Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 368: debated on Thursday 30 January 1941

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

House Of Commons

Thursday, 30th January, 1941.

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

New Writ

For the County of York (West Riding) (Doncaster Division), in the room of John Morgan, Esq., deceased [ Sir Charles Edwards].

Oral Answers To Questions

Military Service

Exemption Claim

1.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Nemo Ermini, of Hemel Hempstead, who applied for registration as a conscientious objector on the grounds that he could not conscientiously take up arms on behalf of this country in view of the fact that his father, who had fought for the Allies in the war of 1914–18, had gone down on the "Arandora Star," and that he, himself, had been refused admission to the Home Guard because his father was an Italian; and whether, in the light of the circumstances disclosed, he will take steps to give this man the exemption he seeks?

I have written to my hon. Friend about this case.

Agricultural Workers

3.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the serious position in which farmers will be placed if more agricultural labourers are called to the Colours; and can he see his way clear to permit the reservations to remain as they are at present in the agricultural industry?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 21st January, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, to a Question put by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor). I am unable at present to add to that reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since there is a great deal more land under the plough, more labour is required? The farmer has to plan twelve months ahead and some decision ought to be given to this matter?

I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that at a time like this every industry must make some contribution, and every industry must seek to train substitute labour.

Would it be possible for either the Army or Navy to fight if they were not fed?

4.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of men engaged in agriculture before the war who have joined and remain in the Armed Forces?

5.

asked the Minister of Labour whether, irrespective of the Schedule of Reserved Occupations, he will refrain from calling for service in the Armed Forces any man employed in agriculture, either employer or employed, except with the specific agreement of the appropriate county war agricultural executive committee?

I propose to continue to give full weight to the recommendations of these committees with regard to the calling-up of agricultural workers for the Forces, but I cannot go so far as to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion which would in effect place the final decision in the hands of the committees.

55.

asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of recommendations for exemption from military service made by the Surrey War Agricultural Committee; and the number of cases in which the recommendations have been given effect?

No, Sir. The county war agricultural executive committees are my agents; but while I am not prepared to disclose details of transactions between them and the headquarters of my Department, I can say that very great weight is always attached to their recommendations.

Cotton Industry

16.

asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the complaint of the Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers Association that difficulties in conducting business among its members have been intensified because the Schedule of Reserved Occupations applies harshly to certain classes of office workers and executive; and will he take steps to remove the cause of this complaint?

I know of no complaint from the association in question regarding the treatment of office workers and executives under the Schedule of Reserved Occupations. My hon. Friend may have in mind the objection offered by that association to the decision to raise the age of reservation for wholesale salesmen. That decision was reached after considering all relevant circumstances including its affect on the cotton textile industry. I can hold out no hope of making an exception in favour of that industry.

If I send the right hon. Gentleman this complaint which has appeared in the Press, together with documents relating to it, will he look at it?

National War Effort

Women

6.

asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his intention that firms engaged in Government contracts, and employing men on work which could be efficiently done by women, should adopt a policy of replacing the men with women as soon as women can be trained for the purpose?

It is my intention to secure with the co-operation of the Production Departments that in industry generally women should be employed on work suitable to them to the utmost extent thus releasing men for work which necessitates the employment of men.

As a change-over of this sort is naturally liable to cause acute feeling locally, can a firm which endeavours to release men in this way count on the full support of the Minister?

Press Advertisements For Workers

17.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulties created by the fact that, while advertisements for workers in connection with munitions are not permitted to be published in the Press, yet advertisements for workers on work other than munitions are so permitted thereby prejudicing important war work; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

The position at present is that engagements of workers in the general engineering, the building and the civil engineering industries must be made through the employment exchanges or through approved arrangements with trade unions. It follows that employers in those industries cannot advertise for workers. The hon. Member will be aware from what I said in the Debate on 21st January of my proposals for securing the diversion of labour from unessential to essential work as required and I do not think that, at any rate at this stage, the prohibition of all advertisements for workers of all kinds would materially assist in this object.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that there is a serious gap here which requires to be filled up in some manner; and will he be good enough to devote his mind to filling it up?

Domestic Servants

18.

asked the Minster of Labour whether he will cause a review to be made of any cases in which people have five, six or seven servants to wait upon them in view of the fact that that number of servants in any one house is hampering our war efforts?

In the Debate on 21st January, I outlined my proposals for ensuring the diversion of labour from unessential work to essential work as required.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend's Question is viewed with considerable sympathy in many quarters?

Communists (Pivotal Positions)

28.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to ensure that active Communists are not allowed to occupy pivotal positions in establishments engaged in the manufacture or distribution of munitions?

It would not be in the public interest for me to make any statement on the subject of the measures taken to protect establishments engaged on important war work against dangerous activities, regardless of the political complexion of the individuals concerned.

Surely, whether a man is a Communist or any other "ist," if he carries on his work in a proper way, without interference from outside, he has a right to have a job?

I have indicated that I am primarily concerned with the security aspect, not the individual aspect.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the security aspect is the only aspect I had in mind?

Government Factories (Amenities)

45.

asked the Prime Minister whether the structural provision of adequate canteens and other amenities in Government factories is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour or the Ministry of Supply?

The primary responsibility for such provision in a Government-owned factory rests with the Department that owns it.

Training Scheme (Interned Refugees)

42.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Ministry of Labour's training scheme for munition workers, although applicable to Jewish refugees, does not cover those refugees who are interned at present; and will he consider taking the appropriate steps to release those refugees who volunteer for training in the same way as he releases volunteers for the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps?

As I have previously stated, for men who are eligible for the Pioneer Corps the best method of demonstrating their readiness to help the Allied cause is to volunteer for service in that Corps, and I should not be prepared to offer to such men the alternative of volunteering for the training scheme to which my right hon. Friend refers. I am, however, consulting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on the question whether the opportunity of entering the training scheme can be offered to those who are found to be physically unfit for the Corps. As my right hon. Friend knows, there are also arrangements for the release of men with special technical qualifications.

Can the Home Secretary tell us how many of these people have volunteered to join the civil corps?

Civil Defence

Evacuation

7.

asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to ensure that the Assistance Board functions effectively at Newquay so that evacuated women and their families are not left without the means to buy food over the week-ends?

My hon. Friend addressed a Question to me on this subject on Thursday last. I promised to make inquiries, but these are not yet complete.

76.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that considerable difficulties have arisen, following evacuation, owing to the different income scales applied by various local authorities in connection with maternity and child welfare services; and whether he will either draw up uniform scales for the whole country, or else meet any difference which arises owing to families removing from an evacuation to a reception area?

I am not aware of any widespread difficulty in this matter, and I am not satisfied that any interference with the normal discretion of local authorities would be justified.

Damaged Property (Repairs, Birmingham)

8.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the extent to which he has been able to meet the request made by the Birmingham City Council for additional labour for the repair of damaged house property and the restoration of public utility services?

Substantial assistance has been given by my Department to the Birmingham City Council in the provision of the necessary labour. This has been effected partly by means of skilled workers released from the Army or loaned by surrounding local authorities, partly by withdrawing men temporarily from work on contracts in the neighbourhood, and partly by the supply of workers who were previously unemployed. I am not in a position to give figures.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave situation in Birmingham in relation to the reparation of houses which have been destroyed, and will he do all he possibly can to provide labour for the restoration of houses?

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into this matter at once? There are hundreds if not thousands of houses which require a little repair.

I can assure by hon. Friend that very few people have been called up from the building industry. As a matter of fact, the number of people who have been added to the building industry for this purpose runs into many thousands, and steps have been taken, in conjunction with the Minister of Works and Buildings, in order to put them into mobile squads to move about the country where the "blitz" takes place.

Women Ambulance Drivers, London (Pay)

24.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that women ambulance drivers in the London area receive only 42s. per week plus one meal ticket during each tour of duty; and whether, as this is less than the amount paid to men doing similar work, he will bring the remuneration paid to women up to that paid to men?

The basic pay for women Civil Defence volunteers is the same throughout the country, and I could not agree that in the particular services where the same duties are under- taken by men and women, there should be an assimilation of pay, if only because the normal working week for the whole-time women volunteer is one of 48 hours, whereas paid male Civil Defence personnel normally work a 72-hour week.

Am I to understand that my right hon. Friend is not contemplating raising these rates? Might I remind him that we were told in the House that there was a prospect of assimilating these rates?

This matter has been under discussion, and I cannot usefully add anything at this stage.

Detentions

25.

asked the Home Secretary what charges have been preferred against Mr. Leslie Tessler, at present detained in Pentonville Prison since August; why his case has not been brought before a judge or a magistrate; and will he order his release if the charges do not justify his continued detention?

This alien was detained under an Order made under Art. 12 (5A) of the Aliens Order, 1920, as subsequently amended, on the grounds that it was impracticable to enforce a Deportation Order which had been made against him, and that his detention was necessary or expedient for securing the maintenance of public order. His case was recently reviewed by the Advisory Committee appointed to consider the cases of persons detained in pursuance of this power, and, having considered the Committee's recommendations, I decided to release Tessler. He was set at liberty on 8th January.

31.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is acting with the same celerity in the review of cases of British subjects detained under Regulation 18B as he is in that of aliens?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give as much consideration to British subjects as to foreigners?

38.

asked the Home Secretary how many recommendations have been received from the Home Office Advisory Committee appointed to hear appeals from persons detained under Defence Regulation 18B; and in how many cases is his decision still outstanding?

39.

asked the Home Secretary, taking into consideration the fact that the women detained in Holloway Prison under Defence Regulation 18B are not convicts, whether he will consider transferring them, if they so wish aster their appeal has been heard, to the Isle of Man or to some other women's camp where they would get proper exercise and suitable amenities?

I have already been considering this point. While there is nothing to prevent detention in the Isle of Man of persons of enemy nationality detained under the Prerogative, I am advised that my powers of detaining other persons under the Emergency Powers Act do not cover detention in the Isle of Man. I am, however, examining the question whether it is practicable to arrange that any of the latter class of persons who volunteer to go to the Island can be sent there.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he does send these people to the Isle of Man, take care that they are so placed that they are not in a position to conduct Fascist propaganda among their fellow internees, of which there are some cases?

I will consider that point, which, indeed, reflects the general policy of the Department in so far as it is practicable to apply it, but I should be rather comforted if I could feel that the anti-Fascists and the anti-Nazis would not be altogether unwilling to engage in propaganda themselves.

This is a question about women, and it is not so easy in the case of men, but that point is under consideration.

40.

asked the Home Secretary whether the aliens of friendly nationalities formerly detained in prisons and now removed to Lingfield are still receiving rations based on the scale for convicted prisoners or whether they are getting the same dietary as refugees and other aliens of enemy nationality in other intern- ment camps; and whether the removal of such detainees to internment camps is now complete?

The aliens of non-enemy nationality removed from prison to Ling-field Camp are receiving the same dietary as aliens of enemy nationality detained in internment camps. As regards the last part of the Question, the removal of the men detained is practically completed, and the question of providing alternative accommodation for the women still detained in prison is receiving active consideration.

41.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has been able to make arrangements for the removal of alien women detained at Holloway Prison to an internment camp or to some suitable hostel; and whether there is likely to be further delay about this, will he arrange that such women while at Holloway shall receive the diet provided in internment camps and not that prescribed for convicted prisoners?

Most of the women of enemy nationality who were detained at Holloway have been removed to the Isle of Man. No suitable alternative accommodation for the alien women of other nationalities has yet been found, but every endeavour is being made to provide such accommodation. The arrangements at Holloway are not such as to enable a separate diet to be provided for these women, but it is open to them to supplement the diet by private purchases.

Is the Home Secretary aware that there are among these women a considerable number who have no means and are destitute, and is it suitable that they should have a prison diet, while in the internment camp, the internees are receiving a superior diet; and will he hasten the removal of these women from prison?

I want to get them out of prison, if I can find other accommodation, which I hope to do, but in the meantime, I am afraid that it is not possible administratively to distinguish between the diets in prison.

65.

asked the Home Secretary whether it has been found possible, under Brixton Prison regulations, strictly to comply with the provisions set forth in Command Paper 6162?

Yes, Sir, except that it has hitherto not been possible to arrange for meals in association. Now that the numbers detained in prison are of more manageable proportions, consideration is to be given to this question. The detained persons have been allowed to associate during the hours set apart for labour although they do not work and, if the rules were enforced strictly, they would be kept in their cells during these hours.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these people do not get all the privileges that a prisoner on remand gets; and will he see that they do get such privileges?

I think my answer indicates that the undertaking given in the White Paper has been substantially carried out.

But will the right hon. Gentleman see that they get the same privileges as prisoners on remand?

66.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will institute a judicial inquiry to report on the working of the advisory committee dealing with persons detained under the Defence of the Realm Act, Regulation 18B?

Does not my right hon. Friend think there are good reasons for instituting a judicial inquiry to report on this matter?

I do not agree. I have read the reports in all cases under Regulation 18B—they have run into several hundreds—and I think these Advisory Committees carry out their work adequately.

Public Relations Officer (Mr Michael Arlen)

27.

asked the Home Secretary whether he is now in a position to reply to the communication sent by the hon. Member for West Birmingham, on 23rd December last, concerning the appointment of Mr. Michael Arlen as a public relations officer for the Midland region; and is he further aware that this appointment is causing considerable dissatisfaction?

I am now in a position to communicate with my hon. Friend, and am doing so.

Is the Minister aware that this man is a Bulgarian, and that his original name was Dikran Kouyoum-djyian, and does he consider that the general tone of his writings fits him for the position? Is he also aware that this man has access to confidential information?

The hon. Member is wrong in some of his statements, and I think it best that he should await the letter which I am sending him.

Can the letter not be communicated to the House as a whole? Why should the information be given only to the hon. Member?

Fire Prevention

30.

asked the Home Secretary whether, in his proposed compulsory service for fire-fighting and civilian defence, he has considered the position of conscientious objectors who have previously volunteered for such service or for air-raid precautions and Auxiliary Fire Service duties and were rejected by municipal authorities; and whether, in view of the urgent need of service in civilian defence, he proposes to take any action to prevent municipal authorities losing any fire-fighter, air-raid precautions or Auxiliary Fire Service service through prejudice against those who offer or are compelled to serve?

It is not intended to prescribe that conscientious objectors shall be exempted from the general obligations of the recent Defence Regulation relating to fire prevention, and I deprecate refusals to accept offers of voluntary service in Civil Defence from such persons at a time when the services of every citizen are required.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many cases conscientious objectors have offered themselves for fire-fighting and other hazardous duties, and have been rejected purely on the ground of prejudice? Will he take some steps to prevent that?

Yes, I am aware that that is so. The local authority is the employer; but, in view of the statement I have made, I hope that beneficial results will follow.

44.

asked the Home Secretary when local authorities in danger areas will receive supplies of protective helmets for distribution to fire watchers?

