Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 379: debated on Thursday 30 April 1942

House of Commons

Thursday, April 30, 1942

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Private Business

Private Bill Petition. (Standing Orders Not Complied With.)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely—

London Passenger Transport Board.

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Injured Women Civilians (Compensation)

I beg to present a Petition from 8,100 women in the London and Home Counties area, who beg that the present scheme of compensation for air-raid injuries should be amended, in view of the fact that the civilian women of this country face the same dangers and are liable to the same injuries from enemy action as civilian men, and who point out that they suffer great hardship by reason of the unequal rates of compensation.

Oral Answers to Questions

National War Effort

Hours of Work (Boys and Girls)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any evidence that long hours of labour are prejudicing young workers from securing vocational and technical training in their various crafts?

I have no specific evidence to this effect. By arrangement with me my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland have asked the local education authorities to send to the local factory inspectors, or to employment exchanges, particulars of excessive hours worked by boys and girls which come to their notice in the course of the follow-up of registration. Though this request does not expressly refer to inability to attend training courses owing to long hours, I anticipate that serious cases of this kind would be brought to light.

While I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that administrative circular, I would ask whether he will look further into the second question, because I am informed that in the building, engineering and "motor mechanics' trades technical training has ceased to exist. Would he get into touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Education to see whether educational establishments can be used for this purpose? I am referring to young artisans.

My hon. Friend had better put a Question on the Paper. It is a much wider subject than this.

Hospitals (Domestic Helpers)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied with the steps already taken to fill with part-time workers the need for domestic helpers in hospitals and similar institutions; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take?

In co-operation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, hospital authorities are being urged to make use of part-time workers, and my right hon. Friend's officers are bringing to the notice of women who can only give part-time, the importance of the national service they can render in this way. There is still, however, an acute shortage of domestic workers in many hospitals, and the authority concerned should be ready to make any arrangements that may be practicable to facilitate the use of the local part-time labour which is available.

While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, when women of all ages are interviewed is due notice taken of this need, and do interviewers point out to the married women who wish to do part-time work that they can be directed to work of this kind?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that after his recent speech in Edinburgh there were serious complaints regarding the lack of organisation in that area?

Easter Holidays (Workers' Pay)

asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the Government's official announcement that there was no cessation of work on Good Friday, he will say whether the officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and others, are entitled to demand double pay for Good Friday and time-and-a-half for the Saturday following?

This depends on the law or the agreements relating to the particular case. The Government's announcement with regard to holidays stated that payment for work done on days which would ordinarily be holidays should be governed by existing law or any provisions laid down in current agreements.

Workers (Place of Residence)

asked the Minister of Labour, whether, in order to save rubber and petrol, he will take action to implement his powers to compel war workers to live near their work if hostel or other accommodation is available?

I have no power to prescribe the place at which workers shall live, but propose to discuss the matter with the Ministers concerned.

Is the Minister aware that there are hostels at one place that I know of with accommodation for 2,000 people and that there are only about 400 people there, a large number of others being brought long distances every day to work?

There have been difficulties with regard to some of the hostels. It depends to a very large extent upon hostels reserved for use where the work is developing. If we have to fill up with mobile women from outside, I prefer as many as possible to live at home in the district.

Employment Exchanges (Staffs)

asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed men and women a year ago and the number of staff at that time employed at the employment exchanges; and similar information for the present time?

On 17th March, 1941, 325,889 males and females suitable for ordinary industrial employment were registered at employment exchanges as wholly unemployed. On 16th March, 1942, the corresponding figure was 121,646. The staff of the employment exchanges at these two dates numbered 20,396 and 24,434 respectively. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is now no significant relation between the number of unemployed and that of the staff of the exchanges, which are the main instrument for carrying out the administration arrangements for the organisation of man-power in all its phases.

Unemployment Statistics (Information to Members)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make about the ban on the supplying of statistics of unemployment to Members of Parliament in respect of the areas which the Members represent?

This rule was laid down during a period of heavy raids, when, for obvious reasons, it was undesirable to publish statistics of this kind. I cannot tell whether those conditions will recur and it is not therefore proposed to rescind the rule. I will, however, be pre-pared to give the figures to Members on request, and on the understanding that they will be treated as for their personal and confidential information.

Will Members be able to get them quickly direct from the employment exchange managers instead of having to go to headquarters?

Women Telephone Operators

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that female telephone switchboard operators of the 20–21 age groups are being called up for other service from firms which are scheduled undertakings under the Essential Work (General Provisions) Orders, 1941, on the telephone priority list; and, in view of the importance of efficient communication and the time taken to train these girls, will he refrain from calling up any more?

Female telephone switchboard operators are classified as ancillary workers and are not reserved from calling up. Instructions have, however, been issued to district man-power boards that short periods of deferment, sufficient to allow for the training of substitutes, may be granted in appropriate cases.

Is not the Minister aware that girls in similar categories and age groups employed by the Post Office telephone service are reserved and are not being called up? Does he not consider he should bring similar pressure to bear upon Government Departments as he brings upon industry? Is not one end of the line as important as the other?

Interviews

asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that women aged 50 and men over 60 are being called up to attend at Employment Exchanges while men aged 40 to 45, who were interviewed last year, are still following their normal work; and will he take steps to stop this unnecessary disturbance affecting both employers and employees?

In the ordinary course the men and women called for interview are those within the registered ages, or those specially registered in particular industries. There are also those who will be included under the new arrangements coming into force for Civil Defence workers. If my hon. Friend has any special case in mind and will give me particulars, I will have inquiries made.

Skilled Men

asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give an assurance that in all branches of the Services and industries qualified skilled men are being utilised in the particular capacity and trade in which they have knowledge and experience; and whether, in connection with Service men, steps will be taken to post men to a camp where the trade for which they are qualified and skilled is particularly needed?

It is the constant endeavour of Departments to ensure that men possessing knowledge and experience needed for the war effort are employed whether in the Services or industry in capacities in which their qualifications are fully used. I cannot say that no instances of avoidable misemployment exist, but I am satisfied that they are not numerous and that much progress has been made in this difficult matter. With regard to the last part of the Question, it has always been the practice so far as possible to post men whose skill is needed in the Forces to an appropriate Service trade.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in spite of what he has said there is room to-day for very great improvement, and would he give a reminder to Departments and all concerned that this is a very important matter indeed?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's Question will have given a reminder to Departments.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether people in the Forces occupying desk positions of a technical kind are discharged on account of age?

Obviously that is a question of detail which ought to be put on the Paper.

Questions

Military Service (Medical Examination)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he has given further consideration to the use of mass radiography for the discovery of pulmonary tuberculosis among men and women called up for the Services; and whether he will now adopt this method of examination by medical boards?

I have given careful consideration to this matter and have now received a further report from the Medical Advisory Committee which meets under Lord Horder's chairmanship and which advises me on medical questions connected with the work of the medical boards. It is clear from the investigation that it would be impracticable to establish this method of examination at the medical boards throughout the country. On the other hand, the concentration of Service personnel at suitable depots has afforded an opportunity for carrying out these examinations to the extent that the necessary apparatus can be provided. The committee commend the steps already taken in this respect by the Services and I am assured by my right hon. Friends the Service Ministers that there will be the widest practicable use of this method of examination among members of the Services. In view of the public interest in this question, I am arranging for the report to be published as a White Paper.

Does the Minister recognise that it is important to press on with trying to get this made into a general procedure, in order to reduce the amount of invaliding from the Services and hardship to the men concerned?

I think my hon. Friend will appreciate, when he reads the report, that such steps are being taken. It is purely a question of method. There are so many medical boards in the country that I could not possibly get enough apparatus or facilities to take the procedure to each medical board, and therefore the other arrangement has been made.

Have steps been taken to see that men are available who can read the results of these X-rays and be sure that they are valuable?

Workmen's Compensation

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the doctor of a panel patient is the person in all cases to declare that the patient is fit for work, or whether in cases of dermatitis the insurance company must first instruct the employer that he may restart the workman, and until such instruction has been given the doctor's decision must be ignored?

I presume my hon. Friend is referring to a workman who is in receipt of weekly payments of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, in respect of dermatitis. There is no provision in the Act which would prevent such a workman from returning to work if he is declared by his panel doctor to be fit for work, nor have I heard of any such instruction by insurance companies as that mentioned by my hon. Friend. If he will let me know of any specific instances which have come to his notice, I shall be glad to look into them.

I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for his answer. In this case the man has lost three weeks' work because of the employers not accepting a skin specialist's decision.

Does not the Minister know that in South Yorkshire the colliery owners indemnity society goes to the coalowners and tells them when a man is to start work and when he is to stop?

No, Sir, I do not know that, but if my hon. Friend will let me have particulars of any cases, I shall be glad to look into them.

asked the Minister of Health whether there is any obligation on the part of an insurance doctor to furnish medical reports to a patient's employer in compensation cases; and, if not, will he instruct doctors to this effect?

The answer to the first part of the Question is "No." As regards the second part of the Question, I have no reason to think that insurance doctors need any instruction in the matter.

Civil Defence

Enemy Daylight Raids

asked the Home Secretary how many persons have been killed in daylight air-raids during the last 12 months; and how many paid Civil Defence workers will be on duty during daylight after the reduction in numbers now pending has been completed?

Two hundred and eight civilians were reported as killed as a result of daylight raids on this country during the period 1st April, 1941, to 31st March, 1942. As regards the second part of the Question, the numbers will be determined locally in the light of special local considerations, but in any event, for reasons which I am sure the House will appreciate, I do not think it would be in the public interest to publish the figures.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, as we hold and are likely to retain command of the air over this country in daylight, it is a waste of man-power to have any considerable number of Civil Defence workers on duty in daylight?

That is a point which we do take into account, and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not for lack of confidence; nevertheless, we must up to a point be prepared for the unexpected in air raiding.

In view of the great strain on teachers at the present moment, would my right hon. Friend encourage Civil Defence workers to assist in nursery schools and play centres during the day-time?

I think that would involve the Ministry of Health, but I will take note of the point and look into it.

Anti-Incendiary Compound

asked the Home Secretary what are the results of the tests of an anti-incendiary compound named "Bommex"?

The tests showed that a 1-kilo non-explosive magnesium bomb can be extinguished in from 20 to 25 seconds on the application at close range of about 3 to 4 pints of "Bommex" as compared with about 30 seconds when the same quantity of water is used. Against this must be set the fact that if water is used, there is rather less spluttering of the magnesium than when "Bommex" is used. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the conclusions reached in this case.

"Socialist Appeal."

( by Private Notice ) asked the Home Secretary whether he has studied a monthly publication, a copy of which has been sent to him, and in particular an illustration under a caption "British Atrocity in Burma," and the contents of a leading article contained therein, and what action he intends taking in the matter by way of suspending or warning the paper?

My hon. and gallant Friend was good enough to send me yesterday a copy of the publication to which he refers. I am considering the matter, but I am not in a position to make any further statement at the present time.

In view of the fact that this paper attacks our Allies and war aims and is entirely subversive, can the right hon. Gentleman state any good reason for allowing it to continue?

The House knows that these matters require a great deal of careful consideration, and I think it would be best that I should consider all the circumstances before intimating any decision.

Is it not a fact that this paper is not published by the Social Democratic Federation?

Public Health

Mosquitoes

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that considerable inconvenience and suffering were caused last summer, particularly to women, by the prevalence of mosquitoes; and what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, in order to prevent mosquitoes from breeding in open tanks and reservoirs of static water kept for fire-fighting?

After consultation with the Ministry of Health, instructions have been issued on measures to prevent mosquitoes from breeding in water storage tanks or basins provided for fire fighting purposes, and to prevent the water becoming a nuisance or danger to health in any way. These measures include regular inspection and the spraying of the surface of the water from April to September with oil. If the medical officer of health considers it advisable, a tank or basin would be emptied, cleansed and refilled.

Would the right hon. Gentleman see that local authorities carry out their duties in this respect?

Typhus

asked the Minister of Health what are his latest advices as to the risk of infection from the typhus outbreak on the Continent of Europe; and whether, seeing that typhus is spread by lice, special measures will be taken at the ports to delouse entrants from the Continent and from Ireland, and to review and co-ordinate the methods of local authorities in dealing with parasitic conditions in some of our own centres of population?

The prevalence of typhus in certain parts of Europe calls for the continuance of the precautions described in the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend on 26th March. All port health and riparian authorities are being advised to secure that all persons on board any ship arriving from a continental or North African port, including the crew, should be medically inspected at the first port in this country at which passengers or members of the crew disembark. If verminous conditions are found, the authority have adequate powers for dealing with them. I propose to send to local authorities at an early date a circular with suggestions for the co-ordination of their resources for dealing with parasitic conditions, with special reference to the powers given to them under the Scabies Order, 1940.

The answer is that if there was any sign of typhus in Ireland, the same thing would apply, but there is no sign of it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if there is no evidence of typhus in Ireland, there is evidence of other conditions which would be likely to produce typhus here unless dealt with?

That is another issue altogether, and I would not accept that generalisation.

Irish Labourers, Wiltshire

asked the Minister of Health whether the medical and sanitary measures which the Wiltshire local authorities have had to take because of the condition of some of the Irish labourers imported into Wiltshire by Government contractors are proving adequate to safeguard the community generally from infection; and whether, in view of further migration of this kind, his Department and the other Departments concerned will arrange with the Governments of Eire and Northern Ireland for efficient medical and sanitary inspection at Irish and English ports?

The specific measures as regards the workers themselves to whom my hon. Friend refers are being taken by the contractors, under the supervision of my regional medical officers, with the result that the public health services of the local authorities have not been called upon to any appreciable extent. From inquiry I understand that some thousands of men have recently been inspected and that the cleansing arrangements required are being extended. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to his Questions on 17th March, and to the information with which I understand he was subsequently furnished by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.

Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the present conditions of inspection are satisfactory?

I never use the word "satisfactory." I have already pointed out that the contractors themselves are making extended arrangements.

Education

Women Workers' Children

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in order that the children of part-time women workers may be looked after whilst their mothers are at work, he will arrange for schools to be kept open during the school holidays and for school hours to be adjusted, so far as possible, to suit the convenience of parents who are at work?

In Circular 1573, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member, local education authorities have been asked to make arrangements for the care of the children of women workers outside ordinary school hours, and a number of authorities are arranging to keep school buildings open for this purpose both on school days and in some cases during school holidays in areas where the need for such provision has become clear.

Agricultural Work (Older Children)

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the urgent need for increased food production and the shortage of farmworkers, facilities will be given to elder schoolchildren who, with the consent of their parents, wish to assist at appropriate times in potato-setting, pea- and fruit-picking, and other seasonal work?

Yes, Sir. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a communication which I have sent to local education authorities and governors and headmasters of schools about the assistance which older pupils of secondary schools can give to agriculture in term time and in holiday harvest camps. I shall shortly be announcing further arrangements which have been made in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Home Secretary.

Necessitous Children (Clothing and Footwear)

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider the desirability of amending the law to enable local education authorities to provide footwear and clothing to necessitous children?

I am fully alive to the importance of this question, but it would be difficult to find the opportunity for dealing with it in advance of any general educational legislation.

If he intends to have these children setting potatoes and later on picking potatoes, does the right hon. Gentleman not see that they will wear out more shoes and clothes, especially if they are necessitous children, and will he not rise to the occasion on this matter?

I should very much like to rise to the occasion, but I think I should have some difficulty in doing so.

As the Scottish local authorities have this power, why should not the English local education authorities?

The matter is not quite so simple as the hon. Member thinks. I think he had better study recent legislation.

Camp Schools

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has now assumed responsibility for all questions affecting camp schools?

But it was stated a year and a half ago that these schools were to be transferred, and will not my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter?

I should be only too glad to reconsider it. As a matter of fact, it is under active consideration at the moment by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Technical Training

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the growing number of young persons in pre-Service training units, he will give some general guidance to local education authorities and local youth committees on national policy, so that the claims of continued education, technical and pre-Service training can be properly balanced?

The advice given to individual young persons must clearly depend on their circumstances and aptitudes. It would, therefore, be difficult to give more specific guidance than is contained in Circular 1577.

Would my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the technical aspects of continued education and pre-Service training, because there are a large number of young artisans between 14 and 18 in the building and engineering trades who are receiving no training whatever at the present moment, and there will be a shortage of skilled workmen unless action is taken?

I am glad my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because I think it is one of the most important of those which come before me in my work. I shall certainly take every opportunity of assisting in the development of technical training.

Chair Shortage, Rural Schools

asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that in certain country schools there is a shortage of chairs and certain children have had to remain standing during school hours; and will he rectify this situation?

No, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will send me particulars of the schools that she has in mind, I will look into the matter.

School Opening Hours (Rural Areas)

asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the additional hour of daylight saving, he will consider opening schools in country districts an hour later?

The decision as to the time of opening of schools rests with local education authorities and governing bodies, and I have no doubt that in country districts the effect of double summer time is taken into account.

Would it not be possible for some guidance to be given by the President of the Board of Education to districts where the local authorities seem unalive to the fact that very young children have to be got up in the dark and then have to walk for miles, and could not something be done to avoid this?

We have already done our best in Circular 1535, paragraph 24 of which states that the school day should be of normal duration, with such adjustment of hours as may be necessary to meet the conditions. I shall be glad to send the hon. Lady a copy.

Questions

Local Taxation

asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider introducing legislation to repeal or amend the de-rating clauses in the Rating and Valuation Act, 1928, and the Local Government Act, 1929; and is he aware of the increas- ing hardships upon shopkeepers due to the effect of the de-rating, or what other action he proposes to take to deal with rating and increasing difficulties of local authorities?

As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 23rd April to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). De-rating was accompanied by Exchequer grants, and I am unable to accept the suggestion in the second part. As regards the last part, I am aware of difficulties in certain areas, but the Government, in accordance with their undertaking, are affording financial assistance to any local authority whose loss of income owing to the war is so great that there is a serious risk of a breakdown of essential local services.

Government Departments

Ministry of Pensions (Organisation)

asked the Minister of Pensions when he proposes to publish the report on the organisation of his Department, prepared by the hon. Member for South-West St. Pancras (Sir G. Mitcheson)?

As I explained to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Ward) on 29th January, the Committee has presented a series of valuable and helpful reports. I do not, however, regard it as necessary to arrange for their publication. As the Committee has now completed its work, I take this opportunity of giving public expression to the thanks which I have already conveyed to the Chairman and members.

