In line 27, at the beginning, insert:
    "Subject to the provisions of the last preceding subsection."—[Sir G. Courthope.]
    Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Indemnities payable and recoverable notwithstanding agreements to contrary.)
    The provisions of this Part of this Act and of the Fourth Schedule thereto relating to the payment and recovery of indemnities in respect of the liability of a director indirect contributor in respect of an instalment of contribution shall have effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, whether made before or after the instalment became due— [Sir K. Wood.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is introduced to meet an objection raised by my hon. Friend opposite to the effect that the power to "contract out" under Clause 23 might be abused by a mortgagee. It was suggested that a mortgagee might force a mortgagor to accept an unfavourable agreement, and this new Clause, covers not only Clause 19 and the Fourth Schedule, but also covers Clause 22.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Assignment of proceedings arising under this Act to special judges)

    (1)The Lord Chancellor may nominate such number of judges of the High Court as appears to him to be expedient as nominated judges for the purposes of this Act.

    (2)Subject to rules of court, and to any power of transfer from one judge to another, any proceedings in the High Court for the enforcement of any right conferred by this Act shall, so far as is practicable, be heard and determined by one or more, as the case may require, of the nominated judges, and if in any proceedings in the High Court an issue arises which involves the determination of the construction or effect of this Act, the court or a judge thereof may, in accordance with and subject to rules of court, direct that the proceedings be heard and determined as afore said.—[The Attorney-General.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    The Attorney-General: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The Committee are probably aware that under certain Statutes there are provisions by which cases which come to court under those Statutes are heard by certain nominated judges. That is a very convenient procedure, because the judges become familiar with the terms of the Statute. This Clause enables the Lord
    478
    Chancellor to nominate for the hearing of cases under this Act such judges of the High Court as appear to him expedient. We do not move this Clause in anticipation of a flood of litigation: we hope that it will be possible to work this Measure without undue resort by parties to the courts; but this is a useful power for the Lord Chancellor to have.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Restriction on disclosure of information)

    (1)No information relating to any individual business, being information which has been obtained by, or on behalf of, any person for the purposes of his functions under this Act shall, without the previous consent in writing of the owner for the time being of that business, be published or disclosed other wise than in connection with the execution or for the purposes of this Act or any order, regulation or scheme having effect by virtue of this Act.

    (2)Nothing in the preceding Sub-section shall apply to any disclosure of any information made for the purposes of any legal proceedings pursuant to this Act (including any appeal or reference under Section seven or ten thereof) or of any criminal proceedings which may be taken whether pursuant to this Act or otherwise, or for the purposes of any report of any such proceedings as aforesaid.

    (3)If any person discloses any information in conravention of this Section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.—[Sir K. Wood.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This, again, is to meet points which have been raised. It was suggested on the Committee stage that there should be some safeguard against disclosure of information.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE —(Power to enter Premises)

    (1) A member of the Commission or any person authorised in writing by the Commission may, on producing, if so required, his authority, or in the case of a member of the

    479
    Commission sufficient documentary evidence of his identity, enter at all reasonable hours any premises on which war damage has occurred or on which he has reasonable ground for believing war damage to have occurred, for the purpose of obtaining information as to the nature and extent of the damage, as to the state in which the premises were immediately before, or immediately after, the occurrence of the damage, as to any works executed for the purpose of making good the damage or for temporarily meeting the circumstances created thereby, as to any articles which formed part of the premises and become available as materials in consequence of the damage, as to whether any conditions imposed by the Commission under this Part of this Act have been observed, or as to any other matter as to which information may be reasonably required by the Commission for the purpose of the exercise of any of their functions:

    Provided that if the premises are occupied, admission thereto shall not be demanded as of right unless twenty-four hours notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier.

    (2) Any person who wilfully obstructs a member of the Commission or a person authorised by them in the exercise of powers conferred on him by this Section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.—[Sir K. Wood.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    It will be necessary for the staff of the Commission to enter premises which have suffered war damage, in order to make inspections and to carry out their duties under the scheme.
    Question put, and agreed to
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Variation of rate of premium under private chattels scheme with amount of indemnity provided)
    The premiums prescribed for insurance under the private chattels scheme may be such as to secure that the rate of premium varies in such manner as may be prescribed for any prescribed increase in the amount insured by any person.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This simply follows the procedure which I outlined earlier to-day, and gives power to vary the rate of premium.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to regulations and orders)

    (1) Any regulations made under this Act by the Treasury and any order made thereunder by the Board of Trade shall, as soon as may be after the making thereof, be laid before Parliament, and if either House of Parliament within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which any such regulations or order are or is laid before it resolves that the regulations or order be annulled, the regulations or order shall there upon become void, without prejudice, however, to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new regulations or a new order.

    In reckoning any such period of twenty-eight days as aforesaid, 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.

    (2)Notwithstanding anything in Sub-section (4) of Section one of the Rules' Publication Act, 1893, regulations made under this Act by the Treasury shall be deemed not to be, or to contain, statutory rules to which that Section applies.

    (3)Any order made under this Act by the Board of Trade may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order so made and subject to the like conditions as the original order.—[Sir K. Wood.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This is a drafting Amendment, following upon an undertaking that I gave.
    Sir Joseph Nall: I suppose it is not intended to deal by way of regulation with such questions as the liability of owners in the case of wilful neglect to undertake repairs?
    Sir K. Wood: No, we should not have power to do that.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE —(Liability of Northern Ireland government departments as mortgagees)

    (1)A department of the Government of Northern Ireland shall be under the same liabilities as mortgagee of a direct or indirect contributor as a subject of the realm.

    (2)Section twenty of this Act shall, in its application to a contributory property which is subject to a charge created in respect of the repayment of an advance under the Acts relating to land purchase in Northern Ireland, have effect subject to the following modifications:—

    481

    (a)any reference to the amount secured by the mortgage shall be construed as a reference to the amount necessary to redeem the outstanding instalments of the purchase annuity payable in respect of the advance;

    (b)any reference to the mortgagee shall be construed as a reference to the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland;

    (c)paragraph (b) of Sub-section (7) shall not apply.—[Sir K. Wood.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This deals with the liability of Northern Ireland Government Departments as mortgagees, and makes provision as to their liability.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
    NEW CLAUSE.—(Wages and conditions of employment for works the subject of payments under Part I.)

    (1)The Commission may specify requirements as to contracts for the execution of works, the cost of which may be the subject of a. payment of cost of works or the execution of which may be the subject of an undertaking required in relation to the receipt of a value payment by virtue of section eight of this Act, and requirements as to the engagement of employees by persons undertaking directly the execution of such works, for securing that the wages and conditions of employment of persons employed in the execution thereof are regulated in like manner as those of persons employed in the execution of works under contracts made by Government departments.