I am asking local authorities to indicate their requirements and they will be met as soon as practicable on a priority basis. I hope that substantial issues will be made in the course of the next few weeks.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the enthusiasm of these State fire-fighting parties is being seriously affected by this delay, particularly when these men see half-page advertisements every day from big West End stores advertising protective helmets, and yet in some streets they are unable to get a single helmet for fire watchers; and will he be prepared, at any rate, to issue sufficient to allow of two helmets per street, as some streets have not a single helmet?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there are not large supplies in West End stores, but as very large quantities of these helmets have been ordered the supply will be considerable and I shall get them along very soon.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the specification of these helmets is most meticulous in character and that many engineers of great repute say that a modification of specification would result in a great increase of production?

My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that that is exactly what has already been done.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making use of surplus Italian steel helmets, of which there will be a considerable supply available?

Will the Home Secretary also consider the provision of protective helmets for members of the Home Guard who have not got them?

Shelters

32.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has decided to reimburse to local authorities the whole of the approved expenditure in respect of contracts entered into for the erection of air-raid shelters after 19th October, 1940; and whether, as a measure of equity, he will reconsider the question with a view to reimbursing local authorities similar expenditure incurred prior to this date?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on Tuesday by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to Questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Roth-well (Mr. Lunn) and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the choice of this purely arbitrary date operates against those authorities which were first to provide protection against air raids, and unfairly favours those who neglected their duty?

I have explained that I was concerned to get speedy action under the conditions of the "blitz" which recently commenced, and it was to accelerate action in future that I made this concession. I do not think it reasonable to ask the Treasury to make the concession retrospective.

But, in view of the unfairness of this, will the Government reconsider their decision?

Will my right hon. Friend consider this suggestion, in view of the very strong feeling about this inequity as between local authorities?

I agree that that is a very strong point, but I do not think that I should be justified in going back on the past decision.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we want speedy action in future, and that this decision will prevent such speedy action?

I cannot make any promise at all. The future cannot give more than a 100 per cent. front.

36.

asked the Home Secretary whether he can now state whether there is any change of shelter policy resulting from a public announcement recently made by Lord Horder?

Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement shortly?

In the meanwhile, can the right hon. Gentleman say, in general, whether these shelters are being used widely?

I know that brick shelters as a whole have stood up to the test, though they vary from place to place and from circumstances to circumstances. I am aware, of course, that they were constructed primarily for daytime use, but they are in process of adaptation for night use where that is expedient.

37.

asked the Home Secretary whether he now has any information showing to what extent brick surface shelters are being made use of during air raids?

I am sending to my hon. Friend a note giving such information as is available.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to whether there are a great number of brick shelters erected in and around London which are never occupied at all?

There are some, but it depends on the district and on the circumstances. These matters are under consideration in relation to the general review of the shelter policy.

Internees

60.

asked the Home Secretary the position with regard to the presence in the same internment camp at Huyton, of Nazis and anti-Nazis, Fascists and anti-Fascists; and whether steps are being taken to isolate them from each other?

The only recent change with regard to this camp has been the arrival of 204 internees brought back from Canada for consideration of their cases with a view to release. These are being accommodated temporarily in a part of the camp quite separate from that in which Nazis or pro-Germans are interned. There are also five Italians temporarily in the camp, four of whom are in hospital.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a good deal of pressure and intimidation by Nazis against anti-Nazis and that the Nazis are in a great majority? Would he make inquiries with a view to putting an end to such a disgraceful state of affairs?

I find it very difficult to follow my hon. Friend's argument that there is a large Nazi majority. We do in fact seek to keep them separate. I hope the anti-Nazis will be strong enough not to be intimidated and not conduct themselves as if they were afraid of the Nazis.

Does my right hon. Friend know whether the four Italians in hospital are pro-Fascist or anti-Fascist?

64.

asked the Home Secretary to what extent female internees in the Isle of Man are being released from internment on signing a declaration that they are willing to return to Germany as and when opportunity offers in exchange for British citizens there interned; and why persons who have in that way declared their German sympathies are released while genuine refugees from Nazi oppression, who will never willingly return to their oppressors, are still detained?

I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. No internees are being or would be released with a view to repatriation to Germany at some future date. If there were a possibility of repatriating any internees who desired to return to Germany and there were no security objections to their repatriation they would be taken under escort direct from the internment camp to the ship.

Do I understand from my right hon. Friend's reply that no women have been released from the Isle of Man on signing such a declaration as is referred to in my Question?

That is my information but if my hon. Friend has any information to the contrary I will gladly look into it.

Firemen (Rum Ration)

35.

asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange for a ration of rum to be issued to firemen in bad weather, and during exceptionally arduous periods of duty?

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, though rum may warm people, it does not make them more alert?

Do I gather from the answer that the matter is being considered, and that possibly, in spite of what the Noble Lady has said, the issue of a ration of rum may be made?

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that some hot drink would be more useful?

I must apologise to hon. Members. I have answered by mistake Question No. 36. I will now answer Question No. 35. The question of arranging for an issue of rum for fire service personnel is primarily one for the responsible fire authority concerned to decide, and on present information I do not propose to issue any directions in this matter.

Pioneer Corps

62.

asked the Home Secretary whether alien members of the Auxiliary Military Pioneer Corps are subject to the ordinary restrictions of aliens during their periods of leave?

Civil Nursing Reserve (Uniform)

79.

asked the Minister of Health why he has refused a grant in lieu of outdoor uniform to nursing auxiliaries of the Civil Nursing Reserve, recruited through the British Red Cross Society and the Saint John Ambulance Brigade, this decision being inconsistent with the original policy which gave such members a grant towards their indoor uniform?

I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to those nursing auxiliaries in the Civil Nursing Reserve who elect also to be members of the British Red Cross Society or the Order of St. John. In the latter capacity they are entitled to wear the normal outdoor uniform of the Society or the Order. Employed members of the Civil Nursing Reserve who do not join the Society or the Order, are eligible for free outdoor uniform which remains the property of the Government and must be returned when the member ceases employment in the Reserve. I have not felt able to justify the issue of a cash grant in lieu of this uniform to those members of the Reserve who are able through membership of the Society or the Order to purchase a uniform which becomes their own property. But I should be prepared to consider the possibility of enabling such members to secure the outdoor uniform of the Civil Nursing Reserve on exactly the same terms as any other member of the Reserve, if that course was acceptable to the Society and the Order.

Unemployment Assistance Board

11.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he will invite the Assistance Board to issue a complete statement of their present functions and services, on lines similar to that issued by the Minister of Pensions, for the use of members of the public?

Civil Engineering Industry (Holidays With Pay)

19.

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that no agreement exists in the civil engineering industry for holidays with pay; and whether he will initiate steps to bring this industry into line with common practice in this matter?

I am aware that no such agreement exists. I understand that the question of making arrangements for holidays with pay in this industry has been raised on the joint board by which the conditions in the industry are regulated, and I am communicating with the Board to inquire what progress is being made.

May I take it that little or no progress has been made? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might give a hint which would be more heplful?

India

Political Situation

21.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has any further statement to make respecting political conditions in India; whether Dr. Manlana Azad, president of the Indian National Congress, has received a sentence of imprisonment; and how many are now in prison or in custody for offences arising out of their political convictions?

As regards the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to two similar Questions on 21st January. The answer to the second part is in the affirmative. I presume that in the third part of his Question the hon. Member is referring to persons convicted of offences under the Defence Rules for speeches or writings prejudicial to the efficient prosecution of the war. I am not in a position to give the total number at present still undergoing sentences of imprisonment, but the number of persons convicted since the commencement of Mr. Gandhi's Civil Disobedience campaign up to 15th January, 1941, was 957. Of these, a certain number must, by now, have completed their sentences. I must remind the hon. Member that the great majority of these persons are in prison at their own wish and as the result of action taken by them with the declared intention of receiving a prison sentence.

Can my right hon. Friend say what was the sentence imposed on Dr. Manlana Azad, and what exactly was the charge against him?

Yes, Sir. He was prosecuted for a speech delivered at Allahabad on 13th December in which he advocated mass civil disobedience, and repeatedly exhorted his hearers not to help the war effort in any way. He received a sentence of 18 months simple imprisonment.

23.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the cessation of discussions between the Viceroy and Indian leaders, he will state the immediate practical steps which will be taken to improve the political situation in India?

His Majesty's Government have clearly set out their policy for constitutional advance in India. That policy still holds the field, and I do not see that immediate practical steps can be taken, so far as the Government is concerned, to secure that basis of agreement among Indians that will enable effect to be given to it.

Might I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the advisability of sending a good will mission from this country to India, in the hope of achieving some improvement in the situation?

it would, first, be necessary to secure the necessary good will and agreement among Indians which is a prerequisite to constitutional advance.

That method was successful in the past; why should it not be successful now?

Industries (Location)

22.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the great expansion in Indian manufacturing industry which is likely to take place during the war and of the desirability of ensuring a location of industries in India which will, as far as possible, avoid the creation of unwieldy urban concentrations and permit of industrial workers continuing to live in rural areas, he will request the Government of India and the Provincial Governments in India to give special attention to the location of new factories in consultation with unofficial Indian representatives.

I will gladly ask the authorities in India to give such attention as may be possible in the circumstances to my hon. Friend's important suggestion.

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that the rapid diffusion of electrical energy in Madras and Western India does present a magnificent opportunity for the diffusion of these new industries, thereby avoiding the danger of crowding populations in urban areas under sub-tropical conditions?

Greek Seamen, British Ports (Deportations)

34.

asked the Home Secretary why 1,600 Greek seamen, on strike at British ports have, in certain cases, been arrested, and the charges made against them; how many have been on hunger strike; and against how many deportation orders have been issued?

My hon. Friend's suggestion that 1,600 Greek seamen are on strike in British ports is mistaken. The situation has much improved lately, and there is no longer any widespread refusal of labour. I am informed that the wages of Greek seamen are fixed by the Greek Government, and understand from my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Shipping that the wages of Greek seamen are much in excess of those of British seamen or of seamen of other Allied nationalities. Greek seamen are mobilised by the Greek Government for service in the Greek Merchant Navy, and the Greek Government have asked that those Greek seamen who refuse to serve in Greek ships should be deported to Greece; but they have given an assurance that men thus deported will not be punished on arrival in Greece merely by reason of their refusal to accept employment. I have made Deportation Orders in respect of 12 men, about whom I was satisfied that they were engaged in activities prejudicial to the war effort; and the question of making Deportation Orders in other similar cases is at present under consideration. Four of the men detained went on hunger-strike for a time, but have since abandoned it. It is clear that a number of Greek seamen were misled into a position which I hope will be avoided in future by proper methods of explanation; but if in future others should be misled into refusing to play their part in the Allied war effort, I shall feel it right to use my powers of deportation in any case in which I am satisfied that a Greek seaman in this country has refused to accept employment which was open to him in a Greek ship

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there was a sincere and conscientious difference of opinion on the part of many of these seamen regarding the interpretation of certain wage scales? Would he not view the position sympathetically, and see that no man who is on strike for conscientious reasons is punished or treated adversely in this country?

I think that my answer gave the facts. The Ministry of Labour is satisfied that the rate being paid to the men, which is materially in excess of British or Allied rates, is reasonable. In those circumstances, it seems that the matter is primarily one for the Greek Government. If sailors of that nationality are not willing to play their part in the Allied cause, I do not think we should be over-sympathetic.

Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid taking any steps to support the employers of these men by punishing or detaining the men for refusing to accept wages which they think are unsatisfactory?

I do not want to enter into controversy, but the facts are really very much against the seamen in this matter. In any case, we must take account of the wishes of the Greek Government in the matter.

Grand National

43.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has decided to veto the running of the Grand National for the duration of the war?

I have carefully considered the proposal to hold a substitute Grand National at Cheltenham, but have come to the conclusion that this fixture is undesirable. I am accordingly asking the Stewards of the National Hunt Club not to proceed with their proposal.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, is he aware that it will give very wide public satisfaction?

Distribution Of Industrial Population

47.

asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will give an assurance that the Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population will form the main basis of post-war reconstruction; and, further, will he consider the advisability of setting up permanent machinery of administration which could form the cadre of a National Industrial Board?

I have already considered the Report of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population and, in consultation with my colleagues who are responsible for the many Departments concerned, I am taking into account the recommendations contained in the Report, including those which relate to the establishment of a National Industrial Board.

Reconstruction (Administrative Machinery)

48.

asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he is yet in position to give any details of the administrative machinery under his direct supervision; and is it his intention to issue a White Paper setting out briefly the initial objectives which it may be possible to attain during the war period?

No, Sir. The extent to which a plan of reconstruction can be put into operation during the war period cannot be forecast with any certainty, as it must depend largely upon the developments of the war situation. The major part of the work of investigating problems of reconstruction will fall upon the Departments concerned and upon the outside organisations and bodies which I am consulting, and the administrative machinery under my direct supervision will be evolved gradually in the manner which appears to be best adapted for meeting the requirements as the work proceeds.

Will the right hon. Gentleman pay due regard to having women on some of these Committees which are being set up under this machinery; and is he aware that there is not a woman on the Committee which was set up yesterday.

Most certainly, and I am in communication now with certain women's organisations.

Agriculture

Rabbits

50.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the damage which is being done throughout the country to crops and timber by rabbits; and whether he will initiate active steps to exterminate this agricultural pest, which is seriously damaging our national food production effort?

Yes, Sir. The damage done by rabbits to food production in this country is out of all proportion to their value as food. I should like to see them completely exterminated, were that possible. Meanwhile active steps are being taken under the Rabbits Order by County War Agricultural Executive Committees for the destruction of this pest. I am satisfied that the campaign has already met with a considerable measure of success, and I am impressing on committees that there must be no relaxation of effort in this direction during the spring and summer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that large numbers of the public do not realise what he has just said; and will he not consider the issue of some kind of circular to the Press pointing out the enormous amount of foodstuffs eaten by these pests which materially militates against our food production?

Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind that large numbers of the public cannot get on to many acres of land in order to deal with these animals?

Was it not a mistake for the Minister of Food to control the price of rabbits?

Milk

51.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that 372 samples of graded milk sold in Newcastle-upon-Tyne during 1940 showed a percentage of 92.4 as satisfactory, and during the same period 726 samples of undesignated milk and 46 samples of accommodation milk showed only 69.56 and 56.52, respectively, satisfactory, and, as these last named qualities due to excrement and pathogenic organisms are dangerous to the public health, are steps being taken by improved supervision of the farms concerned and adequate veterinary inspection to remedy this situation?

A statement of the results of the examination of the milk referred to has been received by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health. The supervision of the cleanliness of dairy farms is a matter for the local authority as regards both designated and undesignated milk. The veterinary inspection of dairy cows by my officers is being continued as in peace time, and in this connection I would add that so far as tuberculosis is concerned the number of positive milk samples reported from Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1940 was very small.

Is the Minister aware that there are many farms in the country which have been grossly neglected by their owners and where there have been no veterinary inspection for months? Will he take action?

The hon. Member's Question affects Newcastle-upon-Tyne and I have given him an answer.

Stag Hunt, Carnforth

52.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a case of cruelty following a stag hunt recently at Carnforth; and whether, in order to put a stop to this practice whereby animals endure torture, he will take action under the Emergency Powers Defence Act to authorise persons to enter upon land and to take steps for the killing and removal of deer, hares and rabbits, thereby serving a useful purpose by adding to the food supply of the nation?

