§
Lords Amendment: In page 52 line 29, at end insert:
Provided that if at any time an amount becomes recoverable under section thirty-one of this Act, as applied by the subsequent provisions of this section, in respect of that compensation, then, for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act, paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection shall have effect as from that time as if the principal amount of that compensation had been reduced by a sum equal to seven-eighths of the amount which has so become recoverable.
(3) Where in the case of any claim holding (in this subsection referred to as "the parent holding") compensation under this Part of this Act is payable in respect of the depreciation of an interest in land by one or more planning decisions or orders, and any such decision or order did not extend to the whole of the area of the parent holding, then, both for the purposes of the last preceding subsection and for the purposes of Parts II and III of this Act—
Commander GalbraithI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It might be convenient if we also take the Lords Amendment in line 31. The Amendment does two things. First, it provides for the case where compensation paid under Part V of the Bill becomes recoverable on subsequent development of the land. The second purpose is to ensure that when a compensation payment is made in respect of pail only of the area of a claim holding, it is 998 debited against the fraction of the value of the holding appropriate to that part and not against the holding as a whole.
§ Mr. LawsonCould I have an explanation of the effects of the Amendment? This relates to a case which I raised on Report. The question then was what was the effect of this compensation when a claim had been in part liquidated. It seems to me that what happens is that the claim is in part liquidated, or perhaps wholly liquidated, through the refusal to permit development, and then subsequently development is permitted and the party who had received compensation has to repay it. Is the unexpended value brought back to its original amount? In the event of compulsory purchase, would a local authority have to pay on the basis of this renewed unexpended value?
§ Mr. LawsonThe answer I was then given was that the local authority would not be required to pay that amount, and if I read this Amendment correctly, that answer was wrong. Is that so?
§ Mr. D. JohnstonIs not my hon. Friend right? Does not the Amendment do what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said was done previously?
Commander GalbraithThe unexpended balance is in effect brought back and the local authority would have to pay the full claim.
§ Mr. LawsonThat is not what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said on Report. He said the contrary.
§ Mr. D. JohnstonIs not the answer to my hon. Friend's question, "Yes, I was wrong"?
§ Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]
§
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 31, after "Act" insert:
,except subsection (10) of the said section thirty-one,