    (2)Such requirements as aforesaid shall be observed, as a condition of the right to receive the payment of cost of works or as a term of the undertaking, as the case may be, in such cases as the Commission may specify generally by notice published in such manner as they think best for informing persons likely to be affected and in any other cases in which the Commission require observance thereof by notice given or sent to the claimant for the payment in question.—[Mr. Douglas.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Douglas: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    The object of the Clause is to secure the application of fair wages conditions, and I think it requires no explanation.
    Sir K. Wood: I am prepared to accept the Clause.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill
    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Procedure of the War Damage Commission.]
    Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 69, line 27, at the end, to insert
    "including the manner in which, and the officers of the Commission by whom, questions subject to determination by the Commission under this Act are to be determined and the manner in which determinations made by officers acting in any locality are to be subject to review by a deputy commissioner or other superior officer or by members of the Commission."
    I stated that I contemplated that the Commission would have to delegate to officers at centres in the provinces powers to settle small claims, and that it might be necessary for me to move an Amendment to enable the Commission to do that, and for officers to be appointed if necessary. That is the object of this Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 69, line 30, after the first "such," insert "deputy commissioners and."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Second Schedule agreed to.
    THIRD SCHEDULE —(Payments under Part I in cases of repeated damage)
    Amendment made: In page 72, line 25, leave out paragraph 5.—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    FOURTH SCHEDULE.
    Amendment made: In page 74, line 27, column 1, at the beginning, insert "5 or more, but."—[Sir K. Wood.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Fifth Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, in Committee and on Recommittal, considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

  ALIENS (TREATMENT ON SHIPS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]
  Mr. Wedgwood: About five weeks ago I received from the Governor-General of Australia a letter covering a letter from Bishop Tucker, and including a report

  483
  drawn up by the Society of Friends and others, who had visited refugee camps in Australia, concerning the passage of the steamship "Dunera" loaded with 2,400 refugees from this country to Australia. By the same mail I received a consider able number of other letters, including cuttings from newspapers. I mention that because I think two things are to be re corded at once: in the first place, that a certain amount of publicity has been given to this report already in Australia, and secondly, that the reaction in Australia was extremely creditable to that country, to the Press and to the public here. They felt very strongly what occurred on the journey to be a slur upon this country—
  It being the hour appointed for the Interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put—
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart. ]
  Mr. Wedgwood: It was also felt that the Government in this country ought to do something to put the matter right at the earliest moment. I took the correspondence to the Secretary of State for the Dominions, and he advised me to take it to the Home Office. Thence it went to the War Office and, immediately, the Secretary of State for War decided to appoint a Court of Inquiry into the whole affair, the court to be appointed as soon as the people who were charged with the responsibility for what happened, got to this country. I need not go fully into the case, which is very unpleasant. Sufficient is it to say that the refugees on board the "Dunera" were mostly Jews belonging to Class C, that is to say, friendly Jews. There were 2,400 in a ship which was suitable for carrying only half that number; they were robbed by the soldiers in charge and battened down, being allowed up on deck only on certain occasions. In fact conditions were both unjust and inhuman on board that ship, especially so, as it was reported to me, that in the other ship which went to Australia conditions were unpleasant but quite in accordance with what one would expect from the British Army and British traditions.
  This Court of Inquiry has not yet been set up and I want to urge on His Majesty's
  484
  Government the need for three things. In the first place, I think there must be a certain degree of publicity; at least, the findings of the court must be published. Only that will satisfy public opinion in Australia and in this country. It will do good because it is important that we should show the world that when anything of this sort has been done by people in British service, direct action is taken by this House and by the Government in order to prevent it happening again, to punish the offenders and to compensate the victims. I believe publicity is possible in a democratic country and it is certainly desirable. Do not let this be a hole-and-corner affair, so that anybody can charge us with the desire of trying to conceal what is unpleasant in our conduct. We must show the world that we are not afraid of people knowing what has happened and what steps the Government have actually taken. Therefore, publicity is extremely important. 1 would also urge that there should be on the court not merely officials of the Government but some independent person of judicial mind, whose report will carry weight. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, I think there should be evidence given not only from the defendants' point of view, but from the point of view of the victims themselves. I do not think it is enough simply to take sworn statements. Steps should be taken to return to this country at once a certain number of refugees who have suffered so that they can be cross-examined on their sworn statements—although I know this will delay the findings of the Court of Inquiry—and so that they may have the satisfaction of feeling that their side of the case has been stated as well as it could be in the circumstances. Whether, in addition to this, there should be representation of the victims by lawyers, I do not know, but I am certain that mere sworn statements should not be considered sufficient and that, even at the cost of delay, some of these people should be brought back to give evidence. As to the terms of reference, it is very important that the Court of Inquiry should deal not merely with the rights and wrongs of the case and whether punishment of any sort is required, but also make recommendations for the compensation of the people who have been robbed. They cannot be compensated for the inhumanity, but they can be compensated for the injustice, and

  485
  the watches, wedding rings and money that have been taken from them should, as far as possible, be restored to them. I think this must come within the purview of the Court of Inquiry.
  There is one small action that ought to be taken before the Court of Inquiry is held. Some steps ought to be taken to get some money to these refugees who are now penniless in Australia. To have no money even to buy razor blades, cigarettes, newspapers or postage stamps is a terrible position for them. Their money has been taken from them. I think the Government might arrange for them to have some small sum each week pending the decision of the Court of Inquiry. This would certainly make life easier for them, and I believe it would have a very good effect in Australia if something of this sort were done. People in Australia constantly visit these camps now. They are looking after their duty to the refugees in Australia much better than we have done here. They have constantly in their minds their duty to these friendly aliens. If some small cash allowance could be made to these people immediately as an instalment on any claims they may have, it would have a very good effect.
  But there is more involved now. Since the case of the "Dunera" going to Australia, there has been the casex2014;not equally shocking, but shocking—of the "Ettrick" going to Canada. I have not seen sworn statements regarding the "Ettrick," but the accounts I have heard really call for an inquiry as well. I do not know what steps the Government are taking to get any evidence about the "Ettrick." The officers are here and the Government know their side of the case. The one statement containing details which I have had about the "Ettrick" was signed and was in the form of a diary. It was very unpleasant reading, but when I thought of sending it to the War Office, I was immediately told that it could not be used. There is a not unnatural nervousness on the part of these people. I ask that when the case of the "Dunera" is being inquired into, something should be said and done about the "Ettrick" at the same time, and that any steps taken in the case of the "Dunera" should also be taken in the case of the "Ettrick."
  I do not want the House to imagine for one moment that either the case of the
  486
  "Dunera" or the "Ettrick" are typical of what goes on on board our ships. You always have a few brutes in every Service. Fortunately, we can deal with them in this country, not as in Germany. The British soldier and officer, particularly in the Pioneer Corps, are behaving almost with affection towards these unfortunate refugees. Commandants in camps here are being extremely British. But we do get these bad cases, and if we stamp on them we stop them elsewhere. I am afraid that there may be even now in ships upon the seas, conveying Italian prisoners, for instance, to South Africa or India, the same sort of thing happening. Steps ought to be taken right away to show the Government's determined disapproval of this sort of thing, and to make it quite clear to any military in charge of prisoners or refugees, wherever they may be, that any inhumanity, robbery or "souvenir-ing," as it is called, is criminal and will be sternly punished. It is because all of us in this House uphold, as best we can, the honour of this country, that these questions have to be brought up. It is because we bring them up here that these cases are rare. I beg the Government to take advantage of the fact that we are still a free democracy where these things can be brought up, and to make quite certain, by expressing publicly their detestation and horror, that such things do not occur again.
  The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law):My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) has spoken on this rather disagreeable matter with great moderation and great feeling. I rather wish that it had not been necessary to have a Debate, even a short one, upon this subject, because I would not like the idea to get about that there was any division between the views of my right hon. Friend and the views of the Government, if these allegations were proved to be true. My right hon. Friend said that he wished the Government would state its detestation of these occurrences. It is impossible to say anything specific while this matter is still sub judice, and it would be unfair to do so. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will find that the Government, if these allegations should be proved, would detest them quite as much as he. My right hon. Friend devoted the earlier part of his

