HC Deb 01 September 1939 vol 351 cc199-209

" To provide for compensation in respect of action taken on behalf of His Majesty in the exercise of certain emergency powers; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid," presented, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; supported by Captain Crookshank; and ordered to be printed. [Bill 232.]

10.19 p.m..

Sir J. Simon

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

This is a Bill of very great urgency. It deals with the subject of compensation for property taken for emergency purposes. The House will remember that, a few days ago, Defence Regulations were made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act which have been in force, I think, since last Friday, by which powers were conferred on the Government to take possession of land, to do essential work on land, to requisition or purchase ships as well as other goods compulsorily, and to take freight space or accommodation in ships and aircraft. These necessary powers are already being extensively used, but the Defence Regulations make no provision for assessing compensation in such cases. Indeed, apart from this Bill, there is no general code, as there ought to be, regulating the standard of payment or providing how the figures of compensation are to be arrived at. It will be seen, therefore, that this Bill is really an essential part of the scheme for re quisitioning in emergency. What the House will wish to be satisfied about—and I think I can do it very briefly—is to see that compensation is fair and to make effective provision to prevent an increase of compensation arising out of the cir cumstances in which we find ourselves— what may be called profiteering. It is not a Bill that has been hurriedly thrown together. It is the result of a long and very careful examination of the whole subject by a body that was created for the purpose and which included representatives of all the Departments that were likely to be concerned. I should, in one sentence, put the Bill in this way: It is a Bill which lays down the principles of compensation and secures that the claimants will not gain advantage from the emergency.

May I call attention to two or three Clauses? Clause 2 deals with compensation for taking possession of land, and it provides how the appropriate rent should be arrived at. If hon. Members will look at Sub-section (1, a), they will see that set out; but that Sub-section must be read with the proviso on page 3, and I call attention particularly to lines 14 to 16 on page 3. Shortly put, that provides that, in computing the amount of rent to be paid, no account shall be taken of any appreciation in value due to the emergency. On the other hand, if hon. Members look back to page 2, they will see that the rent is to be the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the land, during the period for which possession of the land is retained in the exercise of emergency powers. There will be cases, no doubt, in which the rental value will be considerably diminished by the circumstances of the case. It may be in a vulnerable area, and we ought not to pay, therefore, the normal rent, but we ought to pay no more than the sort of rent which in the circumstances would rule in the emergency. If, on the other hand, the difficult times through which we have to pass are calculated to make the commercial rent rise, then this Bill provides, as already pointed out, that no account shall be taken of any appreciation, any increase of value, due to the emergency; and that principle, which I am sure the House generally will think right, goes right through this Bill. In the same way, Clause 3 deals with compensation for work on land, for entering on a man's land and, for example, building trenches there, and Clause 4, a very important Clause, deals with compensation in respect of the acquisition of ships, vehicles, and aircraft. Already, as the House can imagine, a large number of merchant ships have had to be taken up. Clause 6 deals with compensation for other goods.

Therefore, as I think the House now appreciates, the object is to secure that compensation payable under the Bill, while it is a fair measure of the value, shall not be increased by the circumstances of the emergency through which we have to suffer. I have called attention already to the passage from page 3. There is another on page 7, lines 7 to 12, and another at the bottom of page 9. In each case there is to be no increase paid on that account. It is hardly necessary to say that if experience shows that this Bill requires amendment there will be an opportunity of considering it, but as things are the matter about which the Government are concerned is to get this power at once, because if we do not have it special bargains will have to be made which may be very much to the disadvantage of the public interest and they may be unfair in the circumstances.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith

This Bill is clearly necessary and urgent and we have no intention of delaying it. Its object is to give compensation for property taken over by the Government and it gives reasonable protection to the subject. We have looked carefully at the provisions for the tribunals and I think that they are well constituted. The only point of detail which has occurred to me is that unless a claim for compensation is put in within six months the claim lapses. I am not Sure that that might not occasionally work out unjustly. The theory is that everybody knows the law. I am not of the legal profession and I have sympathy with those who find themselves left out because they are not skilled in these matters. I should like some assurance that when these cases arise a notice will be served on the person involved pointing out his right to claim compensation within the period laid down.

