HL Deb 17 February 1948 vol 153 cc1082-102

2.49 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Highways.

"(2) For the purposes of the said section fifteen, and of sections sixteen and twenty-one of the Act of 1945 (which provide for the retention of railways, cables and pipes where a highway is not stopped up and for the temporary continuation of orders for the stop- ping up or diversion of highways), the expression "war period" in the Act of 1945 shall include any period during which the Transitional Powers Act is in force."

The Earl of MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2) to omit "the said section fifteen, and of." The noble Earl said: The Requisitioned Land Act of 1945 states that the Minister can close permanently highways which have been closed temporarily. The Supplies and Services Act of the same year, which extended certain powers until the year 1952, deliberately terminated the powers of temporary closure on February 24, this year—that is to say, to-day week. The fact that temporary closure is now to be extended to land held by the Services does not, in fact, affect the principle. In this Amendment I am not trying to hold the Government to the promise made by the Secretary of State in another place in 1945, to give up the permanent closure powers on February 24 this year, because, as I see it, they have discovered a snag which exists and which is set out in subsection (1) of this particular clause. The clause seeks to legalize it. All I propose is to allow the Government until the end of 1949 to deal with cases which become legalized by subsection (1) of this clause. It seems to me that to extend the principle of subsection (1) for a further period of twelve months would be sufficient to enable the Service Departments—and I suppose the Government—to say quite clearly and definitely whether they require this or that highway to be closed permanently or whether it can be left open. There is very little in it, but it is an important point. I have seen fit to put down this Amendment in order to extract from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, a statement of the Government's proposal.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 19, leave out from the first ("of") to ("sections").—(The Earl of Munster.)

Lord CHORLEY

I regret that I am not able to accept the Amendment which the noble Earl has moved. Its object, as he has explained, is to restrict the period during which, on the acquisition of a piece of land, a footpath running across it can be stopped up in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1945. If this Amendment were accepted it would largely destroy the value of the extension of time, provided by Clause 1 of the Bill, from February 23 this year to 1952. Suppose that we had a piece of land which the Government found necessary to acquire under the terms of this Bill as amended, and there was a footpath running across it which could not be dealt with after February 24, 1949. That would in effect mean that the use of the extension provided by Clause 1 would be cut down from four years to one year.

It necessarily follows, from the extension which is given under Clause 1, that the powers to stop up a footpath running across such a piece of land must also be extended to the same period. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this Amendment ought not to be accepted.

The Earl of MUNSTER

I regret that the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept my Amendment. I suppose he is perfectly right in saying that since the Bill extends to 1952 the powers under Clause 1, the power which the Government seek under Clause 3 should be extended for a similar period. Nevertheless, I regret this, and I should like it to go on record that there are powers which the Government seek in this Bill to close—if necessary for ever—a highway which at the present moment the public use and enjoy. I think that is regrettable. I do not think it is a reason for extending Clause 3 to 1952. In the circumstances, it is no good my pursuing my object further, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Amount of rental compensation for requisitioned land.

7.—(1) In relation to rental compensation in respect of the taking possession of land, that is to say compensation calculated in accordance with paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section two of the Act of 1939 by reference to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the land, the said Section two shall have effect, as respects any period after the commencement of this Act, subject to the provisions of this section.

(2) So such of proviso (i) to subsection (1) of the said Section two as provides, in relation to rental compensation, for disregarding any appreciation of values due to the emergency shall not have effect, but— (a) rental compensation shall not in any case exceed the maximum applicable in that case under the next following section;