  487
  remarks to an appeal for the fullest possible publicity to be given to any inquiry there might be on the case of the "Dunera." I wish I could persuade him that that is not necessarily the right attitude to follow in a case of this kind. My right hon. Friend said perfectly truly that this was a democratic country and that in a democracy the fullest possible publicity was required. It is perfectly true that this is a democratic country, but, unfortunately, it is not a democratic world, and if the allegations are proved to be well-founded, I can foresee certain definite disadvantages in washing our dirty linen in public in a world which contains enemies as well as friends.
  My right hon. Friend also said he was quite certain the case of the "Dunera" was not typical or characteristic of what has been happening. To publish every detail of any inquiry that could be made, would be construed in enemy countries and in enemy propaganda, as an admission of guilt, not applying to a particular case, but generally to the British character and the British way of waging a war. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that that is extremely undesirable. When he first brought up the case, the Secretary of State said that certain preliminary investigations were in hand and when they were completed he would know whether or not there was a prima facie case for inquiry and he promised if a prima facie case were established that inquiry there should be. I want to comment to the very minimum on the case at the present moment, but I can tell the House that these preliminary investigations have been completed; that there is a case for inquiry and, furthermore, it is clear that some, if not all of these internees on that ship, have suffered loss. Those two things have been established by the preliminary inquiry so far as it has gone.
  I am going to say a word about the Court of Inquiry. If we establish a Court of Inquiry it will be held in secret and it may be months before it completes its inquiry. In fact, it may prove impossible to complete it until the end of the war. Essential witnesses may have to be gathered from every corner of the globe. They are not only in Australia. Some are in India, some in Africa and some at the moment are sailing the tropical seas. To wait until all these wit-
  488
  nesses are gathered before the Court of Inquiry might take months or longer. It might be impossible while the war is going on, but I am informed by the Judge Advocate-General that it may be possible— he cannot give me an assurance—to institute court-martial proceedings without the establishment of this Court of Inquiry. If that should prove to be possible, I suggest that it is a more realistic fulfilment of the pledge of the Secretary of State than to hold an inquiry which might carry on for months.
  With regard to compensation, if a Court of Inquiry is held it will carry on for a very long time, and if we fulfil our original intention of waiting until the Court has completed its proceedings before considering the question of compensation, that would have the effect of putting these unfortunate people into a very difficult and even impossible position. They might have to wait until the end of the war before any compensation was paid. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend has decided that that would be an impossible course to follow and he is going to see what steps he can take to provide a much more immediate reparation for these people in Australia without waiting for the result of any Court or any disciplinary action that may be taken here. I cannot say at this moment exactly what steps we can take, but I think I can say that we will tee that the compensation is made as expeditiously and as justly as is possible. There will be no waiting for the collection of evidence before this is done. It may prove to be a little costly to the Ex chequer, but we have thought, and I feel quite rightly, that in a case of this kind it is better to clear our good name, even if it is perhaps a little expensive, than to wait and have this business dragging on for monhs with quite unjustifiable reflections upon our good name and character in the meanwhile. I hope I have said enough—
  Earl Winterton: I hope the hon. Gentleman will deal with the part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was concerned with the future. I would suggest that he should give an assurance that the most strict instructions will be given to officers and men in charge of all prisoner-ships that it is a military offence which will be severely punished for them to "swop"—to use a

  489
  schoolboy term—any articles with prisoners or to buy any articles from prisoners or sell to them.
  Mr. Law: If it has not already been made perfectly clear to officers, guards and crews on those ships, I think I can say that it will definitely be made clear, and that everything will be done to see that the instruction is not ignored and that there is no repetition of unpleasant incidents of the kind referred to. I hope the House will feel that by the steps taken to provide immediate compensation for those who have sufferedx2014;when I say "immediate" I do not mean at this moment but in a very short time—and the steps taken to see that where disciplinary action is merited it is meted out, the War Office have dealt with this matter as hon. Members would wish it to be dealt with, and in a way which will clear the good name of this country from any imputations that may have been put upon it. With regard to the "Ettrick," which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend, as that was not to be the subject of this Debate, I cannot say very much about it without more notice, but I can say that the same principles which have actuated us in this case will move us in that one, and that we shall act as quickly as we can.
  Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the whole House will feel relieved and thankful for the spirit in which the Financial Secretary has dealt with this most delicate, difficult and painful subject. I am very glad also that he was able to give the assurance he did in reply to the Noble Lord. I am sure that all who are troubled about what has happened owe a debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) for the way in which he has raised this very difficult matter and the confidence he expressed in the general spirit of justice in the authorities of the British Army, a spirit which I feel certain will be shown in the proceedings which are to take place. As one of
  490
  those Members who have received a number of letters from internees and friends of internees, I should like to say how widespread will be the thankfulness among those poor people at the statement that reparation is to be made. I am sure that will be deeply appreciated, and that they will appreciate even more than any monetary compensation the spirit in which the matter has been dealt with by the Government this afternoon. On behalf of many who cannot speak here I should like to thank the Financial Secretary and the Government for their attitude.
  Mr. Mander: In reference to that part of the speech of my hon. Friend in which he spoke of the question of the "Ettrick," I was glad to learn that he is thinking of dealing with it on the same principle. I have had the opportunity of reading a number of statements which have been sent in by refugees who have come back into this country. Something like 300 of these refugees are available here to give evidence, and many of them are prepared to say exactly what happened. I have sent these statements to the War Office, and I know that they are being considered at the present time. I hope that, by court of inquiry or possibly by court-martial, suitable action will be taken.
  To one thing which has arisen in this connection I would call attention, and that is that some of the lower grade officials concerned have been saying to internees who have come back: "You had better keep your mouth shut or you may get into trouble; you may get interned again." I hope that the Government will take an early opportunity of saying that there is not the slightest foundation for any statement of that kind, and that if any of the refugees feel that they would like to give evidence or are asked to do so, they are perfectly free to do so in this free country.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to

  LIMITATION OF SUPPLIES.
  LIMITATION OF SUPPLIES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
  PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
  BARRACKS (SCOTLAND).
  BARRACKS (SCOTLAND).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (INQUIRY).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS (INQUIRY).
  INVALIDS (LEAVE).
  INVALIDS (LEAVE).
  RATIONS.
  RATIONS.
  SWILL.
  SWILL.
  GERMAN AND ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  GERMAN AND ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PETROLEUM OFFICE, CAMBRIDGE (STAFF).
  PETROLEUM OFFICE, CAMBRIDGE (STAFF).
  TRANSFERRED WORKERS, GREENOCK.
  TRANSFERRED WORKERS, GREENOCK.
AGRICULTURE.
  WOMEN'S WAGES, SUSSEX
  WOMEN'S WAGES, SUSSEX
  SURPLUS PRODUCTION
  SURPLUS PRODUCTION
CIVIL DEFENCE.
  COMMUNAL FEEDING CENTRES.
  COMMUNAL FEEDING CENTRES.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.
PALESTINE.
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION.
  WAILING WALL.
  WAILING WALL.
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.
  SIR ROBERT VANSITTART (BROADCASTS).
  SIR ROBERT VANSITTART (BROADCASTS).
  BROADCAST ANNOUNCEMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  BROADCAST ANNOUNCEMENTS (SCOTLAND).
  WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION.
  WAR DAMAGE COMPENSATION.
FOOD SUPPLIES
  PEAS.
  PEAS.
  FLOUR (CALCIUM).
  FLOUR (CALCIUM).
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Act to the

Borough of Bebington,

Borough of Chard,

County Borough of Eastbourne,

Urban District of Shipley,

Urban District of Witham:

Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and ordered to lie on the Table.

