HC Deb 22 November 1954 vol 533 cc941-2

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 38, at end insert: or whose interest has subsequently become merged in that interest.

Commander Galbraith

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

This Amendment is designed to remove a slight anomaly in Clause 3. As subsection (1) is drafted, the holder of a claim holding is, by virtue of paragraph (b), entitled to a payment if he is the owner of an interest in any land covered by the holding and a development charge was incurred in respect of that land by a person from whom he derives title to that interest. The normal case will be where a previous, owner paid development charge, and the present owner bought both land and claim from him. The latter would, of course, as the Clause stands, be entitled to a payment in the same way as the previous owner would have been.

There may, however, be cases where the development charge was paid by a lessee, who subsequently surrendered his lease and assigned his claim to his immediate landlord, the owner of the land. The Amendment provides that in such cases the owner will similarly be entitled to a payment under the Clause.

Mr. D. Johnston

Might I ask the Joint Under-Secretary two questions? Is the key word of this amendment "or," and if so, does it postulate two different conditions? Does the payment of a development charge entitle a person to a claim; and, secondly, does the payment of a development charge by a person whose interests subsequently become merged in the interest of a claim holding entitle that person to make a claim?

My second question is, does "subsequently" mean subsequent to the payment of a development charge, or the coming into operation of the 1947 Act?

Mr. Hector Hughes

I thought that the Joint Under-Secretary was going to respect my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Johnston) by replying to what he has just asked. I, for one, am not satisfied with the Under-Secretary's opening explanation of this Amendment, for he has left a great deal unsaid; and, in my submission, this Amendment prejudicially affects those complicated cases known as A cases. We are seeking to amend Clause 3 (1, b) which deals with the cases where a holder is entitled to an interest in land affected by a development charge, and where there has been a devolution of title.

There may be different kinds of devolution of title, and it would seem that the Clause, as it stands, includes assignees, devisees, legatees, and lessees. If I am right, and it does includes these, then this Amendment is unnecessary. If it does not include all these classes, this Amendment is quite insufficient, because it would seem to cover only lessees and none of the other three classes which I have mentioned.

The question which I would put to the Joint Under-Secretary is, does the Clause include all four classes? What is the intention of this Amendment? Is it to envelop and include all those four classes, or is it not so intended? In the interest of those persons whose land, and whose money will be affected by this legislation—and, indeed, those unfortunate people who will have to administer this terrible Bill if ever it becomes an Act of Parliament—it is the duty of the Joint Under-Secretary to explain to the full what is meant. It is his duty to explain every scintilla, every iota, and every part of it to those who may be affected, because such people may not wish to be like the unfortunate person about whom we read in the newspapers who, because of complications arising from compulsory purchase of his land, was driven to suicide.

Commander Galbraith

The sad case to which the hon. and learned Member has just referred had nothing whatever to do with this Bill; it was concerned with the operation of an Act passed by a previous Government. The answer to the two questions which have been put to me are, in the first case "Yes"; and in the second, that the meaning is "subsequent to the development charge."