10.27 P.m.

Mr. Foot

We, too, realise that this is a necessary and, I think, a very valuable Bill in the circumstances. There are two small points of detail to which I should like to draw attention. The first is in Clause 3, where there seems to me, on the face of it, a slight contradiction. Subsections (1) and (2) deal with the way in which compensation is to be assessed, and it appears that the criterion by which the compensation is to be arrived at is the diminution of the annual value of the land. Sub-section (7) says: For the purposes of this section no account shall be taken of any diminution or depreciation in value ascribable only to loss of pleasure or amenity. I should have thought it was easy to visualise circumstances in which certain works would be done near a house or somebody's land which would result in a great loss of pleasure and amenity and would, therefore, result in considerable diminution in the annual value of the land. A part of the annual value consists in the amenity value. On the face of it there seems to be a slight contradiction between those Sub-sections.

I intended to refer to the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who drew attention to the question of time within which claims should be made. This is a matter of some importance because we may easily have people who are serving beyond the seas and who will not appreciate in time what their rights are. It is true that under Clause 7 power is given to the Treasury to extend the period of six months, either generally or for a category of cases, or in any particular case, but it seems to me that that power should not rest with the Treasury alone, because the Treasury is, in a sense, a party to the dispute. It is the Treasury that ultimately has to find the money in order to meet the claim. I have already put forward a suggestion to the Financial Secretary—I do not know whether he can accept it—that there should be a further provision inserted in this Clause by which the tribunal itself should also have power to extend the time. That is a very normal provision, which occurs in one or two of the Bills we have dealt with to-day. The suggestion I make is that at the end of the Clause these words should be added: Provided that the appropriate tribunal may extend any period mentioned in this Section on such terms as it thinks fit on the application of any person affected by the extension. Under that, apart from the Treasury having power to extend the period any person who could give reasons for not having brought his claim within six months would be able to make application to the tribunal itself. The tribunal would be impartial between him and the Treasury. There would be no question of the person deciding the issue having some interest in it. That appears to be a very valuable and necessary protection. Delay is not likely to arise in a great many cases, but there are some cases in which there will be delay through persons not realising their rights and bringing their claims within six months. That is shown by the form in which the Clause is drafted, which gives the Treasury the right to extend the time. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, even if he cannot accept this particular form of words will be able to see his way to make an Amendment along those lines.

10.33 P.m.

Mr. Silkin

There is one point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bill provides for a standard of compensation in respect of any land or other property which is acquired by His Majesty for public purposes. Under the Emergency Powers Act passed last week local authorities and other bodies are also given powers to requisition land and other property for public purposes. As I read the Bill, admittedly I had to read it hurriedly, it looks as if the standard of compensation laid down for property acquired by the Government is not the standard laid down for local authorities and other bodies and that they are left very much in the air. I should like the Chancellor to say whether this Bill does provide for the same standard of compensation, and if it does not whether he is going so to amend it as to provide the same standard of compensation in the two cases, because obviously the same reasons which necessitate a standard of compensation being settled for property acquired by the Government apply to other property requisitioned for public purposes.

10.34 P.m.

Lord Apsley

I should not have intervened, only it happened that there came to my notice quite fortuitously the other day two cases which, I think, deserve some attention. One was the case of a fanner whose land was being taken for a new aerodrome. I happened to be there by accident, and he did not know who I was, but he told me his story. He said the Air Ministry were taking 60 acres of his farm. It is a farm of about 300 acres, and he showed me the 60 acres, and it happened that they included the two essential paddocks of the whole farm. A farm is like a factory, a piece of delicate and well-balanced machinery, and if you take an important part away from it you may damage the whole working of the plant, and in fact make it impossible for the farmer to carry on. If you give him money, not as laid down in the Bill entirely on the actual value of the land required, though it seems rather vague whether the annual value is in any way held to be diminished or not by reason of the work which is being done on the land, the fact remains that the whole of that farm with an integral part of it removed may prove to have no value at all.