CAMBORNE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed.
MID-SOUTHERN UTILITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
PORTSMOUTH WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:)
BOROUGH OF HONITON ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF LONG EATON ORDER.
CITY AND COUNTY OF KINGSTON-UPON-HULL ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF LEIGHTON BUZZARD ORDER.
URBAN DISTRICT OF MILFORD HAVEN ORDER.
RURAL DISTRICT OF WINCANTON ORDER.

URBAN DISTRICT OF WYMONDHAM ORDER.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I beg to move that the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House, be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House, be approved(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to call attention to the casualties on the roads; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, before the war we had several debates in this House on the subject of accidents on the roads. Great concern was felt about the mounting list of casualties, and this House appointed a Select Committee to go into the whole problem. The gravity of the position then is, I think, made quite clear if I remind your Lordships of the figures of casualties. In the year 1938 there were 6,600 killed on the roads, and 220,000 injured; of the latter 50,000 were seriously injured. The Committee over which Lord Alness presided had these facts before them, described the situation as creating a problem of great magnitude, and in their closing paragraph spoke of the holocaust on the roads to-day as nothing less than appalling. The Committee produced a most valuable Report with something like 170 recommendations in it. The Report was received very favourably and I think there was every chance that the Government would have accepted and acted upon many of those recommendations.
Then there came the outbreak of war, and of course the majority of the proposals of this Report inevitably had to be shelved to a more convenient time. But the outbreak of war brought to many the hope that almost automatically there would be a decrease in the number of casualties on the roads. The number of cars on the road was fewer, many people laid up their cars for the sake of economy,

461
others had to go away to take their part in the national cause, and later on the petrol rationing restricted the area which was covered by the cars that were still in use. Moreover, roads had been carefully marked with white lines for the safety of those travelling on them and there seemed to be good hope that with the great decrease in the number of cars on the roads there would also be a decrease in the number of casualties. But the figures for the first month of the war gave a severe shock to all those who had indulged in these optimistic predictions. In the first month of the war the number of fatal casualties was doubled, and although the very high figures of the first month of the war were not the rule afterwards, yet casualties month by month since the war started have been considerably in excess of the worst figures previous to the outbreak of war.
Let me remind your Lordships of figures which you already know. Last year 8,597 were killed on the roads and 972 of those were children under the age of fifteen. Think of the misery and sorrow caused by that to nearly a thousand homes in this country. In the last four months of last year the figures were even worse. In those four months 4,380 were killed and of those 496 were children. Last month, in January, there was a considerable and welcome drop in the number of fatal accidents. The number of persons killed fell to 741, of whom 63 were children. But it must be borne in mind that in various parts of the country last month it was impossible to use the roads for motor traffic. I do not like using exaggerated language but these figures reveal a shameful and horrible state of affairs on the roads. Yet these figures, bad as they are, do not tell the whole story. These figures tell us nothing about the nonfatal accidents which took place on the roads. Previous to the war, month by month we were told not only of the fatal accidents but also of the non-fatal accidents. These returns still have to be made to the police when accidents take place but for some reason these figures are not given to us. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government, why these figures are not given and whether these figures could not be given in the future.
Supposing the proportions are the same now as they were before the war of non-fatal
462
accidents and fatal accidents, the figure is a very serious one. When these figures were given to us they showed that for every one person who was killed on the road there were thirty who were injured and for every one who was killed on the road there were eight who were seriously injured. I do not know, of course, if these proportions are true today, but if these proportions still hold good it means that we ought to add to the 8,600 killed 250,000 injured, of whom 70,000 are seriously injured. This is happening at a time when we are rightly exhorted on every side that we should preserve and make the very best use of the man-power of the country. This loss of life goes on week by week. I cannot help contrasting this with a figure which was given to your Lordships' House some weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Croft. He was giving us the figures of the first phase of the Libyan campaign. He told us that that most remarkable victory, for which our church bells ought to have been ringing, which ended in the capture of Sidi Barrani, cost, I think, 73 lives. We lose that number of lives in three days on our roads in Great Britain.
I do not think I need say more about the gravity of the position. I think that will be recognised by everyone. I want now to go on to say something of the causes and the remedies. I think we are all agreed that one of the chief causes is the black-out. I am not going to question the necessity of the black-out. The military authorities are convinced, and I have on doubt rightly convinced, that it is absolutely necessary. I am not therefore suggesting any kind of modification of the black-out. But over half of the accidents occur during the black-out and I think therefore than an appeal should be made in the strongest possible way that only those motorists who have to be out during the black-out should use the roads then. It is hardly fair that those who have to drive great lorries in the night on necessary business should have to thread their way through traffic which sometimes no doubt is unnecessary. I imagine it to be impossible to enforce any regulations saying that only those who are on necessary business should use the roads during the black-out—it would be so difficult to define what is necessary and what is not necessary—but I certainly think appeals ought to be made by the Government

463
again and again that the roads at night during the black-out should only be used by those who have to use them for necessary purposes. I also support the recommendation which has been made from various sources that pedestrians should either carry or wear something white. There is a very great difficulty in seeing pedestrians in certain lights and motorists have told me frequently that it would make their task very much more easy if pedestrians had to carry or wear something white when they are using the roads.
But of course the black-out is only part of the problem, and the next point to which I want to call your Lordships' attention is that the casualties during the black-out have been diminishing during these last months, while the casualties in daylight have steadily been increasing, comparing the last three months last year with the last three months of 1939. The increase in the daylight casualties has been something like 63 per cent. and, while there has not been a corresponding reduction in the casualties at night, there has been a considerable reduction. I think the reason for the increase is largely due to the fact that there has been a deterioration in the manners of those who use the roads. No doubt everyone is feeling the strain of the present times, and the strain shows itself sometimes in reckless or inconsiderate driving and in an increased disposition to neglect the law. I think also that there are some signs of an increasing disposition on the part of magistrates to treat with great leniency those brought before them for motoring offences. The police, with so many other demands on their time, are not always insisting as strictly on the observance of the law as I think they did before the war broke out. We ought to press, and I hope that the Ministry will press, for the stricter observance of the law.
Take one illustration of the way in which the law is very badly broken to-day. Most of us have noticed how, time after time, the speed limit is ignored. I find, myself, that when I go on a road journey and keep, as I do strictly, within the speed limit, I am passed by large numbers of other cars hooting loudly in protest because my car is keeping within the thirty miles-an-hour limit. I think there is very much more going on in these ways than once was the case. But I am not
464
blaming motorists only; I think cyclists are also partly to blame. Often we find them straggling over the road, three or four abreast, dangerous to themselves and dangerous to others. I think that at night they should always have to have a rear light. The pedestrians, also, have to take their share in the responsibility for the present position. Of course, pedestrians are far and away the greatest sufferers. They have to suffer more than anyone else, and by far the largest number of accidents occurs amongst them. But the pedestrians are, I believe, less regulated in England than in any other country in the world. I believe the only offence which a pedestrian can commit against the road laws is to linger on a pedestrian crossing. He may walk on the roads and on the side of the roads. He may cross roads where he likes, and walk where he likes on the pavements. He is under no kind of regulations.
I do not think that we shall be able to stop, or even to reduce very largely, this heavy toll of casualties on the roads until pedestrians are brought under some kind of regulation. One suggestion made by the Report to which I have already referred is as follows:
"The Commitee feel that they have no alternative but to propose that it should be made an offence for a pedestrian to enter the carriageway heedlessly just as it is an offence for a motorist or bicyclist to drive or ride heedlessly. If the pedestrian realised that by suddenly stepping off a pavement without warning or by recklessly emerging from the front of or from behind a vehicle, he would render himself liable to police court proceedings, he would exercise greater care."
There is another alleged cause—and I say "alleged" deliberately — for the increase of accidents—namely, the driving of military vehicles. I am not in any position to make any very definite statement about this, but I hear it stated very frequently by those who use the roads that military vehicles are often driven with great danger to the public. I know, also, that the hospitals are anxious about it. The hospitals have a number of beds taken up by those who say that they have been injured by the careless driving of military vehicles, and there is a point which arises in connection with this which is causing the hospitals considerable anxiety. I have not given the noble Lord who is answering any notice of this, so I do not expect him to be able to answer it. There is, I understand, no legal claim to be made

