Clause 12.—(DISPOSAL OF RUBBLE, ETC.) (Hansard, 18 November 1949)

§ Sir J. Mellor
I wish to ask a question about subsection (2), which provides: Where any materials (not being materials severed from the land by the local authority) are removed as aforesaid, the local authority shall account to the owner in respect of the value of the materials after deducting the cost of the removal and disposal. Why is the distinction drawn between materials severed from the land and other materials? I cannot see why that distinction should be drawn, and I should be glad if the Minister would explain that point. Secondly, I wish to inquire why the owners should receive only the value of the materials after the deduction of the cost of removal and disposal. The owner has not asked that these materials be taken away from the land and disposed of. Surely his measure of compensation should be their value and not their value subject to deductions? I should be glad of an explanation by the Minister.

Colonel Dower
I should like to know why, when in every single Clause in which an individual is required to do anything it has to be "reasonable," this subsection should not be worded: after deducting the reasonable cost … and not merely: after deducting the cost of the removal and disposal. That removal and disposal might be done in the most extravagant way, and as the Clause at present stands the owner would have no redress.

§ Mr. Bevan
I should have thought the first part of the Clause to be perfectly reasonable and self-explanatory. It says: Any materials removed from land by a local authority in the exercise of the powers conferred by section four or section nine of this Act may be dealt with or disposed of in such manner as the local authority think fit. There is no difficulty about that. They have to take the rubble off the land and the owner who has an interest in the site would have no interest whatever in the rubble. But: Where any materials … are removed as aforesaid, the local authority shall account to the owner in respect of the value of the materials after deducting the cost of the removal and disposal. 2416 In other words, there may be material other than rubble removed in the process of removing rubble.

§ Sir J. Mellor
The Minister has not explained the distinction between materials severed from the land and other materials. Why are there in the Clause, in brackets, the words: (not being materials severed from the land by the local authority)"? Why is the distinction drawn between materials severed and materials that are not severed?

§ Mr. Bevan
I should have thought that an obvious explanation is that in many cases there will be demolition work. In other words there may be just part of a derelict building on the land which would be fixed on the land and which would be removed. Part of the property might adjoin a piece of neighbouring property and would have to be removed from the land as part of the clearance, which might be said to be doing some damage for which compensation should be payable to the owner.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I do not know if the matter is clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor).

§ Sir J. Mellor
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Walker-Smith
I am glad that my hon. Friend shakes his head to indicate that it is not, because if I have failed to comprehend it is possible on this occasion that it is not necessarily due to slowness in comprehension on my part; at least I err in good company. If my hon. Friend does not understand the explanation I need not apologise for not having understood it either.
In the illustration which the Minister rather rapidly gave, did he intend to distinguish between the two categories of cases to which I understood him to refer, and which of either of these two categories does he suggest is covered by the words within the brackets? It is not clear to me because his explanation appeared to relate to two different categories of case, both of which would fall within the terms of "material severed from the land" because they are materials which are part of a partially demolished structure and are therefore part of the land because the structure is 2417 affixed thereto. Would the Minister answer that point and, if he can, give a clearer answer to the point, very important to the understanding of this Clause, which was originally put by my hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Bevan
This has been made clear on several occasions. Where the cost is a cost that the owner of the land can recover from the War Damage Commission that part of the cost will be recovered by the local authority from the War Damage Commission, because in fact it would have carried out work which would in any case have fallen to be carried out by the owner of the land. It may however be necessary for the local authority to go beyond that, and to take from the land something quite unnecessary for the owner to take in carrying out his work, but which the local authority might themselves find necessary to do in order to carry out their work. For that particular work the owner would be able to claim compensation from the local authority, because the owner would not in any case have been able to claim it from the War Damage Commission.