HC Deb 14 December 1943 vol 395 cc1379-81
39. Sir Ralph Glyn

asked the Secretary of State for War what claims for compensation for permanent loss of income can be paid to owners of destroyed property, in view of the fact that the Claims Commission are unable to meet any compensation for consequential damage that will result from the application of Defence Regulation 52?

Sir J. Grigg

As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir R. Glyn

Is there any compensation for people in those circumstances?

Sir J. Grigg

I should be extremely grateful if my right hon. Friend would look at the answer. It is a long answer, and it is couched, in part, in extremely technical and legal language, and I would rather have notice of any conundrums on this particular subject

Following is the answer:

The answer to my hon. Friend's Question largely depends on the meaning attached to "consequential damage." This might be held to include loss of profits and it is a part of the Government's policy that claims for such losses should not be entertained. In another sense claims as a result of consequential damage are in fact regularly met For example a farmer may lose his pasturage as a direct result of damage and he may be obliged to pay to graze his stock elsewhere while the damage is being made good. Such a payment is admissible in the circumstances.

As regards compensation for permanent loss of income the Claims Commission is empowered to meet all proper claims for damage to property other than those requisitioned under Defence Regulation 51 or under contract. Such payments may be made to the owner or to the occupier as the circumstances require, the crucial point being that no claim is paid twice over. In the case of farm land being totally destroyed, it would be assessed as an entity—the ceiling being the capital value of the damaged asset less the value of salvage—and the total sum of compensation thus arrived at would be apportioned amongst the interested parties according to their respective interests.

This should place a tenant in substantially the same position as if the military use had not taken place, because—as a result of receiving his share of the total capital damage to off-set his liability for rent—he is enabled to employ his tenant's capital elsewhere. As regards the landlord, he receives the capital value of the damage or of his reversionary interest, whichever may be the less, and though he will not recover his loss of income as such he will have received the capital value of the asset destroyed and this of course he is free to invest as he pleases.