This seems to be a workmanlike and sensible Bill. The position can be gauged in one sense by contrasting the total sum paid out—I understand it to be about £1,300 million—with the claims outstanding, amounting, I understand, to about £20 million. One can further reinforce that consideration by remembering that the number of claims now outstanding is only half the number outstanding in August, 1961.

It is clear, therefore, that this gigantic and rather grim relic of the wartime period is now coming to a close and that, with a word of tribute and gratitude to the War Damage Commission and the excellent work it has done, we can all be glad to say "Goodbye" to this memory of the destruction and havoc wrought by the war in our country. It is high time that we should think of bringing the whole of this unhappy memory to an end. The Bill is adequately designed for this purpose, although there are a few comments I would like to make and questions I would like to pose.

The total amount of outstanding claims is about £20 million, but I do not know how many individual claims that figure represents. It may be difficult for the Financial Secretary to answer this and if he cannot give me an answer now I will understand. I ask this question because the work of the War Damage Commission is being transferred to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I understand that they are taking over the former staff of the War Damage Commission, including the valuation department which, I suppose, will supplement the Valuation Office which at present operates within the framework of the Inland Revenue.

Had we not been told that, the question would have presented itself whether an undue burden was not going to be placed on the Commissioners if they have to deal with a large number of individual claims, aggregating in all to about £20 million, in addition to the heavy burden they already carry. Before I heard the Minister's remarks it had been my intention to ask how this matter would be dealt with. I wondered whether there would be the necessary expert advice, either within the present framework or whether the Commissioners would need to resort to outside sources. Apparently they will have adequate resources within the framework of the existing staff to obtain the necessary expert opinion about whether a claim is allowable and the amount at which it should be allowed.

I suppose that a prominent feature of the outstanding claims and the reason in many cases why they have been delayed for so long is that buildings may, after many years, show weakness or strain which expert advice can connect with a shock received from war damage. It is, I understand, a common feature of these claims that a building can be severely shaken during the war but that the damage is not discernible for some years, when the building begins to subside or show indications of weakness or strain.

Expert opinion can establish clearly that such damage was derived from injury not known at the time but caused to the structure by concussion of falling bombs. Wren that situation arises no doubt the ground of claim may not be known for many years; and the older the building gets the more serious is the damage when it ultimately emerges. I apprehend that that is the kind of situation in which these claims have been for so long delayed, up to 19 years after the war.

I was somewhat surprised at the Minister's comments about the contrast in respect of outstanding claims for private dwellings, amounting to about £1 million, and the amount estimated to be outstanding for commercial property namely, £9 million. I do not know why there should be that contrast. One would have thought that those who use commercial property would be as alive to the claims they may have as those who occupy private dwellings. Is the reason because the total aggregate of damage done to commercial property was much in excess of that done to private dwellings? That may be the reason, but it would be difficult to suppose that the ratio is nine to one, as it appears to be in terms of the outstand ing claims. I understand that the claims in respect of chattels have almost entirely dried up. There are few outstanding and that can be said to be an aspect of war damage which has already, by the process of time, finally been brought to a close.

I would like to know how much is in the account described in Clause 8 as the "unclaimed balances account". The Minister said that that related to claims which have not been pursued since 1941. I suppose that many unfortunate people who might have had claims either perished during the war or have since died and that their descendants or heirs, or other personal representatives, cannot now be ascertained. Thus a sum of money slumbers in this unclaimed balances account. How much is it?

We should all be anxious not accidentally to put an end to a claim which is really a live one—that we do not, by the stroke of a pen in an Act, deprive some one of a claim which, had he known it existed, he would be only too glad to assert. I hope that adequate steps have been or will be taken to make known the existence of these claims. There may be children or grandchildren who would be glad to find that they were entitled to receive a few hundred pounds, which might be a relief to them in difficult circumstances. It would be in the public interest, and a measure of elementary justice, to see that the widest publicity is given to the existence of claims which have not been preferred. We should ensure that legitimate claims are not merely extinguished.

Are the amounts in the unclaimed balances account small or large ones? Is the sort of problem in Clause 8 one of claims of wide variety, with several claims worth many thousands of pounds, or is it a problem of claims by small people in respect of many dwelling houses concerning sums of £50, £100 or £200? If so, it is very important that a great effort should be made to seek the identity of the potential claimants so that what is rightfully theirs can be paid to them.

Those are the general comments that I wished to make. It is surprising in a sense that not less than £5½ million is estimated to be the amount of the outstanding claims in respect of public buildings. One would have thought that public authorities would not only have been alive to the possibility of obtaining reimbursement for damage but would have had at their disposal the means necessary to prefer the claims and the necessary advice and legal assistance to make certain that claims due in respect of public buildings—claims, therefore, due to the public—were adequately and promptly preferred.

No doubt there is a very good reason for that. It may be that the £5½ million is attributable to damage which has only barely begun to manifest itself. I should like to know the basis on which the figure is estimated. If it can be said that an estimated amount of £5½ million is outstanding, there must be some basis on which that figure has been arrived at. In other words, in some way damage approximating to that amount must have made its presence known. The Minister stated that a large amount of the claims was attributable to the fact that cost of works payments had not yet been made. Therefore, the figure in respect of public buildings must be attributable more to the cost of works payments side than the value side. Perhaps we could have some more explanation of how that happens to be the case.

This is a necessary and sensible Bill. Its provisions seem to be businesslike and likely to achieve the desired end. When the whole matter has been adequately and properly wound up, we shall all be glad to forget the existence of war damage legislation and hope that the occasion for it will never recur.