CLAUSE 6.—(Compensation where works are executed.) (Hansard, 24 April 1939)

§ Sir J. Anderson
I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out the second "the," and to insert "compensation for any."
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The words we desire to insert are simply to bring the Clause into line with Clause 15, where, in line 12 on page 13, the word "compensation" is used; and also—and this is even more important—to make it quite clear that the machinery of Clause 57, which deals expressly with compensation, is brought into operation. It was thought, on further examination, that a Clause drafted, as this Clause is, with a reference to damage and not to compensation for damage, might be misconstrued.

§ Mr. Fleming
I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, after "land," to insert "or otherwise."
The basis of computation of compensation in Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 includes only damage sustained by reason of any interference with the use of the premises, building or land during the execution of the work; but there are many other grounds on which the occupier of premises, buildings or lands shall be entitled to recover compensation besides that of simple interference. Damage, for example, may be done, while the work is being carried on, to plant or even to the fabric of the building. All these things should be taken into consideration when the question of compensation is being considered.

§ Mr. De Chair
I would like to put a question to the Lord Privy Seal about the word "preceding" in the Clause. As I understand, the question of compensation here relates only to the preceding Clauses of the Bill, and, under Part IV of the Bill, to Clause 21.

§ The Chairman
I think that might arise on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but not on this Amendment.

§ Mr. De Chair
The only provision in this Bill for compensation arises here in respect of compensation under the provisions of the Act preceding this Clause.

§ The Chairman
Perhaps: but it does not quite arise on the specific Amendment which is before us now.

§ Sir R. Tasker
The insertion of the words "or otherwise" will not entitle persons to compensation for any damage which is done. I am thinking of my own property. My basement is going to be used by anyone in an emergency. If people emerge through the window and damage is done, there is no compensation for the loss of drawings, contracts and so on. This Clause applies only to buildings or land, not the contents of buildings.

Mr. David Adams
If these two words are added, will it not entirely change the character of this Clause? We shall be introducing something which will enable claims to be made on the ground of loss of property, inability to conduct business, and a thousand and one things which clever lawyers will bring forward for compensation purposes. Is the matter not very fully covered by the provision that a person shall be compensated for any damage sustained by reason of any interference with his use of the premises, building of land. …"?

§ Mr. Ede
I want to ask a question on the point made by the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker). As I read this Clause, it provides for compensation only for damage caused during the execution of the works. It will have nothing to do with damage caused to the premises after a state of emergency has been declared and when persons other than the usual 887 users of the premises will have the right of access to the premises. I hope it will be made quite clear that this Sub-section is entirely confined to the time during which the works are being executed and has no relation at all to any rights which may arise or any claim which may be made on the owner under any Defence of the Realm Act.

§ Sir J. Anderson
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is quite right. This Sub-section deals only with what happens in the execution of works on designated premises. It has nothing to do with what might happen in an emergency. That will have to be provided for elsewhere. In regard to the Amendment, the position is this: Clause 4 gives certain powers to the local authority in regard to the execution of works in designated premises. It does not give power to go beyond what is specified in that Clause. That is the significance of the word "preceding" in Clause 6, Subsection (1). In the view of the Government, the provision with regard to compensation is rightly limited to damage sustained by reason of the doing of that which this Bill will authorise local authorities to do. It provides for the payment of compensation for damage sustained by reason of any interference with his use of the premises, building or land during the execution of the works. In the opinion of the Government, as they are advised, these words are sufficiently wide to cover any ground of compensation under the Clause.

§ Mr. Fleming
In view of the expression of opinion of my right hon. Friend and his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir J. Anderson
I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, after "shall," to insert," by way of compensation."

§ Mr. Fleming
I beg to move, in page 5, line 27, at the end, to insert: Provided always that if the occupier can prove that the premises, building or land, had a value to him in excess of the annual value, having regard either to the nature of 888 his business or to any other specific circumstances, such sums shall be calculated with reference to the diminution of the special value to the occupier and not merely to the diminution of the annual value. The compensation payable, according to Sub-section (2), is based on the annual value. The annual value, according to Clause 73, has the usual meaning: in relation to any premises, the rent at which it is estimated that the premises might reasonably be expected to let from year to year if the tenant undertook to pay the usual tenant's rates and taxes and "… There are special circumstances in which many buildings, particularly commercial buildings, have a special value for the owners, and that special value would be negligible if the building were put in the market. We have, unfortunately, many examples in Lancashire. Take the case of a cotton mill, specially equipped for weaving. If that is put into the open market, its value is almost negligible. All that I am asking is that, under this scheme of Civil Defence, instead of the annual value what should be taken into consideration is the special value to the occupier or owners as the case may be.