The Earl of MUNSTER moved, in subsection (2) (a) to omit "maximum applicable in that case under the next following section" and to insert: rental payable in respect of such an interest in the land as is defined in Section fifty-two of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, provided that any references in the said Section fifty-two to the date of the notice to treat shall be construed for the purposes of this section as references to the date on which possession of the land was taken. The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with rental compensation and raises a matter of some considerable importance. During the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, I drew the attention of your Lordships to the fact that this clause has again brought into operation the 1939 basis of valuation. Noble Lords will remember that under the Town and Country Planning Act of last year the 1939 basis of valuation was abolished for property which was compulsorily acquired; here we are now seeking to introduce a new arrangement which has never before appeared in any Bill dealing with rental compensation. The basis of valuation for compulsory acquisition under the Town and Country Planning Act was the assumption of a lease terminating no earlier than 1954, from which the capital value to be paid was to be deduced. All I am asking is that the same lease as appears in the Town and Country Planning Act should be assumed for the purpose of rental compensation in this Bill, and that the rental compensation should, in point of fact, be the annual value of the house.

Let me explain to your Lordships, if I can, by giving a concrete case: Suppose that a house with an annual rent payable of £100 is requisitioned, and that that house has a lease which terminates not later than 1954. I maintain that in that case the owner should receive a similar annual rental; that is, a figure of £100 a year. What the Government seek to do, under Clause 7 of the Bill, is to take the 1939 annual value, add 60 per cent. and pay the resultant sum to the owner of the house. Let us assume that the 1939 annual value of the house was £50 a year. Add 60 per cent. and we find that the renal is £80, compared with the £100 now paid. What my Amendment seeks to do is to lay down that when the Government seek to take a house,, such as I have mentioned, they should pay the rent which the owner is paying to-day. That seems to me to be fair and equitable, and I hope that the noble Lord has given this very serious consideration and will now be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 22, leave out from beginning to the end of line 23 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)

Lord CHORLEY

I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment also. The noble Earl, in moving it, has given an illustration which certainly would be a hard case, but unfortunately the form of words which he has moved is so wide that in effect it removes the ceiling which the clause as proposed lays down. Take the terms under the Town and Country Planning Act of last year, which deals with "rental payable in respect of such an interest"—the very words which the noble Earl uses. That rental is no different from the ordinary market rental prevailing at the time and the effect of this Amendment would be to remove the ceiling altogether. This is an exceedingly difficult problem to deal with. Noble Lords opposite have always taken the view that there should not be any ceiling and they argued this over the Town and Country Planning Act. They objected to the method put forward by the Government at that time, which was to get over the scarcity period by means of a notional lease which went on to 1954. at the end of which time the scarcity would have come to an end. The Government are not able to accept that method in this case. I quite agree that the method of going back to 1939 and adding 60 per cent. is not an entirely satisfactory one. On the Second Reading of the Bill I indicated that if the noble Earl could produce a method which was satisfactory without asking the Government to accept the principle of unqualified current values, which they have consistently refused to accept, we should be very glad to look at it. But the noble Earl has not, in fact, produced any such Amendment. As I say, the Amendment which he has produced really means taking the current value.

The Government have considered various methods, and a method which was mentioned on the previous occasion was to take 5 per cent. of the capital value. That would have been a possible method if one had been dealing with a certain type of property. But one has to remember that many different kinds of property have been requisitioned, and will be requisitioned, under the provisions of this Bill—even to isolated floors in buildings, and sections of houses. That method of taking 5 per cent. of the capital value cannot effectively be applied in such cases. The result has been that we have been driven back to this 1939 value, plus 60 per cent. The 60 per cent. has been agreed as a reasonable figure of increase. Your Lordships will remember that, after it was decided that the 1939 figure could no longer be maintained, and increases were given in connexion with certain types of war-damaged property, and others, the 60 per cent. was agreed as being a reasonable figure. The Government have now adopted that basis. I think your Lordships will agree there is a substantial concession here over the position as it existed before this Bill was introduced. I hope that your Lordships will be satisfied with that concession and will reject this Amendment.

