§ 61. Mr. John Wilmotasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with the present method of assessing compensation for war damage, he will assure owners of business premises destroyed by enemy action that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that, provided those premises were of up-to-date and sound construction, they will qualify for compensation on a basis no less favourable than those who have suffered partial loss only and 1568 who qualify for a cost of works payment; and that the financial result to the owners of interests in war damaged premises will be the same whether such owners receive a value payment, a converted value payment or a cost of works payment.
§ Sir J. AndersonThe assumption that a war damaged building must be a "total loss" as defined in the War Damage Act if entirely destroyed is incorrect, and premises which immediately before damage were structurally sound, were adequately equipped by modern standards for their purpose and did not represent a wasteful use of the site should qualify for a cost of works payment under the formula prescribed in Section 7 of the Act, whatever the extent of the damage. As regards the second part of the Question, the value payment prescribed in the Act is not related to building costs, but to the depreciation in the capital value of the property caused by the war damage calculated as at the 31st March, 1939.
§ Mr. WilmotWhile thanking the Chancellor for that enlightening answer, will the new rule as he now states it, in regard to qualifying for a cost of works payment under Section 7 of the War Damage Act, apply to a building which has been totally destroyed if it conforms to the definition that the Chancellor has given?
§ Sir J. AndersonYes, certainly, Sir. that was the point of my answer.
§ Mr. BellengerIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are large numbers of houses in London that will not possibly qualify under the conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend because they are 60, 70 or 80 years old? Is he aware that in those cases the amount of compensation now being offered as a value payment by the War Damage Commission is totally unrelated to what the person had to pay even in March, 1939?
§ Sir J. AndersonThere is a provision in the Act by which the question of whether a payment proposed to be made is adequate according to the terms of the Act can be submitted for independent adjudication. I believe I am right in saying that the Commission have recently made it perfectly clear that the first proposals made to claimants are subject to further consideration by the Commission itself if a case can be made out.
§ Mr. WilmotMay I further ask the Chancellor whether a building which otherwise qualifies for a Cost of Works payment would also qualify if, for town planning or other reasons, it could not be built on the original site?
§ Sir J. AndersonI think my hon. Friend must be well aware that there is a special provision in the War Damage Act dealing with that case, and when a property which has been damaged is the subject of a notice to treat, the only payment which can be made under the War Damage Act as it now stands is a Value Payment.
§ Mr. SpeakerSir. William Wayland.
§ Mr. Hore-BelishaMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. Austin HopkinsonOn a point of Order. Mr. Speaker, is an hon. Member entitled to ask a supplementary question after a subsequent Question has been called?
§ Mr. Hore-BelishaMay I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the object of the review which is to be undertaken on the principle of compensation to remove this kind of grievance, as it will be necessary to do if the code is changed under the Planning Act?
§ Sir J. AndersonI think that it is rather anticipating the course of events. The review to which my right hon. Friend refers is a review of the compensation proposals embodied in the Town and Country Planning Bill. How far the result of such review will have a bearing on this very special technical problem raised by my hon. Friend is a matter for subsequent consideration.
§ Commander King-HallFurther to the reply given by the Chancellor, is he aware that in a large number of cases, some of which I have brought to his notice, the payment being offered is 25 per cent. of the cost which would be required to replace these totally destroyed buildings? Could he ask the War Damage Commission to make their first offer somewhere nearer the independent valuation, and not force all these people to appeal?
§ Sir J. AndersonIt ought to be quite clearly understood that compensation under the War Damage Act, so far as 1570 Value Payments are concerned, has nothing whatever to do with the cost of replacement.