§ Sir J. Anderson
I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. The ground of the Amendment, as suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, is, if I understood him aright, that annual value may not in some cases be an adequate criterion for the purpose of assessing compensation in all cases. I am prepared to admit that there might be circumstances in which that argument would be entitled to some weight, but what are we to substitute for annual value? We ought to have a definite criterion capable of being interpreted by the courts, and "special value" seems to the Government to be a very vague term indeed. Our view is that, having regard to the necessity for expedition in handling these Civil Defence problems, to introduce words which would open the door to a great variety of rather vague claims—and who would not be in a position to claim with some show of reason, if these words were inserted, that his premises had a special value—would really run counter to the general purpose of this Clause. Therefore, as I have said, I cannot accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Before the Amendment is withdrawn, as I anticipate it will 889 be, I wish to dot the i's and cross the t's of what the Lord Privy Seal has said. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has his name down to this Amendment, and he is consequently asking for a reduction of local rates to local authorities. Here is an Amendment which is deliberately designed and calls upon local authorities to pay more compensation than otherwise would be the case. Surely it is rather a brazen doctrine when a man is paying rates—there may be exceptional cases—on a rateable or annual value, which, presumably, he has had a part in fixing or acquiescing in.

§ Mr. Fleming
Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that such a man is on the assessment committee?

§ Mr. H. Morrison
No, any occupier, if he objects to a proposed assessment, can appeal against it and if he does not, he acquiesces in it, and the interest of the occupier, as a ratepayer, is to keep the annual value as low as he can This Amendment says, "By all means let him have his annual value on which he pays rates as low as possible, but if there is any compensation to be paid to unfortunate ratepayers, then let the value of the property be as high as possible." It is all in accordance with the views of the traditional kind of people like the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), that this Amendment should be made. It says, "When there is anything to be paid out to the local authorities, then let as little as possible be paid from any capitalist source, and let us, therefore, oppose any rating system to that end," but if there is anything to be got out of the local authority by private persons there are always Members on the Tory side of this House who are anxious to get as big a draw as they can from the pockets of the ratepayers of this country.

§ Mr. Fleming
In view of the remarks of my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ The Chairman
Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members
No!

§ The Chairman
I do not propose to select the Amendment—in page 5, line 32, after "occupier," insert" or where there 890 is no occupier, the owner"—and I call the next Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage).

§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
I beg to move, in page 5, line 34, after "restore," to insert, "as far as practicable."

§ The Chairman
It was only in deference to the fact that I did not understand quite what was in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in that I agreed to call this Amendment in order to enable him to explain the meaning or effect of the Amendment.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Heneage
I shall be very glad to do my best to explain the Amendment. If the Amendment were to be accepted it would mean that a local authority would not have to put the house and the land adjoining it, if certain works were carried out, into exactly the same condition as before, but would only have to do as much as was practicable. It is extraordinarily difficult and extremely expensive to replace buildings and put land into exactly the same condition as before, and especially is it so with regard to land. I have been asked by the Urban District Council Association to move this Amendment, as they consider it to be extraordinarily important. If these words are not inserted, it will possibly involve them in considerable and unnecessary expense. I hope that with this explanation I may be able to develop my argument.
I will give an illustration to the Lord Privy Seal of what happened during the last War in regard to land and buildings near Salisbury Plain which the Government took over, and which, by the terms of their lease, they had to put back in exactly the same state in which they found them, because of the absence of the words "as far as practicable" The land was cut up by tanks, buildings were in some cases partly demolished, the ground was disturbed by shells, and in order to hand over the land as agricultural land is cost something like £60,000, which was far more than the land itself was worth. Local authorities, having these previous difficulties in view, consider that these words should be inserted in order to cover that eventuality. The owners would be sufficiently covered if the land and buildings were put into their original state" as 891 far as practicable." It could not be insisted that every detail should be left exactly as it was before. With the acceptance of this reasonable Amendment, the matter would not prove costly to local authorities, and on the whole it would be satisfactory to owners of property.

§ Mr. T. Williams
The right hon. Gentleman will know that not only the municipal corporations, but the Urban District Councils Association are also in support of the Amendment. I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not accept the Amendment, which is very reasonable, and I hope, without wasting time on it, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is going to accept it.