The Marquess of READING

May I say one word on this? I thought that the noble Earl made a powerful case in submitting his Amendment to your Lordships' House. What surprises me a little is the attitude which has now been taken up by the noble Lord in the sentences which he has just uttered. As I gather from what he said, the position is that on the Second Reading of the Bill he intimated to the noble Earl that if from the noble Earl's side of the House an Amendment were produced the Government would consider it favourably, if it commended itself. Surely, that means that the Government are not satisfied with the position as it stands now, and recognize that some Amendment is required. If that be the position, even if the noble Earl's Amendment does not commend itself to them, surely it is their duty as a Government to produce an Amendment themselves which will rectify the position which they themselves recognized on Second Reading to require further consideration and Amendment.

The Marquess of SALISBURY

Are the Government not prepared to consider the matter, in view of what the noble Earl and the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, have said? We do not want to press the matter, of course. It is a matter for consideration. But it is clearly evident to the whole Committee that the Government themselves do not regard this as an ideal basis. I should have thought the right thing to do was for them to see if they can think of anything better.

Lord CHORLEY

We have been thinking very hard about this ever since the Bill was introduced, and it may well be that the best practicable scheme is not an ideal scheme. As I pointed out, the noble Earl's Amendment is quite unacceptable. It is practically the Amendment which was introduced in another place, and which was negatived there. Neither the noble Earl nor anyone else has been able to suggest any form of words which gives a really practicable solution to the problem. I suggest that the Government's own solution, while not ideal, is a fairly good one, in that if does give the 1939 value, plus 60 per cent., which will in fact give a reasonable compensation in the vast majority of cases of this kind. One of the difficulties is that we have very little time to consider this matter. If even between now and to-morrow the noble Earl can, in fact, produce something—

Several Noble Lords: Why not the Government?

Lord CHORLEY

The draftsman has been trying his best over a substantial period. It is not only between last Thursday and to-day that this matter has been under consideration; it has been under consideration for many months. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that the draftsman and his advisers at the Treasury have been discussing and thinking about this matter over the last weeks and months. In the circumstances, I am sorry that I cannot do anything more to meet the noble Earl.

The Earl of MUNSTER

Draftsmen usually accept their advice from the Government, and "where there's a will there's a way." I believe that it is possible to achieve what we seek in this Amendment. The words which I have put down on the Order Paper may be quite impos- sible of acceptance, and, indeed, may not make sense. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has understood exactly what I am out to achieve. As the noble Lord has said, the vast majority of these cases will not be hard hit, but I am concerned with the small owner whose property—possibly his only asset in the world—has been requisitioned, who will receive a very raw deal. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he wishes it to go out from this House that the Government believe that the small owner should, in point of fact, receive a raw deal; and that is the policy which they have pursued. I do not know when the Third Reading of this Bill is to be taken. I hope that it will not be taken, in any event, until Thursday. There is a Royal Commission at half-past five on that day, and there will be ample time for the noble Lord, with my noble friend Lord Llewellin and myself, to discuss the prospects of finding a suitable Amendment which will cover the point in question. On that understanding, and on the understanding that the Bill will not be read a third time until Thursday, I am now prepared to withdraw the Amendment. If, in the meantime, a suitable Amendment can be found, it can be inserted in the Bill on Third Reading. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord CHORLEY

I am very pleased to give the noble Earl the assurance for which he asks. I shall be only too glad to discuss the matter with him and the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. If we can find something better than what is proposed in the Bill at present I shall be happy to insert it in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

3.10 p.m.

Clause 8:

Maxima for rental compensation.

(4) In this section the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them is to say:—

"rent-restricted property" means a property (whether or not the subject of a tenancy) in the ease of which the following conditions are fulfilled, that is to say—

  1. (a) that immediately before the time when possession was taken of the pro- 1090 perty or part thereof in question the property or part was being used for residential purposes, or if it was not then being used that it had been used for residential purposes when last used before that time, and
  2. (b) that if an unfurnished tenancy of the property had been granted immediately before the said time the amount of the rent recoverable under the tenancy would have been restricted by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939;