465
in respect of those who have suffered injury through the driving of military vehicles. There is no claim for compensation, as Government vehicles are not insured, and the hospitals are very anxious as to whether or not they will be able to get compensation from the War Office. I understand that some time before the war broke out the Post Office and the Police agreed that if any accidents occurred through the driving of vehicles by their employees they would not claim any exemption and they would pay compensation. The hospitals are naturally very anxious that the War Office might take the same line.
But that is not the point which I am raising now. What I really want to know is this: Can the noble Lord give us any information as to whether an undue proportion of accident? is caused by those who drive military vehicles? I believe that in another place, the other day, some rather disconcerting figures were given about the dangers which are incurred in connection with military lorries. I know that large lumbers of the drivers of military cars are most careful and considerate. I find this especially so when they are driving in convoys; but like everybody else I have noticed the military car going very rapidly down a side road or on the wrong side of a road round a corner. Obviously, one would notice a car more easily when that car is camouflaged than one would notice an ordinary car, and naturally one would say: "There is a military car." I do not know what the figures are, and I do not know whether it is fair to say that a very large number of these accidents is caused by military vehicles, but because there is this widespread impression it is very important that the Government should give an answer. If that impression is mistaken, then for the good name of the military drivers let the misunderstanding be cleared up. If, on the other hand, a large number of accidents is caused by military' vehicles, that is a matter for the Government to take up with those who are responsible, and those who are at the head of the various Services.
I do not think that by actual, regulation we shall be able to do overmuch in connection with this great problem. I rely much more on propaganda—propaganda carried on continuously in every kind of way, propaganda through the Press, and above all through the wireless,
466
propaganda bringing home to people time after time that the roads are full of danger and will be safe only if all those who use them obey the law and are considerate and courteous one towards the other. For nearly a hundred years the people of this country have realised that railway tracks are dangerous. Railway tracks are fenced in and penalties are imposed on those who trespass upon them; but if we were now to remove the fences round the railways, and if the penalties were also removed, I believe that the public would still regard railway tracks as dangerous. They would not allow their children to play on them; they would not choose the railway tracks for a country walk, and they certainly would not cross railway lines without taking due precautions. The railway tracks, however, are in most cases nothing like as dangerous as a very large number of our great roads, and we want to permeate the mind of the ordinary citizen with the sense that the highway is now as dangerous as most railway tracks, and that caution must be observed in using it.
I am certain that the responsible authorities of the Ministry of Transport are as anxious as anyone that this scandal of the roads should be brought to an end. There are, of course, all kinds of preoccupations to which they are subject, and the burden of responsibility which now rests on anyone who exercises authority in a Government department is enormous; but, amidst all the preoccupations of the war, I hope that it will be found possible to take every kind of step to prevent, or at any rate to reduce the extent of, this grave waste of life in the daily and nightly massacre on the roads. I beg to move for Papers.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I am sure you will agree that, particularly in view of the figures which the right reverend Prelate has cited, this is certainly a question which ought to come under the consideration of your Lordships' House, and it seems to me, if I may say so without impertinence, particularly appropriate that it should be brought under your consideration by an occupant of the Episcopal Bench. This is undoubtedly a very great social evil with which we have to deal. We hear

467
a great deal about the new world that is to come after this war, and about social justice and things of that kind. This is certainly a very great social evil, and it is undoubtedly a matter of grave anxiety that so many people should, apparently without any compunction, so drive their cars along the roads as to endanger and injure their fellow citizens.
The right reverend Prelate referred to propaganda. I am not a great believer in propaganda. At the same time, it is very deplorable to hear, when two young people talk about driving on the roads, that if one of them says that he has had an accident the immediate reaction appears to be "What bad luck for you." There seems to be very little consideration for the people who have been injured by the accident. That has at any rate been my experience in listening to what young people say in this connection. It is therefore clearly a matter for the Episcopal Bench, and for other leaders of religion and morality, to consider whether something cannot be done to bring home to the community that to kill people on the roads is a very wicked thing to do if you can possibly avoid it, and that if you do it because you like to go fast, or because you think that the pedestrian ought to take more care, or for any reason of that kind, you are committing a very grave offence, quite apart from any breach of the law. I hope that the Bishops will not think me impertinent if I venture to say that I do not notice in the public statements which they have made—this does not apply, of course, to the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken—that they have made any very great effort to point out that reckless driving is a very wicked thing, quite apart from the question of whether there may be precautions, such as the right reverend Prelate has suggested, which will diminish the consequences of such action.
Personally, therefore, I welcome very much what the right reverend Prelate has said. I thought he dealt with extreme fairness with the various possible causes; but to my mind by far the greatest and most important cause is driving too fast in the conditions which prevail. When we come to analyse it, it is speed which is the real cause of the greater number of these accidents. If it were possible to get
468
the speed reduced all over the country to twenty miles an hour—I am taking what will be regarded in some quarters as an extreme case—no rational being can doubt that the accidents which occur on the roads would be diminished to an enormous extent. I have often ventured to insist on this in your Lordships' House, and I am not going to elaborate that argument; but I think it is right to say that these very figures which we are considering to-day can be adequately explained, to by mind, only by the greater speed at which cars are now being driven on the roads. I do not doubt that they are being driven at greater speed. The right reverend Prelate told us that he had observed constant breaches of the law when he was being driven in his own car, and quite apart from that, anyone who goes on the roads must have observed it.
The reason, I venture to think, is twofold. In the first place, I think—I should be delighted to be proved wrong—that there is a good deal of reckless military driving. That is my impression, but I agree that I have no figures to present to your Lordships or anything in the nature of scientific observation to adduce. I do seem frequently to notice, however, that very heavy lorries are driven at such a speed and in such circumstances as greatly to increase the dangers of the roads, and that applies not only to lorries but to other military cars as well. That has a double effect. It puts up the standard of speed, because if they go fast other drivers go fast as well. I am convinced that that is one of the causes of the increase in the number of accidents, and probably the greatest cause. There is another reason which makes that fast driving possible. The traffic on the roads is much less than it was; speaking generally, there are many fewer cars on what used to be crowded roads. The less crowded the roads, the faster goes the traffic. In the City of London in peace-time the traffic went extremely slowly, with the consequence, as is well known, that accidents were comparatively rare. In the present condition of things, with the present ideas that prevail with too many drivers, the opportunity to go fast is the excuse for going fast; and therefore we find greater speed on the roads because there is now a greater opportunity of going fast.
I am almost ashamed to say these things to your Lordships because, to me