§ Sir J. Anderson
The last thing that I want to do is to waste the time of the Committee, but I want to exercise reasonable caution. The purpose of this part of the Bill, dealing with the withdrawal of designation, is to give an option to the local authority either to restore the premises or, if they do not restore the premises, to leave them as they are, and pay compensation. If that option is to be presented to the local authority, it seems to me that in fairness to the owner it should be a clear alternative, either to restore, or leave things as they are and pay compensation. The effect of qualifying the words in the first part of the option that concerns restoration by adding the words "as far as practicable" might be—;I do not say the cases will be frequent, but they may arise—;that the local authority, finding it impracticable to restore the premises to anything like their original condition, would do some work on them and then say; "We have carried out the requirements of the Act; we have repaired the premises as far as practicable, and now it is finished and you have no claim for compensation." That would not be altogether fair. If we leave the Clause as it stands the local authority will be in a position to make up their minds whether substantial restoration is practicable, and no doubt in the vast majority of cases they will be able to come to some arrangement with the owner; but it seems to me that to insert the words of the Amendment would expose us to the criticism I have indicated.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
I see the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman has put. On the other hand, he has not entirely met the difficulty raised by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment, nor the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). There may be an unreasonable local authority, and there are certainly unreasonable owners; they abound in great numbers. Suppose it is the case that a local authority can substantially restore the premises to their former use, that is to say, they can make such changes that the premises, although not quite the same as they were and, therefore, not fully restored, can nevertheless be effectively used for the purpose for which they were originally used or, at any rate, the user will not be much changed. Nevertheless, under this Clause the owner could say: "I do not agree with you, and, therefore, I require you to pay compensation" It may be in that case the unreasonable owner could mulct the local authority in substantial damages, which could have been avoided. On balance, although I see the point of the Lord Privy Seal, I think the Amendment is not unreasonable. I do not think there ought to be the onus on the local authority either completely to restore the premises to the state in which they were or, on the other hand, to pay compensation, because the words of the Sub-section are rather tight. The owner may require the local authority to restore the premises, building or land to the condition in which they would be but for the execution of the works. There would be very few cases in which there could be restoration to "the condition in which they would be but for the execution of the works." It might be that there would be practically none. Although the local authority could restore the premises for all practical purposes for the use for which they were required, and in regard to which there could be no reasonable complaint, an obdurate owner might force the local authority to pay compensation, and this might lead to considerable litigation and cost to the ratepayers. I hope, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member will press the Amendment, in the absence of the Lord Privy Seal being able to accept it.

§ Mr. Foot
I agree with the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). It seems to me that the local authority might be put in a position of extraordinary difficulty. Suppose in the first place they were required to adopt the first alternative and to restore the premises. As the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) pointed out, it might be in some cases almost impossible to restore them to the exact state in which they were before any of the works were carried out. Suppose the local authority carried out the restoration sufficient to satisfy any reasonable person but the owner, being an unreasonable person, says: "I am not satisfied; you have not restored the premises to the exact state in which they were before." He might then say: "I claim some form of compensation." The local authority might be put in the position of paying twice over. It would have done the work, for all practical purposes, of restoring the premises to the condition in which they were, and yet there might be some claim outstanding against it, but if the words of the Amendment, "as far as practicable," were put in, the case would be met. I think I am right in saying that the local authority would not itself be the last resort in deciding as to practicability, or being the judge in its own case. Therefore, there could not be any real hardship on the owner if the Amendment were accepted. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will reconsider the point.

§ Mr. McEntee
May I draw attention to the words of the Clause: The occupier of the premises, building or land in or on which the work was executed may at any time require the local authority to restore the premises," etc. The local authority may execute work of restoration and, having executed it, may imagine that the thing is settled, and everybody else may consider it settled; but the words "at any time" appear to me to enable the owner of the premises, 12 months or two years later, or at any time, to say: "I am not satisfied with the way in which the work has been done, and therefore I call upon you to restore the premises or the land to the condition in which they would have been had it not been for the fact that you entered and carried out certain works."
894 I can imagine the case of a market gardener who had a number of greenhouses with tomatoes growing in them, half-grown, when the premises were taken over. The premises are later handed back to him but, according to this Clause, the owner of the premises would been titled to say: "Had you not entered upon my premises those tomatoes would have been fully grown, and therefore I shall make a claim on you" He might make a claim for the price that he would have got in the market for the tomatoes if they had become fully grown. There are so many other cases that one can imagine that it seems to me the Amendment is a perfectly reasonable one, and I was surprised the Lord Privy Seal was not willing to accept it. I hope he will reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment.