I have already adopted many of the recommendations; I am arranging for others to be put into operation; and the remainder I am giving my keenest consideration.

No, Sir, but if any Member wishes to see the very voluminous document, I will let him do so with pleasure.

Wages

35 and 36.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the decision to grant an increase of pay to 40,000 women workers in royal ordnance factories, indicates any change in Treasury policy about increase of wages to civil servants during the war;

(2) whether, in view of the decision to grant an increase of pay to 40,000 women in royal ordnance factories, he can state what is the present policy of the Treasury with regard to wage increases; and whether he is satisfied that increases of this nature involve no inflationary danger?

The policy of the Government in regard to wage levels and prices remains as stated in the White Paper of July, 1941. That paper contemplated that adjustments in wages might be necessary from time to time. The recent increase in the wages of certain classes of women workers in ordnance factories is the outcome of long negotiations between the Ministry of Supply and the trade unions, arising out of the progressive extension of the employment of women. I do not regard it as inconsistent with the policy of the White Paper.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any estimate of the total cost of this rise?

Hours of Work and Holidays

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of hours per week ordinary time worked generally by each civil servant, excluding time off for lunch; and what are the ordinary number of days per annum generally allowed for holidays on full pay?

The minimum number of hours which every full-time civil servant is required to work without additional payment varies between 38 and 48 hours, exclusive of time for lunch, according to the grade and station of the officer concerned. The actual hours being worked in present circumstances are a great deal longer and vary between different Departments and different sections of Departments As regards holi- days, if the reference to the ordinary number of days means the number of days allowed in times of peace, this again varies widely, and now has small significance. In present war conditions the maximum permissible allowance of leave throughout the Civil Service is 16 days per annum.

Would it be possible for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to state the average number of hours instead of giving the total?

That is impossible. The Civil Service is a very large organisation and does not consist only of administrative offices in Whitehall.

Questions

Armed Forces (Pensions and Grants)

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can give an assurance that no member of His Majesty's Forces is asked to sign any form respecting his health on discharge which might prejudice his applying for a pension or submitting a claim to an appeals tribunal at a later date?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether, having regard to the number of single young men now serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown, the Government will pay allowances to wives, children and widows of disabled men without regard to the date of marriage or birth?

It is a long-standing principle of war pensions that the liability of the State in respect of the wife and children of disabled or deceased ex-Service men applies to family obligations existing at the date of the contraction on service of the accepted disability. I am not prepared to recommend any departure from this principle.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that that means that for the rest of his life the young soldier has to maintain his wife and bring up his children on a single man's allowance?

I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the report of the Committee which was appointed by this House in 1919, and which dealt with all these matters.

Will the Minister not give further consideration to this point, because there is a feeling that something should be done for these men who have given their all for their country's cause?

My hon. Friend knows that we have already discussed this. I am always prepared to reconsider any question in which a vital principle is at stake.

Is it not an accepted principle that in these cases men should not be deprived of any amenity in life; and if men or women are not able to set up homes because of disability, are they not losing an amenity in life?

asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will set up a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the many anomalies in the rates and conditions of war pensions?

I do not accept the implication that there are anomalies in the rates and conditions of war pensions, and I see no need for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. If my hon. and gallant Friend will inform me of the anomalies he has in mind, I shall be prepared to consider them, and, if necessary, consult my statutory Advisory Committee.

Do the statutory Advisory Committee take evidence; and does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that they would be prepared to consider policy fundamentally, and not merely look at matters which he puts before them?

The procedure is this: Any member of the Advisory Committee can place upon the agenda any subject that he wants discussed, and state the case for the resolution he puts down, and the Committee will consider it. Certainly there are occasions when I put items on the agenda for discussion, but any member of the Committee is entitled to put down any question he desires to have discussed.

Is it not true that the Committee is limited to matters selected by the Minister, whereas a Select Committee could consider matters of fundamental policy?

There is no limitation at all. Any member is allowed to bring forward any matter he likes, whether it is a matter of policy or just of administration. I find the members of the Committee very helpful. There was a Select Committee in 1919, after the last war, and I expect that this House will demand another Select Committee after this war.

Was the right hon. Gentleman's answer drafted before the Debate which we had on this subject yesterday?

National Finance

Service Pay and Allowances

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the rates of pay of non-commissioned officers and other ranks, excluding officers, in the Navy, Army, and Air Force, and in the three women's Services; and the rates of family allowances in respect of wives and children of married men and the rate of dependants' allowances?

A reasonably full statement of the various rates of pay and of family and dependants' allowances of ratings and other ranks in the three Armed Forces, including the women's Forces, is difficult to compress within the limits of a Parliamentary reply. I am having the desired information collected, and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not give us a White Paper on the subject?

I will consider that. Alternatively, I might send my hon. Friend a copy of the statement I promised in my answer.

Blind Husbands' Pensions

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, in order to increase the war effort, many wives whose husbands are in receipt of blind pensions have undertaken employment in appropriate factories; that, as a result, the payment of such pensions has been suspended, which means that the recipients are now being maintained out of their wives' incomes; that, in many cases, the wages of the wives of these men being slightly in excess of the amount received previous to the position they now hold, consideration is being given to the question of terminating their employment at these factories; and can something be done to deal with the situation?

A blind person whose wife engages in work is not thereby disqualified from receiving assistance under the Blind Persons Acts if his needs require it. Local authorities have a wide discretion in the administration of these Acts.

The point of my Question is whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that as a portion of the wife's income is taken into consideration in the determination of the blind pension their wives consider it preferable to cease their employment?

Perhaps the hon. Member will send me some cases, which I shall be glad to consider.

Tobacco and Cigarette Prices (N.A.A.F.I.)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the scheme whereby Service men can buy a limited amount of cigarettes and tobacco at pre-Budget prices through Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes and certain other canteens is not satisfactory; and will he consider charging the full price to everyone and giving Service men another 2d. a day as tobacco money?

The Service Departments have been entrusted with the task of carrying out the scheme to which my hon. Friend refers. They are completing their arrangements as quickly as possible, but obviously a certain amount of time will be required before the necessary adjustments can be made in all parts of the country. In the meantime, it is, I suggest, unnecessary to consider possible alternative arrangements.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that canteens being run by philanthropic bodies feel that they have had a very raw deal in the matter, because they cannot get any cigarettes to sell to the troops at the cheaper price? If there are to be two prices for cigarettes, there will obviously be a good deal of abuse and illicit trading. It is a very unsatisfactory arrangement.

I appreciate that; and I suggest that the organisations to which my hon. Friend refers should get in touch with the War Office on the matter.

In view of my hon. Friend's Supplementary Question, has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of making a small free issue of cigarettes in this country, to the same value as, and in lieu of, the concession that the Forces are now getting?

That, in fact, was considered; but it involved the issue of cigarettes which probably would not be required by the troops.

Would the Chancellor consider extending the scheme to cover a limited issue of beer each week?

I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Government Contracts (Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report)

38 and 39.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action has been taken to deal with the monopoly firm, referred to in paragraph 86 of the Auditor-General's Report, which charged 160 per cent. on cost in 1940 and 50 per cent. on cost in 1941; and whether he will state the name of the firm;

(2) whether he will disclose the name of the firm referred to in paragraph 122 of the Auditor-General's Report; and whether any steps have yet been taken to compel this firm to make a refund to the Treasury of the excessive prices charged to the respective Ministries?

40, 41 and 42.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will disclose the name of the consultant who was paid a personal fee of £39,000, plus expenses, for work over a period of two years, £29,000 of which was for work at two factories, the fact of which was commented upon in paragraph 54 of the Auditor-General's Report; and whether any action has been taken against the responsible officials;

(2) whether he will give the names of the firms forming a trade association which tendered an identical price for a certain article necessary for the prosecution of the war, which price was considerably above that quoted by a non-associated firm, the whole circumstances being the subject of comment in paragraph 82 of the Report of the Auditor-General;

(3) whether he will give the name of the contractor referred to in paragraph 85 of the Auditor-General's Report, who, despite an increase of 300 per cent. in profits, requested an increased price for his monopoly product; and whether the request for the increased price was granted?

44 and 57.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether it' is proposed to prosecute any representative of the firm, referred to by the Auditor-General, engaged in manufacturing building materials for the War Office, which made, over a period of two years, 160 per cent. profits on its costs;

(2) whether it is proposed to prosecute any representative of the firm referred to by the Auditor-General that refused, when challenged, facilities for a cost investigation, and refused to deliver guns required for the Royal Air Force until its terms were accepted?

These Questions are all concerned with matters arising from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the Civil Appropriation Accounts for 1940. All these subjects will be considered by the Public Accounts Committee during the present Session, when the Committee will have the opportunity of questioning the accounting officers of the respective Departments upon them. The House will, I think, agree that, in those circumstances, it would be undesirable that they should be the subject of statements in the House at the present moment. The Committee will report to the House upon these Accounts; and that would appear to be the proper occasion for any further statement.

On that occasion shall we be favoured with the names of the firms mentioned in the Report?

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a war on; and that workmen who have lost only half a day have been sent to prison, and yet these people can hold up the country to ransom and their names are hidden?

I do not think that that is a fair statement. All I am suggesting is that we should follow the procedure which has been generally adopted.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this affects the war effort? If workmen are punished, under existing Acts of Parliament or Regulations, what reason is there why these names should not be disclosed? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to disclose the names now, will he give an undertaking that when the Report of the Committee is presented to the House, the names will be made public?

I am not quarrelling with that. All I am suggesting is that the Committee which has been appointed should consider the matter and make their recommendations.

Is the Chancellor aware that last week a group of miners in Blairhall pit who, exasperated beyond endurance, stopped the supply of coal for a time, were taken to court and fined £5, with an alternative of 30 days' imprisonment, each? Why are not the members of these firms which deliberately hold up supplies imprisoned now?

Will the Chancellor give his reasons for not stating the names of the firms now?

It is not for me to come to any conclusion. It is a matter to be considered by the Committee.

Will the Committee have authority to disclose the names of these firms to the House when the Report is issued?.

I take it that the Committee will consider this matter, in consultation with the Departments concerned, and that they will then make their recommendations to this House.

May I ask the Leader of the House this question? It is quite obvious that there is terrible concern felt by Members in all parts of the House about this matter; and would he not consult his Cabinet colleagues in this case, owing to the great concern in not publishing the full facts so that the country at large may know the facts?

I always report to the Cabinet what takes place in the House. If I think there is any matter which should be specially raised in the Cabinet, I shall report it.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment. Too many workers are being sent to gaol.

On a point of Order. I wish to submit that on a question of this kind which concerns the Public Accounts Committee it might have been appropriate that a member of the Committee should be allowed to put a Supplementary Question.

British Army

Corps of Engineers

asked the Prime Minister, in view of the need for an Army Corps of Engineers, what steps are being taken to enable the Corps to be formed; and is he satisfied that scientific and engineering developments are being utilised or encouraged by the Army Council in consultation with industrial authorities?

The formation of this new Corps, which of course is not an Army Corps, involves personnel in all theatres of war and is a complicated matter. A special committee in the War Office is now working out details so that the Corps may come into being without delay, but I cannot yet give a definite date for its formation. As to the second part of the Question, the design and development of equipment for the Army are the duty of the Ministry of Supply, in accordance with the requirements of the General Staff, and I am assured that scientific and engineering developments are being utilised and encouraged by that Department in consultation with industrial authorities. There is the closest liaison between the War Office and the Ministry of Supply in this field.

Voluntary Allotments

asked the Secretary of State for War whether ho is aware that some soldiers who made voluntary allotments of pay to their wives on joining the Army have since been deserted by them; that soldiers may desire to stop voluntary financial assistance to wives who have broken the marriage bond; and what arrangements exist, or will be made, to enable such men, if they so desire, to withdraw their financial support in the circumstances indicated?

In such circum-stances every soldier has the power to stop allotments from his pay by applying through his commanding officer to the paymaster.

Is great care taken to see that a wife accused of desertion by the soldier has actually deserted him and, if so, for what reason, as it cannot be assumed without inquiry that the blame rests on the wife?

The Question refers to the voluntary allotment made from his pay by a soldier. If he wishes to withdraw that voluntary allotment, he is perfectly free to do so in any circumstances.

Maritime Regiment (Pay and Allowances)

asked the Secretary of State for War whether the non-commissioned officers and men of the Maritime Regiment of the Royal Artillery, serving on merchant ships, receive extra pay or allowances comparable to the danger money which is paid to men serving in the Merchant Navy?

Ought not some consideration to be given to the complaints sent to Members of Parliament by men of the Maritime Regiment?

The pay of the Merchant Navy is not in any way comparable to that of the Army. Danger from enemy action is a part of the normal risk of a soldier.

Questions

Lord Beaverbrook (Speech, United States)

asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of Lord Beaverbrook in a recent speech in the United States of America advocating that we should strike recklessly in order to open up a second front in Europe; and whether it was with his authority that this course was advocated?

asked the Prime Minister whether it was with his authority that Lord Beaverbrook recently made a public speech in the United States of America commenting on the strategy of the United Nations?

My right hon. Friend has seen Press reports of the speech in question. His authority was not required, since Lord Beaverbrook is as free to express his own opinions as any other person.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do anything to prevent people in Lord Beaverbrook's position from trying to force the Government's hand by indulging in this kind of propaganda, which may do incalculable harm?

I do not wish to say anything derogatory of Lord Beaverbrook, but will the right hon. Gentleman explain the position a little more clearly? We were informed by the Prime Minister in a recent speech that Lord Beaverbrook represented His Majesty's Government. Are we to understand that representatives of the Government are free to express any opinion they like?

Lord Beaverbrook is not holding a definite appointment. He is undertaking a special mission of an informal kind, and he is not in the same position as someone directly in the employ of the Government.

May I ask whether Lord Beaverbrook's position is regularised by the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given?

Should not a gentleman who has been a member of the War Cabinet so recently and is still on a special mission to the United States exercise discretion in what he says?

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this mission has come to an end or not, and whether Lord Beaverbrook is still in a semi-official capacity representing this country?

Ancient Monuments (Bombing)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider, through the International Red Cross or otherwise, attempting to arrange by tacit agreement, or in any other way, mutual forbearance to destroy ancient monuments of no military value?

No, Sir. Experience has shown the worthlessness of any agreement entered into by Hitler, and it is already the fixed policy of His Majesty's Government to avoid unnecessary damage to such monuments.

Is not the present condition of the world more utterly deplorable than anything that has been known since the fall of the Empire of Rome?

Social Insurance and Assistance (Report)

asked the Paymaster-General whether the Inter-departmental Committee charged with making a comprehensive survey of all existing schemes of social insurance and assistance is deliberating in a sense of urgency so as to allow of its conclusions being announced at an early date?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 14th April to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Howdenshire (Colonel Carver), from which he will see that the Committee is anxious to report as soon as possible and wished evidence to be submitted to it with a minimum of delay.

Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many times this Committee has already met?

Agriculture

Women's Land Army

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has been able to arrange that women serving in the Land Army shall be allowed to use the facilities of the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes?

No, Sir. Members of the Women's Land Army will be admitted under certain conditions to canteens run by the voluntary organisations, but it has not been thought necessary to seek admission for them to Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, which are generally situated in military establishments.

Hill Breeding Cattle (Subsidy)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to a subsidy for hill breeding cattle in England and Wales?

No, Sir. The views that I have received are of a conflicting character, and further examination of this proposal is required.

Military Manoeuvres (Farm Protection)

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the substantial damage already done to milk production by troops on manoeuvres; whether he will arrange with the military authorities to exclude from their manoeuvre areas, from May to November, all farm buildings and arable or grazing pastures being used by cattle; and whether he will empower his war agricultural committees to issue official notices to fix on gates and buildings to show troops the fields and buildings which are out of bounds?

Arrangements are already in existence with the War Office calculated to minimise damage to agricultural production by troops on manoeuvres so far as is possible. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of specific cases of substantial damage to milk production and will let me have particulars, I will have inquiries made.

There are many cases which I should like to bring to the Minister's notice, but is he aware that troops in the newly-formed divisions do not possess the information and that unless notices are put upon the farms, we cannot expect troops to know that they are doing wrong and affecting valuable food production?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will let me have particulars, and we shall have to see what can be done.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the war agricultural committees issued notices to us, and that I am only asking that they should do the same again?

Coal Industry

Domestic Supplies, Liverpool

asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that in recent weeks there has been a shortage of coal for domestic users in Liverpool; and whether he will, since most of the working-class users in the older parts of the city have no gas or electric cookers and no hot water installations, cause immediate inquiry to be made into the shortage so that the poorer sections of the community may be assured that the requisite supplies of coal will be available in the future?

There has been a shortage of domestic coal during recent weeks, not only in Liverpool, but in all parts of the country. Liverpool has received an equitable share of the available supplies. The principal object of the restrictions which have been in force since the end of March is to ensure deliveries to people who have no stocks to draw upon.

Will my hon. Friend go further into this matter? This does not only go back two or three weeks but two or three months, and it wants looking into. May that be done?

It is because of the increasing shortage which began two or three months ago that the restrictions were put on, but if my hon. Friend complains that they were not put on early enough, well, there might be something in it.

Can the Secretary for Mines say whether, under the Government scheme, Liverpool will not get more coal than they get now?

Is not the solution of these irritating questions one of increasing the coal supply instead of arguing about these trivial matters?

Essential Work Order (Wages)

asked the Secretary for Mines what were the numbers of shifts and wages payable under the Essential Work Order for the past three months ended 31st March, 1942, at the following collieries: New Monckton, Brodworth, Bentley and Bullcroft?

I regret that I cannot give information in respect of individual collieries. In regard to the general wages paid during this year, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 28th April to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate).

Has not my hon. Friend missed the point of the Question entirely? I do not want to know the full amount of wages, but I am asking a Question as to the amount of wages paid under the Essential Work Order to men who have not worked. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has missed that point, and I must put it again.

I am sorry that I have missed the point of the number of shifts and wages paid. I have taken the wages paid to the men at these collieries.

I am desirous of finding out how many times men are sent back who should be working but are prevented from working by the coalowners.

Is the Secretary for Mines aware that allegations are made that miners at some of these collieries have been sent back and paid under the Essential Work Order when there was other work in the mine they might have been doing in the interests of production?

That was never intended. As the House knows well, the intention of the guaranteed week provision under the Essential Work Order was to pay men when they were unable to obtain employment, and I do not know what complaints may arise on other grounds.

Will my hon. Friend make a statement at a later date as to the technical difficulties which exist in the collieries concerned and say whether or not it is related to these false accusations of absenteeism?

