HC Deb 25 October 1916 vol 86 cc1161-6

(1) Where, during the course of the present war, possession has been taken of any land by or on behalf of any Government Department for purposes connected with the present war, whether" in exercise of any prerogative right of His Majesty, or of any powers conferred by or under any enactment relating to the defence of the realm, or by agreement, or otherwise, it shall be lawful for the Government Department in possession (hereinafter referred to as the occupying department), after the termination of the present war, to continue in possession of the land for such period, not exceeding two years from such termination, as the occupying department may consider necessary or expedient, and, if on application being made to the Railway and Canal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) not less than six months before the expiration of such two years the Commission consent thereto, for such further period, not exceeding five years from the expiration of such two years, as the Commission may authorise.

(2) Whilst any land so continues in the possession of any occupying department, the department may for the purposes of the public service exercise in relation thereto all such powers as were during the continuance of the war exercisable in relation thereto for the purposes of the defence of the realm, subject, however, as respects the power to close public highways or rights of way, to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section six, and, as respects the power of removal of build- ings and works, to the provisions of the next following Section.

(3) The occupying department shall pay such rent in respect of any land which continues in their possession, and such continuance shall be upon and subject to such terms and conditions, as may be agreed between the department and the persons interested in the land or as, failing agreement, shall be determined by the Commission.

(4) The occupying department may transfer possession of any land to the Admiralty or Army Council or the Minister of Munitions, and upon such a transfer being made the department to whom possession is transferred shall be deemed to be the occupying department.

Amendment made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "course," insert the words "or within the week immediately preceding the commencement."

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move, after the word "Commission" ["hereinafter referred to as the Commission"], to insert the words "upon the ground that an extension of time is necessary for urgent national requirements."

The object of this Amendment is to provide that an extension of time should be granted only where there is an urgent case for it. I raised the matter in Committee, and the Solicitor-General promised to consider it. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir G. CAVE

It is true that I promised to consider this point, and after considering it I have put down an Amendment which I think has the effect desired by my hon. Friend. That Amendment is, to leave out the word "authorise" ["as the Commission may authorise"], and insert "consider necessary or expedient in the national interests." I hope those words will satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. RAWLINSON

As far as I can gather, that meets the substance of the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move to leave out the word "five" [" not exceeding five years "], and to insert instead thereof the word "two."

As the matter stands at present, after the termination of the War, if the Government are in occupation of any land, they are to have two years in which to determine what they propose to do with it, and they may have five years from the expiration of those two years if the Commission give them the extension. That gives in all a maximum of seven years. I submit that that is an unnecessarily long time for the Government to have in which to exercise their option. Suppose they are in occupation of an hotel. The result of my Amendment would be to give them a maximum of four years instead of seven in which to decide whether they would give up the occupation of the hotel or buy it permanently. Let the House consider, quite apart from the question whether people are landlords or lawyers, the justice of the case from a business point of view. It is a monstrous injustice that any business enterprise should have this option of purchase hanging over its head for a longer time than four years.

Sir G. CAVE

This Clause does not deal with purchase at all.

Mr. RAWLINSON

At any rate, they remain in possession. Four years must be a sufficient time for the Government to leave the premises if they mean to do so. Of course they can do anything by agreement, but to stay on for longer than four years against the will of the owner would be a sweat injustice.

Sir G. YOUNGER

I beg to second the Amendment, and I desire to support it. I know cases where the Govermental proposal would involve a considerable hardship to those concerned, and if a considerable time is taken to decide whether or not the Government are to continue in possession.

Sir G. CAVE

There was a considerable amount of discussion in Committee as to this matter. The Bill, as hon. Members will have in mind, originally provided provisional occupation for three years, with the option of a further four years. After some discussion it was suggested in Committee that we should make the period two years, if those in opposition would agree to make the following period five years. I do not think we can go back upon that now. I want to remind hon. Members that I am going to move later an Amendment which compels the Govern- ment to decide within three years whether they will buy or not, so that by the end of that time, if my Amendment be accepted, the owner will know whether or not he is to be bought out. He will by that time also know for how long the occupation is to be continued.

Sir F. BANBURY

I gather that within three years from the termination of the War, if the new suggested Amendment is accepted, the Government will have to decide whether or not they will buy. Therefore, they will have to give notice as to their continuance or otherwise in possession. Perhaps it is not a very great hardship, if a man lets his premises or land, for the Government to fix the proposed period. At the end of that period he will have the knowledge of where he stands.

Sir T. WALTERS

I think the suggestion made by the Solicitor-General puts an entirely different complexion on the matter, and really removes any actual hardship. The point is not so much that the man suffers any hardship by the Government being his tenant for a certain period. The point of the hardship is that he does not know whether or not the Government is going to purchase. Shortening the period during which the Government will make up its mind to three years puts the man, I think, in a very much better position than even the suggested Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I hope the Committee will see its way to accede to the Clause as it stands, two years and five years, on the condition that the Amendment suggested by the Solicitor-General is carried at a later stage.

Mr. CURRIE

I am afraid I cannot agree with the suggestion of the Solicitor-General. The projected Amendment shows sufficient consideration for the position in which, say, a large hotel proprietor may be placed, but there are many other people in addition to hotel proprietors. At the end of three years, as I understand the Government suggestion, there will be no suggestion of the Government purchasing the property outright. It does appear to me a very great hardship for the subject to be left for a period nearly so long as four years. If the Government provides that at the end of the three years, it would not only say that it does not want to buy the place, but that within a period, say, of twelve months, it will definitely say whether or not it does so want to occupy the premises up to a maximum period of four years, I think that would go a considerable length to relieving the owner of an undesirable position of uncertainty. I wish to press the Solicitor-General to give the matter further consideration. Four years, I think, is too long a period.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I am very grateful to the Government, for no doubt it is a great deal to have a definite period. Still, seven years is too long to remain in possession. I submit that four years is ample for the object aimed at.

Amendment negatived.

Further Amendments made: Leave out the word "authorise" ["as the Commission may authorise"], and insert thereof the words "consider necessary or expedient in the national interest."

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "or rights of way."—[Sir G. Cave.]

Mr. RAWLINSON

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), after the word "rent" ["shall pay such rent"], to insert the words "and compensation for loss and damage if any suffered."

I submit that what I suggest is only fair. It is only right that the Commission appointed by the Government to deal with this matter should have the power not only to do as already suggested, but to give compensation for such damage as is incurred by the person who belongs to the particular place. I brought this matter up on the Committee stage. I submit it is only an act of justice that my words should be put in. Any business man knows many cases where the mere rent is not sufficient compensation for the injuries done.

Mr. BOYTON

I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir G. CAVE

I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend's speech, and I have anticipated his desire. If he will look at the next Amendment on the Paper he will see that I have put in words to provide for such cases as those to which he refers.

Mr. RAWLINSON

I only put down my Amendment this morning, and I have not seen the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Sir F. BANBURY

This is a very important question. A case was brought to my notice only a very short time ago where the War Office had taken possession of certain land for a short period. A portion of the land was heather, and on another portion the owner grazed sheep. The payment of rent only would not recompense the owner for the loss sustained. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say as to whether or not the words proposed by the Solicitor-General are adequate, but the matter is a very important one, and it is therefore necessary to be quite sure what we are doing. Does my hon. and learned Friend think the proposed Amendment of the Solicitor-General covers his case?

Mr. RAWLINSON

I am very much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I think his Amendment, on the whole, meets the case, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir G. CAVE

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "as may be agreed between the Department and the persons interested in the land, or," and to insert instead thereof the words "as to compensation or otherwise (including compensation for any depreciation attributable to works and buildings not removed)."

Mr. J. M. HENDERSON

Suppose the Munitions Department have taken a certain hotel, will the compensation include such damage to that hotel as the loss of goodwill? It may be that in the War year that possession is taken there is no profit, but that may not mean that the institution has been an unprofitable one or that the people who had put their money into it are entitled to have their property taken violently away? There should, I think, be some compensation in respect of the earning power of the hotel if it is affected adversely. I want to know whether that sort of compensation will be included?

Sir G. CAVE

We are providing for rent and compensation. If my hon. Friend can suggest any other words that would seem to meet the case better I will consider them, but rent and compensation ought to cover everything.

Amendment agreed to.