§ Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 20, leave out "entitled in the same capacity" and insert "beneficially entitled."
Commander GalbraithI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is another drafting Amendment. The words "in the same capacity" might be misleading and it seems better to make it clear from the start that the applicant for payment must have been beneficially entitled at the time both to the claim holding and to the related interest in the land.
§ Mr. Hector HughesThis is much more than a drafting Amendment, for it makes an important change in the meaning of the Clause, which relates to Class C cases, and I will show what that change is. The Clause as it stands deals with the holder of a claim holding who, to be within its scope, must have his true interests, in the words sought to be left out, "in the same capacity"—that is to say, his true interests to the claim holding and to the land. That means that he must have them in the same capacity, either both as a beneficial interest or both as a trustee; certainly not one as trustee and the other as a beneficial interest.
It is possible that he would be interested in one as beneficial owner and in the other as trustee, but so long as the words now sought to be omitted were left in, they entitled him to both as trustee or as beneficial owner. He could not own one as trustee and the other as beneficial owner. The words now sought to be put in would change all that. If the Amendment passes, he must hold both beneficially and neither as trustee.
11.45 p.m.
These words sought to be left out are much higher in connotation than the words sought to be put in. Why did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that this was merely a drafting Amendment when, in fact, it radically changes 954 the meaning of the Clause? What is the intention of the Government? On which foot do they intend to stand? On the words sought to be left out or those sought to be put in? The Minister should explain this Amendment further.
§
Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 13, line 21, after "related" insert:
or another interest in which that interest had merged.
§
Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 3, at end insert:
Provided that where the whole or part of any liability or prospective liability which was or, as the case may be, would have been taken into account in calculating that restricted value had ceased to exist before the date on which the gift in question was made, the Board or, as the case may be, the Lands Tribunal may, if they think it just and proper so to do, waive in whole or in part, as may appear to them appropriate, any reduction otherwise falling to be made under this subsection.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Commander Galbraith.]
§ Mr. D. JohnstonThe substance of this Amendment was dealt with earlier, but I understand that the Amendment cannot operate unless the date is known on which the gift was made. What is that date? Is it the date of the missives creating the gift, the date of the disposition, the date of the registration of the disposition, or the date of entry on the land?