I would like to look at the accusations which are brought either on one side or the other. If employers charged workmen with being absent when it was their own fault, the guaranteed week would be a wrong thing. I would like to have an opportunity of looking into the matter before coming to a decision.

Can my hon. Friend say whether he will be able to make a statement at an early date?

No, Sir. I would like to go into the question fully before making a statement.

May I put this point, as it is very vital to this House and the country—

I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity, because I want this information to be brought out

Questions

Colonies (Official Visits)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the proposed Colonial tour of Sir Cosmo Parkinson initiates a new arrangement for regular visits to the Colonies by high officials of his Department to enable them to see on the spot the conditions which obtain in each and to advise him accordingly?

It has long been the established practice for senior officers of the Colonial Office to visit the Colonies from time to time on behalf of the Secretary of State. This is, however, the first time that a senior officer has been appointed for this specific duty. My Noble Friend has had it in mind since he assumed office as Colonial Secretary that the appointment of an officer of this standing to visit the Colonies as his personal representative to discuss local problems with Colonial Governors would be of especial value during the war when there are so many difficulties in the way of Governors coming home for personal discussion here. My Noble Friend is confident that the new arrangement will be most helpful to him and also to Colonial Governors.

Kenya (African Labourers' Rations)

asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made to secure for African labourers in Kenya the improved rations recommended by the Commission on Compulsory Labour?

Three alternative scales of rations which in each case in addition to maize meal include vegetables, jaggery, beans, oil or ghee, and either meat, meat meal or separated milk have been worked out by the Government Bio-Chemist for the Coast Province, for dairy farms and for arable farms respectively. The precise rations to be provided by employers are laid down as one of the conditions of service fixed by the Central Wages Board on which the Medical Department is represented. Some latitude is allowed to the Board to substitute other items for those in the approved ration scales having regard to the crops produced in different areas and the nature of the individual undertaking.

May I take it that the new scale has come into force already or that it will very shortly come into force?

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Ministers have tried these rations themselves and have had personal experience of them?

Spare Tyres (Omnibuses and Commercial Vehicles)

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he is aware that local omnibuses do not carry spare tyres; and whether he will take steps to arrange for commercial vehicles making local hauls to free spare tyres for more essential purposes?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport
(Mr. Noel-Baker)

Many omnibuses do not carry spare tyres, for the reason that immediate supply of a spare can be made from local depots in case of need. The provision of spare tyres to vehicles engaged on local haulage work is now under consideration with the Tyre Control, and my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

Have the Government any intention of commandeering, as would appear from a letter I have received, the tyres of cars temporarily laid up?

Yes, Sir. That matter is under consideration by the Tyre Control in conjunction with the Ministry of War Transport.

House of Commons Members' Fund

asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Trustees, how many ex-Members have benefited by the House of Commons Members' Fund Act and by what amount; how much money has been collected; and what balance there is in hand?

Three ex-Members and also seven widows of ex-Members have been awarded grants from the Members' Fund, which, to date, amount to approximately £1,000. The total receipts of the Fund to 30th September, 1941, amounted to £14,800, and the balance in hand at that date was £13,890.

Has the request for assistance from this Fund been as high as was expected when it was established?

In view of the very considerable increase in the cost of living scale, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take into consideration a revision of these payments?

It does not rest with the Trustees at all. The scale is laid down by Act of Parliament. In reply to the Supplementary Question of my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), the applicant had to be serving in this House at the time of the passing of the Act, that is, in the present Parliament, and we anticipate that, after a General Election, there may be an increase then.

In view of the fact that this is a purely House of Commons matter, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman find out whether or not he has additional powers of discretion, and, if he has not such powers, will he make an early recommendation to the House?

We believe that we have generously considered every application that could legally be made within the terms of the Act.

Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the Fund is based upon any actuarial considerations?

Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether a wife is given a pension irrespective of her age?

Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners

asked the Minister of Aircraft Production, what fees and expenses accrued to the firm of Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners for work done for his Department during 1941 in addition to the sum of £1,579 actually paid to that firm during that year?

The Parliamenetary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production
(Mr. Ben Smith)

In addition to the amounts mentioned in my answers to my hon. Friend's Question and Supplementary Question on 19th March, a further sum of approximately £8,000 accrued to the firm for fees and expenses in respect of the work done for this Ministry in 1941.

Hitler's Speech (Press Reports)

asked the Minister of Information whether his attention has been drawn to the discrepancies between the various Press reports of Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on 26th April; and whether, having regard to the propaganda value of this utterance to the peoples of Britain and the United Nations, he can assure the House that the speech was in no way bowdlerised by the British Censor?

My right hon. Friend is not responsible for the character of the Press summaries of this speech or for any discrepancies between them. I can assure the hon. Member that this speech was not subject to any form of censorship in this country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in no single newspaper was it possible to read a verbatim report of this speech, even the very important parts of it, and, further, that no copies are now available in the Library because there has been a run on such copies as were available? In view of that, can he ensure that a few more copies will be put into the Library?

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of this speech was perfectly audible over the wireless in this country?

There is in the Library a full translation of the speech in the B.B.C. daily digest "World Broadcast" No. 1114, but, if necessary, I daresay we could provide other copies of the speech.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the copies in the Library give a full report or a verbatim report?

Business of the House

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the forthcoming Business of the House?

The forthcoming Business of the House is as follows:

First Sitting Day—Second Reading of the Finance Bill and Motion to approve the Unemployment Insurance Contributions (Agriculture) Order.

Second Sitting Day—Supply: Committee (5th Allotted Day). The Adjournment will be moved, and a Debate on the Ministry of Aircraft Production will take place in Secret Session.

Third Sitting Day—Supply: Committee (6th Allotted Day). A Debate will take place on Fuel Rationing on the Board of Trade and other appropriate Votes.

May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend of the undertaking given last week about the resumption of the Debate on the War Situation? I assume that at an early and convenient date such a Debate will take place?

At the present moment there is nothing the Government can add to the statement on the War Situation which was made so recently, but the Government realise that it is the wish of the House to have a public Debate on this matter before the Whitsun Adjournment. It has been suggested that two days should be allotted to a Debate on the war and the question of a joint planning organisation, and we are prepared to make arrangements accordingly before the Whitsun Recess.

Will the Government reconsider the date of this Debate? I think the last public Debate on the war took place at the end of February, and I think it is not unreasonable that the public and the House should desire a proper Debate on the general course of the war, especially in view of the events of recent days, on the additional subject mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and on the question of setting up a Commission regarding Singapore, to avoid the same mistakes being made again? In view of that, I would ask the Government to consider whether we cannot have a Debate, not during the next series of Sitting Days, because I realise that there is important financial and other Business to be dealt with, but, say, during the following series of Sitting Days. It should not be left until just before the Whitsun Recess.

We are quite prepared to reconsider the matter, but in view of the recent statement which was made, we thought it better to wait a week or so before a further statement should be made.

In view of the widespread interest in the question of fuel rationing, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider suspending the Standing Order so that more Members may take part in the Debate on the third Sitting Day?

Would it not be as well, instead of finally settling any date for the resumption of the Debate on the War Situation, to raise the question again, so that if there is then a desire for the Debate to take place earlier, that can be arranged?

Inquiries will be made again through the usual channels to see what date is the most convenient to the House. As at present advised, it seems to the Government that the date I have foreshadowed would be the most convenient.

I only wished to make quite certain that the House could press its point again, and that the Government have not finally made up their mind on the subject.

Certainly the House can press its point again. No final decision has been arrived at.

Will the Lord Privy Seal consider having the Debate on the third Sitting Day, not on Supply, but on a specific Motion regarding fuel rationing, which would avoid other matters being brought into the discussion?

That matter is under consideration. It was simply put in the way I expressed it for the third Sitting Day and not for a specific day of the week. It has not yet been decided which would be the more convenient, but inquiries are being made.

Can the Lord Privy Seal grant a day for discussing the position of old age pensioners? There are now over 3,000,000 old age pensioners, and Members are anxious to state their points of view to the House.

I am afraid that at the present moment so many other matters are desired to be discussed that it is difficult to grant a day for that specific purpose. Of course, there are various matters which could be raised on the Finance Bill, both during the Second Reading Debate and on the Committee stage later.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that we are ruled out of Order when we bring up these matters? [ Interruption .] However, we will take the opportunity.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there was a general feeling that the Act under which supplementary pensions are now being paid would improve considerably the position of these people, and that in practice there has been no improvement at all? Therefore, the House desires an opportunity to discuss the general question so that proposals for improvements may be made.

I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point of view and his desire, but there are so many other urgent matters to be discussed that it would not be possible to give a day for that purpose.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that on three previous occasions we were promised a Supply Day to discuss the machinery of the war? It is now arranged that the discussion shall be doubled up with a Debate on the conduct of the war. Might it be made clear that one of the days should be devoted to the question of the organisation for winning the war?

I do not think it is a question of splitting up the Debate into two days, because the whole subject matter may be dealt with on both days.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that there is a very widespread feeling in the House that an opportunity should be given for discussing old age pensioners? Is he aware there is just as strong a feeling in the House for a discussion on this subject as there is for discussion on other subjects?

From inquiries through the usual channels we have to try and adjust time for those matters which the House most wishes to discuss. As a result of the inquiries which have been made, we have come to the conclusion that at the moment the time of the House is better occupied on other matters.

With regard to the Business on the third Sitting Day, will the Lord Privy Seal make it quite clear that the majority of Members require a Debate on fuel rationing dissociated from the Board of Trade Vote? Will he make it clear whether the Debate will be in that form, or whether it is to be linked up with the Board of Trade Vote?

No, Sir, the plan is that the Debate shall be upon the question of fuel rationing and not upon the general matters relating to the Board of Trade.

Will the Lord Privy Seal be good enough to look up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debate on the Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board? He will see that a number of hon. Members gave notice that they wished to raise the question of an increase in old age pensions. He is misinformed if he assumes that there is not a strong desire on the part of many Members for a discussion on this subject which cannot be debated on the Finance Bill because it involves increasing expenditure.

I was not suggesting that there was not a strong desire, but that there was a stronger desire for other Debates.

In view of the fact that a number of Members desire to address the House during the Second Reading Debate on the Finance Bill, will the Standing Order be suspended?

Message from the Lords

That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to amend the law of Scotland with regard to notice of intended marriage and to subscription by persons unable to write of documents required for the purpose of marriage." [Marriage (Scotland) Bill [ Lords .]

And also a Bill intituled "An Act to empower the Great Western Railway Company the London and North Eastern Railway Company the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company and the Southern Railway Company to give guarantees and to make financial and other arrangements in connection with or arising out of the acquisition by Hay's Wharf Cartage Company Limited of the share capital of Thos. Cook and Son Limited; and for other purposes." [Railway Companies (Thos. Cook and Son Limited Guarantee) Bill [ Lords .]

RAILWAY COMPANIES (THOMAS COOK & SON LTD. GUARANTEE) BILL [Lords.]

Read the First' time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day

War Damage (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

It is now over a year since the War Damage Act was passed, and the time is ripe to review its working and to make further provision for the future. Last July I asked Parliament to extend the Scheme of Part I, so far as payments are concerned, for a further year, that is, until 31st August next—but the question of the contributions which were to be exacted in respect of this extension was left for further determination. Therefore, we have now to consider that question in relation to the second risk period, now current, and also in relation to the future—after 31st August.

I have approached the matter with the following broad principles in mind: In the first place, I think there will be unanimous agreement that the War Damage Scheme should continue in operation. The Scheme was a venture, but nothing has occurred to cause us to go back on the decision that was taken when the original Bill was promoted—that is, that such loss consequent upon war damage should not be left where it fell, but should be shared, in the first instance, among property owners, and then, if the burden of the contributions laid on them exceeded a certain figure, by the community as a whole. We must therefore provide that damage to land and buildings shall continue to be covered after 31st August.

The second consideration I had in mind was that I did not wish to increase the current burden of contributions if I could avoid doing so. There have been suggestions in some quarters that I might reduce them, but I should not regard such a step as justifiable in present circumstances. It has proved impossible to form any accurate estimate of what the total payments in respect of damage occurring during the first risk period or up to the current date, may amount to. This much I can say, however. Such partial and tentative information as I have been able to get does not suggest that I need at present increase either the amounts or the number of instalments of contributions, while, on the other hand, especially in the light of the proposals embodied in the Bill, it would not be wise to reduce them.

Thirdly, it is, I think, inconvenient for property owners not to be able to know with reasonable certainty what is likely to be required of them from year to year. It has been represented to me, for instance, that business firms have been uncertain how much to put aside in order to meet the instalment which will become due next July. I have, therefore, decided to discontinue the method of dealing with land and buildings in successive risk periods, each with its own quota of contribution attached to it. It was right, I think, to begin in that way, until we had some idea of what we were likely to have to face. It is right even now, for no one can really forecast what may occur before the war ends, to make provision as we do in the Bill so that Government and Parliament alike shall be able, at any time, to review the whole position of the Scheme. But it is also right to give the Scheme a further substantial measure of continuity and certainty.

Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, provides for a single risk period of indefinite length, no addition being made, either in the number or the amount of the instalments of contribution payable under the original Act in consequence of this extension. This concession will, I think, be of great benefit to property owners, while, on the other hand, the position is safeguarded in two ways. First, the risk period as thus extended can at any time be terminated by an Order made by the Treasury and approved by the House of Commons. Secondly, Section 22 of the original Act continues to operate. The Treasury, if the House of Commons approves, may at any time, if the expected receipts fall short of half the expected payments, increase the number or the amount of the instalments of contribution; while, if the expected receipts exceed the ex- pected payments, Parliament may reduce the former. I cannot, of course, in face of so uncertain a future, give any undertaking as to what I would propose to do, if it became necessary to operate Section 22, but my present inclination would be, if an increase in contribution were found to be necessary, to increase the number of annual instalments rather than the 2S. rate. Similarly, if it should be possible to reduce contributions, I should prefer to start by remitting or reducing the fifth and last instalment. That course would have the dual advantage of giving the maximum current certainty as to their annual obligations to contributors, and of enabling the Treasury and Parliament alike to obtain the latest and most complete data possible before taking decisions.

When I introduced the War Damage Bill in December, 1940, I estimated that full collection of the five instalments of contribution would produce about £200,000,000. That estimate has been confirmed by the assessments of the first instalment, which amount to a little more than £40,000,000. Of that amount, about £35,000,000 has already been collected. The collection of the balance is proceeding, but some part of it will be deferred by reason of the provision for deferment of collection in certain circumstances, such as where the property has suffered substantial war damage.

As far as the contributors are concerned, therefore, their position, if the Bill be approved, will be that they will meet, broadly speaking, the first £200,000,000 of damage. They will be called upon for no more, however long the risk period lasts, until the Exchequer has met a further £200,000,000. Thereafter the burden will be shared equally between the contributors and the Exchequer. This is, of course, very different from the original provision under which arangements of this kind applied only to the first risk period, with potential liability for more contributions in the second and any subsequent risk period. Clause I, with which I have dealt, is therefore the main feature of the Bill.

For the rest, the Bill consists of a large number of Amendments of the Act which experience has shown to be necessary. They are of varying and mostly of minor importance. I have given some thought to the question of how I could best help the House to appreciate them, and I thought the most helpful way was to have printed with the Bill an explanatory Memorandum which is much more detailed than usual. I am glad that this, in the exceptional circumstances, has proved permissible and I hope the House will find it helpful.

The First Schedule contains amendment to that part of the War Damage Act which is concerned with land and buildings. As the House is aware, the collection of contributions is carried out by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but the administration of the payment side of the scheme is vested in the War Damage Commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Trustram Eve, K.C. I should like to take this opportunity of saying a little about its work. The Commission was formally appointed on 27th March, 1941, on the day after the War Damage Act received the Royal Assent, and it held its first meeting on that day. It has thus been in existence for just over a year. By May, 1941, it had opened its 16 regional offices; by November, 1941, it had completed the registration of all claims and had issued in each case the appropriate form on which a claim for payment should be made. I cannot, I am afraid, for reasons of security, give information as to the number of claims, or, what is more important from the point of view of the War Damage Commission, the number of claims on which an immediate payment was due. Suffice it to say, that the latter amount to many hundreds of thousands and that, contrary to what one would expect, the rate at which they come in has continued at a very high level, and there is only now some signs of a fall in the weekly intake. Some 200,000 claims, covering 340,000 separate proper-tics, have been paid since 1st January, while the weekly output of paid claims has risen from 8,000 a week in the first week of January to over 15,000 a week. The Commission tell me that with a few exceptions they have paid in full over three out of every four, and that for the rest where the amount of the claim is appreciable, an advance of about 60 per cent. of the amount claimed has been paid or will be paid in the course of the next week or two.

In addition to this duty of paying the large number of current claims, most of them for small amounts, the Commission has spent much time and thought on the more difficult problems of interpretation and administration which arise on Part I of the War Damage Act. Most of these problems arise in practical form only when rebuilding on a large scale becomes possible. The Commission has issued to the public a booklet, which it calls "Practice Notes," in which it indicates the manner in which it proposes to administer the more important sections of the Act and in particular exercise the wide discretions which are given to it in certain directions. In issuing this booklet, the Commission has asked for any constructive criticism, particularly from representative bodies. I have arranged for copies of the Notes to be available in the Library; and it is hoped that all who are directly concerned with the administration of Part I of the War Damage Act will find the contents useful. It is also hoped that they will respond to the Commission's invitation to offer constructive criticism.

Before I turn to the actual Amendments embodied in the present Bill, I would like to say a word about Section 7 of the principal Act, which is the Section that provides for making the Commission's payments accord with the public interest. What constitutes the public interest is defined in the section, and this definition includes town and country planning. The Treasury have issued to the Commission a direction which requires it to exercise the various provisions of the section in such a way as to prevent, as far as possible, anything being done now and in the immediate future, which is likely to prejudice future planning so far as properties which have suffered war damage are concerned. The Commission, pursuant to this direction, has issued, after the fullest consultation with the local authorities concerned, some 29 specifications requiring persons carrying out works of a prescribed kind in the areas covered by the specifications to inform the Commission before these works are put in hand.

