§ 23. Mr. Turtonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why, on 4th December, 1945, he informed the valuer acting for the United Tile Manufacturers, Limited, that he could not agree to pay more than £140 for the reinstatement of drying racks at the Roecliffe Brick and Tile Works; why, on 20th February, 1946, without communicating with the valuer and without receiving any additional evidence, he agreed to pay the firm £473 in respect of this claim; and whether he is aware that this irregular action has damaged the prestige of the valuer in question.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas)When the offer of £140 was made we believed that it represented fair and reasonable compensation. Subsequently, another inspection was made of the property and, at their request, a meeting was held with the company; in the light of the additional evidence produced, we agreed to the higher figure. The company did not bring their valuer to the meeting, but this constitutes no irregularity on our part.
§ Mr. TurtonIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the evidence was submitted on nth October to the Air Ministry, and could he say why he suddenly broke off negotiations with the valuer and conducted negotiations with the firm behind the back of the valuer?
§ Mr. de FreitasI am not aware of those facts. My information is that additional 1204 evidence was presented at the meeting on 19th February to which, for reasons best known to themselves, the company did not bring the valuer.
§ Mr. JenningsIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that the difference in these figures is so large that somebody without much knowledge must have been trying to settle the claim?
§ Mr. de FreitasI cannot agree with that. Additional evidence was produced at the meeting by the claimant, in the light of which we revised our figure.
§ Mr. TurtonWas not the settlement made on the basis of the figures submitted by the valuer on 11th October?
§ Mr. de FreitasI must make it clear that that is not my information.