469
at any rate, the connexion of speed with the danger on the loads seems so obvious. But there are two answers which are constantly made. One is that speed is not in itself dangerous. I do not know exactly what is meant by that answer. But what I suppose is meant is that if there were no other circumstances then speed would not be dangerous; and it is obvious that if you were driving in a desert, with no other traffic and no possibility of other traffic, you might, if you chose to drive at a very excessive speed, endanger your own life, but you could not possibly endanger anybody else's. To that extent it is true that speed is not in itself dangerous. But it is generally admitted that speed is a danger wherever there is other traffic, particularly where the other traffic is that of children or of old people, or where a car is met by another car which is not being driven carefully.
Therefore it is perfectly clear that speed is a danger in certain circumstances, and you have merely to consider what the circumstances are. To my mind the circumstances in the more crowded parts of this country, where there are a lot of people on the roads, are list the circumstances which lead to accidents, and consequently I should expect myself that accidents would occur, and that they would be directly proportioned to the speed at which vehicles were driven. In point of fact that is what has happened. The great change that has been brought by motorcars compared with the old horse-driven vehicles is the greater speed at which they run. That is the great change, and the great increase in the dangers of the road is therefore only what one would expect. That seems to me to be a convincing answer to the observation that speed is not a danger in itself.
But I think connected with that answer is another one. It is said that a speed which would be dangerous in the hands of a bad or inexperienced driver is not dangerous if the driver is thoroughly competent and skilful. I have heard noble Lords in his House profess that they themselves or their friends who are really good drivers do not have accidents. I think it is extremely likely that that is true. But I am rather inclined to think that even that is not true always, and that the man who drives habitually at fifty or sixty miles an hour sooner or later has an accident and when he does have an
470
accident it is usually a bad one. But assuming that it is true, that is no answer at all. You have to have a set of rules for the roads which will make the ordinary driver on these roads a safe driver; and the fact that he might be safe if he were an entirety different kind of man, with an entirely different kind of experience, is no answer to the Legislature. The Legislature has either to exclude all such people from the roads, which is impracticable, or to say that the conditions are such that even an unskilful driver can drive safely; and that means in my judgment that you must have a severe limit of speed, and those who want to go fast or are in a hurry must go by rail, or some other method which will not imperil their fellow-citizens.
I have said thus much because I feel so profoundly that if we do not cope with this great evil of speed, no other measure is really going to make a serious difference in the safety of the roads. We have tried all sorts of things. We have tried what the right reverend Prelate believes in, I am afraid, a good deai more than I do—propaganda. I remember very well that when the last Traffic Bill was under consideration in this House, the late Lord Russell explained that he regarded the Highway Code as a sermon more than a threat, and he attached great importance to the effect of the sermon on the consciences and on the care of those who were using the roads. I am afraid experience has shown that that Code has had very little effect in reducing the number of accidents. Indeed, on the whole the accidents have been more numerous since that Code was enacted than they were before. I am sure you will have to deal, and deal drastically, with this question of speed. I am not going to elaborate the actual measures that I would suggest. But I do want to say something and to say it as strongly as I can to the Government—so brilliantly represented on the Bench opposite at this moment—on the absolute necessity of Government action in this matter.
Nothing else can do it unless the Government of the day are prepared to take up on their responsibility this question and to drive it through Parliament with the help of the majority in another place, and I believe they would have no great difficulty in this House. If they are not prepared to drive through a measure

471
really dealing with the matter, then no other institution can possibly succeed. Entrenched against all serious improvements are these great societies with very large money resources determined to resist anything which they regard—no doubt quite honestly—as an unnecessary limitation on their freedom of action. Against that nothing but the Government can succeed. But you are there brought up against a considerable difficulty. The Government have to consider no doubt what is practicable as well as what is desirable, and they have to take account of the fact that any measure which is going seriously to interfere with the liberty of motorists will receive vehement opposition. That means a very considerable expenditure of time, in another place at any rate. And they will have no great Party pressure to induce them to act.
I speak with great deference to those who sit near me, but no Party has yet shown any desire to take up this question seriously and press it through. That is a great difficulty in our form of government. I have come to believe very strongly in the importance of the Party system as an element in the Constitution of this country and, though I quite admit that for the moment it must be suspended, I do not think that as a general rule the country is so well governed when the Party system is suspended as when it is not. The only hope we have—we who desire great changes and great reforms in this matter—is that by that weapon of propaganda we may ultimately produce the effect which the right reverend Prelate suggests. I admit that propaganda must begin by converting one or other of the great Parties of the State if it is really going to have a chance of success. In any case—and this is why I do not wish to speak at any length—it is clearly impossible to ask the Government to produce legislation of a contentious character during the progress of the war. I do not ask them to do anything of the kind. It would be quite useless for me to do so, and it would not be right. We have got to fight the war with all our strength, and we must do nothing which will imperil national unity until victory has been obtained. Therefore we cannot hope for any drastic reform now. But we can hope, I think, for some palliation of the existing state of things.
472
I entirely agree with what was said by the right reverend Prelate about that, and I think something might be done with reference to these military vehicles if, on investigation, it is shown that they are responsible for a considerable number of accidents, whether they behave worse or not worse than other people. The War Office could, at any rate—they have the power—impress very strongly on those who are in control of the traffic that the drivers should be warned very strictly and urgently—I believe they have been warned already—against doing anything which is likely to cause danger, and particularly they should be reminded, as I understand they have been reminded, that they are amenable to the traffic laws just as much as anybody else. That might be done, and I also hope something will be done with reference to this question of compensation.
I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but it does seem to me a very unfortunate state of things that if you are run down by a War Office vehicle you have no remedy as of right, however careless the driver may have been and however clear the case may be. I see from certain indications that I am wrong on that point, but that is the view which is traditional among people, that when they make their application they are told that if they can make out their case it will have consideration from the War Office, but they have no right according to their view. Of course there is a criminal responsibility, but, as far as the civil responsibility is concerned, it is at any rate believed that they have no right to compensation. If they have such a right, a statement by the legal authorities in this House that they have as much right to proceed against the War Office or against the driver of the car as against anybody else would be of some advantage. In any case there ought to be a statement from the authorities of the War Office that they desire to be placed in exactly the same position as any other owner or driver of a vehicle, and that they are prepared to make full compensation whatever compensation is awarded by the Courts which have jurisdiction in such matters.
These two things we might ask the Government to do, and if they can suggest any other method by which they can make some effort to lessen the vast