This action by the Commission, which I think has been regarded by the authorities concerned as generally helpful, is only a preliminary step. It can provide little more than a breathing space during which those responsible for planning can decide what should be done and what powers are necessary to enable their plans to be carried out. It is for this reason that the Commission has suggested to me, and I have agreed, that it would be better at this stage to avoid Amendments to Sec- tion 7 of the principal Act. Amendment of this Section may well turn out to be necessary, but it seems better to wait for a later occasion when the matter can be reviewed in its proper perspective as part of, or at any rate in the light of, the general legislation which will be necessary for implementing the Government's proposals with regard to planning and redevelopment generally. Therefore, the only amendments which I am suggesting with regard to the provisions of Section 7 are purely formal amendments.

In the First Schedule, there is only one Amendment with which I propose to deal at this stage. Paragraph (5) embodies an important concession to claimants. As the Act stands at present, the War Damage Commission must either make a cost-of-works payment or a value payment. It cannot make both in respect of the same property. Circumstances are, however, likely to arise, particularly in the case of industrial or agricultural properties, where the owners would like to omit part of the making good and substitute some work elsewhere on another site. For instance, it might be desired to omit the top floor of a factory and replace it by a separate building elsewhere. In order to meet this position it is proposed that the War Damage Commission should have power to pay a cost-of-works payment in respect of the repairs actually carried out, and in addition, a value payment in respect of that part of the repairs which are omitted. This provision will also facilitate arrangements for compulsory purchase.

Of the other Amendments in the First Schedule, some are merely drafting, others are confined to points of detail which can more appropriately be discussed on the Committee stage. Of the rest, I think it may fairly be claimed that they will improve the position of claimants and will give some additional elasticity to the scheme, and this I think is all to the good. They will impose slightly wider discretions upon the War Damage Commission. The Commission is willing and able to accept these wider discretions, and I feel that the House will agree that the Commission can be trusted to use them wisely and judiciously.

In the Second Schedule, there is a series of Amendments relating to indemnities by mortgagees. These are designed to eliminate flaws discovered since the Act was passed. It has, for instance, been found that a single farm is sometimes the subject of more than one Schedule A assessment, and therefore, is "more than one contributory property" for the purposes of Section 25. In many cases, moreover, the current mortgage is not the original mortgage created when the farm was purchased, but another, very possibly granted by the Public Works Loans Board, substituted at a later stage, and a short interval of time elapsed between the discharge of the first mortgage and the creation of the second, although the proceeds of the second were used to pay off the first. The clear intention of the Act that mortgagees should share in the contribution if the mortgage was created for the purposes of buying a farm not exceeding £500 in contributory value threatened to be defeated. Paragraphs 4 and 6 put this right, and I am sure the House will approve of the action taken by the Treasury, when these points came to light, in authorising the Public Works Loans Board, as far as it was concerned, to pay indemnities to farmers on the assumption that these flaws would be rectified at the first legislative opportunity.

I have been urged in some quarters to rescind the decision taken when the original Act was before the House that, subject to the exceptions provided for in Section 25 to meet the case of owner-occupiers and farmers, mortgagees as such should not share and should not pay a share of the contribution. I have carefully considered these representations, but I have come to the conclusion that the original decision to the contrary was right, and that the reasons which led to it remain sound. It is well understood that the owner of a property, as distinct from the mortgagee, bears the risks inherent to that ownership, whereas the mortgagee expects to receive only a limited and fixed income.

Do the Government regard the risk covered by these Acts as a risk ordinarily incidental to the ownership of a house?

We discussed that matter on the last occasion, and no doubt there will be an opportunity of doing so on the further stages of the Bill. I quite appreciate the hon. Member's point. But in short, the relationship between the mortgagor and mortgagee differs little from that ordinarily subsisting between borrower and lender, and there seemed no sufficient reason why the latter should make a contribution. There is another matter I should mention in this connection. Apart from the question of principle, it appears impracticable to draw up any simple formula for the mortgagee's contribution which could reasonably be applied to the various types of commercial mortgage, including floating charges, debenture capital, and so forth.

The principal Amendments included in the Bill at the instance of the Board of Trade are intended to provide insurance under Part II of the War Damage Act for sea-going ships not at present insurable under it while they are laid up. This insurance will be restricted to cases in which the Board of Trade is satisfied that the laying-up is not contrary to the national interest. Now we also make statutory provision, which has hitherto been lacking, for payments by the Assistance Board to enable uninsured persons whose goods for sale or tools or equipment have been destroyed by enemy action to recommence business, and to extend to the business scheme the provision for early payment in case of undue hardship which is at present limited to the private chattels scheme. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that retrospective?"]—I doubt that, but I will look into it. The Amendments will also enable the Board of Trade, under Regulations to be made by the Treasury, to pay compensation in respect of war damage to the business equipment of persons whose businesses have been closed down who can prove that inability to pay the premium is due to war circumstances. These Amendments are comprised in Clause 5 and the Third Schedule to the Bill.

This Bill does not deal with problems arising out of Section 40 of the War Damage Act. The effect of that Section was to reserve for further consideration the provision to be made for war damage to the immovable property of public utility undertakings and undertakings valued for rating by reference to accounts, receipts, profits or output. The Section took power to make payments in respect of works rendered urgently necessary by war damage, but contributions were postponed pending further legislation. Moreover, the goods of public utility undertakings, but not those of other undertakings to which Section 40 applies, were made voluntarily insurable under the business scheme, and public utility undertakers were advised not to insure them under that scheme, as it was proposed to deal with them in the same legislation as that dealing with their immovable property. On 29th May, 1941, I made a statement briefly outlining the general lines on which I proposed to deal with these matters, and at the same time I said that before I could usefully introduce legislation I should have to assure myself of the practicability of certain aspects of it and obtain information from representatives of public utility undertakings on a variety of technical matters on which my information was incomplete. I also proposed to invite representatives of the principal public utility groups to meet my advisers and to assist me in these matters. These consultations, though not yet complete, have progressed a considerable distance. I should like to express my thanks for the great assistance that my advisers have received from the various representative bodies. While the main principles of the scheme which I put forward have found a wide measure of acceptance, there are a number of relatively detailed matters of great technical difficulty yet to be considered, and directly they are determined I will introduce the necessary Measure to Parliament.

I think it will have to be. Such are the main provisions of the Bill. I ask the House to give it a Second Reading to-day and later a speedy passage. When at the turn of the year 1940–1 the House first approved, on Second Reading, the principles of the original War Damage Bill, in the midst of severe enemy raiding, and when we stood alone against an exultant enemy, that was, I think, on the part of Government and Parliament alike an act of financial faith and courage. Our faith has been justified. The ship we then launched has proved well-found. Now for a brief space she comes into dock to refuel and refit. Then we shall send her forth again strengthened for her task, on the successful performance of which depends the well-being, and perhaps the solvency, of so many British homes and businesses.

The right hon. Gentleman has discharged what was principally a task of selection with his usual good judgment, and he has picked on the most advantageous parts of the Bill and those least subject to criticism. He told us that the ship which he launched, during the bombing period, last year, was well-found. To that I would add that it appears to have brought home a very good cargo. I should like to add my appreciation of the fullness of the explanatory Memorandum. I think that is an excellent departure in the drafting of these Measures, and it is one of particular assistance to private Members, who have not the advantage of the public service to introduce them to the technicalities of a Bill of this kind.

But I want to make a comment on another aspect of the drafting of the Bill about which I cannot say anything favourable, that is to say, the manner in which the space has been apportioned between the Clauses and the Schedules. It seems to me a remarkable innovation that there should be embodied in a Schedule to a Bill no fewer than 22 paragraphs, almost each of which deals with a different principle. Certainly many of them deal with important questions of principle. The right hon. Gentleman himself referred to Schedule I, paragraph 5, and Schedule II, paragraphs 4 and 6, which in themselves make important departures in principle. This is not only a question of drafting. It will have a practical effect when we come to the Committee stage, because whereas, if they were embodied in Clauses, the Question would be put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we shall have no such separate opportunity on the question of the Schedules. The Question will be, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill," and we shall have no opportunity of debate on Motions that each paragraph stand part of the Schedule or of the Bill. I hope that when the Committee stage is reached ample time will be permitted. I am sure that no attempt will be made to exploit the form in which the Bill has been drafted.

For the present the House ought to keep in mind that this is not only a Bill to make minor Amendments of the law but one to confirm, and indeed to finalise, the principles which the House discussed in March last year. This may be the last opportunity which we shall have to make any observations on the principles upon which the Act was founded. That being so, we ought not to be diverted on the Second Reading of this Bill by Committee points. The Act passed in 1941 was a belated Measure. It was a hurriedly considered Measure but the ground was prepared with all the skill in Parliamentary managership for which the right hon. Gentleman is renowned in Parliamentary circles. We all remember how carefully he prepared the ground, sounded the usual channels and so on, and had his reward in the easy passage of an extremely difficult Bill. He himself again told us to-day that the Bill at that time was only a venture, yet he came to the House to-day and very skilfully assumed that the principles of the Measure that had been passed by the House a year ago were matters almost closed to discussion. I am not complaining; I envy the right hon. Gentleman his skill in approaching these matters. I hope, however, that the House will take this opportunity of looking at one or two of the fundamental principles of the Measure. At any rate we ought to do what we are doing with our eyes open. Nobody, I think, will claim that the provisions of the Act are justified in logic. They are full of fallacies and incompatabilities of various kinds, and even inequalities of justice. The question is whether what cannot be justified in logic can be justified in commonsense as the best rough approximation to justice in the circumstances.

I want to look at one prominent blemish in the Act. That is the principle upon which the value payments are made upon a valuation date before the war. I feel rather more keenly about this point because it impinges with great hardship on mortgagors, particularly that large class of mortgagors in whom I have the greatest interest, namely, those who have been buying their own homes. When the Measure was introduced in December, 1940, the right hon. Gentleman skated very lightly over the arguments in favour of basing the value payment on a pre-war value. I am going to do a rather indecent thing and dig out what the right hon. Gentleman said about that on 17th December, 1940. Looking back in the OFFICIAL REPORT is not a practice I am very fond of nowadays, but it is necessary for us to know what he said. Dealing with the question of value payments, not the cost of works payments, the right hon. Gentleman said:

It is not much use going on pretending, in relation to these people, that the British £ sterling is a measure as unchangeable as the British pound weight which is buried in the wall of the Grand Staircase. Yet that is the principle upon which we are to compensate these people by value payments. Although in theory it applies equally to the big mortgagors, it applies with particular hardship to the man who is relying upon that small equity of redemption to rebuild the most precious thing he has, the foundation of his thrift, which even has a spiritual value to him, namely, his home. I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, on what may be the last opportunity to do so, to see whether he cannot do something for this class of the community. I know that Section 14 of the Act provides a rather obscure and cryptic method of increasing the amount of compensation, yet if the right hon. Gentleman applies his mind to the Section, I think it will be possible by some strengthening of it to make provision explicitly for bridging the gap in the resources of the small house-owner whose home has been destroyed and thus secure the replacement of his self-owned home. I should be satisfied if the Treasury would make only some such provision as offering a guarantee. There are hundreds and thousands of people who, if they could find the first £100, would be able, instead of being tenants, to become the purchasing owners of a home. I am perhaps a little old-fashioned in being a great believer in the principle of home ownership. It is also a Conservative principle, and I hope we shall do something to assist and encourage it.

The second suggestion I want to make is that there is really no need for such an elaborate concealment of the actuarial figures. On the Second Reading of the original Act the right hon. Gentleman gave us an estimate of the amounts which the payments were expected to produce, the figure of £200,000,000, and told us that, so far as his information went—it was "partial and tentative information"—his estimate had been confirmed. Why is power taken in Clause 4 of this Bill to withhold that information from the House and from the public? In Sections 56 and 70 of the principal Act provision was made for full statements of contributions under Part I and sums received under Part II, and payments made under both Parts, to be laid before Parliament in the November following each financial year. Every hon. Member who studied that Measure at that time and who took part in the Debate regarded those two Sections as important, as almost in the nature of promises. I certainly think that large numbers of property owners accepted the provisions of that Act on the understanding that they would be given a glimpse of the relationship between the payments and the compensation. When I read the marginal note to Clause 4, which euphemistically describes this as a

I do not understand why it should be the Treasury who give a certificate in the name of National Defence. The ground on which a certificate of suppression may be given is a military one, but those who are to give it are financiers. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not contract a passion for strategy. He has already filled many important rôles, including that of Secretary of State for Air—perhaps he is harking back to that—but I cannot see why or how the Treasury can give a certificate that it would not be in the interests of National Defence to publish figures of this kind.

Is the hon. Member aware that the First Lord of the Treasury is also Minister of Defence?

That is a point which I had momentarily overlooked, but I understand that he does not participate very actively in financial questions. I feel that this plea of Defence of the Realm as a camouflaging device is being a little overdone in the Service Departments, and if it is now to be adopted by the Treasury as well and allowed to pass without protest, then, I think, people will feel unquiet. What validity is there in the suggestion that it would be of value to the enemy to publish the amount of damage done? The Financial Secretary to the Treasury makes a grimace. He will be able to explain afterwards on the appropriate stage of the Bill, and I hope that he will speak to-day. In any case the figures would not be published until eight months after the end of the financial year. The financial year closes in April, and the figures need not be published till November. Even then they would not represent by any means the total amount of damage done in the previous financial year, and I very much doubt whether they would help the enemy at all, because no distinction, is drawn in the figures between damage done to military objectives and damage done to non-military objectives. If German bombing aircraft are over our cities launching their bombs, they can be perfectly certain that their bombs will drop on the cities. They cannot find their specific objectives at night, but they do know that a certain percentage of their bombs will fall on bricks and mortar. Whether they fall on aircraft factories or on workmen's dwellings will not be disclosed in the figures. Even if what I have just said were an insufficient argument, I very much doubt whether the total figures would be an encouragement to Hitler; I think it probable that the contrary would be the case. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter, in consultation with the Chiefs of Staff, before the Committee stage is reached.

I have raised only two points out of a vast range of questions which we could explore. I hope that in the further moulding of the provisions of the Bill they will be looked upon not only as measures necessary for our economic security, but as a fulfilment of the principle that the impact of war damage shall be softened by dispersal over the whole community, and to that end a greater element of replacement should, in my view, enter into these principles. I think that on that principle we shall make the greatest contribution which these Acts can make to our war resistance and to our power to endure any further attacks until the end is gained.

There are one or two points which I had hoped the Chancellor would have embodied in the Bill. The first point I have to make is that I think it is a great pity that he has not included the cost of replacement of the deeds of a property when that property is destroyed. Title deeds are extremely expensive to property owners and should be regarded as part of the bricks and mortar. The cost of re- constituting the title deeds of even a small cottage may fall heavily upon the shoulders of the owner. To get an abstract of the title made out entails considerable expense, even in the case of small property, and also involves a great deal of trouble, and I trust that the Chancellor, although he has consistently opposed it, will agree to regard the deeds of the property as part of the realty itself.

There are other points which I would like to mention before I come to the main point which I have in mind. Most of these are Committee points, but it may be as well to mention them at this juncture so that Amendments can be put down later on in regard to them, if possible. One thing which should be included is the case where a total loss has been suffered between the date of the contract and the date of completion. The vendor should be allowed to assign the right to value payment to the purchaser with the consent of the War Damage Commission. I cannot see anything against that suggestion. It would make the transfer of property easier and would remove a feeling of injustice existing in the minds of purchasers in cases where property was damaged in the middle of the dealings. The purchaser would feel safer. Another point may be mentioned here. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after some pressure, allowed payments to be made if damage exceeded £5. I believe it would be possible now to reduce that figure to £3. Many people have small claims which they can ill afford to bear themselves and there is no reason why they should have to wait until after the war to get back the money they have spent.

Another point I would make is that premises which were declared unfit for human habitation before 3rd September, 1939, should not have to pay the war damage contribution. Such properties were considered a complete nuisance in the country at that time, and local authorities were getting rid of them as fast as possible, regarding them as of no value at all. The owners of derelict property of that kind frequently received no more than the site value and in some cases had to remove the bricks at their own expense. However, these properties have now assumed a new value. Many of them will be pulled down after the war, but they are now paying a considerable amount in war damage contribution. Other properties, too, are definitely going downhill, and there is a great probability that they will be scheduled for slum clearance when the war is over, and owners may not get what they think they are going to get. It seems to me that the Chancellor should not demand the full amount of war damage contribution from these properties.

Again, when a property is damaged the owner is held liable to the public for any injury which might occur. It is impossible for an owner to look after property which is some distance away, if it is very badly damaged, but if anything occurred to injure a third party, such an owner would be liable in damages. That seems unfair. Insurance companies have refused, in many cases, to accept that liability. The War Damage Commission should now accept the liability itself. The Chancellor should consider, too, the case where a contributory property has been partially damaged that payment of that part of the war damage contribution appropriate to the damaged portion should be deferred, and, where by reason of unfitness of part of a contributory property the Schedule A assessment of that property is reduced that reduced assessment should operate for the purpose of the war damage contribution. The Chancellor should bear these points in mind. So too, in the case of a contributory property ceasing to exist by any cause other than war damage the contribution shall not be payable for a risk period beginning on a subsequent date.

I now come to the main point I have in mind, that in regard to the position of the mortgagee. Where a mortgagor suffers complete damage to his property, he should not still be liable to pay the full amount of the interest on the loan which was made on that property. No doubt the Chancellor has made his stand in this matter because of the personal covenant existing in a mortgage deed. I remember that last year the Chancellor regarded a mortgage as a very special thing. It was not only made on the property, but a householder who had been forced to take a loan on his property enchained himself body and soul, although he does not always seem to know it, and it would have been a fearful precedent for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the War Damage Bill, to upset the whole of that position. Not only has a mortgagee power to foreclose, take possession, put in a receiver and power to sell, but he can also strip the individual mortgagor of everything he has if necessary for the repayment of the loan; his watch and chain, so to speak, and his life-insurance policies. That is the principle on which a mortgage is made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been afraid to move because he might upset this so-called time-honoured principle, which is advantageous to certain sections of the community. If a mortgagee fails with one remedy he can pursue the others until he has the last £1 paid back to him.