The Earl of MUNSTER moved, in subsection (4), to add to the definition of "rent-restricted property." Provided that a property shall not be deemed to be a rent-restricted property for the purposes of this section notwithstanding that the foregoing conditions are fulfilled if at or immediately before the time when possession was taken of the property the owner thereof was himself in occupation of the same.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is one of which I gave notice to the noble Lord on the Second Reading of the Bill. Its purpose is to exclude owner-occupied rent-restricted property from the limitation of rental compensation which is contained in subsection (1) of this clause. Here I would say that on Second Reading I made a mistake. I told your Lordships that a house which perhaps had never been the subject of a tenancy would, in point of fact, come within the restrictions. It has now been pointed out to me that that is not so. In drafting this Amendment, therefore, I have disregarded that particular point which I made on Second Reading, and I have confined my Amendment to providing that a rent-restricted property which is occupied by the owner shall be eligible for the "1939 plus 60 per cent." rental.

As the Bill now stands, it is very unjust to owner-occupiers. A house may have been let in 1912 for a sum of £30 a year. It may have been bought long before the war by a person wishing to occupy it himself and if he purchased that property with vacant possession he would have had to pay a price greatly in excess of the value represented by the pre-1914 rent. If the house is requisitioned, then, notwithstanding the fact that the owner has paid this high price and will probably have to pay an even higher price or a rent greatly in excess of £30 a year in order to rehouse himself, the compensation rental which he receives will be limited, as I understand it, by virtue of the Rent Restrictions Acts, to the 1914 war rent of £30 a year. In addition, there is the particular case of Davis and Warwick, to which I would draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. I have looked at that case, and I think that anyone who has read those proceedings will agree that the scheme is a remarkably hard one. I have placed this Amendment on the Paper to achieve the object which I have mentioned, and which I set out more fully on the Second Reading of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 43, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Munster.)

Lord CHORLEY

I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. The position of the owner of a house which is within the Rent Restrictions Acts, and in respect of which the standard rent became fixed a substantial time ago, is always an exceedingly difficult one, because where he is forced to let the house to somebody else he cannot get more than this very low standard rent except, of course, the permitted increases. There are permitted increases, and I am sure the noble Earl is aware of that, although he did not mention them.

Under this Bill the position of such an owner is no better and no worse. The Government have set their face against a man being able to do better on rental compensation under this Bill than he would if he were letting the house in the market; that is why the restriction has in fact been laid down. Actually, there is very little chance of the hardship occurring to which the noble Earl refers, because it is not the policy of the Government to requisition houses which are actually the residences of owner-occupiers. If it were the policy of the Government to requisition houses in which people were living and carrying on their life, obviously, in a case of that kind, there would be a grievance; but in actual fact that is not the policy. It is quite true that during the war, under the great stress of the conditions which then prevailed, it was found necessary to requisition houses in which people were living.

The Earl of MUNSTER

Are there none requisitioned now?

Lord CHORLEY

I cannot give the noble Earl a categorical statement that in no case since the termination of hostilities has there ever been requisitioning of a house in which somebody was living. In an exceptional case it might be necessary, and it would be quite unfair to try to tie the Government down to some kind of declaration that they would never, in any circumstances, requisition a house in which somebody was residing. But the policy is not to requisition such houses, and I am advised that it is unlikely that a hard case of the kind to which the noble Earl has drawn attention would, in practice, arise. What he is trying to do, in effect, is to drive the thin end of the wedge into this principle, which the Government have maintained through all these cases—namely, that the Government must not be made to pay a larger price in the way of compensation than the owner could get if he were letting the house in the market. That is what the noble Earl is asking your Lordships to sanction.

The Earl of MUNSTER

It is not quite the same. I do not think the noble Lord has quite understood my point. It is all very well to say that if the owner puts the house in the market he should not get a larger rent than that provided under the Rent Restrictions Acts. But here is something totally different. The Government, an all-powerful machine, requisition his house and he has not the right of refusal. They say to him: "We are going to take this house from such and such a date and you must go and find another similar house." The noble Lord knows as well as I do that that occupier cannot find a house at the 1914 rent.

Lord CHORLEY

With great respect, I pointed out that we do not come in and say: "Get out of your house and find another house."