§ Sir J. Anderson
As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), I understand that he was not dealing with the point that arises here, but with the compensation for loss of user during the execution of the works. We are concerned here with what is to happen when the premises cease to be designated. The words, "may at any time," I should have thought, would operate to the advantage of the local authority, because as soon as the premises cease to be designated the periodical compensation ceases to be payable. If the owner of the premises is content to do without the periodical compensation and not to bother about the restoration of the premises, in that case the local authority is all the better off.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Does not that mean compensation?

§ Sir J. Anderson
Not necessarily. My point is that the Clause, as it is, does not put on the owner the obligation at once to make a demand on a local authority. It leaves the owner to decide whether or not to make any such demand. If he decides not to make it immediately it does not seem to me that the local authority is indemnified, and that we may leave the Clause as it stands. In regard to the main purpose of the matter, I quite see the force of the arguments which have been used, and while I still think that my argument is good, I should like, if possible, to meet the object of the 895 Amendment. I am prepared, if it is withdrawn, to make this offer: to consider between now and Report the introduction of words which will have this effect, that if a local authority restores the premises so far as it is practicable to restore them, and if then there is still some impairment of value, a claim will be considered for compensation for that impairment. If it is put in that form— it is a slight modification of the Amendment—I will certainly do my best to get a suitable form of words.

§ Mr. Ede
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether in assessing claims for compensation some account ought not to be taken of any improvements which might have been effected in the premises. It may be that there will be some disadvantages, but there may also be some advantages. As I read the Clause, the arbitrator or valuer can only take into account the disadvantages to the former owner or occupier, and when the right hon. Gentleman is doing the reasonable thing which he now proposes to do, I hope he will consider whether improvements which may have been effected in the premises, the strengthening of them which may be a lasting improvement, ought not also to be taken into account when assessing the compensation to be paid.

§ Sir J. Anderson
I will certainly consider that point.

§ Lieut-Colonel Heneage
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his offer and I hope he will consult with the Urban District Councils Association, on whose be-half the Amendment was moved, in order to find a suitable form of words which will be agreeable to all parties. In view of what he has said I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Sir George Broadbridge
I beg to move, in page 5, line 43, at the end, to add: (4)Where, by reason of the execution aforesaid of any works the value of any premises, building, or land is impaired, the local authority shall, in case of failure to restore as specified in Sub-section (3) of this 896 Section, pay to the owner of such premises, building, or land a sum equal to the said depreciation in value. There is no doubt that the intention of the Amendment could have been secured by inserting in Sub-section (3) the words "or owner" immediately after the word" occupier," but I think if it is moved in this way it makes the position a good deal clearer. The Amendment merely suggests that if the occupier of the premises is to be entitled to compensation from a local authority for any damage he has sustained by reason of any interference with his use of the premises, building or land, through the execution of the works, then the owner ought to be treated in the same way. After all, in most cases the damage will be of a more or less permanent character, and while the occupier of the premises will have received monetary compensation for any loss he has sustained, the owner will be left with damaged premises, and with nothing to make good his loss. It is, therefore, only equitable that both occupier and owner should be treated in the same manner.

§ Sir J. Anderson
I am afraid that I fail to follow the purpose of the Amendment. It seems to me that the Clause, as it appears in the Bill, is sufficient to cover every contingency. I do not see that there is any exception to the rule which I have indicated, either that the property shall be restored to the condition in which it was before the works were executed or that the compensation which is provided for in the Clause should be payable. I do not know whether the hon. Member has overlooked anything in the interpretation Clause in regard to the definition of occupier or what the explanation is; but it seems to me that the whole matter is fully covered as the Clause stands. I thought that the purpose of the Amendment was to alter the general effect of the Clause by giving an option, whether the premises were to be restored or whether compensation was to be paid to the occupier and not to the local authority. I am inclined to think that it would have that effect, because it says that if the premises are not restored compensation shall be paid equal to the depreciation in value. If that were the effect of the Amendment, I should have to resist it, but on the explanation of the hon. Member I do not think the Amendment is necessary.