Thousands of mortgages have been made on house property in the last 20 years, through the agency of institutions, such as insurance companies and banks. It must be well known to those who lent the money that they did so not on the personal reputation of the mortgagors but because of the bricks and mortar, pure and simple A man who wishes to build a house for £1,000 or £3,000 usually has to obtain a loan, probably of one-third or one-half the value of the property, and he has to hand over the deeds of the house as collateral security. The lenders of the money are perfectly aware that they have control of the property and they are not concerned about the transaction any more if the interest is paid, but as the law stands, they can go for the wretched individual in such a way as to destroy not only his material life but the spiritual life of his home and family. Indeed, if one remedy fails they can try another, until the man becomes bankrupt or until everything is paid. Normally, we know, that the collateral security of the realty would be sufficient to pay the debt, but if there is a fall in market values this may not be so. To my mind it is right and proper that the mortgagee should stand a part of disaster of war in the same way as the mortgagor. He should in no way be in this favoured position, and that can only be avoided by taking power to change it. There is another point. The mortgagee has made the advance on terms extremely favourable to himself; the interest he receives is generally four or five per cent., whereas the man who has his money outstanding on the damaged property during the war receives only 2½ per cent. from the War Damage Commission. The mortgagee is in a position to retain his advantages.

Without going into too much detail, I would like to quote a case which I have had in hand and which shows the hardship which exists. I do not want the mortgagee to suffer, but the Chancellor could make some arrangement whereby, it the mortgagor suffers, the mortgagee would share his suffering. This particular case is a very pertinent one, which brings out very clearly what I have in mind. I will quote the figures without names. It is a case in which business premises valued at £20,000 were damaged, also the fittings and fixtures valued at £9,000. The business brought in a considerable sum every year, and in addition certain portions of the premises were rented on leasehold, bringing in an income of £750 a year. The whole of the premises were destroyed, completely and absolutely, by enemy action. The proprietor was extremely badly hit. He lost the value of the £20,000, his effects valued at £9,000, and the leaseholders, as they are entitled to do, immediately disclaimed. The proprietor had a loan of £9,000 on the property from a friendly society—an insurance company, in fact: it calls itself a friendly society—on which he paid 4 per cent., or £360 a year. Although he has lost the whole of his business and his goodwill and his leaseholders have disclaimed, he still has to pay the friendly society £360 a year. They do not share in his calamity, over which he had no control.

Why should that man be picked out as a special victim of this war, to bear far greater burdens than many other people? He says, "Why should it be reasonable for owners to suffer through no fault of their own and mortgagees not to suffer? Surely if it is fair for one to lose, it should be equally fair for the other to lose, or conversely"—of course, we know the enormous difficulties which face the Chancellor in this connection—"if the mortgagees are entitled not to suffer, the owner should be compensated by a payment either monthly or quarterly of a proportion of his loss of profits on the basis of the past three years." If such a payment were made, it would enable the mortgagor to pay his interest and keep out of debt. He makes a further suggestion, a more practical one, which the Chancellor might well consider, and that is that the Treasury should pay the mortgagees, either in cash or war bonds, the interest which may be due, or make an advance payment to the owner to enable him to liquidate his mortgage. This would protect the mortgagee. Is it fair for the blitzed person to receive 2½ per cent. on his settled claim while the mortgagee is entitled to claim his interest in full? This victim has put all these points to the War Damage Commission, but they, of course, have said that they have no powers under the Act.

The law of mortgage, to my mind, is the ultimate refinement of the doctrine of usury which was condemned most strongly in our early history. I suggest that the Chancellor should create a precedent in this matter, and then he will go down to posterity not only as one who has borne the burden of war finance but also as a herald of things to come. And come they will. The Chancellor will be doing a great service to this community if he will make a precedent in this Bill in regard to mortgage law, and he will thereby help to lay the foundations of a system which will establish more Christian-like principles and a greater morality in dealings between citizen and citizen.

This Bill, as the Chancellor agrees, is something in the nature of the result of trial and error. The last Bill which was introduced, as one speaker remarked, was introduced hastily, and indeed was introduced after we had been told by a previous Chancellor that it was impossible, or nearly so, to insure against war damage. However, the private interests led the way, and public pressure eventually forced the Chancellor to bring in the previous Measure. I do not think that this Bill will be the last of the amending Bills that we shall have, although my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) seemed to think that this would be the last occasion on which we should be able to discuss Amendments to the original Bill. Perhaps he was a little too optimistic as to the early conclusion of the war. I think, if the war goes on for any considerable length of time—as seems to be indicated in the speeches that we have heard from the Prime Minister—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, either the present one or his successor, will have' to bring in further amending Bills. It is quite understandable. The Chancellor could not foresee—nobody could foresee—all the issues likely to arise under the abnormal circumstance occasioned by enemy bombing.

Certain principles, however, stand out quite clearly, and I hope the Chancellor will not close his mind to the point which I think will be the principle point at issue on this Bill and which is bound to be raised on the Committee stage. It has been referred to by the last speaker; it is a vital one, and it is no use the Chancellor basing his argument on settled traditions and customs which have prevailed in the past. Enemy bombing is something which we never foresaw, or at least we did not foresee it to the extent of building our houses so that they could withstand it, or so arranging the various financial transactions in the days when the houses were originally built to cover present contingencies. A clause might then have been put in the mortgage deed, and in the other deeds connected with the property, to obviate the situation which is now arising of one special class being singled out to pay the insurance to provide moneys to compensate to some extent for the damage caused by the enemy. I want to try and impress the Financial Secretary, and I hope that he in turn will endeavour to persuade the Chancellor, as I have a suspicion that my right hon. and gallant Friend has a certain sympathy with the point of view which I am now expressing, and which was brought out when we discussed the previous Measure.

The principle is accepted in respect of the contribution to be paid by ground landlords. When leases were originally granted, for 80 years or 99 years, they were granted on a fixed money payment. The ground landlords in those days never expected that the hereditaments would be destroyed by enemy action. All they were concerned with was the development of their sites and the payment of the ground rents. The payment cannot be varied—except in certain circumstances with which I need not trouble the House—for the duration of the lease. In the meantime, money values have altered considerably. The ground landlord is, to some extent, in the same position as the mortgagee. The mortgagee has lent a certain sum, which he expects to get back, and he expects to be paid the interest while the mortgage lasts. The ground landlord expects also to get his money back, and he usually gets the ground back with enhanced value, owing to community efforts. He may get it back with the building on it. In the original Act, we said that the ground landlord, who is an indirect contributor, should pay up to 97½ per cent. of the War Damage Contribution, according to the length of the lease—in this case the shortest-term lease. Why do we give a privileged position to mortgagees? The reason is clear. The Chancellor indicated it to-day. When I put a question to him a little while ago he gave the answer.

I think it best to illustrate my point by two concrete examples. One is the case of a small mortgagor, and the other of a big mortgagor. I think both warrant equal consideration, although the burden may fall more heavily on the small property owner. The House knows that there is a further complication. Although some relief is granted to the single-house owner, the owner-occupier who bought his property by borrowing money, it is not the case if he included two houses on one mortgage deed. A constituent of mine bought two properties in 1935 for £1,300. He had acquired those properties by borrowing, on mortgage, £800. Because they were on one mortgage deed, although he may have lived in one of the houses, he cannot recover any contribution from his mortgagee. Let us consider the case of the larger property owner. There are housing organisations which build houses, not for the rich, but for the poor. They do a very good service. I think the Chancellor knows about the case I have in mind, because a letter has been sent to him about it.

The case concerns a housing trust which built a large number of houses under the Act of 1933, which was designed to encourage the building of houses for the working classes. The financial interest in this particular trust is about 10 per cent., the other 90 per cent. of the money coming from building societies. Members must bear in mind that this type of house is let at a low rent, which cannot be increased, even in circumstances such as we are discussing to-day. They are built for the working classes, and the rents are controlled. The contributions that they are called upon to find for the whole of the five years' period are quite considerable; if one divides it year by year—and the payments are made year by year—it amounts to something like £13,500. That has resulted in a loss to this housing trust of £20,000 for the first year in which contributions have had to be paid. Out of that deficit, £13,500 represents War Damage Contribution, and not a penny of it can be recovered from the mortgagees. Those cases prove conclusively that we cannot look at this matter in the light of pre-war circumstances, when transactions between mortgagees and mortgagors were on quite a different basis.

I want to refer to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), about the publication of accounts. Whenever the Government say they cannot disclose information or figures because it is not in the national interest, or because it would be of assistance to the enemy, all discussion is precluded; but I suggest that the enemy are not concerned with the money value of the property they destroy, but with the property itself. If we look at air photographs, such as those recently published of the bombing of Lubeck and Rostock, we know that it does not matter, either to us or to the enemy, how much money has been lost; all that matters is what damage has been done to military objectives or to morale. I think, therefore, that it would not be against the public interest to publish some figures. Property owners who have been singled out to pay this war insurance, to pay compensation for damage with which they alone are not concerned, are entitled to some sort of profit and loss account.

There are one or two other points which are, however, Committee points, so I do not propose to touch on them at this moment. But I think we shall have to put down various Amendments on these points and certainly, as far as I am concerned, an Amendment will go on the Order Paper regarding the contribution which ought to be recovered from mortgagees. I think that is a matter of considerable public interest, something indeed likely to affect the morale of householders, particularly the smaller ones. The Government will be wise, I think, to take into account the representations which we have made, in no hostile spirit, but merely to draw attention to the injustice that is being created in "the previous Bill and in this Bill on a class of well-deserving citizens in this country who are endeavouring to buy their homes assisted by financial institutions. If the Government do not do something to meet our point, I think they will be prejudicing thrift itself.

I wish to raise very briefly one point and to ask a question of my right hon. Friend. It is analogous to the point raised by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), and in some ways it is similar to one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas). The contributions under the original Act were payable by five yearly instalments of 2s. in the £, based on a net Schedule A Assessment in force on 3rd September, 1939, and they were to be collected from the owner or proprietory interest in the property on 1st January of each year. That basic day is nearly three years old. Many properties have no doubt changed hands since then, and in very many cases the Schedule A assessment must have been altered, in some cases upwards, in some downwards. I appreciate the necessity of my right hon. Friend taking a definite basic date to begin with. I would like to put the point and ask this question: Is he taking power in this new Bill, which is looking a long way ahead—indeed the Explanatory Memorandum says that the risk it provides for is of indefinite length—to base the contributions on some up-to-date assessment? This will not be the case if the assessment in force on 3rd September, 1939, is to be taken, particularly if the property has changed hands and if the new owner has substantiated his claim for a reduction in the assessment of Schedule A since he bought it. It is rather difficult, when a Bill is based largely on reference to another, to be sure, but I do not think there is any provision made for a revision of the basic date. If that is so will my right hon. Friend please consider the point, as it does raise a not unimportant principle of justice as between individuals?

A good many Members have made some reference to Clause 4 of the Bill, and hinted that the reasons are military. Personally, I do not think they are military at all. I do not think the Treasury dare publish the financial figures because of the criticism that would fall upon the heads of the Treasury. In answer to a Question I put some months ago, some figures were given. It was said that thereafter, on grounds of security, they could not be repeated. Speaking from memory, that answer showed that the local authorities had been reimbursed some millions of pounds because of first-aid repairs and that the rest of the community had had about 3s. 4d. between them. It was a somewhat larger amount, but it was a very trifling sum of money. Naturally, to go on publishing figures of that nature would give rise to a good deal of public indignation. I am not saying that the War Damage Commission has not now paid out considerable sums of money, and I am not blaming the War Damage Commission. I think the Act has tied them too tightly. But there is a measure of hardship and suffering among the people because of payments not being made which I think should be made. Another reason why the Treasury want Clause 4 is that if there was a statement we should have to have revealed to us how much the Treasury has put into the kitty up to now. I think that the first £200,000,000 has to be borne by the contributors and that it is not until after the first £200,000,000 that the Treasury is forthcoming at all. It may be that the Treasury will never pay anything in, because unless raiding becomes much more serious than it has been, my impression is that they will get away with no contribution. On what grounds have the Treasury justified the refusal to regard war damage contributions as trade expenses? Very largely on the grounds that the Treasury are paying 50 per cent. and therefore could not allow this charge against Income Tax; in other words, that if they did, the contributor would be paying one-quarter and the Treasury three-quarters. There might be some validity in that argument if the Treasury were paying in shilling for shilling, but they are not. I think that one of the reasons for this concealment under Clause 4 is purely financial and not strategic.

I was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones). As he was making it, my neighbour said, "It is a strange world. In the elections to-day the Tories have lost two seats, and we get a first-class Tory speech from the representative of the Labour Party." It was an assumption that the continued existence of private property was a certainty, and not only a certainty but desirable. That is a real change of heart.—[HON. MEMBER: "Not at all."]—I seem to have read in the constitution of the Labour Party some rigmarole about nationalisation and so forth.

There was a great deal of discussion about what is due as between mortgagors and mortgagees. There is no doubt in general that the mortgagor is paying and that the mortgagee is getting off. I have never quite agreed with my property-owning friends on this issue, because their assumption is that the mortgagee is part owner in the property. In many cases that is not true. If I had a house and wanted to go into some new kind of enterprise and needed money, I would mortgage my house and raise money for commercial enterprise. The house is incidentally security for the debt, and in that case it is perfectly absurd to say that the mortgagee should pay to insure not his property but a debt which continues in any event, no matter what happens to the property. On the other hand, when the mortgagor is raising money in connection with the purchase of a house, there is a different point of view. I think, however, that the problem is incapable of complete solution so long as policy remains what it is.

I am coming to a point which I have urged on the Chancellor before and which I shall continue to urge. I think that the contribution of 2s. in the £ is oppressively high, because when it is added, as it is in practice, to the other taxes which people have to bear, there is on property, in fact, an Income Tax of 12s. in the £. In the case of those people who happen to be very rich, it mounts up so that in effect some people are paying more than 20s. in the £ if their income is mainly derived from property. But to take the case not of very rich people but of quite humble people who are finding this 2s. a burden, I sent a letter to the Private Secretary of the Chancellor about the case of an elderly lady of about 80 who is dependent on the rents of two houses. She just cannot pay. If she pays this 2s. in the £, it literally means starvation for her. I hope there will be some kind of consideration in these cases of acute hardship. I have always thought 1s. in the £ enough provided you impose it for an indefinite period of time and authorise the War Damage Commission to borrow against the security of the future revenue. There is no reason why the burden should fall oppressively at the present time. If my suggestion was carried out, a great many of the present hardships would be removed.

The other thing that I always strongly urged is something which would add, I imagine, possibly 20 per cent. to the total cost and yet would solve 90 per cent. of the problems, namely, compensation values on rent. Take the case of an owner-occupier whose house is knocked out. The Chancellor tells him that he is to have his value claim calculated on 2½ per cent. simple interest. He is paying interest to the building society of 4½ or 5 per cent. If the war only lasts long enough, he will own nothing. After a time the amount of his value payment, plus interest, will be less than the amount of the debt, plus interest, on the property. If, on the other hand, you allow compensation for loss of rent, the owner-occupier whose house has been demolished has the wherewithal to obtain other premises and all the difficulties in making payments, in respect of mortgages and ground rents, vanish because income is available. I have always urged, and I shall continue to urge, the various gatherings of property owners who invite me to hear their case that, until they get a revision of the rate of premium and compensation for loss of rent, you cannot solve many of these problems. I again urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I have done it on several occasions previously—the desirability of making changes in that direction.

I also make an appeal to him. I am an ardent advocate of consolidation. We ought to consolidate every Bill as soon as it has been passed so that we can have the law in an understandable form. When we come to administer the present Bill with its long Schedules it will be very difficult. I know of the difficulties of consolidation. A committee has to sit, and a lot of time is occupied in considering the matter, and a good deal of time elapses before the Consolidation Act appears. I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the practice of the Board of Trade in regard to the Patent Acts. This is the procedure which is applied to the Patent Acts. The Patent Acts are amended periodically as a result of international conferences. As soon as an amending Act is passed, the draftsmen get to work and prepare the Act as though it had been consolidated. They seek the authority to print the Act as though it had been consolidated. This practice has grown up. The Attorney-General will bear me out when I say that these printed copies are accepted in the courts. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend had jurisdiction with regard to patents when he was Solicitor-General, and I would ask whether, if it is not possible to carry through consolidation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the possibility of printing this Measure as if it had been consolidated so that the ordinary person can understand the law on the subject.

In my opinion all sides of this House—for this is an entirely non-party Measure—will very largely approve of this Bill, with the Amendments to it, that my right hon. Friend has brought before the House today. The Chancellor made a very clear and concise and, on the whole, very convincing speech, though perhaps in some ways he was looking through rather rosy-tinted glasses as far as the working of the measure is concerned. I welcome the excellent speech made from the Front Opposition Bench, and most useful speeches with regard to mortgage payments have been made in all genuineness to try and assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in producing what is undoubtedly a very fine Measure at a most critical time in the history of this country and the type of Measure we have never before been called upon to introduce. I find great difficulty indeed in clearly seeing, after the £400,000,000 mark has been passed, whether the State and the people whose homes and property have been destroyed are to share the loss. It seems to me that, if at the end of this Measure the contributions do not reach half the amount of the damage, then all the additional liability must fall upon those whose houses have been destroyed. I hope that I am wrong in that interpretation, but it looks to me as though that is the position. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) asks me to say again what I have already said, so I will repeat it. At the end of the period of this Measure, if the contributions do not amount to half the total claims, all the additional liability will have to be met from contributors either continuing their contributions or increasing the rates of contributions. No doubt my right hon. Friend will correct me if that interpretation is wrong.

Another point that I want to bring forward is that I am sure the officials in the new Department are sometimes confronted with fraudulent returns, and they must have difficulty in dealing with the matter. But unquestionably there have been very long delays in a great many cases. My right hon. Friend said that three-quarters of the claims have been met, but those who have had close connection with the working of this Measure—and I have had very close connections with it—know that it is nowhere near a 75 per cent. settlement. I know of cases—and I do not put them before my right hon. Friend in any bitter spirit—where letters have been written eight or nine times without an answer being received. I know of a case where the ninth letter was written in which the writer said, "Encouraged with your courteous silence, I have the temerity to address you again." That brought a token payment, but I regret to say that the rest of that claim has not yet been met in full. It is an absolutely genuine claim, without any question of fraud. I ask my right hon. Friend to ask the War Damage Commission particularly to pay attention to these delays. While temporary first-aid work is in progress a lot of people, who might have been very well off before the war, are very hard put to it to meet the expense. They perhaps want help in regard to a building worth £7,000, £8,000 or £10,000, and they require a token payment to enable them to carry on with the first-aid work. I know that my right hon. Friend has inserted such a provision. But the War Damage Commission, I am afraid, are not fully alive to the need and urgency that arise in genuine cases, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw that matter to their attention.