The Earl of MUNSTER

Of course you do.

Lord LLEWELLIN

I did not quite follow the noble Lord opposite when he said that these houses came within the Rent Restrictions Acts. At the moment when they were requisitioned—I am envisaging the position in my noble friend's Amendment—the owner was occupying the house himself, which there- fore was completely outside the purview of the Rent Restrictions Acts, because the owner was the occupier. Now what happens? I remember a case in the very early stages of the war in which I had to intervene myself, and in which I must say I was glad I did intervene. There was a big factory, and the people who were taking that factory area thought that the roads would make a nice boundary. All along the side of the road they were taking cottages in which people were living, which in my view was quite unnecessary, and I made them alter it. Some of those people had to be turned out of their houses, but I got many of them reprieved. It docs work in that way.

Take a case where the owner-occupier is living in a small house, a house that will come under the Rent Restrictions Acts. What are you doing to that man? You take his house. If you are not going to requisition his house at all, then my noble friend's Amendment does no harm, because the matter never arises. But the Government have power to requisition a house even if it is occupied, and therefore this man who is living in his own house is turned out. The noble Lord cannot tell me that that man will be able easily to get another house at the restricted rent—it cannot be done. That is why there is the other subsection of this very clause, subsection (2) which says: Where the requisitioned land includes no rent-restricted land, the rental compensation shall not exceed one hundred and sixty per cent. … The reason for that provision is that everyone knows that the man will have to pay somewhere about that rental for his new place. But if he is a wretched owner-occupier of one of these small houses, his house, under the definition clause of this Bill, comes into the category of a rent-restricted house. Yet the man is living there and all he wants to do is to go on living there.

Lord CHORLEY

We are not turning him out.

Lord LLEWELLIN

But you can turn him out; that is my point. My noble friend's Amendment is merely to add a proviso which reads as follows: Provided that a property shall not be deemed to be a rent-restricted property for the purposes of this section notwithstanding that the foregoing conditions are fulfilled if at or immediately before the time when possession was taken of the property the owner thereof was himself in occupation of the same. Therefore, if there is no case where these powers are to be used to turn a man out of his own property no harm can be done to the Government by accepting this Amendment. On the other hand, if this Amendment is not made in the Bill and it does happen that one of the Departments requisitions a small house occupied by the owner, the Government cannot pay full compensation to that man because, by the terms of the Statute, it would be more than the restricted rent. We all know perfectly well that he ought to get 60 per cent. more than the 1939 rent, if he is to get another home.

Those are the facts; and it is obviously unfair if such people are to be turned out and be told, "This is your compensation." The man may say to the rent requisitioning officer, "Where can I get another house to live in at this moment?" The requisitioning officer will not be able to answer that question. That is the position in which these people are going to be. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should accept this Amendment—which is even stronger than the one they have said they would consider, because in that Amendment these people would get 1939 rate plus 60 per cent. Some people live in houses which are subject to 1914 rate plus 40 per cent. I would sooner have 1939 rate plus 60 per cent., than 1914 rate plus 40 per cent.—and that is the basis to which we are putting these people back. Therefore I press the Government to think again, lest some injustice be done.

Lord CHORLEY

We will certainly have another look at it, but I cannot hold out to the noble Lord any prospect of our accepting this Amendment. It would not be right that I should do so. But we will certainly took at it again and consider it with the Minister.

The Marquess of SALISBURY

We are grateful to the noble Lord for the promise to look at the matter again. But we have now been told in two successive Amendments that the Government recognize the need for a solution, but all they say is that they will look at the matter again, and that they cannot hold out any hope that they can make the matter any more just. I suggest that if they are going to. look at these Amendments they should look at them properly, with a view to helping. I recognize that it is not the noble Lord himself who is responsible, but I hope he will try to get the Government to do their job, which is to secure justice for the small man in this country.