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the provisions of the Deer Order, 1940, and the Rabbits Order, 1940, made under the Defence Regulations. These Orders confer powers on county war agricultural executive committees regarding the killing of deer and rabbits, including the power in certain circumstances to enter on land for that purpose. The Orders also provide that, in the exercise of that power, committees may give directions as to the disposal, of deer and rabbits killed.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware—because it has appeared in the Press—that this stag was entangled for three weeks in wire netting until police came up and put it out of its misery? Can nothing be done to stop this horrible practice of stag-hunting?

Steel Traps

57.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, whether it is the desire of the Government that the production of the steel-trap industry for agricultural purposes should be maintained and encouraged at the present time; and whether the necessary priority will be given to demands for the steel necessary for the purpose of manufacture?

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, arrangements have been made with the Departments concerned for the release of a reasonable quantity of steel to manufacturers.

Is it not essential, if this rabbit destruction campaign is to succeed, that this industry should be encouraged?

I have no reason to suppose that there will not be adequate supplies of steel for the construction of rabbit traps.

Remand Homes

59.

asked the Home Secretary whether any steps are being taken to deal with the serious shortage of remand homes; and whether, as this involves the detention of young offenders in prison, local authorities can be urged to make temporary provision to deal with the situation pending the establishment of further permanent remand homes?

I have been in communication with local authorities who, under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, are responsible for the provision of Remand Homes. Several new Homes have recently been provided and others have been enlarged, but I regret that there is still inadequate accommodation in some areas. I understand that some local authorities have experienced difficulty in finding suitable premises under existing conditions. I can assure my hon. Friend that the subject is receiving close attention. As regards detention in prisons, the law provides that a person under 17 years of age shall only be committed to prison if the Court certifies that he is so unruly or depraved that he cannot be detained in a Remand Home; and shortage of accommodation in such Homes does not justify magistrates in disregarding or straining this statutory limitation.

Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to this problem? In West Ham there have been great difficulties in regard to the matter.

I will, Sir, but I think the obligation is on the West Ham town council to provide remand homes.

Allied Forces Act

63.

asked the Home Secretary whether he has now completed his inquiries into the questions concerning the alleged abuse by the Polish authorities, with the co-operation of Scotland Yard, of the provisions of the Allied Forces Act, 1940?

Immediately after the Question asked by my hon. Friend on 19th December I had exhaustive inquiries made as a result of which it would appear that the allegation that the civil police were in any way concerned must have been made under a misapprehension. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has been consulted and I understand that the question whether the Polish authorities have jurisdiction over these men under the provisions of the Allied Forces Act is under discussion with those authorities.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when I asked a Question on this matter in December he invited me to send him particulars of cases about which I knew. I sent these particulars and would like to know whether he has investigated these cases and, if so, with what result?

Yes, Sir. These cases which I have investigated are based on the information which my lion. Friend supplied to me, and my reply is the result of this investigation.

Is the right hon Gentleman aware that there have been numerous instances of Polish citizens of the Jewish Religion endeavouring to evade their military duties as Polish citizens?

Education

Teachers (Service Pay)

67.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that some teachers have their service pay supplemented by the local education authority, assisted by a grant from his Department, while others of equal status receive no such supplement of service pay from the Board of Education, because the local education authority pays nothing to the teachers; and will he state the justification and authority to pay public money by his Department to one person and not to another employed by the State in similar capacities?

Teachers working under local education authorities are employed by the authorities and not by the State, and their position in this matter is governed by the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, which empowers local education authorities to make up the civil remuneration of their employés who are engaged in war service. The exercise of this power is a matter for the discretion of the local authorities concerned. The Board's grants are related to the authorities' approved expenditure.

Is not this a case in which the Board of Education should try to set a good example to the local authorities? Are they not at present penalising one man against another?

The Board do not employ the teachers or pay them. If there were a proposal that the State should pay teachers, nobody would object more strenuously than the hon. Gentleman.

Is it not the case that at present the Board give one teacher a grant of money and repudiate the other?

The salary is paid by the local education authority, and the Board pay a grant on the authority's expenditure.

Necessitous School Children (Clothing And Footwear)

68.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the granting of the powers to local education authorities in England and Wales now operative in Scotland to make provision for the supply of clothing and footwear to necessitous school children?

No, Sir. Powers already exist for providing clothing and footwear for necessitous school children and I see no need to introduce legislation to empower local education authorities to make such provision.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what powers we have in this country which they have not in Scotland for dealing with this problem?

The Scottish powers were taken as long ago as 1908. If there were no provision in this country for the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I should sympathise with his proposal.

74.

asked the Minister of Health how many directors of education have received grants in order to provide footwear and clothing for necessitous school children; the names of the authorities, and the amounts of the grant made to each; and under what authority, and from what source, such grants were made?

The primary responsibility for supplying school children with boots and clothing must continue to rest with their parents. In view, however, of the special difficulties in urgent cases in war time of clothing for evacuated school children I have given authority under Section 56 of the Civil Defence Act, 1939, to town clerks and directors of education in evacuation areas to spend from public funds up to a present total of approximately £20,000 as an emergency supplement to such local funds as they have been able to provide from voluntary sources. The other information desired by the hon. Member covers some pages of figures, and I am sending it to him.

Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the answer which the President of the Board of Education gave a few minutes ago and ask why the powers which he said were available have not been put into operation?

Does the granting of this money depend solely upon the decision of the director of education? Is there no local committee concerned about it?

It is done in consultation with those people who know the circumstances of the parents and the child.

Are not the grants made under a document headed "Private and Confidential"?

That does not mean that this is secret to a very small number of people. The existence of this fund is generally known and in the localities a great deal of the details are perfectly well understood.

Public Schools

69.

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can make a statement of the purpose and progress of the discussions that have been taking place between representatives of the Board of Education and of the public schools?

No discussion is taking place between my Department and the Governors of public schools, nor have I been approached by the schools in the matter. Certain informal discussions have, however, been held locally at which members of the local education authority and individual governors and headmasters of public and secondary schools have examined possible ways in which the independent boarding schools could be brought into closer association with the State system of education and could make further contributions towards the welfare of young people in their localities. In some cases officers of my Department have participated in these discussions at the invitation of those who initiated them.

Will the House be informed of the results of those informal discussions?

I am carefully considering the matter, but the stage for formal discussions has not yet been reached.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission or some influential committee to inquire into the whole position of public schools in future?

That had better be considered if and when formal discussions take place.

Health Services, Newquay

77.

asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory state of the health services in Newquay; and whether he proposes to take any action to improve them, in view of the large increase of the population due to the billeting of official evacuees in the town?

I am aware of the position in the district to which the hon. Member refers. The county health services have recently been strengthened by the appointment of an additional assistant county medical officer, the seconding of six school nurses to the county by the London County Council, and the expansion of the district medical service. Local health services have been improved by the establishment of a general sick bay and of a special sick bay and clinic for skin cases. Further steps at present under consideration include the appointment of another assistant county medical officer, part of whose time would be devoted to this area, and the provision of additional hospital accommodation for cases of infectious disease.

Will the Minister consider sending them information of the health services in areas where there is a Labour majority?

Imported Drugs

71.

asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken to limit the prescription by medical practitioners of non-essential imported drugs, and the sale of such drugs as ingredients in proprietary medicines, and to suggest alternatives produced in this country?

A Defence Regulation has been made on this subject and its details will be published in the course of the next few days.

Will my right hon. Friend see that the results of this inquiry are brought home in a practical and useful form to the general practitioners and the panel practitioners?

I intend to give general advice to the general practitioners in this matter and details of the matter will appear in the medical journals.

Will they be provided with suitable alternative materials which they can prescribe?

Armed Forces (Pensions And Grants)

82.

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the hardship suffered by pensioners of the last war existing upon small fixed allowances during this period of increased prices; and whether he will take action to remedy this position?

Conditions under which the pension rates may be raised are laid down in the Royal Warrant of the 6th December, 1919. The hon. Member may be assured that steps will be taken to increase the rates when the cost of living justifies it.

Has not the Minister received representations from other quarters, for example the British Legion, that the time is now ripe for having a review of these allowances, and has he taken such appeals into consideration?

Yes, Sir. I have received one or two representations and I have taken them into consideration.

Does the Minister realise that these pensioners have received a reduction of approximately 25 per cent. in their pension owing to the increase in the cost of living?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these pensioners of the last war are the only people who have received no advance since this war started?

How much further has the cost of living to rise before any notice is taken of it in their case?

83.

asked the Minister of Pensions why Mr. D. F. P. Howard, late 69th Anti-Tank Regiment, Royal Artillery, Duke of Connaught's Own, who was passed A1 in 1932, in June, 1939, and in August, 1939, and who was invalided on 13th January, 1940, suffering from valvular disease of the heart, has not been granted any pension or given compensation; and whether he is now prepared to take suitable action in the matter?

It has not been possible in the time available to obtain the papers regarding this case. I will, however, look into it and write to the hon. and gallant Member as soon as possible.

Local Authorities' Loans

84.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether permission is given to local authorities to convert outstanding loans to a lower rate of interest?

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend that local authorities and their rate-payers are facing serious financial difficulties? With the Government borrowing at 2½ per cent. and 3 per cent. they resent having to continue paying interest on loans at 6 per cent.

My hon. Friend can rest assured that this matter will be constantly borne in mind.

London Fashion Collection (South America)

85.

asked the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade what progress is being made in the preparation of exhibits for the Fashion Exhibition at Buenos Aires and Rio in the forthcoming spring under the auspices of his Department and the Export Council?

Arrangements are being completed for the exhibition to he known as "The London Fashion Collection for South America" to be presented in Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Montevideo, in April next. It will comprise a number of models which have been specially designed by nine of the leading London dressmakers from fabrics supplied by the Export Groups representing every branch of the textile industry.

Would my hon. and gallant Friend say whether the Department is receiving the active co-operation of all those interested in sending exhibits to the places mentioned in his reply?

Disused Tinplate Works

88.

asked the Minister of Supply whether he will state the progress being made by the Redundancy Committee set up by the tinplate trade to investigate the problem of old and disused tinplate works; and what decision has been arrived at regarding the Treforest Works, Glamorgan?

I am informed that the Redundancy Committee is proceeding as rapidly as possible with their investigation of this complex problem. Under war conditions the production of tinplate is likely to be reduced, but as was explained to the hon. Member on 13th November, information about the Treforest works has already been noted in case an opportunity arises for using the buildings for other purposes.

Can the Minister say whether active and urgent steps are being taken to find alternative employment for the men near their homes?

That is another question. This Question referred to the actual works buildings and the possibility of using plant and scrap.

Moles, Destruction (Scotland)

92.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the serious increase of moles in certain areas of Scotland; and what measures does he propose to take to eradicate these pests and secure their valuable pelts?

I am aware that moles are a serious pest in certain parts of Scotland. Occupiers of land are free to destroy moles but in the interests of increased food production powers have been delegated to Agricultural Executive Committees to serve Orders requiring the destruction of vermin and, failing compliance with an Order, to enter on the land and do the work required. Committees are also empowered to authorise the purchase of strychnine for the purpose of killing moles. Occupiers and others are at liberty to preserve and sell mole skins.

Commodity Insurance Scheme

95.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the delay that is taking place in making payment of admitted claims for commodities destroyed by enemy action; and will he see that prompt settlement is made forthwith?

Special measures have been taken to minimise delay in dealing with claims under the Commodity Insurance Scheme, and there has been a substantial and satisfactory increase in the output in recent weeks. I shall be glad to examine any cases of serious delay my hon. Friend has in mind to see whether further improvement can be effected.

Food Supplies (Cheese)

101.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Food, whether he is considering the appeal by farmworkers' organisations in Wiltshire, and other rural counties, for a fair ration of cheese, as one of the best body-building foods in conjunction with bread and beer; and whether means can be devised to grant their request?

Cheese is distributed by the Ministry so that the different areas of the country receive supplies, so far as practicable, in proportion to their needs. My Noble Friend does not consider that cheese is a suitable commodity for rationing at this stage. As I have stated in reply to similar Questions, cheese is in short supply at present, but my Noble Friend is endeavouring to secure the maximum imports, and meanwhile he has asked the general public to reduce their consumption so that supplies of cheese will be left for those who need it.

Will my hon. and gallant Friend say what grounds there were for the suggestion in the Press yesterday that very shortly we are to have 100 per cent. supplies of cheese?

I do not know that particular reference, but I do know that my Noble Friend is very hopeful that supplies will be much improved.

Does the Minister know that a good lump of cheese with some bread is as good as any meal?

Business Of The House

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the forthcoming Business?

On the first and second Sitting Days we shall make further progress in Committee on the War Damage Bill.

On the third Sitting Day we shall take the Committee stage of Votes of Credit for War Expenditure, and, if there is time, proceed further with the War Damage Bill.

Has the Lord Privy Seal given consideration to the suggestion, made in the course of the Debate yesterday, that the Sitting Days should be lengthened to enable progress to be made on the War Damage Bill?

Yes, Sir, the House is aware of the urgency for dealing with the War Damage Bill and other Measures as well as the financial business which usually comes before the House at this period of the Session. We shall make proposals at the next Sitting.

I am afraid, whether the hours are short or long, it does not really affect the prolixity of Members.

Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Bill Lords

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders Of The Day

War Damage Bill

Considered in Committee. [ Progress 29th January.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 7—(Determination Of Questions As To Works And Value)

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 15, to leave out from "hereditament," to "to," in line 17, and to insert

"At the instance of any party interested."—[Mr. Silkin.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'value,' in line 16, stand part of the Clause."

The Amendment which I moved yesterday is designed to do two things. First it gives a right of appeal to any person interested in a claim in addition to the claimant. The right of such other persons has already been recognised in Clause 5 on which we had a discussion yesterday. I submit, therefore, for that reason that such other persons ought to have a right of appeal. As I explained on another Amendment, the claimant himself may have a very small right in the matter and another person may have the real substantial rights other than the claimant, such as the mortgagee or the ground landlord. I submit that in such a case, where the claimant himself does not think it worth while to appeal and substantial injustice may possibly be done to a ground landlord or mortgagee, that person should have a right of appeal. That is the first point which the Amendment is designed to secure.

The second seeks to widen the grounds upon which an appeal may be made. I do not want to open the door too widely to appeals. The Amendment is not designed to open the door to appeals against the amount of a cost-of-works payment. That, I think, will be almost automatic, and I do not see how any real difference of opinion can arise, but it is designed to give a right of appeal on any question where value is material, and not only where there has been a value payment but on other matters, even cost-of-works payment, where it is based upon value. Wherever the amount of payment to be made depends upon the ascertainment of value I submit that it ought to be open to a claimant, or to some other person interested, to make an appeal on the ascertainment of the value. It ought to be open to the claimant or a person interested to say the Commission is wrong in fixing such and such a value which automatically decides whether a cost-of-works payment or a value payment is to be made. Generally, of course, it is recognised that an appeal should lie where there is a dispute about value. I am opening the door only a little way in suggesting that not only should there be an appeal against the value itself but wherever the determination of the value is a material factor in the claim it should be open to a claimant to appeal.