What else is there that is of great importance or at any rate will help these unfortunate people, because, pre-war rich, or poor, we are all in the same boat? Our homes have been destroyed; I do not mind admitting that my home was destroyed. I would like to see every man in' this country owning his own little house. I think it would be a great achievement if we could get that. When persons have lost everything they have to send in their claims. They are often frightened of these officials—sometimes I have been frightened of them myself—and if only they could have some acknowledgment that their claim had been lodged, I think they would regard it as the equivalent of their home. They would hold on to it and would feel that although their homes had been destroyed, the country would recompense them when it could afford to do so. At the present moment all they get is a little buff card of acknowledgment on which nothing is written. There may be administrative difficulties. Private Members of this House are often ill-informed, but they do sometimes know better than the Minister how things are working out among the working classes. If my right hon. Friend has a good case against, I will give him my loyal support.

My right hon. Friend gave a concession that where contributions were demanded before temporary first-aid claims had been met, but in actual practice that does not take place except in a few cases. I am referring to the concession in regard to which he said that if a man owned Nos. 1 and 2, Smith Street, and No. I had a temporary claim which had not been met, then he need not pay contributions on No. 2. That does not work, because nine times out of 10 he lets the other house. He may be a shopkeeper who owns the house next door and lets it. The War Damage Commission does not recognise that. The man next door, in many cases, has to pay contributions which he deducts from the rent. But the Commission only recognise direct contributions as far as the Commission is concerned. This is a technical point but one which I hope my right hon. Friend will consider. With these few remarks I would like to wish my right hon. Friend the best of good fortune in this very non-party and non-political Measure, which is calculated to help those who are suffering and will suffer as a result of the war. Although I have put forward these suggestions and criticisms, I feel sure the Bill will receive the full backing of Members of this House.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) made some valuable suggestions, and I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of them, but I think he was a little in error about his calculation of the liability which falls upon the Minister. As I understand it, the Exchequer will pay, or be responsible for, the burden in respect of the original risk period of any excess of payments over receipts until the total of the out-payments in respect of damage reaches a figure twice the amount of the receipts, and he will then bear half the additional cost over and above that figure. One has heard the figure of £200,000,000 quoted so frequently that perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman has rendered a service in calling the attention of the House to what is the precise position.

This is a Bill which obviously receives the general assent of the House, and on the Second Reading, at any rate, there does not seem to be a great deal which can be usefully said. The Bill is really notable not for what it contains but for what it omits, and as I gather that the Committee stage will not be taken for a little time yet, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to consult with those interested on the particular matters which they may wish to bring up on the Committee stage.

I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would do that before bringing in the Bill, but if he does it before the Committee stage, that will, of course, serve the same purpose. My right hon. Friend, I think with justice, told us of the good work which the Commission had done, and, personally, I think we can agree with him in all he said. The Commission has had an extremely difficult task. Through no fault of the majority of Members of this House, who pressed the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor to bring in this kind of legislation long ago, the Commission started rather late in the day, but I believe a great deal of the arrears have been overtaken. So far as my experience goes while admitting the many lapses which must, of necessity, occur in a new organisation I think it has done an exceedingly good job of work. The Chancellor spoke of the proposal in Clause 4 of the Bill to postpone laying before Parliament an account of receipts and payments. I regret that he thought it necessary to put in that Clause, and I should regret it still more if he took advantage of it, of his own volition, so to speak, and obtained the signatures of the Lords of the Treasury to the certificate foreshadowed in the Clause. The words of the Clause are:

I hope that if my right hon. Friend insists on the Clause being passed, he will hesitate a long time before taking advantage of it. It seems to me that there may be two other reasons than those disclosed in the Clause for desiring the power. The first is that the Treasury may be having to supplement the contributions, which we gather have approached £40,000,000 in the first year of the operation of the Measure, and that they expect to recoup themselves out of later payments of premium; and the second is that the Treasury, notwithstanding the very serious bombing which took place a year or so ago, may have made a profit even on the first year's instalments paid by the contributors.

If the Treasury are having to supplement the amount received in contributions, it would be an exceedingly encouraging fact if it could be made known that already the burden is not being borne wholly by one section of the community, but that the Treasury are giving whatever assistance that may be necessary, even though they may recoup the amount at a future date. Of course, it is right and proper that the Treasury should have in mind that we may yet suffer considerable damage, and that they may have to put considerable sums into the fund. If, on the other hand, the Government are already making a profit from the first year's operation of the scheme, the only objection to making that fact public would seem to me to be that it might result in a demand for a reduction in the payments being made by the contributors. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, if he deemed it necessary, could easily withstand any such demand on the ground that we are far from the end of the road, and that no such reduction could be justified at the present time. The submission I make is that it would be far better in all these matters to let us have the facts. The practice of nondisclosure is going too far. It is always a much happier state of affairs from every point of view to know the facts, for one is then in a position to form a considered opinion and to take decisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) pleaded for some alteration of the date as on which values are taken, namely, March, 1939. I am a little doubtful of the desirability of such an alteration. It is not possible, of course, to prophesy with any accuracy what will be the position after the war, but I think it will largely depend upon the nature of the property concerned. It is very likely that house property, owner-occupiers' property, and so on, notwithstanding the fact that rents are largely controlled, will rise in value after the war, owing to a shortage of housing and higher costs. I am not altogether sure, however, that this will apply to other classes of property, such as shops. Having regard to the great number of changes that have been made by the limitation of supplies in various directions, in the distribution of commodities, and so on, shops may not increase, and may indeed decrease, in value, certainly in the case of small shops. It may be that the same thing will happen in regard to factories. Many new factories have been built, and in peace time some of them may not be fully employed for some little time. It may be that factories will not increase in value, but will decrease. Nevertheless, all these matters are really in the realm of speculation, but I do not feel that, without rather more conclusive evidence than my hon. Friend gave, it would be advantageous to change that date, which was fixed after great consideration.

I should like to support what has been said from more quarters than one concerning the necessity for all mortgagees to make a contribution. It is invidious and anomalous that building societies, which very largely finance and lend money in respect of owner-occupied houses, should have to make very substantial contributions, whereas the great trust companies, mortgage corporations, and large individual mortgagees, who have no special social or utility value, such as, in my submission, the building societies have, but who lend mainly for the purposes of profit, should not have to make the same contributions as the building societies do. I imagine that my right hon. Friend's difficulty in this respect is really to find an appropriate formula. If that be so, I wish he would state it in plain terms. He suggests, without giving any clear explanation, that there would be some definite objection or difficulty in the way of dealing with any other classes of mortgagees than those that are included in the Act already. I recommend for his consideration the suggestion that, in respect of other mortgagees than those already included under the Act, premiums should be paid on the basis of interest received. If my right hon. Friend desired to have some more specific formula, there are many of us interested in this matter who would be glad to give him what assistance we can. It seems to me to be iniquitous that, whilst a man who owns one house may receive the benefit of a contribution from his mortgagees, a man who owns six houses on one mortgage may not receive that benefit. It also seems to me to be quite inequitable that such bodies as housing associations, which are carried on largely for non-profit-making purposes, should not have the advantage of contributions from their mortgagees.

I do not propose to deal further with the general question, but there is one specific matter which I have been asked to put before the Chancellor, as have a number of hon. Members, particularly from Lancashire. I refer to the very large number of perpetual yearly rent charges, which exist particularly in Lancashire, and which at present do not benefit from the Act. I do not want to go into the matter in any detail, but the owner of a perpetual rent charge has a legal interest in fee simple and in the land, and for all practical purposes there is no difference between such a rent charge and the freehold reversion of a long leasehold ground rent.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I feel that, in whatever part of the country they exist, they should in fairness and equity have the benefit of the Act. It is inequitable that the one interest, namely the freehold reversion incident to a long leasehold ground rent should be protected, while the perpetual freehold rent charge is not so protected. I understand that when the original Act was introduced my right hon. Friend had the matter before him—I call the attention of the Attorney-General to this—and that he or his legal advisers were of the opinion that perpetual rent charges were something in the nature of temporary annuity charges on land. If my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me saying so, that is quite erroneous. In the Law of Property Act it is made quite clear that such a rent charge is a legal estate in land, whereas temporary annuity is not. That was recognised in the Bristol Corporation v. Virgo case in 1928.

This is not the occasion for arguing the point in any detail, but I commend to my right hon. Friend the necessity of doing justice to the owners of these perpetual rent charges. Compensation ought to be shared both by the owner of the land and by the owner of the rent charge, when the owner of the rent charge can prove that his rent has depreciated by reason of the destruction of the building. I express the hope that my right hon. Friend will be good enough to see hon. Members who are interested in this subject, particularly Members from those areas affected, who wish to press the point on him.

I do not think my right hon. Friend will have any reason to complain about the response the Bill has received at the hands of the House. I believe that he will have two feelings on the subject—first, gratification with the way in which the Bill has been received, and, secondly, a certain amount of self-satisfaction about the very great pains which he took on the introduction of the original Measure, to seek the views of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I am most grateful to him for indicating during the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) that he pro- posed to follow a similar method. Under these circumstances, I think that the second voyage of this ship will be as prosperous as its first. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) said it had brought home a heavy cargo. It certainly has. That was Sir Francis Drake's experience on his great voyages. But he had one other experience. On board his ship there were two classes, the sailors and the gentlemen, and he found that the ship would not steer as it should, unless those two classes carried an equal burden. My right hon. Friend is in exactly the same position. He has two classes on board this ship—the borrower and the lender—and the boat will not sail as it should, until he takes a bigger share of the burden from the borrower and puts it on the lender.

Would my hon. and gallant Friend draw a further analogy from the fact that all the proceeds of Sir Francis Drake's voyages did not, by any means, find their way into the pockets of those who financed the expeditions?

What arrived at Plymouth and what reached London may perhaps have been two different things, but I am bound to point out that a vast amount of gold made its way towards London.

I am most anxious that there shall be equality between borrower and lender, because the rent position is really not satisfactory. It will be noticed that in the rather unusual form which the Bill takes, there is no mention of the personal chattels scheme, one of the most difficult matters which confronted my right hon. Friend. This burden between borrower and lender must be more satisfactorily adjusted. Let me take the case of the small owner-occupier, whom I believe to be a most important person. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen pointed out that if the damage is continuing, he is likely to lose all his interest in the equity of redemption. He urged as a remedy that the principle of replacement might well be applied. I have not studied this Bill as fully as I hope to do, but I think it would be very desirable, if provision to this effect has not already been made, that the War Damage Commission should have power to make a greater payment than the value payment, so that the owner-occupier whose house has been hit may have it reinstated, even if it means a heavier burden on the funds of the War Damage Commission.

There is the other case of the man whose small business is destroyed. I do not see why there should be this tenderness for the lender. I do not think my right hon. Friend has any such tenderness. I think he is more concerned about overcoming the technical difficulties. I would point out that it was pressure from this House which led to the original Bill being brought in after consultation with Members, and it has also enabled this Bill to be introduced. We really must not be so tender to vested interests. Take the case of the private individual who went to the bank in the dark years of depression. On the strength of the security of the business, the land, machinery or goodwill, the man borrowed money. But who deserved encouraging in those days—the man who risked everything, or the bank which sat back and had the security for its money all the time and 5 per cent. as well? What was the position that obtained for both participants in that business—the one to the profits or losses of the business; and the other the interest secured? Along comes a bomb. The business man loses his business and the money he paid for goodwill. His claim is not to be paid at the present time but is noted for future payment, and only 2½ per cent. simple interest is paid. In the meantime, the bank is continuing to charge 4½ or 5 per cent., and their security has been improved. It is no longer a question of a hope of the business being a success, but a claim has been admitted and agreed upon by His Majesty's Government and payment will be made at some future time. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend will permit conditions of that kind to continue when he presents this Bill for Third Reading.

Then there is the other point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds Building societies are in an unfortunate position in this case as compared with big financial trusts and houses. Building societies are not profit-making concerns. Their function is to aggregate the savings of a large number of people who have a little more money than they immediately want, and to bring that money in a convenient and cheap way to those people who desire substantial capital at the present time. These people obtain that capital on the security of the house, and make regular and punctual payments. They pay a heavy contribution under the War Damage Act, but the professional money-lender bears no share of that burden. I hope my right hon. Friend will direct his mind to this point and will say that, somehow, we are going to make the lenders of money carry their share of the burden. There is no justice in war. There cannot be. No compensation that the Government may desire to pay can replace the spiritual value of personal associations which are broken. There can be no justice, but there can be a greater and more real sharing of the burden. I believe if the right hon. Gentleman would say, "We are determined that the man with initiative, the owner-occupier, the business man shall carry less of the burden and the rentier more," it would have an enthusiastic welcome in the House.

One thing that this Debate is teaching us is the wisdom of the man who told us so long ago—

Then we get another firm "B" with a capital of £380,000 and an annual turnover of £1,000,000. They will pay in the current year £34,000 E.P.T., £17,800 Income Tax, again an expenditure of about £9,000 for A.R.P. and £13,000 for war damage. For capital expenditure and dividends there is available only £17,500–4½ per cent. on the capital. They are asked to provide this extra amount out of that small capital.

Here is the still worse case of firm "C," a very small firm in the beginning, in 1937, with hardly any capital. It made £8,000 profit in the second year, and the profit has grown until this year they will have nearly £20,000 E.P.T. They, again, have a heavy item in freeholds of about £20,000. This 2s. in the £ is going to be a considerable charge for them. They have a three-director standard. They pay £5,500 to three directors and have to find further capital for the business in the current year in order to cope with the ever-increasing demands of the Government. There is nowhere for the capital to come from unless they go to the bank to borrow, which is a dangerous way of raising money. I think there is a case which the Chancellor should look into, either for bearing part of the cost, or allowing it to be charged against profits, or spread over as many years as possible. To reduce it to a shilling would be no sacrifice to the Chancellor, but it would ease the burden on a good many of these people. One could quote many dozens of similar cases.

As regards Clause 4, I think in these times, when we are striving so hard to keep up the fiction that Parliament governs the country, it is rather important that the right hon. Gentleman should not lend himself to a Clause of this kind. It rather supports the case which so many people are inclined to make that the Treasury governs very much more than it has any right to do. It is most dangerous to insert in the Bill a Clause like this, which gives very exceptional powers to the Treasury. If we are fighting this war for anything, it is to preserve Parliamentary government, and the Chancellor should do all he can to support that belief and that practice. A few weeks ago a well-known writer said that this idea of government of the people by the people for the people was a complete myth, and that in fact we have government of the fools, by the knaves, for the cads. Perhaps that is an exaggeration. [ Interruption .] As a certain comedian says, "Use your imagination." I think it is a great mistake for the Chancellor to lend himself to this kind of thing. It is important that we in Parliament should retain such powers as we have. We shall have to fight jolly hard to keep them and the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be a party to this kind of thing.

Does the hon. Member mean government by the knaves through the cads?

I do not mean any such thing. I am only quoting a well-known writer and I do not want to spoil what he said. There is one other thing to which I wish to call attention, because in this case the Chancellor has done us a good turn. I asked the Prime Minister some time ago whether he would insist on Parliamentary Bills being put into sensible language which ordinary people could read and understand. What we need is the kind of thing that "he who runs may read." It is impossible to make sense of some of the stuff we get, and here we have an exceptionally good example, because the Chancellor has had to put on page 11 a Clause to make clear what was meant in the original Bill. I defy anyone to make any sense of what was in the original Bill. It had to set out what was unfit and what was fit. Having defined what was unfit, it very kindly says, in order to help us, "The opposite of this, of course, is fit." I know of no such ineptitude as that shown by those who drafted the original Clause. I want to encourage the Chancellor to insist on having these things put in sensible language which we, who are supposed to deal with them, can understand. May I ask the Chancellor whether he has realised what a golden opportunity he has now? As the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) is not here I ought to say it on his behalf. It is an opportunity to nationalise the land. It would please an enormous number of people, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give it careful consideration before the Bill passes.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Mr. A. Edwards) made the suggestion that companies which have a poor E.P.T. standard find it difficult and in many cases impossible to pay their contributions under the War Damage Act. I do not think that can be accepted as a justifiable or reasonable argument for giving them relief. My only reason for rising is that several speakers have made the point that the mortgagee of property damaged should contribute towards the cost of the insurance. I do not subscribe to that view. On the contrary, I think that there are several reasons why he should not. One must bear in mind that the mortgagee loans his money upon a definite property. He makes a fixed loan at a fixed rate of interest, and to that extent only is he interested in the property. It must be apparent that property, as a whole, is more likely to appreciate than depreciate during and after the war. The only interest that the mortgagee has in the property is the amount of money which he has loaned. Capital appreciation of the property—if any—wholly belongs to the mortgagor, and quite rightly. Where a property is destroyed by the enemy the amount which will be recoverable under the Act may in many cases be substantially in excess of the amount of the mortgage. Therefore, the whole of the increased value of the equity in that property will go to the owner of the property and not to the mortgagee.

Again, it is a common practice for property owners to lodge the security of their property, namely, the deeds, with their bankers, and the bankers effect a loan on that security. It is not specifically tied on to the property in the form of a mortgage. It is merely a security which is lodged with the bank against any overdraft which may be granted by the bank. No one will suggest that a property owner should go to his bank and ask that it should contribute out of its interest charge an amount towards the cost of insurance under the War Damage Act. It seems to me that that would not be possible. The aggregate amount of money which is loaned to property owners by the banks merely on the securities lodged with them is very considerable, and it would be necessary by some means to define the difference between loans effected by the banks upon such securities and loans which are effected in the form of mortgages. For these reasons I am opposed to the suggestion which has been made by certain hon. Members, and I support the Government's Measure.

The House ought to be grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) for attempting to explain the mortgagee's right not to make any contribution under this scheme, because the more attempts are made to justify the present position, the more apparent it becames that it cannot be justified. The suggestion put forward by the hon. Member was that the man who lends the money has no interest in the property but only in the return of his loan and in the interest on it, which the borrower has contracted to pay. The hon. Member suggests that he has no interest at all in the property and that, therefore, he ought not to be called upon to bear any part of the premium for insuring it. I suggest that that is a complete fallacy which the hon. Member himself will be able to test if he asks himself this question. If it is true that the man who lent the money has no interest in the property but only in the money, why did he ever take a mortgage at all? If his interest is only in the money why was he not content with a promissory note? Why was he not content with the personal covenant, which, indeed, is included in the mortgage deed? Why did he take something in addition to the personal covenant? I suggest that the reason why the lender is not content with the personal covenant is that he is not satisfied that his interests are, thereby, sufficiently secured. In order, therefore, to protect himself further, he says, "In addition to your personal covenant to pay the interest as it falls due and to return the capital at times settled by agreement between us, I will have security in the property itself and that will be my first security."

