HC Deb 01 August 1947 vol 441 cc856-9

.—(1) Where an interest in land which is compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act is an interest in a hereditament or part of a hereditament which has sustained war damage, any of which has not been made good at the date of the notice to treat, then if—

  1. (a) the appropriate payment under the War Damage Act, 1943, would, apart from 857 the compulsory acquisition or apart from any direction given by the Treasury under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty of that Act, be a payment of cost of works; and
  2. (b) the land would, but for the occurrence of the war damage, be devoted to any such purpose as is mentioned in Rule (5) of the rules set out in section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
the provisions of the said Rule (5) shall have effect for the purposes of the assessment of compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition as if the land were so devoted as aforesaid.

(2) Where any such interest in land as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection is compulsorily acquired as therein mentioned, then if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection are satisfied, and the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition falls (whether by virtue of that subsection or otherwise) to be assessed in accordance with the said Rule (5), the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement shall be ascertained for the purposes of the said Rule (5) by reference to the state of the land immediately before the occurrence of the war damage, and the right to receive any value payment or share of a value payment which, under the War Damage Act, 1943, is payable in respect of the interest which is compulsorily acquired (including interest thereon) shall, notwithstanding anything in that Act, vest in the person by whom the interest is so acquired.

(3) Where any such interest in land as aforesaid is acquired by agreement in pursuance of a contract made after the passing of this Act by a person authorised by virtue of any enactment to acquire it compulsorily, then if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section are satisfied in relation to the land, and the compensation which would be payable in respect of the acquisition, if the acquisition were compulsory, would fall (whether by virtue of the said subsection (1) or otherwise) to be assessed in accordance with the said Rule (5), the right to receive any value payment or share of a value payment which, under the War Damage Act, 1943, is payable in respect of the interest acquired (including interest thereon) shall vest in the person by whom the interest is so acquired.

(4) Subsection (4) of section sixty-nine of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which makes special provision with respect to payments under that Act in respect of war damage sustained by hereditaments held for charitable purposes) shall not apply to any payment which by virtue of this section vests in the person by whom an interest in land is acquired.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

2.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower

Could we have some explanation of this new Clause and of the effect of it?

Mr. C. Williams

I think I fairly well understand the effects of the new Clause, but I should like to press the Government to explain it, and I should like to ask one or two questions about its pedigree. Can we be told how it was that this obvious piece of justice, dealing with compensation for war damage, was left out of the original Bill? I have had, and some others of us have had, considerable sections of war damaged property in our divisions, and it does seem rather negligent that this provision was not inserted earlier; that is why I should like to ask that first question. The second question is, Who thought of this new Clause? Was it the Government? Was it the Opposition? Was it thought of in another place? Or did it descend from Heaven? I think an Amendment of this kind is one many of us can welcome as being an improvement to the Bill, but I think we ought to have the privilege of knowing, when we are asked about it, to whom we have to give the credit for it. I have a lot of war damaged property in my constituency, which may benefit by this. Other hon. Members may be in the same position. I want to know what I am to say about it, and whether I can give the credit to the Minister or not. I should not like to give the credit to the wrong people.

Mr. Silkin

I think that when the hon. Gentleman is asked in his constituency, he can give the credit to the Minister This particular Clause deals with war damaged property which is to be compulsorily acquired, and which comes within a special category. It is the case of such kinds of property as schools, churches, etc., which come within Rule 5 of Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. In those cases, when a local authority is acquiring land—war damaged land—it would not be appropriate to pay a market value: there is no market value for churches, schools or colleges. The new Clause provides that in that case they should pay reinstatement, as if the property had been undamaged.

Mr. Williams

May I ask one other question on that? Why was it left out of the original Bill?

Mr. Silkin

Because at that time, when the Bill was introduced and subsequently, there was a good deal of discussion and consideration about the War Damage Act: and the hon. Gentleman may remember that the War Damage Commission were asked to make certain recommendations. This Amendment flows from those recommendations.