On the first point that the hon. Member raised I am in substantial agreement with him, though I suggest that it would be better to deal with it by regulation than by inserting these or similar words in the Bill. Under Clause 3 (2) the procedure is that, even where there is more than one person interested, one should be selected as the claimant. The object of that is to prevent the unnecessary multiplication of forms and applications and all the rest of it. He will be appointed and will act in a representative capacity and, as far as one can see, the interests of all the claimants will, normally at any rate, be identical and they will want to get as much as they can. I quite agree that, if the particular person suggested as claimant is satisfied with the decision of the Commission whereas a mortgagee or the ground landlord or some other person interested is not, and would like to exercise a right of appeal, the procedure of the Commission must clearly provide that he has that right. That might mean for the purposes of the Bill substituting him for the original representative claimant. I think it would be much better to deal with it by rules of procedure. If you put expressly into the Bill that everyone has a right of appeal, that might mean that people could appeal independently and you would get just that multiplicity of documents and representations which it is desired to avoid. I hope the Committee will accept my assurance that provision will be made in the procedure of the Commission for seeing that the evil that led the hon. Member to put down the Amendment does not arise and that any person interested shall be able to see that an appeal is brought whether he is the person selected originally as the claimant or not.

The second point clearly raises a question of greater difficulty. There is no doubt that there are many areas, of which this is one, in which justice with a capital J demands expedition and prompt settlement, as against the right of appeal, and in some cases successive appeals. The hon. Member showed that he had that in mind when he dealt with the restricted scope of his Amendment. The two points which, I think, the widening of the door would cover are Clause 4 (2, a) and Clause 5 (1, a). In the latter case the post war value—the value if reconstructed—is one of the items in considering whether there should be a cost-of-works or a value payment. As the Bill stands, the right of appeal is in respect of the March, 1939, value. Of course, value in post-war conditions, as far as we can see them, would be much more difficult to determine than the value at such a period as March, 1939. It is very likely to be uncertain, and all sorts of fluctuating factors will introduce an element of uncertainty.

There is another point that I should like the hon. Member to bear in mind. The Commission will, of course, have their technical advisers. Although it was made clear that my right hon. Friend does not desire to be able to intervene on particular decisions affecting particular properties, the general policy of the Commission and the general way it is carrying out the functions imposed upon it will be matters on which he can be questioned and pressure can be brought to bear upon him and representations made in the House, and so on. This question of post-war value, and whether there shall be value or cost-of-works payment, will be very important matters. If you gave this right of appeal on this rather difficult question of post-war values, it would be made to referees, and clearly my right hon. Friend could not interfere with their decisions, or the principles on which they were acting. That is a point which is worth bearing in mind. I agree, and my right hon. Friend agrees, that questions arising under Clause 5 (1, a) may be of very great importance. Our discussions yesterday emphasised, if indeed it needed emphasis, that the decisions between a cost-of-works payment and a value payment may be of vital importance to many individuals, and if in the light of what I have said the Committee still feel strongly that a right of appeal to the referees, which would, as it were, shift the responsibility from the Commission to an appellate expert body, would be more satisfactory, and that those who may be affected would prefer that course, my right hon. Friend will certainly be prepared to reconsider the matter.

There is one question I wish to put to my right hon. and learned Friend. Under Clause 29 there will, I expect, be persons, corporate and otherwise, who will badly need either rebuilding or value payments if their premises happen to be hit by bombs who will not be claimants in the sense of claimants under this Clause, because it is there provided that the Commission may pay what amounts it likes, when it likes and to whom it pleases. Are such persons, corporate or otherwise, to be given, what I do not think they have at present, some right of appeal, or quasi appeal, to anybody else, because if not it does seem that they will be suffering a unique and highly undeserved injustice?

That point does not arise on this Clause. My hon. Friend is quite right that under this Clause and under the Bill as it stands the right of appeal which we are now discussing is not conferred upon those whom he has in mind.

No, I am not saying that at all. That must arise on Clause 29.

I feel that the speech of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General has made out the case in favour of this Amendment. One of the arguments which was used yesterday with regard to another Clause was that we must regard the War Damage Commission as infallible, a view which I am not prepared to accept. The Bill itself admits that it is not, because if a right of appeal is given in respect of one kind of value it is very difficult to see why it should not be given in respect of another. Therefore, it seems clear that there ought to be some right of appeal with regard to Clause 5 (I.a) which deals with a matter which is just as important to the citizen as the other interest on which a right of appeal is given. The Attorney-General also suggested that these matters are so difficult that there ought not to be any right of appeal. If they are so difficult, surely that is all the more reason for anticipating that there may be cases in which the War Damage Commission may come to a wrong conclusion. Finally, if is suggested that the proper remedy of those who are aggrieved is to bring their cases to this House and have them raised on the Floor of the House with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope it will not happen that hundreds of cases of people who are aggrieved over the determinations of the War Damage Commission will be fought out across the Floor of the House. That would be a dreadful state of affairs, but under the Bill as it stands it is the only remedy of people who feel a grievance about a determination.

I think we had better leave the matter like this: The Attorney-General has made his statement and, I think the Committee will agree, has put the case very fairly, and I should like it to be considered by the appropriate bodies who have already made representations to me. No doubt they will get into touch with me and with my hon. Friends who are associated with them, and I can hear what they have to say. I shall be interested to hear what they do say, because the position is not nearly so simple as the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Douglas) would suggest. Some people may prefer the Commission to deal with the business, feeling that its decisions may be more consistent than would be the decisions of referees. Also we have to remember—I do not say in connection with this Clause—that if we do extend this right of appeal to referees, the referees will have to be put into the position of being able not only to increase the awards but to reduce them, and the parties concerned may prefer that the decision should rest with the Commis- sion. I am prepared to receive representations on this matter, and I invite all who are interested to think it over and let me know their views.

The Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have shown that they appreciate the points which are involved, and I am quite satisfied that they intend to deal with the matter fairly, and to give it full consideration, and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, after "made," to insert

"and as to the amount of the cost-of-works payment under subsections (2) and (3) of section four of this Act."
If one turns to Clause 4 it will be seen that a determination of the amount of the cost of works is not just a mere question of facts; it may be partly a matter of opinion. It is not mere arithmetic, merely saying, "This is the builders' account," because Clause 4 says
"In this Part of this Act the expression the permissible amount' means, in relation to a payment of cost of works, the amount that is payable by virtue of this paragraph or that would have been payable if this paragraph had had effect in relation to the payment."
I am told by leading experts that no one has been able to find out what that means. It may be perfectly clear, but it is not clear to me, and if it is at all vague it may be desirable that there should be some kind of appeal about such grave uncertainties. Then, in Sub-section (3) of Clause 4, we find that the question of whether a cost is "reasonable" arises, and "all other relevant circumstances" have to be taken into account. Those are matters on which there can be differences of opinion. It is not merely a case of saying, "The cost was £391 1s. 4d., let me have that sum," because included in that sum will be items about which there may be doubt, and if the Commission take an adverse view there ought to be some right of appeal.

On this matter I agree with my hon. Friend who moved the first Amendment to-day, that in considering the points for and against rights of appeal it was probably right not to allow appeals in the case of cost-of-works payment. The broad basis of the cost-of-works payment is a perfectly simple question of fact. Of course we have to put in words like "reasonable," because it would not be right to say that whatever bill a man produces will be paid. There is no doubt that these things will be settled with the agents of the Commission and it would not be right to provide for appeals With regard to Clause 4 (2, a) that is a cost-of-works matter and it was one of the questions referred to by my hon. Friend which was covered by the statement I made as to the matters which my right hon. Friend would be ready to consider.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, at the end, to add:

"(3) In any case other than that referred to in Sub-section (2) of this Section, any party dissatisfied with the determination of the Commission as being erroneous in point of law may, within such time as may be limited by rules of court, require the Commission to state and sign a case for the opinion thereon of the High Court."
I am suggesting in this Amendment that an appeal may lie, not on a question of fact, but on a question of law. Such questions might arise on all sorts of matters, and the Amendment provides that if a claimant is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commission on a question of law the Commission should be asked to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. On questions of fact the ordinary appeal would lie to the referee.

I view with some dubiety the previous proposals which were made for appeals to the referee, which are on a different footing from appeals to a superior court. This Amendment provides only for an appeal in a simple form on a case stated by the War Damage Commission to a higher court. Therefore, it is a higher kind of appeal than any proposed in previous Amendments. I hope that the Attorney-General, whatever he does with the former proposals, will accept the proposal in this Amendment.

In considering this Amendment, the main idea of which will command general sympathy, we were in some difficulty in discovering any points of law that might arise out of the duties of the Commission. That is not a fancy or obstructive point, because if we put in words in the Statute suggesting that points of law can arise under certain powers, when in fact it is difficult to see that they can, it will at once be said that the words were put in for some reason and that, therefore, there must be points of law that could arise. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be content to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that if there are points of law which can arise my right hon. Friend will see that provision is made to take them to the Courts.

Will not the Commission have to interpret this Bill, and is it not in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament that points of law arise?

The Commission have to carry out their duties, and the question whether points of law will arise is one of those hypothetical points that one wants to consider.

Perhaps I may submit a memorandum on the subject to the Attorney-General, and on that understanding I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8—(Provisions For Securing The National Interest In The Making Of Payments)

I beg to move in page 6, line 21, at the beginning, to insert

"The Minister of Works and Buildings after consultation with."
The purpose of the Amendment is to substitute for the Treasury the Minister of Works and Buildings as the authority responsible for the planning policy in reconstructing war damaged areas. It is the desire of us all that we should be brief, and if I compress my argument severely the Committee will not, I hope, think it is because I do not regard the Amendment as of great importance. Clause 8 makes it possible that the reconstruction shall be, to use the words of the Bill,
"in conformity with the national interest, as respects town and country planning, the provision of housing accommodation, the development of industries and services,"
and so on. In fact, it makes possible a reconstruction worthy of a victorious war. On the administration of this Clause depends the lay-out of important parts of Britain and of cities in which substantial blocks of citizens will live their lives. The Bill imposes this task upon the Treasury who will have to give directions. Many Departments will be concerned, such as Health, Transport, Trade, Labour and the Defence Services. It is indeed difficult to find a Department that is not interested. The picture which is provided by the Bill is that each Department brings its own contribution to the Treasury, which fits the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle into a complete whole and gives directions as to policy. None of us doubts that that puzzle will be solved with high intelligence and workmanlike skill and that we shall be confronted with a typical piece of competent co-ordination.

The Amendment asks that that work shall be given to the Minister of Works and Buildings simply because co-ordination is not enough. If the work is to be done worthily we must have a Department not only acting as a centre of knowledge and information, but capable of giving continuous study and of evolving a creative policy and applying it with continuous drive and direction. I suggest that the Treasury cannot possibly fulfil that task for two reasons. It has not the officials or the Ministers who can give time to that kind of work. The Financial Secretary is, in peace-time, notoriously one of the hardest-worked Ministers in the whole body of Ministers, and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer this matter could be only a very small by-product of his main tasks. It is not in that spirit that the work should be accomplished.

Suppose there were suggested a rather mean reconstruction of Coventry; what use would it be for us to try to bring the Chancellor of the Exchequer to account for it? He would not have the knowledge of the subject or the continuous supervision which would enable us usefully to criticise him. It is not his job. A further point is that the Department responsible for planning must be a spending Department in outlook. It has to envisage the spending of colossal sums of money. It is always wrong to try to turn the Treasury into a Department with the outlook of a spending office, because it is not its business. I have much too high a respect for its sense of duty to suppose that it could possibly do that well. The Amendment does not seek for a moment to deprive the Treasury of its proper control, which must be absolute. We do not want to remove from the Treasury the control that it must exercise as a co-ordinating body when it is faced with an unresolved dispute between, say, the Minister of Works and Buildings and the Ministry of Health. The Treasury would have to resolve such a dispute. The Treasury must control matters of finance, and that control is completely different from the work of evolving a creative policy.

The final reason for putting in the Minister of Works and Buildings as the proper authority to direct planning policy is that, in the course of the Ministry's reconstruction work, it will be confronted with all the problems which were examined by the Royal Commission. All sections of that Commission recognised the need for a central authority to evolve policy. Here is an admirable opportunity, which we ought not to lose, for setting up that central authority.

The Minister in charge of this matter will necessarily have to study the problems which were considered by the Royal Commission. He will be able to evolve policies. This is the first chance we have had to lay the foundations of a worthy policy of after-war reconstruction, and I ask the Committee not to lose it.

May I say a word to the Committee upon this Amendment? The hon. Member has referred to various things which he considers it desirable should be dealt with and to some extent they cover matters which are raised in later Amendments to the Clause. I hope hon. Members who have their names to those later Amendments will bear that fact in mind, and, if they wish to say anything on this Amendment, they may be able to refrain from doing so on their later Amendments.

Perhaps it will save the time of the Committee if I speak now on this matter, which was discussed on an earlier Clause of the Bill, where we dealt with directions to be given by the Treasury in certain circumstances. I undertook at that stage to make those directions general. While I agree with a good deal of what has been said and with the motives lying behind the Amendment, I think my hon. Friend rather misconceives the whole scope of this Measure.

He has seized on one part of it, a very important and vital part, to put the Minister of Works and Buildings into the picture as a sort of planning authority. This Bill is one of the most extensive Bills brought to Parliament for many years. It affects many interests and many Departments. For example, the Ministry of Health is affected, as town planning authority, and the Ministry of Transport, in connection with roads. A variety of Departments are concerned, and they are just as much in the picture as the Ministry of Works and Buildings, whose functions have not at the moment been defined.

It is for that reason that we are considering the Treasury, not in its position as a Department controlling expenditure, but in the position which it has always occupied as a co-ordinating Department, for all other Departments. That is why the Treasury is put into the Bill. On the matters which my hon. Friend has at heart I undertake that the Treasury will act in consultation and in conjunction with the Ministry of Works and Buildings. Take, for instance, the case of Coventry. The Minister of Works and Buildings would be one of the Ministers consulted in connection with the reconstruction of Coventry. So would the Minister of Transport and other Ministers. It is impossible to set out in the Clause all the Ministers who have to be consulted, because that has long ceased to be one of our Parliamentary practices. There is no question of the Treasury altering the financial provisions of the Measure. It has already been stated that the Commission will decide whether a value payment or a cost-of-works payment will be made, and what exactly the amount will be. It is for that reason, as I explained, on Clause 1, that the Measure takes this form. My hon. Friend may rest assured that in all matters the appropriate Minister will be fully consulted.

In spite of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said I wish to support the Amendment. I think I ought to say, at the outset, that I have no interest in property; I am not an estate agent, valuer, or anything of that sort. This is an opportunity, I think, for putting forward a case which was put forward by the minority of the Barlow Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the Ministry of Works and Buildings is only one Department among many, but I would remind him that at the time of the Barlow report—and, after all, it took two years to get that report written—many people were talking about the importance of having some policy in regard to the location of industry. That report asked for the establishment of a Ministry with a Cabinet Minister at the head—which we now have in the new Ministry—to take over powers under the Town and Country Planning Act, the powers of the Ministry of Transport and other kindred powers, and have responsibility not only in regard to the powers of the old Office of Works but also powers which had been distributed among a number of Ministries during the last 20 years.