§ Mr. Foot
May I put a further question to the Lord Privy Seal? I do not support the Amendment because if it were passed a local authority might be liable twice over—to the occupier and to the owner. But I think we might have some explanation of the position of the owner. Under the interpretation Clause "occupier" does not include "owner"; there are two separate definitions. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out on the last Amendment, the occupier is not bound to exercise his rights under this Clause. In cases where the occupier and the owner are two different people, if the occupier does not exercise his rights and if the property does suffer some depreciation, which is not compensated for by the local authority concerned, what is to be the position of the owner? Is there anything in the Bill which enables him to compel the occupier to exercise his rights under this Clause? In what way is the owner covered?

§ Sir J. Anderson
The point which the hon. Member has raised is a new one, but I suppose the answer is that the matter is covered by the words which were criticised a little time ago—"at any time" As long as the occupier is in possession, it is for him to judge whether ho will make a demand for the restoration of the premises, but presumably if the then occupier ceases to be in possession, anyone who is in the position of occupier may make a demand. The effect of the Clause is that it is left to the occupier to decide whether or not he will call upon the local authority to restore the premises. If he does so, the local authority may either restore them or decide to pay compensation. If it decides to pay compensation, the compensation has to be paid to every person having any estate or interest in the premises. That seems to me to be an equitable arrangement. In the light of the discussion that has taken place, it seems to me that the Clause is a carefully balanced one which we should do well to leave alone, but I will have the record of this discussion carefully examined, and if there should be any point on which, in the light of the advice available to me, it appears that something should be done, I will raise the matter again.

Mr. Foots
May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? The owner might not become the occupier—that is to say, he might not come into possession—until a very long time afterwards. Surely, it might put a local authority in considerable difficulty if, many years afterwards, it was suddenly required to restore premises to the position in which they had originally been. It seems to me that the position of the owner vis-à-viz the local authority has not been fully considered in this Clause. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.

§ Mr. Craven-Ellis
My right hon. Friend has referred to the owner and the occupier receiving compensation. As the Clause is worded, I am afraid it will not work out exactly in that way. It is quite possible that the occupier may receive compensation, and he may leave the premises, but his interest is entirely different from the interest of the owner. The occupier's interest is only a temporary one, but the owner's interest is a permanent one, and there may be permanent damage done to the property for which the Clause does not provide compensation.

§ Sir J. Anderson
I suggest that the Clause does provide compensation. It provides that when the occupier demands the restoration of the premises, compensation has to be paid not merely to the occupier, but to every person having any estate or interest in the premises, so that the interests of the owner are there safeguarded.

§ Mr. Ede
I want to carry a little further the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), and my remarks also touch the point that was made just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal. The occupier is the person who sets in motion the machinery of this Sub-section. If he does not do so, the local authority is not called upon to restore the property or to pay compensation to anybody under this Sub-section. There may be between the actual owner and the occupier any number of people who have interests in the premises. There may be someone who has a mortgage on the premises; there may be various persons who have taken leases one from the other—all of them coming between the owner and the occupier. Unless the Clause is amended in some way, it will 899 place the occupier in the position that at some point, when it may be necessary for him to bargain with one or all of these people, he will be able to say that, unless they allow him to have his way, he will not serve the necessary notice, and none of them will be able to get anything, whereas if they will carry out what he wants—which may be quite improper and unjust as between man and man—he will set the machinery in motion and all of them can get as much as they can out of the local authority. That is a position in which no man ought to be placed. Generally speaking, I am in favour of the tenant as against the landlord, but there are occasions when this Clause might put the tenant in such a position as would revolt against natural justice.
Although I do not think that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir G. Broadbridge) is one that the right hon. Gentleman can accept, I suggest that the Sub-section needs to be reviewed. There were times when the City of London was the foremost defender of the liberties of the people of this country, but I am afraid that they have somewhat deteriorated in recent years, and we are bound now to view anything that comes from them with a feeling that they sheltered the five Members a very great many years ago. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider some Amendment of this Clause which will enable some people besides the occupier to set this machinery in motion. Further, I suggest that it is essential that there should be some time limit within which the notice can be given after the premises have ceased to be designated. I am afraid that in the case of the majority of premises, the first time at which notice can be given is somewhat remote. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman still holds the view, circulated to the Press only three or four weeks ago, that we are on the eve of a disarmament conference; personally, I am afraid we are some distance from that. However, it is clear that as the Clause is worded, a hundred years after the premises ceased to be designated it would be possible for the person who was the occupier to serve notice on the local authority. I hope that something will be done to make quite clear what limits are meant by the words "at any time."

