CLAUSE 10.—(Persons to whom payments are to be made.) (Hansard, 25 February 1941)

§ Mr. Robert Gibson (Greenock)
I beg to move, in page 10, line 49, at the end, to insert: (5) Notwithstanding any provision in this Section the Commission is hereby empowered to ensure that in no case will the owner of the property receive no share of the value payment and it shall be within the discretion of the Commission to pay such proportion of the value payment to the owner as may seem to them fair and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. Millions of owner-occupiers are very much concerned about the effect of this Bill on their interests in the houses in which they live. These houses have been built by them, but the finance has been obtained elsewhere. There is great apprehension that they will receive no share of the value payment, and that the whole of 408 the payment will go to those who have, in the first instance, provided the finance for the erection of these houses. I submit that something should be done to remove that fear. This Bill is brought forward to deal with a very special evil, arising at a very special time, namely, damage by enemy action. It is right that special provision should be made against that contingency. I submit that the Committee ought to take the step proposed in this Amendment, and to give some safeguard to the owner-occupier in connection with the value payment. There is suggested in this Amendment a double power. The first part of the Amendment empowers the Commission to ensure that in no case will the owner of the property receive no share of the value payment. The second part of the Amendment gives a discretionary power to the Commission to decide what proportion of the value payment shall be made to the owner, that discretionary power to be exercised in the ordinary way, so as to ensure that what is done will be fair and equitable having regard to all the circumstances. I am very anxious that whoever speaks on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in replying to this Amendment will give an assurance that the discretionary power that is sought in the Amendment shall be made available to the Commission in dealing with this matter.

§ The Attorney-General
My hon. and learned Friend has, of course, in mind the owner-occupier, and 1 think everybody agrees that the owner-occupier buying his house by instalments or mortgage in the manner with which we are very familiar in the case of the building society is one of those cases which merits further consideration in regard to the application of this Bill. That is one of the reasons why the building society type of mortgagee has been made a contributory to the annual payments, which from the point of view of the mortgagee might have been regarded as something with which he was not concerned. I think that what has been done in favour of mortgagors against mortgagees in this type of case is relevant in considering this Amendment.
Before coming to the actual principle which we discussed in Committee, I would like to point out that an Amendment of this kind would really be unworkable. For one thing, the share would be very 409 small, and, to the mortgagor, would be quite useless. I cannot see on what fair and equitable principles the Commission could decide as to what proportion was to go to them. The important position surely, is that in the case that is being considered the mortgagor owes a certain sum to the mortgagee. If the full payment will extinguish that debt and leave something over, or to the extent to which it extinguishes the debt, it is directlly contributing to the risks of the mortgagor and enables him to get rid of liability or enter into negotiations with some building society for providing him with reconstruction, or alternative accommodation. I have great difficulty in seeing how this Amendment could be worked or how it would really advance the interests of the mortgagor if you were to give him the £100. He would still remain owing £100 to the mortgagee, if the house was gone. I agree that we have to consider the building-society case with care and sympathy, but I cannot think that the principle embodied in this Amendment is the proper one, nor do I think that it would be workable.

§ Sir Joseph Lamb (Stone)
I hope that the learned Attorney-General will not accept the Amendment. It would affect not only mortgagees connected with building societies, but local authorities which themselves, under Building Acts, have given out large sums of money.

§ The Chairman
Does the hon. and learned Member press the Amendment?

§ Mr. Gibson
I do not propose to press the Amendment, but one would have thought, when dealing with a broad question like this, that the very broad principle of sharing one another's burdens might have been carried a little further than the learned Attorney-General proposes to carry it. But in view of the statement that he has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Captain Crookshank
I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, to leave out from "than," to "an," in line 24.
The hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) raised the point in respect to assignments, and this Amendment does what he wished; that is to say, that no assignment, other than one not affecting any beneficial interest, will now 410 be permitted without the approval of the Commission.