The Amendment suggests that we should make the new Minister into a person who can co-ordinate these various Departments. I know we cannot do that by this Bill, but I suggest that the more we can bring into this Bill the Minister of Works as the proper person to co-ordinate other Departments, the more chance we shall have in the future of replanning on better lines. Every hon. Member, I believe, agrees with this and it seems to me that there is a chance in this Bill of making the Government realise that there is a strong feeling in the country that the new Minister of Works should have larger functions than the old Office of Works. At the same time I should like to see the powers of the new Minister more closely confined, and if by the way of a side wind you can get some statement from the Government on the importance of this subject we shall have done something worth while by putting forward this Amendment.

It seems to me that the suggestion is that we ought to accept this Amendment in order to give the Ministry of Works and Buildings a free advertisement. It is a very nice idea that we should boost the new Ministry, but I think that putting words into the Bill is the last method we should adopt of boosting a Government Department. As a matter of fact the speech of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment was in an entirely contrary sense to what the Amendment would do. He said the Treasury must be the co-ordinating Department, but the Amendment would make the Ministry of Works the deciding authority and the Treasury merely a consultant. We must have one Department that is responsible. It will not do to have a dozen Ministries who can do apparently what they like after consulting the Treasury. The Treasury are not going to sit down and draft town-planning schemes. I admit that, at times, in matters of finance, Treasury officials are rather arrogant, but I have never yet come across a Treasury man who claimed it to be a universal authority. We know perfectly well that the Treasury will consult the appropriate authorities, so why clutter up the Bill and in effect split authority?

I would like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With great respect I venture to suggest that it is a very dangerous idea which is at the back of the minds of some hon. Members who are seeking to anticipate a decision on an immense question of policy about which a lot of us would have a great deal to say. People who have spent their lives in local administration would object to the idea of setting up a supreme Pooh-Bah in the shape of a Ministry of Reconstruction to override all local authorities. Such a matter cannot be decided until we have another Bill and we ought not to anticipate discussions which will arise on the big town-planning Bill which we must have after the war. Quite apart from that, it is entirely wrong from the Ministry's point of view to make the Ministry the deciding authority. The deciding authority must be the Treasury. With great respect, I venture to say, "For goodness sake let us keep to the main question, which is an attempt to repair the terrible damage done to thousands of individuals—and to rich people as well—and get payment for them as soon as possible." If we are to clutter up the Bill with other considerations we shall never see it through Committee.

I think it is of great importance that in this Bill, although it is not a town-planning Bill, Parliament should indicate that it does expect as an essential part of the Measure that there should be this consultation and that in particular it desires that the newly enlarged Ministry of Works and Buildings should always be consulted in every appropriate case. The Treasury after all, with its enormous powers and its immensely important duties, is not a town-planning Department. If the Treasury has to come to decisions piecemeal, first consulting one Department and then another, with no general plan before it, there is a danger that the jig-saw puzzle may not be put together quite so perfectly as it might be otherwise. I think that if it was made clear from the outset that the Ministry of Works and Buildings should be consulted in all cases, that would give an indication—I do not ask for more—of the intention of the Government.

I shall of course consult the Ministry of Works and Public Buildings in all proper cases, just as I shall consult other Ministries.

I am afraid I cannot withdraw the Amendment. I have never been less convinced by hostile arguments than on this occasion. Co-ordination is not enough. Of course there will be coordination, whether under the Treasury or under the Ministry of Works and Buildings. No answer has been given to the argument that the Treasury is not in a position to create a dynamic policy in relation to post-war planning, and that some Department is needed which shall be responsible for such a policy. It will have to grow up bit by bit, and by giving the Minister of Works and Buildings power under this Clause you will make it possible for him ultimately to draw up a completed policy. I admit that such a completed policy requires further legislation, but here we have a chance of laying one of the foundation stones, and I think we shall make a great mistake if we miss it. No doubt the Committee will negative my Amendment, but they must not ask me to withdraw it.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, to leave out "give to the Commission directions," and to insert

"after consultation with bodies representative of persons likely to be affected make regulations."
This Amendment raises two separate points and is not a high-brow Amendment like the one we have just been discussing but a practical, low-brow one. It provides that when the Treasury intends to give directions they shall consult with various representative bodies—not with Ministers, but with outside bodies, of which there are a great variety—which can give help and advice, and which in fact will have to carry out much of the work.

The other point is that instead of giving directions they shall make regulations. Regulations have to be laid on the Table and can be objected to, but directions are not subject to this publicity and there are considerable dangers in giving the Treasury power to give directions which will not be made known to the public.

I did not raise my Amendment because I understood that that point had been covered by what the Chancellor said on a previous occasion.

There are two separate issues. If this matter has been conclusively discussed, I apologise, but if not I should be glad if the Chancellor would state his point of view.

I am quite prepared to allow as much discussion as is necessary on the latter part of this Amendment but not of course on the first part, which has already been dealt with.

Perhaps it will help the Committee if I were to say a few words now on the question of consultation. I do not think my hon. Friend was present, but I indicated on the last sitting day that we would provide, by an Amendment on the Report stage, that the Commission should be enabled to consult with the local authority concerned, and that I regard as the practical course to be adopted. I think it would make for the much better working of this Measure if the parties concerned got into direct touch with those responsible for its administration, and I am therefore going to provide for that.

The question of directions under this Clause is a different matter. We are here defining generally the sort of directions that will be given to further the national interest as regards town and country planning. There are a number of Amendments on the Paper with which I would like to deal now, asking me to widen the already broad definition of directions given in the Clause. I will examine them and see whether anything more can usefully be added, but I have already got a consider- able number in and I am not convinced that it would be useful to proceed any further. For instance, there is a suggestion that agriculture should be included. I think that might very well be held to be included in the words "development of industry" and so on. I will however see whether there is any special need for further defining the matter. All I need say is that it was my intention and desire to have regard, in the directions which we shall give, to all that may truly be called national interests.

With regard to the giving of directions rather than the making of regulations, there would be a great difficulty in accepting the suggestion contained in the present Amendment, and I do not see how that difficulty could be surmounted. It might be, for instance, that in connection with the destruction of a particular factory one of the Defence Ministers might say that that factory must be dealt with at once, for reasons of national security. I shall have to give directions accordingly, and it would not be wise to disclose the nature of the action to be taken, as would have to be done if I were to proceed by regulation. There is another type of case which is very likely to arise and which again prevents the principle of regulation being adopted, and which at the same time prevents an undertaking being given in regard to publicity. If a certain number of properties are destroyed in a particular street, for example, the local authority concerned or the Minister of Works and Buildings may not wish to rebuild at once because they have plans for rebuilding in a different fashion. Obviously, I should have to give a direction to that effect, and equally obviously I could not publish it because there are a number of people about, as my hon. Friend knows, who are looking out for information of that kind, and would be only too glad to get it. For that reason therefore I am not able to say either that I will proceed by regulation or that I shall disclose immediately the nature of the directions I give. In a matter of any great public interest the details would no doubt be known and I should then be in a position to be challenged as to whether the right steps were being taken or not, and in the long run I think we shall have to rest upon the power of Parliament as far as this Clause is concerned.

I appreciate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps he could see his way to introduce words later on to provide that any directions which may be given after the cessation of the present hostilities should be made public. I fully appreciate the security grounds; but when we get back to peace-time, it might be desirable to take this course.

I will consider that. It is a difficult question as regards the latter part of my observations, where particular property is affected, but I will consider, in connection with Amendments on the Paper, whether the Commission should give a direction, for instance, that a particular business should go to a particular place. At present, the only matters likely to arise are in connection with the war; and there it would be right, apart from general questions which will, no doubt, arise when we come to discuss the powers of the Minister of Works and Buildings. There you have a very vital question, as to how far you would be interfering with the location of businesses. When I come to that, I would propose to limit this particular power to the period of the war, during which it would apply only to matters of general security.

In view of the Chancellor's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, to leave out "national," and to insert "public."

It is felt that the word "national," may not be wide enough because there may be local considerations which have to be considered, which would be overshadowed by national interests; and, therefore, I suggest that the word "public" would be more suitable.

The word "national" was intended to be wide enough to include all these considerations; but, in view of the observations of the hon. Member, the Chancellor is quite prepared to accept the word "public" instead.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 24, after "interest," to insert

"(but not so as to cause to any person any damage, loss or expense in respect of which no compensation would be payable under this or any other Act, or so as to render any person liable in damages to any other person or persons)."
This Clause provides that either a compensation payment or a value payment may be made, in accordance with directions which may be given by the Treasury. I feel that difficulty raises over the sort of case to which the Chancellor was referring a few minutes ago, where, in the public interest, it is necessary that the value payment should be given only on a property which is not going to be rebuilt. The owner of the property will get that payment, but the fact that the property is not to be rebuilt may affect the people next door, and result in damage to their property. I can find no provision in this Bill that if the carrying out of a direction given by the Commission results in damage to third parties the third parties will be compensated. They will simply have to put up with it. This is a point which ought to be borne in mind. Where you are giving these very important national directions you may be simultaneously inflicting damage on other individuals, and that ought to be provided for.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not accept this Amendment. It opens the door to the widest number of vague and uncertain claims, so that we should never know where we were. If we accepted this principle, every time we pass legislation we should open the door to claims for compensation by people who might be affected. Take, for instance, an order for evacuation, which affects the businesses of certain individuals. If there is a general principle of compensating every one who happens to be affected by an Act of Parliament, there is no limit to the number of claims we might have.

The damage that arises from evacuation is a war-time matter. This goes a long way further, into peace time. In the case of damage caused for public purposes, compensation is commonly paid.

In the case of every scheme to town plan an area we should have people wanting compensation.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor does not see his way to accept this Amendment. I quite agree that there is force in the argu- ment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), but it is inevitable that in certain cases there will be individual hardship. They must give way to the public interest. Of course, where an owner is under a legal obligation to repair his house, and is prevented from doing so, he is not liable to a suit from any other person affected. I think that is already provided for in the Bill—I will look into it, and if it is not provided for I will see that it is. We must have regard to the public interest, while taking the greatest care to cut down as much as possible the number of cases of individual hardship which must inevitably arise.

I am surprised that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), with his legal knowledge, should have suggested that this was a recognised principle. I think that the Solicitor-General was over-kind in saying that there was any force in what my hon. and learned Friend said. I do not think there is much force in what my hon. and learned Friend said. Let us take, for instance, the case of a slum clearance scheme. People may own property, which is not of a slum character, in the neighbourhood, and their property may be injured by the erection of new buildings in the area. Such an owner gets no compensation. My hon. and learned Friend's proposal is an entirely new one, which has never been recognised in any of the Housing Acts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, after "planning," to insert "the improvement of public amenities."

I cannot see why in drafting the Clause provision was not made for the improvement of public amenities—which obviously includes all those which are specified in the Clause. As far as I can gather the last two lines of the Clause give the Chancellor full power to deal with any kind of interest. Therefore, there is no point in specifying those which are referred to in the Clause. My point would be met if all these were left out, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be limited in his power by the specified words I would desire to move the Amendment in my name that "the improvement of public amenities" be added to the con- siderations which would guide him in making his directions. I think that that matter must be taken into consideration.

I will give consideration to this proposal and also to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) and other hon. Members to insert "the preservation of historic buildings," and also the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) to insert "the development of agriculture." I have also in mind the question of my hon. Friend who said something about town and country planning and a new England and a new Britain, and it is with that idea in mind that we did attempt to deal with this matter. However, I will consider whether it is necessary to re-draft the provision or to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend opposite.

In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HANNAH:

In page 6, line 26, after "accommodation," insert "the preservation of historic buildings"

That was my point. I did not call upon the hon. Member to move the Amendment, but was going to suggest that he would not now wish to move it. I think the principle is not only not new, but it has already been dealt with in the discussion. The same remark will apply to the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) and of other hon. Members—in page 6, line 26, after "accommodation," to insert "the development of agriculture."

I should like to express my appreciation of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in considering the Amendment, but I would like to enforce upon him the importance in the national interest of the development of agriculture.

There is no question before the Committee at the moment. No Amendment has been moved, and I think it is not desired to move this Amendment.

I beg to move in page 6, line 26, after "services," to insert:

"the acquisition by a local or public authority of any land required by the authority for the purpose of any of its powers or duties."
I think I need say very little in support of the Amendment which is self-explanatory. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that this Clause must, inevitably, deal with matters which concern local authorities, but that it is desirable that there should be some explicit recognition of that fact. There are very large areas in quite a number of our cities in which the damage to property is so extensive that there must be a complete replanning of the area, and consideration must be given to this most important opportunity for securing improvements which otherwise might not have been possible for many years to come.

The point the hon. Gentleman has just made is really covered by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now, in considering how far it was wise, to add to the list of directions, which are public directions, in order to meet the interests of local authorities, or how far it will be necessary to reconsider the whole. From what my right hon. Friend stated this afternoon, it is obviously contemplated, as far as town planning is concerned, to take local authorities into consultation, and, in view of what he has said just now, I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman wants to do more than have the point placed on record.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, to leave out from "importance" to the end of the Sub-section.

The purpose of this Clause is to secure that the expenditure of this great sum of public money and the development to which it will give rise shall be in conformity with the national interest. That is the one object with which no one can possibly quarrel, but I suggest that the Clause, as it is now drafted, goes further than is necessary to achieve that purpose. The Executive in this country has already been armed by Parliament with very considerable powers of controlling development and controlling such matters as will fall to be dealt with under this Bill. Town Planning legislation, Housing Acts, Building Acts and such legislation have already given to the central and the local authorities a considerable measure of control to secure that the national interest is not impaired by wrong development. In this Clause these powers are being very widely extended. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, they are being extended into fields where Parliament has so far had no opportunity of discussion or consideration, and where it has certainly not made up its mind, but where, at any rate in the immediate war conditions in which we live, it is necessary that we should take a chance and delegate the authority of Parliament in this way to the Treasury in the national interest and in the interest of national defence.

Already, additions to the list of groups and subjects in regard to which direction should be given have been suggested and the Chancellor has undertaken to consider them, and, if possible, add them to the list. I do suggest that, having taken into account all these types of case, in which, as far as this Committee at the moment can see, there is likely to be no need for directions of this kind, and having given to the Treasury and to the Commission by authority of the Treasury power to deal with all these cases, the Committee should say that that is enough to go on with and should not add the phrase which appears at the end of Sub-section (1) of the Clause:
"and any other matters as respects which it appears to the Treasury that such directions are required."
That is a perfectly blank cheque by which to give directions on any matter whatever and even though these directions might be embodied in published Regulations and directions laid on the Table of the House, and subject to the veto of the House, I submit that that would be yet another extension of the very unsatisfactory tendency which has been shown in recent years. There is far too much government to-day by Regulations and Ministerial orders. Speaking as one who has spent some years as a member of a local authority, I can certainly say that this method of producing a Bill, which lays down policy in a skeleton form, and leaves the details—very often important details—to be filled in by Ministerial orders and Regulations makes any kind of intelligent criticism of a great many Measures quite impossible.