I regret if my hon. Friend misunderstood the point I was endeavouring to make. I was not making the point that the lender was not interested in the property. The point I desired to make was that the lender has no interest whatever in the capital appreciation of the property which may take place—due to possible inflation.

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for that explanation, but if he does concede that the owner has an interest in the property apart from the contractual relationship provided by the personal covenant, is he not bound in equity to concede that the lender ought to bear some share of the premium which is paid in order to preserve the property in which each of the two parties has an interest? I cannot understand what answer there could be to that argument. My hon. Friend concedes that the lender has an interest in the property, but says that he has no interest in the appreciated value of the property. We must assume that values will appreciate. But why should they? I hope the time will come when the State will see that unearned increases of that kind are not left in the pockets of property-owners who do nothing to earn them. But let us assume in this argument that the properties will appreciate in value and that the appreciation will remain as private property. How in the world does that affect this argument, seeing that the amounts which are insured by this Bill bear no relation to any appreciated value, but are based upon 1939 values? No portion of any appreciation in value is covered by this Measure. Therefore, I say again there is no reason to exempt the lender from bearing his due proportion of the charge.

I understand that the argument used by the Chancellor himself is different. He said there is always an understanding between the lender and the borrower that the normal risks attaching to the property which is the security shall be borne by the borrower and not by the lender. I suggest that there are two answers to that and that either of them is conclusive. One is that unless I have gravely misunderstood it, the law does not so provide. It is true that mortgage deeds provide for it. Every mortgage deed that I have seen has provided that the premium for insuring the property against fire shall be paid by the borrower, but that is a contract, and the very fact that it always does appear in the deed shows that without a contract to that effect it would not be so. In the absence of such a covenant there would, under the common law be no obligation on the borrower to pay the fire insurance premium. But supposing it were the law that all risks normally incidental to the ownership of property should be borne by the borrower and not shared in any way by the lender, what has that to do with this Bill? This is not one of the risks normally incidental to the ownership of property. If it were, I doubt whether we should ever have passed the Principal Act or be asked to consider this Measure. We are not proposing, either in the principal Act or in this Bill, that the State shall assure everyone against the risks normally incidental to the ownership of property.

It is only when one regards this particular provision against the background of the general design of this legislation that one can judge whether it is right or not. The House decided that the loss of property by enemy action is not a normal risk which the owner of the property himself should bear but a risk which ought to be borne by the community as a whole—not quite the community as a whole, because it was felt that as great masses of the community have no property at all it would be an intolerable hardship to call upon them to pay premiums to insure the property of somebody else. Therefore we say that the loss shall not lie where it falls but shall be spread as equitably as we can manage it among the property-owning class. Supposing we were to divide the property-owning class into two sections, those who own it as mortgagors and those who own it as mortgagees which would be a quite fair clasification. Would anyone then say that it would be an equitable way of sharing the burden that all the premiums should be paid by the mortgagor class? Obviously not, and it seems to me that the Chancellor ought really to reconsider the ground on which, I agree, the House did come to this conclusion on the last occasion and on which he now recommends us to continue it. We are not to be bound for ever by our mistakes. If we were wrong last time it is no disgrace to us. We had to do the thing quickly, and I agree with the Chancellor that what we did then was an act of great faith and courage, but we must not pretend that what we did was perfect. If that had been the case no amending legislation would have been needed. We are reconsidering a great many things and I do not think we need exclude this one. If the case has been made out, let it be admitted that it has been made out.

There is another consideration, what I may call the effect of mass physchology, which cannot be ignored. People will inevitably say, unless you have an overwhelming case to the contrary, that this distinction between the mortgagee and the mortgagor was intended to benefit the money-lending classes of the community, as against those who need to go to the money-lending classes in order to provide themselves with a home. I am not saying that that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention or was the intention of this House, but people will continue to feel that that was the case, and will be justified unless it can be conclusively and clearly shown that there is good ground of principle, some equitable principle, whose validity would be accepted by everybody, to justify the position that where two people are interested in the preservation of one piece of property it is right that the whole burden of insuring that property shall rest on one of the two people and not on them both.

I have only one other point to put forward, and- I do so because I do not think it has been much referred to. It was referred to by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams). It is the point as to consolidation. It seems a great pity that this question should arise at all on the Bill. There has been only one Measure before dealing with this subject. If we pass the Bill in its present form, the problem of consolidation will arise and will have to be met some day, but it need not have arisen. There was no reason to draft the amending Bill in this form, with its endless and complicated Schedules. It would have been much simpler to repeal the old Act and to re-enact it with the Amendments now proposed, so that there would be on the Statute Book one valid Act to refer to and not two. I should not have thought that that would have been very difficult. It must be borne in mind that hundreds of thousands of people who are not accustomed to reading legal literature have their rights in everything they possess, protected, if protected at all, by these Acts. Surely they are entitled to have those Acts presented in a form which is "understanded of the people." No one can pretend that that is the case. As it is, one has to be a specialist and an expert even to begin to understand how these things work, and if it is necessary to amend—and I readily concede that it is—I should have thought that the opportunity would have been taken to simplify the method of presentation and not to adopt a method which further complicates the matter and makes it harder than ever to understand.

I do not know that anything can be done about it. I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should take the Bill back and submit it on another occasion. I am tempted to do so, but I do not suggest it. I hope that an opportunity will be taken to bring all these matters into one consolidating Statute so that we shall not be driven from one Act to another, from legislation by reference to legislation by Schedule. It ought to be simplified. This matter will be complicated enough however you try to simplify it, but it could be a good deal simpler than it is. That is all I should like to say at this stage. Many other points which could be raised are purely Committee points, and I hope there will be adequate time during the Committee stage for considering all the suggestions that hon. Members want to put forward. I hope the Bill will not be rushed, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having brought in this amending Measure to meet at any rate some of the difficulties which have arisen.

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has brought forward a point which I was intending to submit, which is that this complicated Measure makes it impossible for the ordinary layman to conduct business or to know what the Act of Parliament means I do not follow the hon. Gentleman in much of what he said about the mortgagor and the mortgagee. Having never borrowed money, I do not know the feelings of a borrower, but having lost money whenever I have lent it, I know the feelings of the lender. Let me congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a reason different from that of the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has been wise in his selection of the Parliamentary draftsman who recognises that Treasury orders must be approved by Resolution of the House of Commons. My efforts yesterday to secure that principle met with a certain amount of hilarity. I am glad to see that within 24 hours the House of Commons has come to the same conclusion as myself as to what is proper in legislation. I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his references on the subject of administration, and to the Commissioner, Mr. Trustram Eve. This was a very happy choice. Mr. Eve is a very able, courteous and accessible man, and he has secured technicians who are well qualified, courteous and considerate. They will listen to any argument that is brought forward. I go so far as to allege that it would have been impossible to conduct the affairs set out in the War Damage Act had it not been for the distinctive abilities shown by Mr. Trustram Eve and his technical assistants in connection with the War Damage Commission. I make that statement without any reserve whatever.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer reviewed the workings of the Act in broad principle. It was a complicated Measure, and considering the hastiness with which it passed through the House, it was a more or less workable Measure except for those unfortunate sections which led us into the morass of Treasury control. Wherever the Treasury have intervened it has led to the most unfortunate results. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there is nothing very amusing about the activities of the Treasury. Let me give one example. The form called C2/5 replaces V.O.W.I. On this form there occurs, by Treasury instructions, this remarkable paragraph:

I have endeavoured to show the Treasury the impossible situation which is created by quoting one case of damage to the extent of some £1,400. The Treasury—and this I learned from the Chancellor himself, by Question and answer in the House—require every document which is an invoice or a receipt to be deposited with the Treasury in order that the Comptroller and Auditor-General can see that the money has teen properly expended. Really, it is a reflection upon the intelli- gence of any Member of this House to give such an answer. By referring to the Civil List, we find that the total staff of the Auditor-General is only 517. That £1,400 claim involved 180 documents. If we take the number of cases as 100,000, that means 18,000,000 documents to be copied, deposited and examined by 517 men in the Auditor-General's office in addition to their ordinary and normal duties. If I adopt the figure of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and call it 200,000 cases, it is 36,000,000 documents to be copied. Where the labour is to come from, I do not know; and what is the value of all the exhortations to save paper? Fortunately, however, other documents have been issued by the War Damage Commission, notably "Practice notes," for which every man who has a claim ought to be profoundly grateful. I hope that the Chancellor or his principal officers will confer as much as possible with the Commissioner in order that the burdens now imposed upon the public may be lightened.

I am grateful for the explanatory and financial Memorandum issued with this Bill, but there are many points which are still most unsatisfactory. There is the question of insurance, upon which the Chancellor dilated, but which no one else appears to have taken up. I have sat in the House since Question Time, except for a very short interval. The Chancellor has expressed the fear that something might be said which would give advantage to the enemy, Did not the Chancellor rather indicate the value when he said that he budgeted for £40,000,000? It is easily calculated, according to his figures, that the value of the land and property in this country is £400,000,000. We know it is not true, we know it is worth much more than that, and really is it not about time that this secrecy was abandoned and that we should come down to earth? The Chancellor knows, from his experience as an old municipal legislator, that statistics are issued showing the rateable value of all the property in the Kingdom. It is easy to calculate from those figures and find out what is the sum indicated by the Schedule mentioned in the Act. It is easy to calculate what the value of the property is and calculate approximately the income to the Chancellor. Whether you are £1,000,000 out or in is neither here nor there.

People accustomed to deal with matters of this kind are beginning to feel that there is something very sinister behind this method of concealment. It is a very unfortunate state of affairs, which ought to be corrected as soon as possible. Any statistical department could give the information which this Bill suggests the Treasury should have power to give or to withhold. I am afraid that many of the arguments advanced here by those who support the Bill are too unconvincing to carry very much weight. We have to remember that the victims of enemy action are comparing their experiences one with the other, and they are drawing conclusions not altogether friendly to the Government. There are many people in the City who think that they can account for the surplus in the Chancellor's Budget. They say that the War Damage Commission is only paying out money after having collected a whole year's premium, except in very small cases, and therefore that what the Government are paying out is really the money received from the persons who are insured. I could give the House a case where the premium paid in one year far exceeds the value of the damage for which the Commission has paid, but which does not meet the whole liability of the claimant. If temporary works to restore damaged property cost £10,000, and the Chancellor says he will give a compassionate grant equal to 6o per cent., which is £6,000, the Treasury at the same time has collected from the people concerned £8,000 per annum for insurance premiums. People therefore feel that the £200,000,000 which the Government were going to guarantee, going 50–50 with the contributors who insured their property, is not in fact being provided, but that the Government are simply paying out of premiums paid by the insured persons and have contributed nothing at all. That is a very prevalent notion among people who have insured their property.

A very unfortunate position also arises under Part II of the chattels scheme. What an insurance company has been instructed to do in the case of professional men is this: It says, "We will insure your furniture, but we will not insure your papers, drawings, documents." That seems to me extraordinary, because, after all, tables, chairs and the like can be replaced, but your documents cannot be replaced. If your premises suffer from fire which in the most remote kind of way may be attributed to enemy action, the insurance company is not liable, if you have insured your property against fire in the normal way. I have a case in my pocket where the insurance is 7s. 6d. The demand under the War Damage Act is £2 15s. 6d. If that is a typical case, I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he alone has the figures showing what income and expenditure are; he has the total claims up to date—that he should compare the one with the other and try to determine whether the present rate of war damage insurance is not excessive.

There is another point to which I call the Chancellor's attention in connection with this insurance. He made great play of the case of a man enjoying the prodigious income of £150,000 a year. He said, "I take 19s. 6d. in the £, and when I have finished with him he is left with 6d. in the £." Let the House consider the position of a man who enjoys that income from property alone. He is left with £7,000, but under the principal Act, which is not amended in this Bill, he has to contribute £15,000 a year for insurance under the War Damage Act, so that this £150,000 all goes in taxation and that taxpayer still owes the State £8,000 a year, because he is forbidden under the principal Act from calculating for the purpose of Income Tax assessment any sum paid for insurance under the War Damage Act. I hardly know what £150,000 a year means in relation to my income, but the Chancellor knows what it means. The position I have mentioned cannot be right. It is not for me to suggest how the Chancellor is to correct it. Frankly, I cannot. I do not see how any man, particularly with hereditary property which he cannot sell, except under certain conditions, can be put in the position that he is minus £8,000 a year.

The most disappointing thing in this Bill to me is that there is no attempt to repeal those Sections empowering the Treasury to make Regulations. I have already given the House two examples of those Regulations. I submit to the House that it is not right, it is not fair, just or equitable, that any Government Department should be able to make Regulations unknown to the general public to control, guide and govern another Government Department. That is what has happened here. Regulations are made by the Treasury for the guidance of the War Damage Commission, and when the victim attempts to make appeal he is told that by Regulation it cannot be done. He refers to professional advisers, who tell him that the Regulations can be made only by one authority under the Act, namely, the Treasury. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into this, and not compel us to dig, dive and delve to elicit the facts by interrogating him in the House. That is a waste of time. He ought not to be called upon to go to his officials to find out how or why this or that is done. It could be simplified very much, and the whole thing could be simplified if, instead of talking about a consolidating Act, which means bringing all these things together, a new Act was brought in and all those which preceded it were repealed.

May I conclude by saying that I am glad to find that the Commission have their own Vote on Account for their payments, including those in respect of salaries? I am asking the Chancellor to give entire power to the Commission. When the Act was going through the House it was anticipated that the Commission was to consist of a Commissioner and specially qualified men, that they would be separate and distinct and exercise entire control. The principal Act takes that power away. This amending Bill does not correct the fault. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider, before this Bill comes for Third Reading, whether the Commission shall not be entrusted with the duties which the House undoubtedly think they should carry out.

My last point is with regard to the punishment of the man who tries to rob the State. I urge the House, not only in connection with this Bill but all others, to have no mercy on the man who tries to rob the State. To my mind, it is a greater crime than trying to rob the individual. We are fighting for our very existence. Legislation ought to be such that no mercy should be shown to those men who try to rob the State, either through the black market or by putting false claims indicated in this Bill. Punishment is envisaged for those men who rob their fellow men in a time of stress and peril, and if the Chancellor will accept an Amendment to make the punishment more severe than that shown in this amending Bill, I shall be very happy to support him.

I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will echo the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker), in disapproval of those who attempt to rob the State. I support the Bill completely. I would like to mention a point of principle, which has engaged the attention of the House. It is the question of whether or not it is desirable to put a still further proportion of the burden of premium on those who lend money on property. My own view is that the Chancellor has correctly interpreted public opinion. I think the public sense of equity makes a distinction between those who might be described as commercial borrowers and those who borrow for the purpose of owning homes. I have noticed in some of the speeches of those who apparently represent the interests of commercial borrowers that, to some extent, they seek to shelter under the aegis of virtue which surrounds those who borrow for the purpose of owning their homes.

Would my hon. Friend make a distinction between commercial lenders and those who, in a small way, put their money into a building society?

I should be glad to attempt to meet my hon. and gallant Friend's point, but I am at present talking solely of borrowing. I think public opinion makes a distinction between a commercial borrower and one who borrows for the purpose of owning his home. The original Bill drew the line, roughly, at borrowing for homes of an annual value of less than £150 a year. Borrowing on property above that figure, including agricultural property, is roughly classed as commercial borrowing. The point about a lender on property is not that he has no interest in property, but that the interest is limited and contingent. The money may not have been borrowed on that property for the purpose of enabling the borrower to live in that property. It has almost certainly been borrowed in the hope of making either an interest or a capital profit. I was a little surprised at the intervention of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) on that particular point. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have regarded this as a private fight between two rival groups of capitalists, and that they would lean back and allow them to tear each other to pieces. I would like to ask the commercial borrowers two questions. Suppose they were to win their point that a further portion of the burden should be laid upon the commercial lenders, would the borrowers be prepared, if, as a result of the war, there should be general appreciation of property in terms of money, and therefore the profit that they made became appreciably greater than was originally expected, to give up a part of their profits to increase their return to the commercial lenders, who came into the transaction on the assumption of a limited rate of interest? Secondly, if they win their point, will it not weaken the whole fabric of the system of lending money on mortgage? When a number of these mortgages fall due—and they are falling due all the time—will the lenders be willing to renew the mortgages on the same terms as before? Those are points that have to be borne in mind. There are a great many subsidiary points, such as the enormous complications which would be introduced by attempting to apportion the premium as between the mortgaged property and other property which forms part of the security for the loans. There are a number of other complications, which were discussed when the original Act was passed, and which I think it hardly necessary to elaborate further now.

Does my hon. Friend consider that because it is difficult to apportion the thing equitably you achieve a greater equity by avoiding all the difficulties of apportionment, not apportioning it at all, but leaving the whole burden on one pair of shoulders?

No; but I should think that if it seems equitable to leave things as they are, it is a collateral, and added, reason for doing so that it is difficult to alter them.

I am afraid I do not follow by hon. Friend's point. I noticed that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), in his speech—which I venture to suggest was a model of a Second Reading speech—reviewed certain of the principles of the original Measure, but did not touch upon this matter at all; he did not think it worth disturbing—and I thought his the most notable contribution to the whole Debate. For the reasons I have given, I wish to support the Chancellor's attitude in leaving things as they are as between what are described as commercial borrowers and commercial lenders; and, in addition, I wish to give my whole-hearted support to the Bill.

I want to refer to the position in Northern Ireland. Financially, we seem, in Northern Ireland, to be suffering more than people over here. The ordinary taxation, of course, is the same as it is here. Some of that naturally goes into the Treasury, and helps to pay for war damage. Then we have the same insurance schemes against damage caused by the enemy. But there is a third contribution which people over here do not yet seem to have had to make. It is well known that there are many troops in Northern Ireland, and buildings have been taken over for their accommodation. When the military authorities in Northern Ireland take possession of a building, the ownership passes to the War Office. It should be the duty of the military authorities in Northern Ireland to protect those buildings. We have yet to define, in regard to our particular territory, what constitutes war damage. The superficial answer is that it is damage which has been done by the enemy; but in Northern Ireland we have enemies of the British Government who do not seem to exist over here. The failure of the local military authorities to protect those buildings means that there is no guard on them for some time; and our enemies in Northern Ireland burn those buildings. Surely that is war damage, and the cost ought to be borne by the British Treasury. I have had a long correspondence with the Treasury and the War Office on this subject, but I can only get the base allowance. The Treasury and the War Office ought to consider this matter seriously. This damage has been committed because the military authorities have not provided proper guards. The damage is classed as "criminal injuries." The people of my constituency have had to pay £16,000 as damages because of these "criminal in- juries." They are not criminal injuries but injuries as the result of the neglect of the military authorities in Northern Ireland, and we have a great grievance. I am glad of this opportunity of trying to get the Treasury to look into the subject. Our people ought not to be paying three times over for war damage as we are doing at present, and I hope my right hon. Friend will really look into the question again and see what can be done.

