HC Deb 16 November 1944 vol 404 cc2223-4

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 42, leave out from "improved" to "by," in line 44.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

We had a discussion in this House on this matter and this Amendment gives effect to the general sense of that discussion. The Clause deals with the supplement of compensation in the case of improvement. It formerly contained words limiting the improvements which qualified for the supplement to include an interest in land which has been improved in the interests of the war effort or under instructions from, or with the licence or permission of, a Government Department. There was a good deal of question as to why a man who made a pigsty without asking any Government Department for permission should be denied the supplement, whereas someone who had gone to the county war agricultural committtee and done precisely the same job and made exactly the same improvement should receive it. We tried to devise words to prevent any improper improvements getting into this Clause, but did not succeed. On reflection, the control of expenditure on these matters has been so checked during the war that it is very likely that no proper improvements have been made to make us search for a phrase which probably does not exist.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 61, line 8, leave out from the first "any" to "increased."

3.33 P.m.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Clause 54 directed the arbitrator, in considering whether to award a supplement in respect of improvements, to have regard, among other things, to any recovery of any of the cost thereafter by reason of increased returns or increased prices in respect of work done on improved land. The purpose of that was to secure that the owner who had put himself into a position to recover the whole or part of the capital cost of improvements out of the proceeds of the use of the improvements by charging prices which included the limits aimed at, and getting that return in addition to the income return, should not qualify for a supplement. It was pointed out in our discussion on the matter that the existing wording did not sufficiently differentiate between the replacement of capital and reasonable returns. Therefore, we put forward the amended wording in order to meet the point.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 83, line 34, agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Lords Amendment: After the Seventh Schedule, insert new Schedule.