473
slaughter and suffering caused at present I beg them to do so. I do not think any of us realise quite the amount of suffering caused by these accidents, quite apart from the injury to die actual people. They mean intense grief to the relatives, they mean very often a serious destruction of the livelihood of the family. It is in every respect a very serious evil, and it requires to be dealt with seriously, just as seriously as we deal with other evils which arc more notorious.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I intervene in this debate because I have a very strong personal interest in the question, having been myself knocked down four times by motor cars. I seldom leave my house without anticipating gloomily that the fifth and fatal accident may take place. I have never derived much satisfaction from the debates on this subject, but whilst I entirely agree with nearly everything the right reverend Prelate said, I totally disagree with him in the view that propaganda is going to be a cure. We are discussing the case of pedestrians. Pedestrians do not require propaganda at all. Deatn stares them in the face whenever they go into the street. They know instinctively that they are in danger. The only case in which propaganda is required is the cast of the motorists themselves. It we impressed on a section of the motorists that if they cause an accident they will I be severely punished, the whole situation would be altered at once. There is, unfortunately, amongst motorists—I do not charge them all as a class—a large number who cannot be restrained from driving recklessly.
It seems to me the question is much simpler and the remedy far more simple than we realise. The accidents which are caused, not only now but all along, are caused simply and solely by the fact j that the law is not properly enforced. You are dealing with a number of men and women—not the whole race of motorists, but a section of them—who are quite impervious to argument and are unable to restrain the tendency to drive faster than they ought. Is it not obvious if they are treated with leniency they are literally encouraged to take risks? That is what is going on. It is all very well to lay down regulations about speed limits and so forth, but if there are a number of people who know
474
that if they are the cause of a fatal accident they may escape altogether, the duty of driving slowly and carefully does not appeal to them in the least. I have said that the cause is simple and the remedy is simple. The remedy is that the law should be strictly enforced, and all motorists should feel that if they are involved in a serious accident they will be seriously punished.
Whilst I do not wish to prolong the debate I do not like to finish without a suggestion—although I have never known any suggestion of mine to be adopted in any quarter—and that is that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack or some person who may be immediately responsible should direct attention to this particular question of the laxity of the law, and impress on magistrates and all on whom the duty devolves of adjudicating in these cases, that the law must be observed and observed strictly. If an injunction of that kind goes forth I feel sure, although it has been done before, that in the course of time it will be successful; but until something of the kind is done, and until the Government do something definite, as the noble Viscount opposite has suggested, the present lamentable situation will continue.
Before I sit down I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply—and that reminds me that I have never been able to understand why the Ministry of Transport is not represented in this House—whether any single one of the recommendations made by the Alness Committee has been attended to and, if not, what is the reason. It is no use appointing a Committee to deal with a particular question and then make the excuse that because a war is on it is not necessary to pay any attention to what the Committee recommend. If this Committee's recommendations were attended to then there would have been already a diminution in these fatalities. As it is they keep on increasing. In spite of the figures which may be supplied by the Ministry of Transport everybody knows that the danger is continuing; therefore I venture to suggest that before this debate is concluded we should receive an assurance from the Government that directions shall be issued to all responsible persons that the law must be obeyed and its provisions strictly enforced.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the three very able speeches on this subject which have just been made, and as one who, like many of your Lordships, has driven a car for a great many years—and I am glad to say has a perfectly-clean record—I feel that the experience that one has should be ventilated in a discussion of this kind. Your Lordships are well aware that hardly a day passes that one does not see somebody on the roads do something which is perfectly dreadful and ought to be stopped and drastically dealt with. Even this morning, on the wireless at seven o'clock, I heard that some poor man had been picked up in the night on the road dead, the car that had killed him having gone on. What I am principally concerned with in detaining your Lordships for a few moments is this. I feel that the spirit on the road is bad. So often, as the right reverend Prelate has said, as you are going along the road at the proper pace, does somebody come up hooting and shouting "Get out of the way." That sort of thing happens to all of us. Time and time again an approaching motorist, although well able to do so, fails to give one plenty of room or to make a little way. I feel that the real crux of the matter is that the great majority of people on the road do not realise that courtesy ought to be extended to all on the road.
I am talking of motorists now. I do not know whether one can do anything about that. For years past we have seen any amount of propaganda and so far there has been no result from it. As has already been said, we do not find that the number of terrible accidents is on the decrease. With what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has said on the subject of speed I quite agree, but it may be that a speed of ten miles an hour on one part of a road is far more dangerous than a speed of eighty miles an hour on another part of the road. I think that something might be done in having traffic controllers who would warn people and say, "Here you are going too fast." While I am on that subject I will tell your Lordships what I have done in that direction to help the police. I have a great friend who is a Chief Constable, and one day I told him that when I was going to play with him at a certain place four cars
476
passed me going at fifty miles an hour at the very lowest in an area where there was a thirty-mile speed limit. I said do the Chief Constable: "Can we not do something about it? Cannot something be done to motorists who do not behave themselves? I will help you." I made this arrangement. I had my car tested to make sure that the speedometer was correct. Then I went on the road and when anybody passed me within the thirty-mile limit, I do not say going at thirty-five miles an hour, but at from forty to fifty miles an hour, I took the number of the car and reported it to the Chief Constable. The result was that, having found the owner of the car, he was written to by the police saying that his car had been going at a speed of approximately forty or fifty miles an hour at such and such a place at such and such a time, and would he please do his best in future to see that that did not happen again and thereby assist the police in carrying out the law.
That is the sort of thing that we might have now. I feel one ought to do it whenever that kind of thing happens. It happens so often, as the right reverend Prelate has said, that you have people passing you continually at a far greater speed than is permitted by the law. I do feel, with reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said in regard to the spirit of the road, that a great deal could be done by the Churches and by all social organisations to try and impress on the people the real wickedness of risking the lives of others unnecessarily. I think the Press might do a tremendous lot. I know the Press is always trying to help in this direction by pointing out the enormity of what is going on, but I think the Press might be called in again to assist. I quite agree it is very unlikely, and probably quite impossible, that any legislation can be carried through now. I have come to the conclusion, after many years, that the only way to stop it is by putting the fear of death into people who drive on the road dangerously. I should fine them the first time, but the second time I would give them hard labour no matter who they were, provided it was proved that it was their negligence which had caused the accident.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, may I say a few words, and they will be very few, first of all with reference

477
to the remark of the right reverend Prelate in regard to military driving? In certain duties which I have been performing of late the experience that I have had of military driving has not exactly impressed me. I had considerable experience in the last war of looking after traffic, and I can tell your Lordships that from what I have seen of the driving of military drivers in this war it compares extremely unfavourably with the driving in the last war. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, called the driving reckless. I would not call it reckless; I think reckless is too strong a word; it is careless. But carelessness on the roads, as your Lordships know, is just as bad as recklessness. Some of these drivers will not use ordinary care. I have noticed it day after day. Perhaps motor cyclists are a still greater source of danger. The way they dash about among the traffic is appalling. I think my noble friend Lord Croft has here an opportunity to address some remarks to the drivers of military lorries and cars. If he did so I think I: would be an excellent thing. I only ask that they should take the ordinary care that drivers of other cars take and obey the ordinary rules of the road. But they do not.
There is one other thing I should like to say with reference to what the noble Viscount has suggested in regard to speed. I am afraid I should never agree with the noble Viscount about speed. I have taken part in a great many debates in your Lordships' House for a good many years past on this traffic problem, and I do not believe in a speed limit. What I do believe in is care. I have always said that a person who is driving at perhaps one mile an hour may be driving dangerously if he does not stop when he sees a pedestrian. Unfortunately one often sees a car or a cab driving very slowly perhaps round a corner; the driver sees a pedestrian (it may be oneself) crossing, but he does not stop; he expects the pedestrian to get out of his way. Why should he not stop? It is not as if he were driving a pair of horses which are difficult to pull up. He is driving an engine which he can easily stop. Instead of doing that, however, he expects the pedestrian to get out of his way. For that reason I do not believe in the speed limit. I say that a man is driving dangerously no matter what his speed if he does not stop when he sees a pedestrian or another car in front of him.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, first of all I should like to express my gratitude and I am sure that of your Lordships' House to the right reverend Prelate for once again introducing this complex and most important question to the House. The Government are greatly concerned, as your Lordships are, with all that is involved in the matters that he has brought before us. I should like to point out that in the years before the war the constant attack on the problem had stemmed the rising tide of accidents in spite of the increase in the number of vehicles on the road, but there is no ground at all for complacency in this matter. Six thousand six hundred killed in a year was bad enough in all conscience, but 8,350 killed in the first year of the war causes still greater concern to all of us.
In reply to the question of the right reverend Prelate I should remark that since the beginning of the war only the figures of the number of persons killed have been compiled. An analysis of the accidents is made in the first place by the police and the detailed classification which was made before the war placed a very heavy burden on the police throughout the country. In view of the very heavy additional duties which the war has placed upon them—upon which, as your Lordships remember, the Prime Minister remarked in glowing terms the other day—which they have fulfilled with conspicuous success, it was considered desirable to reduce the analytical work on accident figures as much as possible. The figures then are no longer compiled in detail, in order that the police and others concerned may be relieved of this heavy work. There are, therefore, I fear, no figures of injured for the whole country.
In the Metropolitan Police district the number of killed in the first year of war fell by 18 per cent., from 986 to 808, and the number of injured fell by 29 per cent., from 55,704 to 39,381. As was to be expected, pedestrians were the chief sufferers and there was an increase of over 100 per cent, killed in the winter months of war—November, December and January—compared with the corresponding winter months in 1938–9. The position is similar for motor cyclists; there was an increase of 77 per cent. Motor drivers have emerged with fewer casualties. The fatalities for pedal cyclists decreased until this winter though cycling,