I want to make one or two observations on this Bill. We are all grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for bringing in this Bill, and the financial cover for the war period is one for which we are very grateful. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchinson) as to the Commercial borrower and lender, the small mortgagor is to some extent protected, but when we come to the commercial lender the difficulty of the Treasury is to pin down and define the man. I understand that building loans and debenture stock may be a difficulty, but I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any more difficulty in defining the mortgagee of the ordinary residential property, business or commercial property that has been damaged. If we are to say, as we do, that there shall be equality of sacrifice, I want to know where the equality of sacrifice comes in where these very commercially-minded people have provided the outlet for capital for years of which the commercial borrower has taken full advantage and is now sitting pretty and tight while someone else endures the burden. That is wrong. I have said so from the start and I believe it still to-day.

I want to draw the attention of the Chancellor to something that is well within the £150 a year rental value. I refer to those people who have built thousands of houses in this country. They may be commercially-minded or commercial companies. There is the case, of which the Chancellor is aware, of a man who built 7,500 houses under Acts passed by this House. He has entered a co-partnership with local authorities. They find themselves to-day with a deficit of something like £24,000 a year on the renting of the estate, and £13,000 odd is going towards war damage. I suppose that they are regarded as commercial borrowers, but that case of which he has the particulars is not a singular one. There are scores of enterprising people in this country who have built houses for the working classes and who have mortgaged them with building societies. I know of one firm which has over 200 separate mortgages with a building society, and each of the houses is rent restricted and accommodating members of the working class, and yet the premium to secure that capital and to see that it comes back intact to the, borrowers is paid by the unfortunate mortgagor. Surely, in regard to all these houses which are housing working-class people the Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well look into the question and see whether some relief cannot be given.

The only other point to which I rose to refer is that, under the amending Measure, there is an opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the premium. It is a well-known saying to ask, What has posterity done for us? I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that property is suffering grievously not only because of the difficulty of finding labour and material, but because of the difficulty of those in charge of the management having nothing with which to make good the damage. If the war should cease in a few months' time, these people who have taken a pride in their property would find themselves in the most difficult position of not being able to do anything in the way of ordinary repairs. There should be an easing of the premium and an extending of the period without any damage to the financial structure of war damage compensation. It is an old argument, but I assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that many of the people who own the larger properties are in as great a difficulty as the small owner and small occupier. Therefore, I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this Measure, and I hope that it will not be the last word. As an hon. Member opposite said, I hope that there will be many more words and that many of these inequalities and anomalies will be rectified as between the mortgagee and the mortgagor in the best interests of the country.

My right hon. Friend is very well satisfied with the course of this Debate and with the reception of the Bill. Indeed, most of the Debate has, or at any rate many of the speeches have, not been directed so much to the Bill as to points in the original Act which Members suggest might have been, but are not, amended by this amending Bill. Before I deal with these, or any other points with regard to the substance of the matter, I would like to say a word or two about the form of the Bill, about some criticisms which have been made with regard to it, and some of the references which have been made to consolidation. Many of the Amendments which are contained in the Schedules deal with technical matters. Owing to the conveyancing law of this country, they are necessarily difficult for laymen to understand if words are going to be used which have a precise meaning and are intelligible and definite to those who have to deal with the matter. That is an inevitable feature of legislation which deals with these matters. I suggest to the House that the form of the Bill is a convenient one. The placing of these various matters in the Schedules which enables them to be tabulated, is wholly justified as they are not really matters of substance. This does not in any way preclude either amendment or debate. It is true that if there were, say, 21 separate Clauses instead of 21 paragraphs to the Schedule, the chairman would rise in the Chair 21 times instead of only once, but, if I may speak as one who has more than once had to deal with Schedules in the Committee stage, the fact that the Chairman only rises once does not in the least prevent 21 hon. Members, if so minded, each raising a point on the 21 paragraphs, and those points have to be dealt with. There is certainly no desire by the form of the Bill, as my hon. and gallant Friend opposite suggests, to preclude debate in any way.

If the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend is correct, why should not the whole of the Committee stage be taken by the Committee on one Question from the Chair? The object of putting a successive number of Questions has, as he knows, helped to initiate Debate on a particular point.

Anybody can put down an Amendment to any one of these paragraphs, either to make a sug- gestion or to raise a point. I do not really think it would be of advantage to the House if these matters, practically all of which are matters of detail, and are words which are put in to make clear what we believe was the original intention of the House, had been arranged in separate Clauses. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said how much better it would be if this Bill had taken the form of re-enacting the Sections of the original Act affected by these Amendments. One inconvenience about that is that the House would not have seen what the change was without comparing the new Bill with the old Act. There is not the slightest desire in dealing with these matters to do otherwise than to assist the House, but I suggest that the form in which one finds these things in the Schedule, which refers to the original Section, sets out in brackets what is its purport and goes on to say what change has been made, is a really convenient form in an amending Bill. I agree that when this Bill becomes an Act it would be right and proper that we should consolidate it, and we intend to do that. It cannot be done in a day, because these are somewhat complicated matters, but I think it right that when this amending Bill has been passed into an Act it should be consolidated with the original Act so that the whole will be accessible in a consolidated Act.

A point taken by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) was on the question of the pre-war values for value payments. He, I expect, remembers, and I would remind any hon. Members who do not have it in mind, that in the course of the discussions of the Act this point was raised, and as a result Section 14 was inserted in the War Damage Act, 1941. The purport of that Section is stated I think, in the marginal note: cannot take war values. They fluctuate in all sorts of ways, because war conditions are very uncertain. Nobody could suggest taking them. It is very desirable to get on with this work, and the only fixed standard you can find at the moment is the pre-war standard—March, 1939. What will happen after the war no one present can forecast. It is possible, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) suggested, that, in the case of certain classes of property, values may come down. It may be that in others they will go up. But the provision which enables the Commission to get ahead with the work on the only standard now available and that Section of the Act which entitles them to report that this matter must be considered in certain circumstances, constitute, I think, the best way to leave this question at the moment.

The next point to which the hon. Member referred, and to which other Members also referred, is what I may call the non-disclosure Clause—Clause 4. My right hon. Friend has no intention of applying this Clause automatically, but it is quite wrong to suggest that security reasons do not arise here and that this is some sort of camouflage for some reluctance to put this information before the House. A fairly good test as to whether information may be useful to the enemy, is to ask ourselves whether it would be useful to us if they on their part disclosed the corresponding information. Now, this Clause covers, for instance, information under the War Risk Insurance Act, which includes information as to payments in respect of marine losses. It covers information as to the business insurance scheme by which, as the House will remember, the Board of Trade are entitled to make immediate payments if a business is such that it is important for the war that it should receive money so that it can keep going. I give those two examples. It might be of very considerable interest to the enemy in the case of damage here, or of interest to us in the case of damage in enemy countries, if it were known that certain bombs which had fallen on certain localities or localities as a whole had created a large amount of war business damage and that as a result payments had had to be made under the business scheme.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has, no doubt, seen reports issued by public companies, and he is, no doubt, also aware that some of them are as detailed as he is now implying. He also knows that most public companies give merely the bare bones of their operations. Why cannot we have a similar arrangement in this matter?

What the House would want to know are the total payments, and I should have thought under the business scheme the figure which the House wanted would give a very clear guide to the amount of damage that had had to be paid for in respect of what I might call war purposes business damage. I think there is more in this than some speakers have suggested, but, as I have said, my right hon. Friend does not propose to have certificates made automatically, nor, indeed, could they be. The Treasury are the people to give certificates. My right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole are responsible if a certificate is given, and they would consult and act on the advice given by those who have knowledge of the security grounds. May I also say a word to dissipate the idea that there is something which my right hon. Friend wants to cloak? Assume that payments made so far are less than the contributions collected. What is there to be ashamed of in that? The whole scheme of the Bill is that the bulk of the payments will be postponed until after the war, whereas contributions are to come in now. Why should we mind if that is a fact? It is really nonsense to suggest that there is some reluctance to disclose these figures on financial grounds. As I think the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds said, or implied, it is nonsense to suggest that there can be any Treasury motive behind this clause.

But there is a case that temporary claims due now should be paid promptly.

That is another matter, which, with great respect, I do not admit. Suppose claims were exceeding premiums. That would be no reason for not paying them promptly. Fortunately, we have the money. We have not got to look in the teapot to see whether there is 6d. to pay the bill. Our credit is not of that kind. If the claims succeed, there is no reason why they should not be paid promptly.

One or two complaints have been made about, but at the same time one or two tributes have been paid to, the way in which the War Damage Commission have dealt with their problems. I would like to endorse what was said by one hon. Member about the vast task which confronted the Commission when they were set up. A large amount of damage had been done, forms were pouring in, people were asking questions, nobody knew quite what to do, a great many unnecessary requests for information were received, a local organisation had to be set up, and so on. That task was tackled. It is quite true that there was some delay in dealing with the vast multiplicity of small claims, but the arrears have been well caught up and dealt with rapidly. I think the Commission are entitled to the gratitude of the House, not only for the way in which they have carried out the administration, but also for their successful efforts to see that payments were made as promptly as possible once the machine got into working order. I am certain that if there are individual cases where there has been delay, the Chairman of the Commission or my right hon. Friend will be very pleased to look into them and see what can be done if something has gone wrong.

A point was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Mills). His complaint was that the contribution is based on the Schedule A assessment for 1939. That is intentional and, I think, inevitable. Notionally, as it were, one can imagine this scheme as being one into which everybody would have come, if it had been in existence, at the beginning of the war. What you would then have had would have been the pre-war value, and you would have assessed the premium on the basis of that. If everybody had had plenty of liquid resources, you might have provided that they should pay the whole premium straight away. It would be quite wrong if the contribution went up and down according to the fluctuations of valuation during the war. It is quite right that Schedule A should do that, because Schedule A is an annual tax in respect of the Income Tax for that year. This contribution, however, is treated as a capital contribution in respect of the risk for the whole war period—or it may be a part of it, if we have to add to it—on the property at risk during the war. I think the only basis is the value which the property had before the war. It would be wrong for the contribution to fluctuate with the Schedule A fluctuations during the war years.

I come now to the question of mortgagors and mortgagees. No doubt Alice found it difficult to distinguish between Tweedledum and Tweedledee; some hon. Members have the same difficulty in remembering whether the mortgagor is the borrower and the mortgagee the lender. The Debate has shown that this is not one of those unhappy questions on which one finds the Government alone defending a fortress against united attacks from all the Back Benchers. Hon. Members who have spoken have not been unequally divided on this point. On the one side there were my hon. Friends the Members for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) and Hastings (Mr. Hely-Hutchison) on the other side there were my hon. Friends the Members for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), Holland-with-Boston (Lieut. Butcher), Southampton (Dr. Russell Thomas), Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), and the hon. Member who spoke last, the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. Selley).

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that five to three is an even division?

That is the numerical balance. Of course, my right hon. Friend and I may count as fourth and fifth. This question, of course, is one on which people differ. I do not think that anybody, after considering the matter carefully, disputes that if one takes the end of the scale at which one finds the building society mortgage, the case where money is advanced for the purpose of buying or building a house on the security of the house, on the sort of building society terms where the building society has sometimes been described as a quasi-landlord—although this is a matter which raises controversy—it is reasonable, right and proper, that, in that case, the mortgagee should make a contribution. On the other hand, I do not feel any doubt that at the other end of the scale, which contains a greater variety of types of transaction, it would be wrong to call on the mortgagee to make a contribution. One can think of many cases. Suppose, for instance, that someone who happened to own the house in which he lives wanted to raise money for some business purpose, and he decided that, good as his credit would be, he could raise the money at ½ per cent. or 1 per cent. less interest if he put in his house as a pledge, a mortgage, than if he raised the money as an unsecured loan.

Does not that give the mortgagee an interest in the security, and, therefore, justify his paying a portion of the contribution?

No. I do not think that in those circumstances it would occur to him. The house would remain the mortgagor's, and he would live in it. If it was bombed, he would have to find somewhere else to live in. He would have raised the money for a purpose quite unconnected with the house, but in order to get it at a cheaper rate of interest, he would have put in the house as security. It would be fantastic to suggest that because he had done that, he was entitled to ask the lender to contribute to the premium which, of course, he would want to pay so that if his house were bombed and he had to find somewhere else to live, he would get compensation or a cost of works payment. There are many such cases. It seems to me to fall into the category where, although the loan is secured on the property, it would be quite unnecessary, apart from the technical difficulties, to call in the mortgagee to contribute.

What about the old idea of equality of sacrifice? Here the sacrifice is on the borrower's side and there is none on the side of the lender.

I suppose most people ought as far as possible to suffer discomfort according to their positions. I do not think that equality of sacrifice helps much on this question. It is one of those phrases which comforts us in putting forward what are our own views on the merits of the question. Fire insurance was referred to. If it is reasonable to ask the lender to contribute to these contributions, why is it not reasonable to ask the lender to contribute to fire insurance? I agree there is a covenant that a man should keep his property insured, but it has never occurred to anyone it was reasonable to stipulate that while a mortgagor remained in possession the mortgagee ought to pay a proportion of the fire premium. It does not make sense.

Surely the risk of fire is a common and ordinary risk attaching to the ownership of property?

The risk of war is not so uncommon as we should like it to be. But what difference does that make? Why, if it is unreasonable to ask a mortgagee to make a contribution to ordinary risks, is it reasonable to ask him to make a contribution to extraordinary risks? I should have expected the principle to be the same. That is where we start. In considering the matter on that basis, we have two ends of the scale. At one end are the cases where mortgagees should clearly contribute, and at the other where they should not. My right hon. Friend did his best in the original Bill to draw the line at a reasonable place—in the middle of the scale. Obviously it is a matter for discussion whether that line has been drawn precisely in the right place, and, no doubt, we shall have a chance to discuss it at a later stage. However, my right hon. Friend is adamant in that he does not think it is right or practicable to adopt the principle that in all cases lenders ought to contribute to these contributions. We believe that we have drawn this line in a reasonable place, and I am bound to say, although I know some hon. Members have taken a different view and have reasserted it to-day, my own opinion is that the general course of this Debate supports that view, and that on the whole the way in which Section 25 and the way it deals with the matter commends itself to hon. Members. I doubt whether in the interval since the Act was passed that the anti-mortgagees have obtained many recruits; I believe the number of pro-mortgagees is about the same.

The only test at this moment is the test of this Debate. I do not wish to make the point again, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen, who opened the Debate, did not make special reference to the matter. Our view is that the principle is right, and that the line which has been drawn is in the right place.

The Attorney-General has not answered my point. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to give some relief to a person whose property has been completely destroyed, who has a loan on that property, and who will have to go on paying interest? Only to-day I had an example of such a case. The man's business was destroyed, and he has to continue to pay the interest.

That obligation and other obligations go on. If a man has the resources, it is much better that he should pay, instead of letting the amounts accumulate by compound interest for the future.

There you are infringing on the principle laid down by the Prime Minister when he originally announced the scheme, namely, that it would be impracticable, unless the House was prepared to draw a line between compensation for the cost of rebuilding after or during the war—that is to say, capital expenditure—and what you may call losses over the war period. He made it perfectly clear that the State could not afford to pay such losses. If the Government started to pay compensation for losses of revenue, they would have to pay compensation for losses of business. There has been legislation on this subject, but that legislation relieves men from obligations they are unable to satisfy owing to war circumstances. There is, of course, the Courts (Emergency Powers) Acts which prevents execution being levied, and the War-time Liabilities Adjustment Act. That is the way the House has approached these problems. But it is quite impracticable to launch out on the idea that the Government can compensate for payments of interest or rent losses during the war period which arise as a result of war damage.

There has been some misconception in regard to the £400,000,000 and the share of the contributions between the contributors and the Treasury. The position is that the contributors pay the first £200,000,000, the Treasury then comes in and bears the second £200,000,000, and after that the Treasury and contributors share and share alike.

Yes, Sir. It has been pointed out that the losses may not exceed the amount of the contributors' contributions when ultimately collected. Let the House remember that only one-fifth or less has been collected.

Is there any reason to doubt that the same rate of collection will proceed—a very good rate too?

None at all. What I am saying is that only a fifth of the contributors' contribution is now in. Perhaps, after all, in the last 10 days something has been added to the liability side of this account and my right hon. Friend did not think it right to say at this stage that the contribution should be reduced. But, of course, if things turn out more happily than they may turn out and, when the balance comes to be struck, if the sum to be paid is less than the first £200,000,000, there is power under the Bill to reduce contributions, and, as my right hon. Friend said, should that happy eventuality arise in which it was possible to do so, the sensible way to do it is by knocking off the last contribution rather than by reducing the quantum per year.

That, I think, deals with the main points which have been raised. We shall, no doubt, have opportunities of discussing the more detailed points in Committee. My right hon. Friend has indicated that, as on the last occasion, he is very anxious to meet Members interested in one or other aspect of the Bill and discuss their points with them, and, though it is perhaps too much to hope that at the end of our discussions we can all be seeing eye to eye about everything, I am sure it is the desire of everyone that we should discuss these matters in as co-operative a spirit as possible with a view to seeing that this immense scheme with all its complexities is made as fair and as practicable as is possible.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to Committee of the Whole House, for the next Sitting Day.—[ Mr. J. P. L. Thomas .]

Ways and Means

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

War Damage (Amendment)

Resolved,

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the War Damage Act, 1941, and Part II and Section sixteen of the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, it is expedient to authorise—

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day; Committee to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

War Damage (Amendment) [Money.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69:

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the War Damage Act, 1941, and Part II and section sixteen of the War Risks Insurance Act, 1939, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932

Resolved,

"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, extending Section I of the Act to the City of Carlisle, a copy of which was presented to this House on 28th April, be approved."—[ Mr. J. P. L. Thomas .]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed .

Adjournment

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Mr. J. P. L. Thomas .]