§ Mr. Craven-Ellis
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) very rightly said that the tenant's interests must be looked after, but the owner's interest cannot be looked after until the occupier has made a request to the local authority to restore the premises. If he does not make such a request the owner has no rights.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward
Is not the entire question one of the tenure on which the property is held? It seems to me that in the majority of cases, property of this kind would be held on a long lease, and in those circumstances the occupier would be bound by the terms of the lease to place the property, on relinquishing the lease, in a similar condition to that in which it was when he took it over. Let us consider a case where the property might have been very considerably altered on the orders of or by the local authority, for the purpose of converting the building into premises suitable for an air-raid shelter. Well, when the period of emergency no longer existed the occupier would have the option of having the premises restored to the condition they were in originally, or else he would be compensated. Now, if the property were restored to the condition it was in when he took the lease, the owner or the landlord would have no compensation whatever. If it were not restored and the occupier accepted compensation at the end of the lease, he would be bound to restore the property and hand it over to the owner in its original condition. There may possibly be cases, such as a very short lease, or the case of property held under the terms of an agreement, which would have to be considered, but in the majority of cases the interests both of the occupier and of the landlord are fully covered under the terms of this Clause.

§ Mr. McEntee
It may happen that when the premises are given up it will suit the occupier to have them in the condition in which they then are, and he may continue to occupy them in that condition for that reason. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has referred to the fact that if a lease exists, the owner at the end of the period of the lease will have the opportunity of compelling a tenant to restore the premises. But all premises are not 901 occupied on lease. Many occupiers are year-to-year tenants, but, although the tenancy is from year to year, it may go on for a great number of years. In circumstances like that, whereas it may suit the occupier to retain the premises in their then condition, when he gives up the premises it may easily be found that for the purposes of the owner the premises are very much deteriorated in value, and that he in fact wants them to be restored to their original condition. Surely the owner in such circumstances would have a grievance. I am not as a rule very much concerned by the lot of owners as against tenants, I think that, generally speaking, they have all the best of it, but there are undoubtedly cases in which an owner may be very hard hit in circumstances such as I have explained.

§ Sir R. Tasker
We are talking on the assumption that the lease is a lease between owner and tenant, but there are many variants of that position. It is no uncommon thing in the West Country to find leases for two or three lives, or property let on a fee farm rent. In the former case the occupier might be the first life, and the period when the property reverts to the owner might be remote.

§ Mr. R. Morgan
The compensation which is paid will be paid to the occupier. The doubt is as to whether the owner can recover. Perhaps a local authority would give compensation to an occupier without taking into consideration the owner's interest, and it seems to me that the local authority, before granting any compensation to an occupier, would have to examine the position in which the occupier found himself in relation to the owner. There, I think, the whole difficulty could be met. I do not know whether I am right in that assumption

§ Mr. Poole
If I were affected by this Bill I should not be too happy about this Clause. There does seem to me to be a fundamental point here as affecting local authorities. It is extremely desirable that any claim that falls due for failure to restore buildings to their previous state should be disposed of at the earliest possible moment. But, as the Clause is drafted, this position may arise: An occupier may perhaps be satisfied with the extent of restoration of the building, or may not require any restoration of the 902 building because it may suit his own particular needs during the period of his tenancy. He may make no application to a local authority for money to be expended in restoration, but perhaps at the expiry of his tenancy 30, 40 or 50 years later, the local authority may be called upon to restore the property in accordance with this Clause, and the local authority is then faced, perhaps not only with the amount of the damage which it may have done to the property, but with the damage that will naturally have been caused by the lapse of time.
No local authority will know quite where it stands, or what is going to be the extent of its liabilities, or when it will see the end of all the claims which may fall upon it. The local authorities will have to be prepared all the time to budget for an expenditure on restoration of buildings which fall out of the hands of occupiers into the hands of owners, and to meet perhaps a secondary claim on the part of the owners for restoration, or perhaps the initial claim because the occupier has not thought it necessary to make any claim. It is desirable that some words should be put into the Clause to provide that claims be made as soon as the building is released from designation—a claim either from the occupier or the owner—in order that all these claims should be disposed of at the earliest possible moment.