479
as your Lordships are aware, has considerably increased. If we comment on these figures and try to find an explanation for them we are driven to the fact that black-out fatalities form a large part of this increase. This was only to be expected, but the lighting restrictions in our streets are absolutely essential at this time.
Casualties on roads in the built-up areas in the black-out have decreased this winter as compared with last, but casualties have increased on roads not subject to speed limits. That is, in a sense, confirmatory of those who have urged limitation of speed. On the other hand, daylight casualties have increased on all roads, probably because the evening peak traffic has been thrown on to the last hour of daylight, and there has undoubtedly been a serious deterioration in road behaviour, speaking generally. All accidents in certain selected areas in March, April and May, 1940, were investigated and this investigation showed, firstly, that the majority of these accidents were due to carelessness or errors on all hands, particularly it is said by pedestrians; and secondly, that elderly pedestrians suffered to the number of 116 in 393 accidents—116 were over sixty-five years of age—while young children were also chief sufferers. The child accidents were mostly in daylight.
Clearly everyone should, as far as possible, avoid contributing to the dangers of the road at night. It is almost impossible to enforce a curfew even on private cars, but if it is not necessary to go out during the black-out period then everyone should consider whether he may not be acting in the public interest if he resolves to stay inside. I cannot help feeling that motorists generally should feel that the competence and the honour of their calling are at stake. We are aware of all the difficulties. Driving, I should imagine, requires complete alertness, quick decision, steadiness of mind and of nerve. But whilst willing to admit that there is a general responsibility that falls upon pedestrians as well as upon drivers, I always reflect upon what the noble and learned Viscount the late Lord Buck-master so often told your Lordships' House, that from time immemorial the people had a right on the King's highway whereas the motorist was there by
480
licence. He was a newcomer and therefore upon him rested a very serious responsibility.
In regard to military accidents, I should like to answer the question first of all, as far as I understand it, as to War Office or Government responsibility. No Crown vehicles are insured. I think that is a statement of fact. A person injured may sue the driver of the vehicle, and when he does so the driver has the support of the War Office in his defence. There is no proposal, at present, to alter that provision. The Secretary of State for War has been the first to acknowledge that, taking November and December, 1940, as a time for observation, 300 military vehicles damaged each day is a quite unsatisfactory record. But on this fact alone it is not safe to say that Service drivers are particularly accident-prone; we cannot compare the rate of damage to civilian vehicles or the relative road-usage. Responsibility for accidents is not always easy to determine—even by the Courts—and cannot be shown in statistics. Another method of settling questions is by finding some general trend in accident figures coupled with a road census. Special examination was made in the Metropolitan Police district but the results were inconclusive. Very special instructions have been issued to Commands with regard to care on the roads, and there for the moment I fear we shall have to leave that matter.
Again, special measures to reduce black-out risks have met with a certain amount of success, such as the speed limit of twenty miles per hour in built-up areas which was begun in February, 1940. The police reports are that, generally, that speed limit is being observed. Secondly, vehicles waiting at night must face the right way and many local regulations prohibit waiting or regulate traffic. Thirdly, aids to traffic movement—the masked headlamp, limited street lighting and so on. Further improvements, in present conditions, are difficult to obtain, but better lighting, consistent with air precautions, is practicable and will be further considered before the next winter period comes along.
With regard to public opinion, the real safeguard lies with the public who use the roads, and every practicable effort is being made to influence public opinion. The

481
propaganda done must, I think, have been noticed by everyone. In particular, valuable work has been done by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, especially among children and local authorities. Safety instruction among children was inevitably interrupted by the war but it is being resumed. The special police patrols instituted before the war were, undoubtedly, the most effective attack on road accidents, but here again war has inevitably stopped progress. But the police have by no means abandoned the enforcement of the road traffic law. In regard to enforcement I should like to say that it is still going on, and that it will not be relaxed. Figures for the Metropolitan Police district show nearly as many prosecutions in 1940 as in 1939.
So, whatever the Government can do in this matter is, on the whole, being done, and it is for us to find out what lessons we can derive from this reconsideration of a most complex and disturbing problem. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that all that has been said to-day in your Lordships' House will be seriously examined by the Government, and whatever steps can be taken will be put into operation. It is easy to try to assess blame to one or other of the two parties concerned, the drivers and the pedestrians. It would sometimes seem as though there are now two nations—those who ride and those who walk—but I do not think it is helpful for either of those two separate nations to indulge in recriminatory accusations. It is probably safer to say that there are faults on both sides. Let me make a personal confession and avow that I have all the prejudices of the pedestrian who has never driven a car, and I sometimes wonder at the mentality of the drivers whom I see who would apparently prefer to be twenty years too soon in the next world to being ten minutes late in
482
this. But, as I have acquired a general habit of distrusting my own prejudices, I feel sure that there are things about driving that I do not understand, and so I suspend judgment.
In regard to the solution of this problem we had all hoped that there would be a steady and continuous decrease, and had peace conditions remained among us that encouragement might have been at our disposal. But war conditions generally have tended to divert our attention from personal and individual dangers to the wider dangers of the State. If it were a mechanical problem merely, or purely a physical problem, some solution might be speedily found; but the human factor is uncertain and incalculable. There is, however, one contribution which all of us might make, both those who drive and those of us who get out of the way if we can, and which might prove to be a real contribution towards a solution of this problem: to regain the sense of the sacredness of individual life, even of our own. I do not know whether I am wrong in my observation, but I sometimes think that the animals, and especially dogs, are acquiring a traffic sense almost more quickly than some human beings. I once more thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing this subject to your Lordships' attention and for the helpful persistence with which he pursues this matter. I very much regret that I cannot offer him the merited reward of much greater encouragement.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the reply which he has made, and with the leave of the House I will withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned.