CLAUSE 1.—(Tenant's right to compensa- tion for improvements.) (Hansard, 21 December 1927)

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

§ Mr. HARDIE
May I ask for some explanation of this change? I understand that if the word "served" be used, it means that the notice must be served on the person concerned. In that case, what is going to happen in the case of absentees? That is a point which ought to be made quite clear. In the other case proof that the notice had been sent to the person concerned or received by him would qualify the notice, but it would appear, under this alteration, that the notice would not be properly qualified unless served on the person concerned.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
It can be served in various ways. "Served" is a term of art and means that the notice has been served in such a manner as will reasonably satisfy the requirements of the law. The word "sent" has no technical meaning at all. The notice might be sent by anybody and it would be almost impossible to prove that the person had received the notice.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

§ Mr. HARDIE
This seems to be something more than a drafting Amendment.. The Bill at present provides that the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding which may be determined to be the direct result of the improvement. This Amendment will leave out the words "the capitalised value of" and then we shall have the words "the net addition to the letting value of the holding." What are we to understand by that? Is it the value for a month or a year or 10 years? What is the basis of valuation. How is the net addition to the letting value to be determined?

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I know these points are very difficult but if the hon. Member looks at the next Amendment which is to leave out the word "letting" he will see that it makes the 446 provision read "shall not exceed the addition to the value of the holding." That is the actual capital value. That will not involve finding out first what is the net letting value and then capitalising it. We have tried to make the Bill as simple as possible and we say here that the compensation is not to exceed any addition to the value of the holding, whatever that may be.

§ Mr. HARDIE
That is leaving a great gap and leaving a great deal to the discretion of the tribunal.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I do not think so.

§ Mr. DALTON
May we have an explanation of this Amendment?

§ Mr. CRAWFURD
I also would ask the House to pause at this Amendment. For the benefit of those hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, may I point out briefly what this Sub-section does? It provides in the present language on the Bill that: In determining the capitalised value of such net addition, regard shall be had to the purposes for which it is intended that the premises shall be used after the termination of the tenancy, and if it is shown that it is intended to demolish the buildings or to use the premises for a different purpose. The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "the buildings" and to insert instead the words "or make structural alterations in the premises or any part thereof." That seems to me to open the door to a use of this Sub-section which was not contemplated by the Committee or, I am sure, by the right hon. Gentleman himself. If the excuse that the landlord proposes to make some minute structural alteration to any part of the building, is to be taken as a reason why he should not give compensation then I think this is a fundamental alteration in the Bill.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
I seem to recollect that we had a discussion on this subject upstairs and it was then pointed out as the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) has just pointed out, that the words "or any part thereof," if taken in their ordinary natural meaning will extend or may extend to very small alterations. Surely the Government must take the view that even if the words "demolition of the buildings" are too wide, the words "make structural alteration in the premises or any part thereof" are too small. To take one instance, it might be held that they covered a small alteration in a bathroom or in a light party wall. Lest there be any doubt as to the amount of the part that is concerned, we are confronted with the word "any," which seems to cover any kind of alteration whatever. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself was persuaded upstairs that this kind of thing was rather dangerous. I believe he does not suggest that this is a drafting Amendment, and I hope the Government will see to it that we do not accept these words in this form, because they are far too wide and open to very serious objection.

Commander WILLIAMS
I feel in the same position as the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken. It rather seems to me as if you are going very much further and creating a loophole which will tend to make this Bill very much less efficient than when it left Committee. These words are very wide, and will enable a good many things to be done which I do not think will carry out the main purpose of the Bill, and I hope the Government will give us a clear assurance that the Amendment will not weaken the Bill in any substantial respect.

§ Mr. RYE
If the words "or any part thereof" are left out, it seems to me that there will have to be a structural alteration applying to the whole of the premises, which would obviously be wrong. If the landlord wanted to make a material structural alteration to a considerable part of the premises, he would be debarred by virtue of the suggested alteration as put forward by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd), on the ground that it should apply to the whole and not to a part. In my judgment, the Amendment of the other House is in order. I hope the Government will stand by it.

§ Mr. D. HERBERT
I think hon. Members who sat on the Committee which considered this Bill are suffering from too much acquaintance with the Bill in its original form, and are fearing something which it is quite unnecessary to fear, namely, that the tenant is going to be shut out in some way if these words are used. But that is not the case, because, if hon. Members will follow the Amendments proposed to the whole Clause, they will see that what is to happen is that regard is to be had to the effect of such demolition, alteration, or change of user. Therefore, if the alteration is very trifling or only to a very small part, its effect will be practically nil.

§ Sir H. SLESSER
Does the hon. Member not agree that if the tribunal fail to have regard to even a small alteration, on appeal the matter will be sent back to them, because they have not carried out their statutory obligations?

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) has made the speech which I was thirsting to make. The thing is perfectly clear. If hon. Members will look at the Amendment to this Clause, they will see that if it is intended to demolish or make a structural alteration to the premises or any part of them, that is, if it is proposed to alter, say, a tap in the bathroom, then, in ascertaining the value, the tribunal shall have regard to the effect of such alteration on the additional value attributable to the improvement. That is clear. It is not a Lords Amendment technically, but an Amendment made by ourselves in order to make it clear what the word "demolition" means. Various suggestions were made by some of my hon. Friends, one of which was that after the word "demolition" we should have the word "reconstruction," and then they tried "structural alteration." I think I have really got at the root of the thing now by giving the tribunal the right and the duty to take into consideration the value of any structural alteration, however small it may be, upon the value of the improvement.

§ Sir W. PERRING
I want to know whether this alteration is not a little more drastic than those which have just been passed. The effect of it will be that if there is an alteration, no compensation will be payable or a reduction of compensation will take place. Does it mean a slight alteration? I think it is a slightly different interpretation in this Sub-section from that given in the previous Sub-section.

§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS
I do not think so. In the Sub-section above, we have decided that the tribunal shall take into consideration any structural alteration and what the effect of it will be on the value of the improvement, which I think is right, and then we come to this Sub-section, and in order to make it agree with Amendments already passed, we make it a little shorter.