§ The Chairman
I do not wish to check this Debate, but I think it is clear that hon. Members are getting rather outside the scope of this particular Amendment. If I allow this discussion to go on in the same way, I hope it will be on the understanding that this matter will not be further discussed on the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
Perhaps it might be for the general convenience of the Committee if we discussed Sub-section (3) in relation to this Amendment. But I have no feeling in the matter if it would be more acceptable to the Chair that we should discuss the question on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

§ The Chairman
I am wondering whether we could not just get rid of the Amendment. If we disposed of that, it is obvious that there would be a little more to be said on the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

§ Sir G. Broadbridge
Having listened to the explanation given in a most fair manner by the Lord Privy Seal, I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. H. Morrison
There are a number of points in relation to Sub-section (3) which, I think, the Lord Privy Seal ought to consider with great care before we get to the Report stage, and on which I am afraid he has not yet satisfied the Committee. There is this most important point which was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) and subsequently followed up in relation to Sub-section (3), whereby it is provided that the occupier of the premises, building or land in or on which the works were executed may at any time require the local authority to restore the premises to the condition in which they would be but for the execution of the works. This is an extraordinary provivision, and I feel that in the drafting of this Sub-section considerable carelessness was shown, or the Ministers concerned did not give proper direction as to what they wanted.
Under this provision it may be that a local authority will designate premises and that structural alterations will be made. A time comes when the local authority withdraws the designation. The premises cease to be designated premises. The owner makes no claim. Five years or 10 years may pass without a claim. In-deed, even 100 years or 200 years, as far as I can see, may pass, and there may be half-a-dozen occupiers in succession and any of those occupiers at any time may, if he wishes, make a claim against the local authority that the premises should be restored to the state in which they were when designation took place. I am not a lawyer, but that seems to be legally possible under this provision, and I submit that it is utterly preposterous. It means that at any time any occupier, even though he were not the occupier when the designation or the withdrawal of the designation took place, may descend upon the local authority and say, "I want you to restore these premises to the condition 904 in which they were before you altered them." It may be physically impracticable to do so; the state of the building may render it impossible. Nevertheless the occupier, however late his claim, seems to have a legal right. That is one point which requires the serious consideration of the Lord Privy Seal.
Then, later in the Clause it is provided that if local authorities do not, within a reasonable time, comply with this requirement they shall pay compensation to a series of people. As far as I can see, there is no definition of "a reasonable time." Does it mean the time within which, if the resources and the workmen were available, the work could have been done? Suppose that a local authority had so many other things to do that it could not undertake this particular work. Suppose it had to do work for owners of factories and commercial buildings and mines—all that which the Lord Privy Seal earlier in the evening was light-heartedly proposing to place upon them. It might not be possible to undertake the work which an occupier required to be done. Nevertheless it might be said that they could have done it within what the court held to be a reasonable time, if they had set all the other work aside, and in that case they might be mulcted in damages. What is regarded as "a reasonable time" may depend on the circumstances of the case; it may depend largely on the frame of mind of the judge who hears the case. This is a loose phrase which almost invites litigation and will mean considerable trouble for both occupiers and local authorities. Finally, there is the provision that where there is more than one interest in the property the local authority shall pay to every person having any estate or interest in the premises, building or land in or on which the works were executed, a sum equal to the depreciation in the value of the estate or interest of that person owing to the execution therein of the works. First, the local authority must come to a conclusion as to what compensation is payable to meet the damage to the property as a whole. That, in itself, in some cases, will be a task of considerable difficulty. Then it has to decide what proportion of that sum is properly payable in respect of each interest in the premises, according to the extent of damage to each interest. It may not be a mere question of proportions and fractions but a question of deciding that one kind of 905 interest has not been damaged at all and that another interest has been damaged to a greater or lesser degree. There may be half a dozen degrees of interest or absence of interest. The question may be subject to the most difficult considerations. It will be possible for the parties to get round a table and to say to each other, "We had better do a deal." No doubt that will often happen, but if certain owners care to prove awkward, there may be a lot of litigation which will cost more money than the damage to the premises. In the circumstances I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should examine this Sub-section as a whole, and see whether it cannot be tidied up and made workable, not in the courts but administratively by the local authorities. It is better that these things should be settled as matters of administration than as subjects of legal argument. Those are points for consideration and I suggest that up to now sufficient attention has not been given to making this a workable provision.

§ Mr. Pethick-Lawrence
With regard to the various persons who have interests in a property, surely it ought not to be the business of the local authority to find out the share to which each of them is entitled. A composite claim ought to be presented to the local authority and if the local authority are liable—as I understand they are under the Clause as drafted—to pay any sum in respect of depreciation it ought not to rest with them to divide up the money in the right way. They have not got the terms and conditions of the various lettings and sub-lettings which would enable them to make such a division.