The farmer must move. He has to go, because he cannot work the land. With that essential 60 acres of good, home paddock, including his water supply, taken away, the farm is worth nothing. It appears to me that in assessing compensation you must take those facts into account and you must take into account the fact the effect upon the whole farm. You must either buy the whole farm or you must pay the farmer sufficient money adequately to compensate him. Otherwise I do not think the compensation will be of any use. You will simply have a number of acres made useless and a number of farmers put out of their occupation.

Another story he told me was about his next door neighbour, a certain farmer whom we may call Mr. Brown. The whole of that farm was made over to the Air Ministry, and the farmer was turned out lock, stock and barrel, in a great hurry. He has not had a penny of money paid to him. He was there, homeless. He has to find himself another home and he has to use his savings to pay interest on the loans which he borrowed from the bank at 5 per cent. before he gets a penny from the Government. I heard another story concerning a doctor who had land which was wanted for another aerodrome. He has been owed money for two years in respect of it. Surely these men ought to be paid for the land they have provided; otherwise it is the story of Naboth's vineyard all over again. This parable happened to come up for the first Lesson in church that very same Sunday, but it seems to be nothing like what the Air Ministry are doing at the present time. In the case of Naboth's vineyard there was an offer of a fair price for compensation, and it was only when that was refused that Ahab began finding accusations of blasphemy against King and Government on the part of the accused. If my right hon. Friend went round some of the public houses frequented by West Country farmers he would find quite a lot of blasphemy against the Defence Departments concerned relating to the actual amount paid in compensation for some of these farms. I am sure this delay is mainly due to clerical error and difficulty. In these times of emergency there may be good reason for delay, but I trust that the Government will give the matter some attention.

10.38 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson

I want to raise a rather different point. What is happening to the statement made by the Government that in all these matters there was to be conscription of wealth and that those who already owned property and so on would have to pay their due share? When I look at paragraph (c) of Clause 2 (1) I see that where land is agricultural land, a sum equal to the amount (if any) which might reasonably have been expected to be payable, and so on, to the end of the paragraph, is to be the compensation payable. It seems to me that, although the Chancellor has represented the Bill as one which restricts the amount of compensation which the Government have to pay, in the sense of restricting profiteering, with which restriction, as my right hon. Friend has said, we on this side heartily agree, we can still find a great difference between the way in which the Government look at profits and the way it looks at the taking of men. The Government are to pay compensation not only for the actual value of the land, but even for the possible damage. On the other hand, it is taking men who may be earning £4, £5 a week, or even more, on which they are able to keep their families adequately, and they are paying them 17s. and allowances, reducing them practically to beggary. The Government should explain why they are going with most meticulous care to see that every possible and conceivable kind of compensation is being paid in respect of any conceivable loss to the owners of land and property, while they are treating the men whom they are calling up for Service and who have wives and families dependent upon them, in a very different way.

10.40 p.m.