I do ask the Committee and my right hon. Friend seriously to consider whether, in the interests of sound government and the preservation of proper control by Parliament over the actions of the Executive, it would not be right to limit the authority which is given under this section to the specific matters referred to therein, and not to add this general blank cheque. I am perfectly certain that if my right hon. Friend were in Opposition instead of on the Treasury Bench he would be the first to agree that it would he the duty of Parliament to direct the Executive and that it is wrong fundamentally to hand over to the Executive the initiative in such a wide and important field, subject only to the right of veto by Parliament of the Regulations which are made. Therefore, I do urgently ask my right hon. Friend at least to reconsider the wording of the last lines of this paragraph with a view to reassuring us that it is not intended to be and will not, in fact, he used as a blank authority by the Treasury, representing other Government Departments, to initiate matters which in all ordinary circumstances and certainly after the war should he subject to legislation by Parliament and open to discussion here.

My hon. Friend has spoken of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive on a comparatively small Amendment and time would not permit me to go fundamentally into that absorbing problem. These words do not mean a blank cheque on any matter whatsoever. The matter is governed by the opening words of the Clause which say:

"The Treasury shall give to the Commission directions for securing that the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the making of payments in respect of war damage shall be executed in conformity with the national interest."
That is not quite the same sort of thing as my hon. Friend has in mind. More- over, I do not think it is necessary to take this matter any further, because it was discussed on a previous Amendment. Some hon. Members want to put more things into the Bill and my right hon. Friend has consented to consider that aspect of the matter, and now my hon. Friend prefers that there should not be anything specific at all. Now my right hon. Friend will have to give consideration to that, but it may well be that, whatever solution is arrived at, we must have some sort of residuary power of this kind, otherwise we may find ourselves considerably hampered. My right hon. Friend has listened to the arguments with regard to this Sub-section and I am sure he will look into all the suggestions which have been made.

I think it would be useful to Members of the Committee if the Attorney-General could kindly give us an explanation of one point: is it true that these words really give a blank cheque or would they be interpreted on the usual ejusdem genesis basis?

This is all governed by the words "public interest." The question of the construction of the general words at the end will depend on the list of specific things that precede them and whether they constitute a genus. I quite agree that it is a point to be borne in mind. As to what decision the Chancellor comes to, that will be one of the specific matters to be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6 line 30, at the end to insert:

"Provided that before giving directions relating to the area of any local authority or any part of such area the Treasury shall inform such authority of the proposed directions and shall consider any representations which such authority may make in regard thereto."
This may be covered by the previous undertaking given by the Chancellor that he will consult local authorities, but in any event perhaps it will be just as well to have it in the records of the Debate. I have no doubt that the County Councils' Association will associate themselves fully with this Amendment. We do desire to be consulted, and it seems reasonable that they shall be consulted.

I have another Amendment to this Clause, and perhaps the Minister will intimate whether it covers the same matter. The Amendment is in page 7, line 4, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that the Commission shall, before imposing any general requirements affecting land in which any local authority has a proprietary interest, consult such associations representing local authorities as appear to them to be concerned, and also shall, before imposing any special requirements affecting particular land in which a local authority has a proprietary interest, consult that local authority."

I am sorry, but it is not the same matter at all. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, but the details relate to a different point altogether. As far as this is concerned, whether or not it should be mandatory that local authorities should be informed and representations considered, my right hon. Friend did say that the whole question of consultation with local authorities was one of the matters which would be taken into account. I could not, however, accept these words, for the general reasons that have already been given by my right hon. and learned Friend, and I think we had better leave the matter there.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that the Commission shall, before imposing any general requirements affecting land in which any local authority has a proprietary interest, consult such associations, representing local authorities as appear to them to be concerned, and also shall, before imposing any special requirements affecting particular land in which a local authority has a proprietary interest, consult that local authority."
I regret that the matter dealt with in this Amendment is not one of the things which the Chancellor will take up in his consultations with us on the whole question. That being the case, I want to give my reasons for this Amendment, which I hope will receive consideration. Local authorities may have buildings having special characteristics, and it is felt, therefore, that the local authorities ought of necessity to be consulted concerning the instructions before they are given. There are, for instance, mental hospitals, maternity hospitals, public assistance hospitals, schools, and so on, all of which are of a special character and peculiar to the use of local authorities for the benefit of the public. Therefore, I feel that the local authorities should be consulted concerning the type of building and the time at which the work should be done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) seems to have lost sight of the fact that this Amendment raises the same issue as one of the Amendments which he moved yesterday. On the question of consultation on general topics, such as general policy, my right hon. Friend has already said what he proposes to do. This Amendment, however, deals with the case where a local authority has a proprietary interest, and therefore, the effect of making it mandatory that local authorities should be consulted in a special way would place them in a separate and preferential class as compared with all other property owners. My hon. Friend said that local authorities may have buildings of a special kind, but so do other people have such buildings. In fact, this point was discussed yesterday, and the general feeling of the Committee was against putting any property owners in a preferential position. We are now dealing with property owners as distinct from bodies which have the general interests of the localities at heart. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, because I think the Committee will agree with me that we cannot place the local authorities, as proprietors, in a different position from that of other people.

I feel there is a good deal of force in what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said. I think my Amendment in page 6, line 30, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has already agreed to consider, is not quite so limited as the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). Therefore, if there were any question of a choice, it might perhaps go on record that the Association of Municipal Corporations prefers my Amendment to that of the hon. Member. My Amendment concerns directions relating to the area of any local authority, whereas that of the hon. Member refers to those cases where it is proposed to impose general requirements affecting land in which any local authority has a proprietary interest.

I do not wish to press the Minister for an answer now, and that is why I said I regretted this particular matter was not coming up for consideration inside the whole question. It may on consideration be found that some other Amendment, or some Amendment which the Chancellor may put down at a later stage, would meet the point. If my right hon. and gallant Friend would agree that the gist of this matter shall be considered along with the matter raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), I shall be satisfied.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 4, at the end, to insert "or."

This Amendment is the first of three Amendments which stand together. The second is in page 7, line 9, to leave out from "appropriate" to the end of the Sub-section, and the third is in page 7, line 42, at the end, to insert:
"() If the Commission are satisfied that a damaged hereditament or any part thereof is to be acquired under any enactment providing for compensation, no payment in respect of the damage shall be made under this part of this Act in respect of the hereditament or part to be acquired but the provisions of the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect in relation to the compensation payable for the acquisition of the said hereditament or part."
As the Clause is now worded, it is only in cases where directions have been given and notice published by the Commission that any effect could be given to Subsection (2, c). It may occur at any time in respect of any property, whether or not directions have been given or notice published, that it may be found in the course of time that the damaged hereditament is required to be taken over under some enactment. Therefore, it appears to me that the Sub-section ought to operate free from any fetter requiring the prior giving of directions or publication of notice. In order to do this, I suggest it is necessary to delete from the word "or" to the end of Sub-section (2), and to reinstate it as an independent Subsection later in the Clause.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) has put his finger on a weakness in the Bill. I am prepared to accept both the first and second of my hon. and learned Friend's Amendments. With regard to the third Amendment, I may say that we are not satisfied with that paragraph and the third Schedule as it stands. The Committee will not want me to explain why, because we propose to do away with this paragraph and the Third Schedule, and put down instead a new Clause which would embody a simpler arrangement. The arrangement we propose to embody would be that the owner of the property in those cases coming under compensation enactments would get a cost-of-works payment or a value payment, as the case might be, under the Bill, and then get compensation from the acquiring authority for the property in whatever state it is at the time of acquisition. Let me give an instance by taking a case of total loss. The interest concerned would get the value payment from the Commission, and if there were still something left for which payment had to be made, it would not get that out of the Commission's money but out of the acquiring authority. The general run of our proposal is to make it clear that there is a difference between what the Commission may have to find in certain circumstances, and what the acquiring authorities may have to find in other circumstances. It will be easier to follow when the Committee has the actual words on the Paper, but for the present it is enough to accept the first two Amendments, then there will be no paragraph (c), but there will be a promise of a new Clause.

With other hon. Members I had an Amendment down to paragraph (c), but if the lines upon which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to frame this new Clause are consistent with the Amendment in my name, as I think they are, from the short explanation given, then I think it will save time if I do not move my Amendment.

The hon. Member will have his right to criticise the new Clause, and will have the opportunity of saying so when the time comes.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, to leave out paragraph (b).

This paragraph deals not with the directions which are to be given by the Treasury, which have been discussed at some length, but with the effect which the directions may, in some circumstances, have upon the individual whose property has suffered damage. This paragraph provides:
"If the Commission are satisfied that the directions given by the Treasury require that the damage should not be made good, to make a value payment in respect thereof in lieu of any payment of cost of works that would otherwise have been appropriate";
I suggest that this paragraph, as it stands, opens the possibility of very serious injustice and inequality, as between one claimant and another, of quite a different order from the inequalities and injustices which were referred to in the Debate on Clause 4 of the relative merits or demerits of value payments and cost of works payments. Here we are concerned with a claimant who has, under the provisions of the Bill, a right, subject only to those conditions, to receive a cost-of-works payment.

May I ask the Committee to imagine three separate cases of three men each of whom has suffered serious damage to some small industrial property? The first man is lucky enough to have brought a property in a district which so far has escaped the eye of the town planner, or which the town-planning authority has agreed is a suitable district in which to build a property of his kind. His property is damaged and he is entitled to and receives a cost-of-works payment. The second man is less fortunate. He did not guess what the town-planning scheme would do to him many years after he had acquired his property. Under the town-planning scheme the Treasury give directions that his property is not to be reinstated. That man, under this Sub-section, only gets a value payment which is certainly insufficient for him to rebuild his property elsewhere. Therefore he is definitely penalised because he had the bad fortune to have bought property which consequently came under town-planning regulations, or some new direction of the Treasury on town-planning grounds. The third man had a similar property, but he was fortunate in being in a town-planned area where the local authorities desired to acquire his property for the purpose of some local development. He received compensation in accordance with the third Schedule under paragraph (c).

Surely all these men have claims to equal compensation? Each has suffered equally, and none of them has committed any offence, any crime, or any wrong. Yet in one case there is a cost-of-works payment, in another a value payment, and in the case of the third compensation. I submit that where property is not to be reinstated under Treasury direction, because it is not in the public interest that it should be, then a cost-of-works payment, if it is justified under the other conditions of the Bill, should be paid. There is only one case where I see difficulty; I feel provisions should be made to deal with it without this drastic Subsection, which I desire to delete. It is the case of bad slum property, where I can see there is an objection to making a cost-of-works payment. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the very drastic results of this paragraph as it now stands, and the variety of cases where there can be no justification for differentiation.

The speech to which we have just listened raises, by implication, rather wide points of principle as to cost-of-works and value payments, which we discussed yesterday. Although I must refer to them, I do not wish to re-open that wide general discussion for reasons which will be appreciated by all. I do not quite agree, of course, when my hon. Friend said that all these people were entitled to the same compensation. That seems to me to overlook the fact that the guiding principle underlying this Bill is the national interest. If I own a house and it is in the interest of the nation that it should be rebuilt, the cost-of-works payment will cover the rebuilding, although it may be that I get in that way what I should not normally get under an insurance scheme. But it is in the national interests that that property should be reinstated. If, on the other hand, my property is, I do not say a slum, but dwelling houses well below modern standards, and it is thought in the national interests undesirable that it should be reinstated as dwelling houses, naturally the State does not step in and reinstate it but gives me the value. We argued yesterday whether the provision for assessing that value was fair or not.

I think it is a misleading way of putting it, firstly, to suggest that all these people are entitled to the same treatment—they are not, because their treatment depends on the national interest—and, secondly, to suggest that one is being treated very unfairly as against another. My right hon. Friend had to make the exception. One must keep this power because it is a necessary power if the development and reconstruction of the devastated areas is to be carried out by the Commission in the national interest.

Does this paragraph mean that the Treasury will be able to sterilise a site with a building upon it and will only give compensation for the value of the building and none for the sterilisation?

I do not think so. It is the whole question of the reconstruction of England, and whether other powers should exist under Town Planning Acts and local authority powers may well be a matter which may be the subject of legislation. This does not give the Treasury a town planning power. It gives it power as co-ordinating authority, acting through the Commission, to see that steps are not taken which will interfere with the national interest in the reconstruction.

The Attorney-General's remarks carried the inference that while this gave the Treasury power not to make a cost-of-works payment, there was also power to make a cost-of-works payment in the case of buildings destroyed which it was in the public interest to reconstruct. In the discussion yesterday the question arose of slum property which no one wished to rehabilitate. But the question raised on this side of the House was of houses on a new housing estate which would obviously have to be reconstructed almost in their present state for the sake of public amenities, and the inference was that in such a case they would have power to make a cost-of-works payment though there might be the complete destruction of one or two of a row of houses.

I think Subsection (3, d) of this Clause is the provision that the hon. Member has in mind. I think it covers the point.

I am extremely disappointed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply and I am obliged to the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Douglas) for making the point he did, to which I did not hear any entirely satisfactory reply. The power to sterilise a site by refusing to allow rebuilding by payment only of the value payment seems to be implicit in paragraph (b). Furthermore I was not very happy at the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that the Treasury was not a town planning authority. That is obviously true, but the whole purpose of the Clause is that the Treasury, as a co-ordinating Department, should be able in effect to exercise the powers of those authorities which are concerned with matters of town planning. It has authority to give a definite direction without any reference to town planning legislation or regulations but simply if the Department concerned advises the Treasury that it is desirable in what is generally and vaguely termed "town planning interests." I ask the Committee seriously to consider the enormous powers which are being taken out of the hands of Parliament and taken over by Government Departments to be wielded by the Treasury as co-ordinating authority, outside the control of Parliament entirely except in so far as the Treasury may in certain circumstances lay these directions on the Table of the House for the House, if it thinks fit, to annul them.

The hon. Member used that argument on the last Amendment. He must not repeat the same argument on every Amendment.

I appeal to the Government to withdraw the Clause. I do not think any directions ought to be given with regard to these matters by any Government Department to the War Commission. You are establishing a very important body and giving it very wide powers and I do not think you want to be giving it directions at all but, if you are, the Treasury is the last Department to give them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 7, line 9, leave out from "appropriate" to the end of the Sub-section—[ Mr. Spens.]

I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, at the end, to add:

"(d) where under this Section the Commission shall decide that a value payment is appropriate to any hereditament in respect of which a claim for payment is made, the obligation to comply with the provisions (whether expressed or implied) of any lease or mortgage in respect of such hereditament shall, during the operation of this Act, be deemed to have been extinguished."

This comes back to the problem of landlord and tenant and the protection of tenants from unreasonable claims. In so far as it is part of the landlord and tenant procedure it has already been dealt with.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, to leave out "or any share of such payment."

As the Sub-section is drafted, the Commission will be able in cases where a value payment is made, and, therefore, ex hypothesi the property has been completely destroyed, to compel all the people who have a proprietary interest in it to collaborate in order to build a fresh property upon the site. That is a wide and harsh power to put into the hands of the Commission. The circumstances of the war may have made it such that rights in the property have become completely dissolved; there is no building left, the leases may have come to an end or can be put to an end under the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, and yet it is proposed that the Commission should have an arbitrary power to compel these people to be continual collaborators with each other in the capacity of landlord and tenant, irrespective of what is to happen. I cannot think that the Chancellor intended that such consequences should arise. If it is seriously intended that this kind of obligation shall be imposed upon people it is unfair that they should be put into a position of that kind.