§ Mr. Foot
It seems that local authorities will be put in an exceedingly difficult position if they have to assess the various interests and decide how much each is to receive. I suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that the Clause should be drafted in this way. In the first place, the right of asking for compensation should rest with the occupier. If the occupier exercises his right and any proceedings are taken in order to assess the value of the compensation, the other persons interested should be entitled to join with the occupier in those proceedings and have their shares assessed by whatever 906 tribunal decides the matter. If the occupier does not choose to exercise his right, then the other persons—owners, reversioners or mortgagees—should be entitled to step in. In any case I suggest that the local authority should be liable only to make one payment of one lump sum, leaving it to whatever tribunal deals with the matter to allot the respective shares of the various parties concerned. I do not always agree with certain hon. Members above the Gangway on periods of limitation, and it may be that in a few days we shall be discussing that subject on the Limitations Bill. But I am sure it will be agreed that in all these matters there should be some finality, some period of time at the end of which the local authority could say that it had discharged all its obligations and could not be faced with further litigation. Whether it is a period of six years or one of 10 years, there should be a definite period. There is no reason why there should not be a definite period if we give this right of action to all the parties interested, at once, instead of leaving it merely in the hands of the occupier for the time being.

§ Mr. Bellenger
There is one statement of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) with which I disagree, namely, that the initiative should be left to the occupier. In the good old Victorian days when we had leases of seven years, 14 years, 21 years, and even longer, it might safely have been left to the occupier to start proceedings, but in these days when leases are becoming shorter and tenancies are becoming shorter, it should not be left to the occupier to start proceedings, if proceedings are to be started. I suggest that the initiative should come from the owner, for this reason, that particularly in London, where a leasehold system predominates to a large extent, the leaseholder is under an onerous burden to the freeholder at the expiration of his lease, and, therefore, an occupier for a short tenancy of three or five years may think that it does not matter to him, as he has only a few months to go to the end of his tenancy. He might not be a man of substance, and he might think, "What does it matter to me whether these premises are put into their original state or not?" I suggest, however, that it does matter very substantially to the owner of the property, particularly if he is a leaseholder holding on strict repairing 907 covenants to his freeholder. Therefore, I think that his interest is even greater than that of the occupier. Although I agree in the main with the speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, I do not agree with him that the initiative should come from the occupier, and I suggest that it should come from the owner.

§ Mr. McEntee
I hope the Lord Privy Seal will give us a promise that this Clause will be reviewed. There are three things that occur to me to be necessary. One is that some time limit must be placed in the Clause, because it is ridiculous that there should be no such limit. Secondly, I think the occupier ought to be in some way defined. I think it ought to be the occupier at the time when the premises are designated or someone who is occupying the premises within some specified term, otherwise, as has been said by my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, it may go for 100 years. The other thing that strikes me in connection with the Clause as needing some revision is the question of the dividing-up of the compensation. There ought to be some provision, either for an arbitrator, in the event of a dispute between the local authority and the occupier, the owner, and the remainder of those who have an interest, or there ought to be somebody specially appointed to assess the claims of each of them and apportion whatever damage may be found to be necessary in consultation between the different interests who have a claim. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal might be able to put down Amendments to meet the case.

§ Sir J. Anderson
There is one general reflection which the discussion on this Clause suggests to my mind, and that is that the complications of modern life are very great, and it is extremely difficult to meet, in a Clause of this kind, every contingency that may arise. I have already indicated that I shall be prepared to have the discussions that have taken place looked at carefully, with a view to seeing, between now and the Report stage, what Amendment, if any, is required to make this Clause more workable and more equitable in its operation. There is, however, one point raised by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh 908 (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), and referred to by the hon. Member for West Waltham-stow (Mr. McEntee), which I think I can dispose of at once. Clause 59 provides for the determination of the sort of question which may arise in regard to compensation under Clause 6(3) by an official arbitrator, and Sub-section (3) of Clause 59 provides a machinery by which the claims of the various people having interests in any premises affected may be dealt with. That matter, I think, is fully covered by the provisions of Clause 59. There is, however, quite a number of points that have been raised in the discussion, and I think the only possible course is to look at the matter again, as I shall be perfectly prepared to do, between now and Report.