Sir J. Simon

I do not feel that I can, at this stage, discuss the subject men- tioned by the hon. Lady. I believe it is the object of Members in all parts of the House to see that men are treated fairly, but I must be excused from dealing with that matter now. The hon. Gentleman opposite asked a question about the local authorities. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that, in so far as local authorities exercise the emergency powers for acquiring property of the kind to which the hon. Member referred, they do so really because those powers are delegated to them by the Crown. I have before me the regulations, which say that a competent authority may delegate its functions for this purpose. In that case, the local authority is really acquiring the property on behalf of His Majesty, and will, therefore, employ the same code as we employ. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench asked whether we would consider providing that to prevent doubt arising, an individual who had a claim might be warned of it. I will consider that. I do not think I can go further now than to say that, but certainly it is no part of the intention of the Treasury that people should in matters of this sort be deprived of their opportunities because of pure ignorance. The same point was developed, in a more elaborate way, by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. In fact, he raised two points. He referred to Sub-section (7) of Clause 3, which provides that for the purposes of this section no account shall be taken of any diminution or depreciation in value ascribable only to loss of pleasure or amenity. I think the matter will be clearly understood if I remind the Committee that Clause 3 relates to compensation when the Crown authority goes on to land and executes some work on it—it may be Defence work of some kind. If they do that—if they dig trenches in somebody's garden, for instance—no doubt it is right that there should be a proper measure of compensation by reference to the diminution of value; but should the tenant be allowed to say, "I used to have a beautiful prospect out of my window, and now the amenity is destroyed by this ugly structure," or should he be allowed to say, "The pleasure of my estate is diminished"? We think he should not. We think that he would be treated quite fairly if he were paid compensation only for the diminution of the annual value of the land. I think the House will probably agree that that is right. My hon. Friend thought that that was probably inconsistent in some way with the provisions of Clause 2—in particular, I think, with the provision in lines 13 to 15 of page 3, that: no account shall be taken of any appreciation of values due to the emergency. That relates to a case where possession is taken of the land, temporarily at any rate. I think the House will agree with the view taken in the Bill that when you take possession of the land you ought to be careful to provide that, whatever the compensation paid, no account should be taken of any appreciation which is due to the emergency. There may be houses in some parts of England—the safer parts —which will actually have an increased rental value because of the times through which we are passing, but that seems to be no reason at all why the State should pay the owner of such houses increased rents. We want to deal with the matter with this maximum limit, so that in any case he will not get more than will be the amount properly calculated, and no increase of value due to the emergency. That is a perfectly justifiable provision and one that is not really inconsistent with the other provision quoted by the hon. Member.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Member below the Gangway raised a very important point on Clause 11. It is a difficult point, and it has been very carefully considered by the Committee which has been drawing up this scheme. It is really very necessary that claims that are put forward for compensation should be, as far as reasonably may be, promptly put forward and promptly dealt with. We therefore provide that: No claim for any compensation under this Act shall be entertained unless notice of the claim has, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, been given to the prescribed authority within the period of six months, or such longer period as the Treasury may, either generally or in relation to any particular claim or class of claims, allow, beginning in either case with the date on which the compensation accrues due or the date of the passing of this Act, whichever is the later. I agree with the two speakers that you could imagine cases in which the period of six months might be too short. I have considered carefully the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that there should be, in addition, a further power put into the hands of the tribunal—the shipping tribunal in the one case, and the general tribunal in the other—power to admit applications and claims of a more belated kind. I would urge the House not to put in a provision of that sort especially because I should like, here and now, to give an assurance. I have considered the matter carefully. There may be a class of case for which special provision ought to be made. There is the case—I think it was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway—where the claimant, who may well be serving abroad and attending to his duties, comes back and finds, in the meantime, that the six months have expired. Such a case is quite possible. That ought to be dealt with, as it can be dealt with, by suitable Treasury regulations. There may be other cases, and I shall be very glad to consider suggestions. But more than that, there may be individual cases which do not fall within a general category. I have been giving some preparatory directions in the Treasury about this, and it is my view that, if any bona fide case arises in which without any default on the part of the claimant a claim is not presented within the prescribed period then, I think, the Treasury, in the exercise of their powers under this Clause, should give favourable consideration to an application for an extension of time. I say that so that it may be on record.

I think that we all feel that, while it is very important not to have more claims than we can help, what is done in this matter should be done fairly. On the other hand, I would most strongly urge that we ought not really to amend the Bill and put in words which may even encourage prolonged delay. I certainly could not agree to put in references to tribunals for this reason. If the tribunals were a regular court like the County Court, it could perhaps be done, but the Shipping Tribunal and other tribunal would have their work to do during war but should then be wound up. We do not want to have them going on indefinitely. Therefore, I hope that my suggestion will be accepted, but, at the same time, the point made by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman opposite is an important one. I think we can secure that no injustice is done.

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

Bill read a Second time; considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.