HC Deb 05 February 1941 vol 368 cc1023-8

Amendments made: In page 25, line 28, after "value," insert: (or, where the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of this Act has effect, the rateable value).

In line 43, leave out the first "the," and insert "a."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, in page 26, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert: () Where, at any time during the period during which possession of the requisitioned land under emergency powers continues, a hereditament comprised wholly within the land sustains war damage such that a value payment becomes payable, then—

  1. (a) in the application of Section four of this Act to the computation of the amount of the payment the depreciation in the value of the hereditament caused by the war damage shall be taken to be the amount by which the value of the hereditament in the state in which it was immediately after the occurrence of the damage is less than its value in the state in which it was immediately before the time of taking possession of the requisitioned land;
  2. (b) no sum shall be payable under paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section two of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939 (which provides for payment of compensation for damage, other than wear and tear or damage caused by war operations, ring to requisitioned land during the period of requisition), in respect of damage occurring to the hereditament."
It is necessary to make it clear that the provision of the Clause in respect to value payments should apply only where the damage occurs during the period when the land has remained requisitioned. Para- graph (b) of the Amendment is needed to meet the case where damage has resulted from the occupation of the premises and a claim under Section 2 (1, b) of the Compensation (Defence) Act has thus arisen. If a house is totally destroyed by a bomb and the owner becomes entitled to a value payment, he clearly ought not to get a cost-of-works payment as well.

Sir A. Maitland

I am not sure whether the explanation of the Chancellor, which has to be read to be understood, meets a point which is exercising the minds of some of the municipal corporations. They are interested in this Clause because their land is likely to be requisitioned. There are many local authorities which are owners of aerodromes for civil flying which have been requisitioned by the Air Ministry. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is anxious to meet the legitimate anxieties which are exercising the minds of local authorities, and if he will assure me that he will look at this point from that aspect and will take steps to amend it if he finds that there is ground for these anxieties I shall be happy to accept the assurance.

Sir K. Wood

Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me and let me have particulars of what he has in mind.

Sir A. Maitland

I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend, but I hope that in the many obligations he has undertaken he will not overlook this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Liddall (Lincoln)

I beg to move, in page 26, line 9, at the end, to insert: For the purposes of the provisions of this Section the direct contributor shall be at once notified by the user of a requisitioned hereditament to enable him to give effect to the provisions of Section three of this Act. I hope that the Government will accept this very reasonable Amendment. Surely it is only right that the direct contributor should be notified by the user of the land that has been requisitioned when any damage has occurred, in order to enable him to take the appropriate action.

The Attorney-General

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that notification should be made as soon as possible in every case, but for two reasons I would ask him not to press his Amendment. The first is that as the requisitioning authority would be the Crown I think there would be great difficulty in getting any appropriate sanction behind this obligation.

Mr. Liddall

But the Crown has officials.

The Attorney-General

Certainly the Crown has officials, but in spite of that I feel there would be difficulty in getting an appropriate sanction if this were made an obligation. The other reason is that there may be a certain number of exceptional cases in which it would not be in the public interest to notify at once the nature of the damage which the enemy had done.

Mr. Liddall

Is it suggested that the direct contributor should not be made aware of what has happened?

The Attorney-General

Yes, there might be cases in which it was of importance, for a period at any rate, that no one should know of the damage that had been done. I and those who are dealing with this matter fully accept the idea behind this Amendment, and I understand that steps will be taken to see that notification is made, because it ought to be given in all save the very exceptional cases as I have indicated, and if anybody has any cause of complaint it will be looked into. I hope that for the reasons I have given my hon. Friend will accept what I have said in the matter and not press his Amendment.

Mr. Silkin

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that it is not only the Crown that is requisitioning property. Local authorities have the power to requisition, and they are not in the same position as the Crown. His answer covered the Crown but not local authorities, nor could he give an undertaking on their behalf, but something ought to be done about their position. Another point is that nobody ought to be penalised if in the circumstances indicated he has not put in a claim within the proper period. I hope that point will be looked into.

The Attorney-General

We dealt with that point in an earlier discussion. I do not know whether the hon. Member was here then. It was stated that, of course, the rules of the Commission must provide that no one is penalised who did not put in his claim within the stipulated period when there had been reasonable grounds for not informing him. I cannot speak for local authorities, but I am sure they will realise the reasonableness of the point behind the Amendment, and see that the direct contributor is informed as soon as possible.

Mr. Liddall

I really cannot understand the hesitancy of the Attorney-General, but I am prepared to accept his assurances, because I have such great respect for him and am sure that he will see that proper notice is given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. Wood

I beg to move, in page 26, line 10, to leave out Sub-section (4).

This is a drafting Amendment. It forms one of a series designed to make uniform various references to emergency powers in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bracewell Smith

In regard to payment for requisitioned property, some provision is proposed in Part II of the Bill that the Crown should pay the premiums on requisitioned property. I do not see why that cannot apply here. Property is requisitioned, and the premiums have to be paid by the owner. The Government have not been very generous in the matter of compensation for requisitioned property. If the owner has to pay the premiums for war damage insurance in respect of requisitioned property there will be a very heavy burden upon him. When the Government requisition properties, the properties often become military targets, and there again the owners must pay the premiums under the Bill, but they cannot recover the premiums from the Government. In the ordinary way, the Crown pays the premiums for insurances, but there is no provision in the Bill for the payment of premiums in that way. The owner cannot recover the premiums from the Crown.

In the nature of things, the leases of requisitioned properties are very short The owners cannot reoccupy the premises at very short notice, but all the time they must pay the premiums. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer can make provision in the Clause whereby a tenant or owner of requisitioned premises may recover from the Crown the premiums which they have had to pay on the properties. I trust that the Chancellor will give the matter very close consideration.

Mr. A. C. Reed (Exeter)

I have had personal experience of requisitioned properties. I know hundreds of premises that have been requisitioned now for 15 months, and in respect of which even the payment of rent has not yet been settled. I know others that were requisitioned six months ago, and although some were not worth £20 nevertheless about £200 has already been spent upon inspections by various Departments. The matter goes from Department to Department, and there is no settlement. Owing to the very slow method of settlement, the owners of the properties will have to pay the insurance premiums, and will possibly not get them back from the Crown for years.

Captain Crookshank

Expediting payment for requisitioned buildings is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend, but is a question for the Departments concerned. To my knowledge, strict instructions have been sent out that these matters should be settled as soon as possible, and I believe that that is being done. In some areas there has been delay.

Mr. Reed

For 12 months.

Captain Crookshank

I can say that the Departments are trying to press on with payment. This matter has nothing to do with the Bill. In a case of requisitioning, the Crown, and in some cases the local authorities, are only in the position of very short tenants, and it does not fall upon them to pay the contributions. The position will stand as in the Bill.

Mr. Bracewell Smith

Are there any means by which the owner of a property can recover these premiums from the Crown? In the case of properties with which I am acquainted, I believe that the Office of Works has paid insurance premiums. The premiums under the Bill will be an extra burden which may amount in some cases to 30/- per cent., which is very heavy.

Captain Crookshank

I think my hon. Friend must be talking about another part of the Bill.

Mr. Smith

Even in the case of the ordinary property this will be a very heavy extra burden.

The Chairman

The hon. Member is dealing with something which does not arise on this Clause.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.