I cannot relate my hon. Friend's remarks in any way to his Amendment. The Amendment would have the effect of preventing conditions being imposed on those who got a share of, as distinct from the whole of, the value payment. My hon. Friend does not dispute that it is proper that there should be a power to impose conditions. I cannot see on what principle of logic it can be suggested that those conditions can be imposed in respect of the person who becomes the claimant, but that it is not right to impose them where there is more than one person interested in the claim. One of the conditions may be that payment is made if alternative housing accommodation is provided. If such a condition is imposed one must see that it covers all the people who are interested in getting the money. They all have the right to make representations if they think the conditions are unreasonable.

That is rather a different point; it deals with cases of one payment where less trouble will arise than where it is a value payment. I understand that the Amendment does not dispute the desirability of being able to attach conditions.

My hon. Friend is not disputing the desirability of it if only one person is being dealt with.

There I join issue with my hon. Friend. If it is right to impose conditions where one person is interested, it must be right to impose them where more than one interest is affected. A great injustice would be created if conditions were imposed on one party who is getting only a part of the money and the other party was allowed to receive money without any conditions at all.

Suppose a case where the value payment is £2,000 and there is a mortgage of £1,500. The Commission pays the £2,000, subject to the mortgage, and imposes a condition. What is to happen to the £2,000? Is the mortgagee to receive his £1,500, so that the owner would have only £500 left in his pocket? The mortgagee is satisfied and has had his money. Is it right to make him a partner to any conditions imposed in respect of rebuilding the property? Automatically he will get his money and will cease to be interested in the property. Yet he will still be a party to any undertaking required in respect of the rebuilding of the new property.

I do not see it in that way. Take the case of a mortgaged property in which the Commission decides on a value payment, and they think it reasonable and proper that a condition should be imposed that the cash, instead of going into the pockets of the persons interested, should be paid on the condition that it is expended on rebuilding alternative accommodation. In that case the mortgagee will not get the cash. His mortgage will attach to the property and the new building built upon it. If my hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted that could not be done and no conditions could be imposed on the mortgagee. He would get his £1,500. In these circumstances it would be onerous and oppressive to attach a condition to the owner of the equity, who gas only £500, that he must put up alternative accommodation. Once you concede that it is right that there should be power to impose conditions, clearly the conditions must be imposed on all to whom the money may be payable.

This is a point which will affect all the small owners having building society mortgages whose property is destroyed. If the mortgage is to remain on a property which is destroyed and the value payment is made, it will not be possible to rebuild the house after the war. My fear and anxiety throughout the whole of this Bill is how we are to get property rebuilt if conditions are attached to the payment of the money.

That subject was discussed yesterday at some length. It is not germane to this Amendment.

I understand from what the Attorney-General said that, under the Clause as drafted, the Commission has power to attach to a mortgage a condition, and thereby power to override the normal covenant. For how long would that condition be so attached?

I did not say that the Commission would have power to attach conditions to a mortgage. The Commission can attach conditions to the payment of money. It may make a value payment on condition, for example, that alternative buildings are set up upon the site of demolished houses. When that is done, and a house has been built, the position under the mortgage will be exactly the same, and will attach to the new building. All that the Commission will have done will be to attach a condition in order to ensure that the money has been spent on the building of the new premises.

I am sorry. I misunderstood what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said.

The Clause is better as it stands. It is better to give the widest possible powers to the Commission, and those who have any payment ought to be subject to the directions of the Commission. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment. The Clause is valuable in its present form because of the case that has been mentioned affecting the relations of mortgagor and mortgagee. Unless we are careful we may inflict severe injustice on mortgagors. It would be inequitable if the Commission were to direct a mortgagor to put up a fresh building while not providing him, in some form, with the funds with which to do so. It will be noticed that paragraph (b) makes it permissible for the Commission to pay a cost-of-works payment where that is in the national interest. I would like some assurance that, at some stage, the Bill will provide that, where a mortgagor is required to rebuild, he will be provided with a cost-of-works payment to enable him to do so.

I see nothing in the Amendment which clarifies the position. I want to know how, even under the Amendment, the Commission would make these particular conditions.

Although I am not satisfied that the Attorney-General has understood the point of my Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out "observe conditions as to the application of," and to insert "apply."

This Amendment is consequential, and is very much akin in general outlook to the Amendment of the Attorney-General. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that, where a value payment has been made, it should not be open to the recipient to take that money away and, say, lose it at Monte Carlo, because the general purpose of the Bill is to secure that in the national interest there shall, as far as possible, be a restoration of the assets of the nation. In my Amendment I suggest that as a condition of receiving a value payment, the recipient should enter into an undertaking to apply the money to rebuilding some premises which would substantially take the place of those which have been destroyed. That seems to be as far as we should go. Under the Clause as it now stands, conditions of any kind can be made. The condition might be to build alternative accommodation on the same site, or it might equally be to build some accommodation at the other end of England. Nothing in the Clause limits the kind of condition. The condition might be that a cinema should be built with the money instead of applying it to the building of dwelling houses. I am certain that no sane Commission will impose conditions of the grotesque kind which I have mentioned, but, nevertheless, we ought to see to it that some limitation is put upon these conditions.

My hon. Friend who has just spoken said that no sane Commission would impose grotesque conditions. One can carry any argument to a height which is fantastic. By and large, we must recognise that this Commission will be one of the most important that the country has ever set up. It will deal with one of the largest sets of problems which has ever come before a body of people. It will do so to some extent on its own, under some of the Clauses, and, under other Clauses, as a result of direction, in order that it may be kept in touch with this House, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government. If the Commission started to lay down conditions such as my hon. Friend suggested, I can assure him that it would not get very far with that sort of procedure.

We want in the Bill something more in the nature of what is desirable in the public interest. We say that the Commission shall have power to require that a person who receives a value payment shall enter into an undertaking to observe conditions as to the application of that payment. He does not want to have any conditions at all, but it seems to me you must have some provision of this kind in order to ensure that by and large the national interest is going to prevail over the particular interest. Unless you have some power to lay down conditions you will not be able to get that. It should be remembered that this will be possibly one of the ways in which we can get a general better lay-out in this country, but while the desirability of that is admitted; as soon as we start dealing with it in some form of legislation we naturally get criticism of this point or that. We must keep in mind that the paramount national aim is not merely to devise a scheme by which people who have suffered damage can get compensation, but also that an opportunity is provided for a great public improvement. We must have some sort of conditions, otherwise the Commissioners and other bodies and authorities concerned in this matter might very easily be unable to make good development schemes. I hope the Committee will agree that it should be possible to have conditions laid down with proper safeguards about the conditions being reasonable.

While it may be right that somebody in authority shall impose conditions it seems to me there is a danger of overriding existing Acts of Parliament. It might be that whilst the Commissioners required certain things to be done the town planning authority might require something else. A man might therefore find himself in the position that if he obeyed one authority he would disobey another authority. I should like to see some machinery in the Bill to avoid conflict between one authority and another.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in line 27, after "building," to insert:

"on a site approved by the person or all the persons (if more than one) having a proprietary interest or proprietary interests in such hereditament."
As the position stands now it may be very easy for someone when a building on a site which has been mortgaged is destroyed to substitute a new building on a site which has been mortgaged two or three times over. It seems to me that in such cases the interests concerned must agree with what is proposed to be done, otherwise we are going to have great difficulty. If you ask a man to take another security on an entirely different property you will get into almost intolerable conditions unless the matter is organised and arranged with due regard to all the interests concerned. I am not assuming that the Commission is going to act unreasonably, but if you allow this Clause to pass in its present form there will be a great deal of uncertainty as to what is going to happen. I think this Clause must be reconsidered and altered. There must be some machinery by which if you are going to substitute, say, a security in London for a security in the suburbs, which may be desirable in the national interest, those concerned shall have some right of appeal in order to ensure that they are being given a security as good. When only one person is interested the matter is simple, but when there are conflicting rights you must get approval at least as to the substituted security.

I sympathise with what my hon. and learned Friend has said, but it is not what the Amendment says. According to his Amendment anybody can make any condition. If the Commission has to wait to get approval of all the persons concerned then the decision is transferred from the Commission, and if several persons are involved the whole thing will be held up until you can get agreement amongst the different people concerned. I am sure that with his long experience he will know that there are cases in which it is impossible to get agreement. Somebody must have power to decide the question in that case. The Bill says that matters must be decided on the ground of public interest, and I think that is the real ground on which a decision must rest. I respectfully suggest that while there should be consultation with the interests concerned there is no justification for saying that nothing can be done until you get approval of the interests concerned.

If you are dealing with hypothetical questions you may cite conditions which are quite unreasonable. You might if my house is bombed insist that I should go to the Orkneys. It seems to me that the sort of case my hon. and learned Friend is putting is really as much outside practical politics as that. He seems to have in his mind a case where a mortgage attaches to a particular site which had a valuable building on it. The position is such that unless this money is expended on rebuilding something of value on the site the latter is going to remain derelict. Prima facie the mortgagee is of course entitled under the Bill to the proceeds. But suppose the Commission imposes a condition, in spite of the protests of the mortgagee, that the money should be used to build on some new site not covered by the mortgage. I quite agree that that would be most unjust, but it seems to me that in that case, under the general provisions of the Bill, one can well imagine that when some other use is to be made of the site the owner and mortgagee might come to some new arrangements with regard to the property. The trouble may be due in part to what was also said by my hon. Friend opposite, namely, the possibility of delay and the "nuisance value" which might be possessed by the owner of a comparatively small interest if the agreement of every one concerned was a condition preceding a decision. My right hon. Friend realises to the full that a very wide power is conferred by this Clause, but I am sure if he were here he would say that this power ought to exist in the national interest. If however an attempt is made to tie it down as is done in this Amendment, that would be a mistake. If my hon. and learned Friend has any other suggestions which he would like to put to myself or to the Chancellor we will consider them, but I think he will find that if you try to tie it down in the Bill you will, by avoiding some dangers, run into others.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 7, line 29, at the end, to insert:

"Provided that—
  • (i) if any such person as aforesaid is under any obligation, whether under the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, 1939 or under the terms of any lease, mortgage or other instrument or otherwise, to restore or replace the building comprised in such damaged hereditament or any part thereof, the Commission shall require such person (subject as hereinafter provided) to enter into an undertaking with the Commission to apply the whole or a sufficient part of such payment in restoring or replacing such building or such part thereof as aforesaid; and
  • (ii) if such restoration or replacement is impracticable or, in the opinion of the Com- mission, undesirable for reasons arising out of the national interest then any such payment shall be made free from any condition and any such obligation as aforesaid shall be deemed for all purposes to be discharged, either absolutely or upon such terms and conditions (if any) as the Commission shall decide."
  • This Amendment is intended to deal with a difficulty which arises under the Landlord and Tenant Act. The solution I suggest is that where the liability exists under that Act to reinstate the premises, a value payment shall be given on the condition that the money is used in restoring or replacing the premises, except in cases where it is impracticable to do so or it is against the national interest to do so. If no reinstatement takes place in that event, all legal obligations, whether under the Landlord and Tenant Act or otherwise, shall be automatically discharged. I understand that this matter is being considered by the Attorney-General and his advisers, and it appears to me to be one which covers the legal difficulty.

    What, in my hon. and learned Friend's view, should happen in the case where the money received in compensation is insufficient?

    That is a practical difficulty which can be discussed on other Clauses. So far as the money is sufficient there should be a complete fulfilment of the legal obligations if the conditions I suggest are met.

    The effect of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, as I understand it, would be to require a payee to undertake to apply the whole, or a sufficient part, of the payment to restoring or replacing a building; and also, where restoration or replacement is impracticable, or undesirable for national reasons, the Commission should have power to exempt the payee from the requirement to carry out the restoration or the replacement.

    The Clause would exempt, and the Commission would not have the power. If the Commission decided that it was against the national interest to make a payment, Parliament would have power, in the last instance, through this Measure, to discharge the obligations.

    The Amendment raises what I might describe as the repercussions of the Bill upon the Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) Act, which this House has already passed, as well as the relations between landlord and tenant outside that Act. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will allow the matter to be left where it is at the moment. We appreciate his suggestions, the first of which is, to some extent, covered by the general power of the Commission to impose conditions. Let us look at the matter and consider the general problem. There may be problems which arise owing to the repercussions which I have mentioned, and which cannot be dealt with in the Bill.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    I beg to move, in page 7, line 30, to leave out "such," and to insert "of such a character."

    I have read the Bill through, and I have found great difficulty in understanding its language. With very great respect, I submit that the Amendment would slightly improve the language of the Bill. The wording of the Bill is:
    "such that a value-payment in respect thereof."
    I think that the wording I suggest is better than that of the Bill.

    Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to look into the matter. My impression is that his Amendment also is not clear. I undertake, if he will leave the matter in my hands, to see whether his English is better than that of the Bill.

    I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Amendment made: In page 7, line 32, leave out "national," and insert "public."—[ Sir J. Lamb.]

    I beg to move, in page 7, line 48, at the end, to insert:

    "(5) Any notice published or requirement imposed by the Commission by virtue of this Section shall be deemed to be a local land charge within the meaning of Part VI of the Land Charges Act, 1925."
    I think it just that there shall be for future use a record of anything affecting property, so that a possible purchaser or lessee or mortgagee shall have some knowledge of the conditions. If my Amendment is carried there will be a record of these conditions.

    I am quite in agreement with my hon. Friend as to the intention of this Amendment, but the drafting of it is not satisfactory. If he will agree to withdraw it now I will undertake to look into the matter before the Report stage.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    I beg to move, in page 8, line 7, at the end, to add:

    "(6) Before exercising the foregoing powers in this Section for the purpose of giving effect to any such directions the Commission shall consult with any local or public authority as appear to them to be concerned, and in such event that authority shall furnish the Commission with such information as they may require.
    (7) Any local or public authority may make representations to the Commission with respect to the exercise by the Commission of the foregoing powers in this Section for the purpose of giving effect to any such directions in any case in which it appears to that authority that the exercise of any powers, or the performance of any duties, of the authority are, or may be, prejudiced or otherwise affected, and the Commission shall give consideration to such representations."
    If my right hon. Friend will undertake to look at this Amendment before the Report stage I will not press it now.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

    Before we part with this Clause I should like to have a general assurance that it covers the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the case of public interest to rebuild any property such as a housing estate. I raised the matter with the Attorney-General when I put it to him that there might be a new housing estate on which certain houses have been totally destroyed. Under the Clause, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer have the right to say if it was in the public interest that those houses should he reconstructed that he would make a cost-of-works payment? Now as this would apply to housing schemes through- out the country, I should like an assurance that the Chancellor has power under this Clause to see that these houses are rebuilt.

    I am not in a position to give a general assurance in regard to housing estates all over the country, and I think the best thing we can do to help my hon. Friend would be to ask him to put up to the Chancellor the exact conditions he has in mind. It is very difficult to forecast what the conditions are going to be.

    I am not really asking for a definite assurance; I am quite willing to trust the Commission. My point, however, is this: in the case of a row of houses which form part of an entirely new construction, and when the destruction of one or two of those houses would destroy the whole housing scheme, it is obvious that those houses would have to be reconstructed virtually as they were in order to rebuild the housing scheme. In such a case I take it that the Commission would under this Clause have authority to pay a cost-of-works payment, because the houses would be reconstructed in the public interest, and not a value payment which would leave a deficiency to be borne by the owners of the houses.

    That seems to me to be just the type of case which these words are designed to cover.

    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    Clause 9—(Time When Payments May Be Made)

    I beg to move, in page 8, line 13, to leave out "or after."

    In regard to the Amendment I have just moved, it seems to me that in the case where a cost-of-works payment is in practice to be made, and where works are in progress, that payment should be made when those works have been completed and that there should be no delay thereafter. The removal of the words "or after" make the Clause read that payment should be made on completion of the works. I had also put my name to an Amendment to leave out from "commission," to "be," line 11, because I thought it was desirable that anyone who had suffered damage by the destruction of property should know within a reasonable time whether he was to receive a cost-of-works payment or a value payment, but in view of what the Chancellor said yesterday, namely, that the factors on which under Clause 5 a determination as to whether a value payment will fall to be made or not must be ascertained in relation to post-war costs and value, I can see that any such condition as is proposed in the Amendment would be impossible and I therefore do not feel like taking the responsibility of moving it. That is the ordinarily-understood phrase in commerce. It does not mean that the payment must be made the instant the works are completed. It means that on completion of the works payment shall be due, and that it shall be made at a reasonable time thereafter.

    I do not think there is any difference between us as to our intentions. I can give the assurance that, as long as present conditions in regard to the supply of materials continue, it is the intention that the payment should be made as soon as possible after the completion of the works. If and when the conditions as regards the supplies of materials change, it may be necessary for the Commission to exercise their own control over the carrying out of works. I will examine the matter again in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.

    I feel that there should be no doubt whatever that when a person has embarked on work, relying on being paid by the Commission, he should be paid. Any doubt about the supply of materials and so on, should be settled before the work is commenced.

    I think that is quite reasonable. The idea of this wording was to give the Commission a reasonable time to see whether everything that should have been done had been done; but I will re-examine the matter in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.

    While the right hon. Gentleman has been very reasonable, perhaps the matter is more serious than he realises. I am informed that every Government Department which has to do with the requisitioning or taking over of land—and indeed, many other Departments which are concerned with contracts and supplies and so on—is very much behind. There are large sums owing by the Treasury to-day. The difficulty is to find means of enforcement without recourse to the courts or other such extreme measures. I believe that contracts in some cases are being financed by the banks rather than by the Treasury. I can quite believe that that is not intended by the Government, but there is no doubt that claims are being held up. For instance, I am told by those who should know that the Air Ministry is much behind with its payments, and that the machinery is blocked to a very great extent. Therefore, it would be helpful if those words were taken out. They seem quite superfluous.

    The right hon. Gentleman says that he desires to give a reasonable opportunity to check the works, and so on. I speak in the presence of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, but I should have thought that a provision to pay on completion of the works would have been implied in the ordinary way that payment should be made in a reasonable time after the completion of the works; but in that case there would be a limit to the period allowed. They would, presumably, if the Treasury were extremely slow, take some action in the courts or elsewhere to compel payment. If it is permissive to pay after completion of works, that may be six months, one year, two years, or, for anything I know, 10 years. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look closely into the matter and ensure, if possible, that payment is made on completion of works, or within a reasonable time thereafter.

    I will look into the matter. It is not possible for me to make a decision now, but I do not think that there should be any difference of opinion.

    I agree that any assurance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might now give us would make it look as though this semi-socialist institution lacks decision. I was delighted to hear it said in effect that governments are slow and dilatory in these matters. Capitalists do not pay because they do not want to pay, and a Government does not pay because it is so incompetent that it cannot make up its mind to pay, or how much it owes. It is as well that this should be said occasionally because the delays are incredible.

    I understand it is the case that in regard to buildings it is sometimes advisable to hold a portion of the payment back until it can be seen whether a building will stand up after it has been put up, and I do not think that we ought to deprive the State of the same powers to check the construction of a building by a private contractor.

    In view of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has in mind to do what is desirable, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    I beg to move in page 8, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (2).

    The reason I suggest that this Subsection should be left out is on account of the last words in the Sub-section,
    "the Commission may direct that the right to the payment shall be forfeited."
    I suggest to the Committee that some dilatoriness or inability to complete the work in respect of which a claim has to be met is no ground whatever for the drastic provision of forfeiting the whole right of the claimant. It will lead to trouble as to who is responsible and so forth, and surely the safeguard that the money is payable after the work is finished is the best possible safeguard that anyone could have, and I suggest that the Sub-section should be omitted.

    I agree that perhaps this does go too far. We might consider an Amendment on the lines of the measure of the cost occasioned by the delay or something of that sort. Something on those lines would perhaps meet the case. I will consider the Amendment on Report in the light of my statement and of what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

    Will my right hon. Friend allow the Sub-section to come out in the meantime?

    Do I take it from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the statement will apply to the terms of my Amendment "by reason of the fault or the default of the claimant"?

    I have two Amendments on the Paper closely related to this point. They are in page 8, line 23, after "Commission" insert:

    "if all payments have been made in respect of works already completed (including any temporary works)"
    and in page 8, line 30, at the end to insert:
    "unless the failure to complete was caused or contributed to by the non-receipt of payment in respect of works already completed or in progress or in any other circumstances beyond the control of the persons concerned in securing the execution of the works."
    These ask that in no case should there be any forfeiture if default is due to the failure on the part of the Treasury to pay compensation and so put a claimant in funds to carry on his work. If the Chancellor will look at that point it will save my formally moving these Amendments.

    I have an Amendment in page 8, line 25, to leave out "or other the person" and insert "or persons" which seeks to ensure that all persons interested shall be notified.

    I think my Amendment raises the same point. It is in page 8, line 30, at the end to insert "unless there is any other proprietary interest in the hereditament."

    I am so much concerned about the health of the Chancellor that I suggest he should withdraw the Subsection.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    I beg to move in page 8, line 31, to leave out "two" and insert "four."

    It will be observed that the rate of interest proposed where payment is deferred is 2½ per cent. I can see what is in the mind of the Chancellor and his advisers. When they put in 2½ per cent. to come out of the Treasury they did not want to suggest that it was worth more than 2½ per cent. because the Chancellor has to raise a great deal of money. What is the general rate at which people borrow money on mortgage? It is 4, 5 or 5½ per cent. according to the circumstances. Here we have a question which raises the very difficult position where payment cannot be made at once. The owner of a house may have a two-thirds interest in his house covered by mortgage, on which he is paying 4½ or 5 per cent., and the result is that on paper he will be seriously out of pocket. I want to suggest that this very difficult problem can only be solved if we realise that the kind of rate of interest applicable to the form of capital we are dealing with should be not 2½ per cent. but something in the neighbourhood of 4½ per cent. I believe this would solve the Chancellor's problem far more satisfactorily than in any other way and I do not think the difference between 2½ per cent. and 4½ per cent. will imperil the scheme.

    The Amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman is one which, in our opinion, raises a point of considerable importance, because under this Clause we are threatened with a position which would affect a considerable number of people who have a mortgage on their property at a higher rate of interest than 2½ per cent and who, if their house is destroyed, will be in considerable difficulties through being called upon to pay their mortgage interest while not receiving anything from the Government at the time. And when they do receive something, it is to be at 2½ per cent., which will obviously be lower than the rate which they will have to pay That obviously raises very serious questions. I have thought myself of several ways in which the position might be remedied, apart from that mentioned in the Amendment; it might be done by persuading the mortgagee to take a lower rate of interest, or by postponing the whole matter until later on. It cannot be allowed to remain exactly where it is, because the Courts Emergency Provisions did not seem to meet the position It is one of the repercussions of the Bill in the field of mortgage which correspond with the repercussions in the field of landlord and tenant of which the Attorney-General was speaking just now. It therefore seems to me that we need some statement from the Government as to their intentions in regard to this matter, which is one which will affect very large numbers of people all over the country It is very important and these repercussions will be most serious. I invite the Chancellor to tell us a little more of what the Government are contemplating in this regard.

    May I add a word in support of what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite? The reason why I have my next Amendment on the Paper, suggesting that the cost-of-works payments should bear interest as well, is in order to try and deal with this great difficulty of mortgagors who have to go on paying interest yet who have not even 2½ per cent. accumulating to help them. I hope the Chancellor will bear that in mind as well as the points which have already been mentioned.

    This matter, as has been said, is an important one. So far as the Amendment on the Paper is concerned, I would say that the reason we in fact chose the rate of 2½ per cent. is that we regard the matter in the light of a Government responsibility towards the people who will ultimately receive the money, and it is proposed to pay a rate of interest conforming more or less to what the State pays on its other borrowings. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), with the ingenuity which characterises him, says that this is a good way of endeavouring to meet the position of the mortgagor under this Bill, who might find himself with his house in ashes but his liability under the mortgage still remaining.

    I very much doubt whether this is in fact the best way of meeting this position because unless you look at the circumstances of the man concerned as well, you may find a case of a mortgagor probably much better off, and much more easily able to meet the burden, than the mortgagee who is entitled to the interest. There are very many cases of trust estates, as I know, for I used to advise people myself to make investments by way of mortgage on property, telling them, "Here is a safe security—better than, say, stocks and shares or trustee securities." There are undoubtedly large numbers of estates which have lent money in that way, and whose beneficiaries are to-day looking solely to the interest that they are receiving in that way to maintain them. You cannot dispose of this matter by saying, "Well, the unfortunate mortgagor has to pay this money, what is to happen about it?" You cannot use the words "unfortunate mortgagor," as against the mortgagee, until you know more about them. The mortgagor may be suffering the misfortune of having his property bombed and lost, but he may be better off in many other ways than many of us who are here to-day. He may have resources. Compare his position with that of, say, the beneficiaries of the trust. Let us take the case of the widow—because the widow is so often mentioned in connection with the Treasury, and how they are imposing upon her—who depends entirely upon the interest of the mortgage in which the trustees have invested for her.

    When you think of the matter you are driven to the conclusion that, in order to deal justly, you must have some sort of machinery, not in this Bill, but in another Bill. If the matter is sufficiently pressed the Government can decide to bring in another Bill, which will deal with this matter very much on the lines of the other provisions. It seems to me that any machinery which may be devised must take account of such a case. But it is clear that when the Government introduced this Bill, as the Prime Minister said, we sought to deal only with actual physical damage caused by the war. My answer to my hon. Friend is that, at any rate, so far as this proposal is concerned, this is obviously not a practical way of dealing with it. One must have much more regard for the circumstances of the individual. Secondly, any cases of this sort would have to be dealt with on the lines of the legislation about which the Attorney-General has already spoken.

    There is only one point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which has rather alarmed me. He suggested that there might be another Bill if the matter was thought to be sufficiently important. I hope that that does not mean that the Government, when they have got this Bill through, are going to say that the matter is not terribly important, and that they are going to do no more about it. I feel that there will be points of this kind arising, and I hope that it is seriously the intention to tackle the problem at some early future time, otherwise I am afraid the situation will be very unsatisfactory.

    I am only now concerned with my own Bill, and I do not intend any disrespect. It is also fair to say that in a very large number of cases, as I know from my own personal knowledge, people are, in fact, adjusting themselves to the position. I have noticed it in connection with the building societies. I will convey what the right hon. Gentleman has said to the Attorney-General, who has had all this matter under review, and who is also dealing with a certain number of matters. I know that he has been considering this matter, and I will convey to him what has been said.

    The right hon. Gentleman said just now that he is only concerned with this Bill, and this gives me an opportunity of saying that a certain amount of what has been said before has been rather out of Order, and I think that hon. Members should realise in future the very narrow limits of this Bill. I am afraid that when the Chair gets more accustomed to it, it will be getting more strict with regard to other considerations.

    I am not altogether unconvinced by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, but I realise the complexity of the problem and do not want to delay the progress of the Bill. Therefore, I intend to ask for leave to withdraw the Amendment. Would the Chancellor consider whether it is not desirable to report Progress at this stage and ask leave to sit again? I do not think that it is quite fair, in regard to all the circumstances, that we should proceed any further with this most complex Bill at the moment.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, to leave out "five hundred," and insert "one thousand."

    This will not alter any decision which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may make, but it will extend the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of any decision he might want to make. I certainly think that £500 is too small an amount to cover some of the contingencies which might arise under this Clause. Any number of families might find their hereditament damaged and have to seek housing accommodation, and £500 to-day or in the future will certainly not be enough to produce even the smallest type of house. Therefore, I think that up to £1,000 should be covered by this Clause under the powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as far as making a grant is concerned. It is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to this extra power, or to restrict himself, as the Clause does. In my opinion £1,000 will fit the Bill far better than the £500 which is specified.

    I want the hon. Gentleman to remember this in connection with a proposal of this character. Any advance that we make to anybody who is a beneficiary under the Bill has its consequences, and if, for instance, you make an advance to somebody on account—in a large number of cases advances will be made for rent—it means that the person to whom the advance is made cannot get it later on. This is particularly so in the case of a man to whom money is advanced by way of rent. Here you may not be doing him a service, because if he can continue without an undue amount of assistance he will ultimately get a sum of compensation which has not been reduced too much on account of any advance he may have previously received. There may be a number of cases where sums advanced are of too considerable a character and where the individual may regret it and say, "I wish I had pulled in a bit more so that later on I should have been able to purchase a new house," or something of that kind. That was the reason why we fixed the sum of £500. The hon. Gentleman suggested £1,000; perhaps we may go between the two figures, but if we make the amount too large the Commission may be unduly pressed. However, I will consult with the hon. Gentleman between now and the Report stage to see if we can come to some arrangement.

    This also applies to the securing of premises to carry on trade or business, and that, I submit, is a more difficult case. Normally, £500 to secure premises ought to be adequate but for carrying on a business there may be a stronger case. Perhaps the Chancellor may consider the two cases separately?

    I was interested in the Chancellor's reasoning, but I imagine that what he says would be taken into account by the Commission before advancing anything at all, and that the only question was that of the power to have in reserve. I think in both cases the Commission might think it just to extend beyond £500. It may be far more convenient for a person to buy a house for £550 at the moment, and it may be convenient for the Commission to have the matter settled in that way. Yet under the Clause as it now stands they are barred from taking that very easy way out. However, in view of the Chancellor's decision to come to some arrangement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[ Mr. Grimston.]

    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

    Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932

    Resolved,

    "That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the undermentioned areas, namely:—
  • (1) the urban district of Exmouth,
  • (2) the urban district of Hinckley,
  • (3) the urban district of Ilfracombe,
  • (4) the urban district of Matlock,
  • (5) the urban district of Melton Mowbray,
  • (6) the urban district of Ross-on-Wye,
  • (7) the urban district of Tring,
  • copies of which were presented to this House on 21st January, be approved."—[Mr. Grimston.]

    Adjournment

    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. Grimston.]