The Earl of MUNSTER

If the noble Lord is going to look at the matter again, I hope he will really consider the point and see if he can get something definite done and put down an Amendment agreeable to us all. In the existing circumstances, and seeing that discussions are to be held, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Amount of compensation in respect of making good requisitioned land.

10.—(1) Proviso (ii) to subsection (1) of Section two of the Act of 1939 (which provides that the compensation payable under paragraph (b) of that subsection in respect of damage to land occurring during the period of requisition shall not exceed the value of the land at the time when possession thereof was taken, no account being taken of any appreciation in the value thereof due to the emergency) shall not have effect as respects compensation under the said paragraph (b) accruing due after the commencement of this Act, but subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section such compensation shall not exceed the amount by which the compulsory purchase price of the land in the state in which it was when the compensation accrued due falls short of what would have been the compulsory purchase price of the land if it had then been in the state in which it was when possession of the land was taken.

The Earl of MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (1): or the amount of any sums reasonably expended, or so to be expended, in the rehabilitation of the land, whichever is the greater. The noble Earl said: The first Amendment which I have on Clause 10 is to line 28, on page 8. As the noble Lord properly observed, this and the Third Amendment which I have put down to this clause are very similar. Being good-natured, I have put them both down, in the hope that if the noble Lord cannot accept one he will probably accept the other. These Amendments are of an ex- ploratory nature. I should appreciate some Government assurance on the restoration of land, which might take a considerable period of time. I had at the back of my mind the question of opencast coal mining land. During the Committee stage in another place the Financial Secretary gave an undertaking that the Government would restore this land, without any words in the Act requiring them so to do, and that any charges or any duties which fell on the Government could be made in the Appropriation Act. I should like that story extended, and for those reasons I have put down this Amendment and the next. I believe that for the purposes of my argument it would be proper that one or other of these Amendments should be inserted, in order to make it perfectly clear that the Government have the power so to put the land back again into good heart, and that they will not then refer to another Act, the Appropriation Act. In these circumstances, I move the first Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 28, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Munster.)

Lord CHORLEY

I am very glad indeed to testify to the good nature of the noble Earl, and I hope that he will return the compliment—but I am afraid that I cannot accept his Amendment. Indeed, I do not think he suggested that the Amendment should be taken very seriously, because its effect would be to remove the ceiling altogether. What the noble Earl is concerned with getting is an undertaking from the Government that the particular type of hard case to which he has referred will be fairly dealt with. I think the noble Earl will agree that the Government's proposals for dealing with terminal compensation are fair and just. But the difficulty arises in cases where the rehabilitation will take a long time, particularly in the case of open-cast coal mining where actual damage had been great but had not become apparent for some time, and especially in regard to the drainage system. We appreciate that this is a difficult case. I hope, when I say that, that the noble Marquess will not return to the charge and say, because I have admitted that there are hard cases, that we should immediately produce some form of words which will effectively deal with them in the Statute: because we cannot do it. But we are asking for powers to give us this extended period under the 1945 Act so that the Government may be able to rehabilitate this land. It is quite obvious that in the present difficult labour situation the landowner will not be able to do it and the Government are taking that responsibility on their own shoulders. They will hand back to the owner the land brought to the grazing level. In addition, an assurance has been given—and it is an assurance which I am happy to repeat here and now—that the Government, where necessary, will assume responsibility for restoring the drainage, whether the Government themselves undertake the work or provide the finance for the landowner to undertake it. The Government will restore the land to grazing standard and will be financially responsible for restoring the drainage. I hope the noble Earl will agree that this is a satisfactory answer to the one Amendment or the other.

Lord LLEWELLIN

Do I understand that the Government themselves intend, and give a pledge, to restore the drainage of the land, not absolutely promptly but in due course, out of public monies, and to restore the land to the condition in which it was before the surface mining took place? That is very good, so far as it goes, but there is no statutory obligation on the Government to do it. Ministers come and Ministers go; some take one view and some take another. However, it might be a difficult thing to put into a Statute. In this case, I suppose, the Minister would just show it on his estimate and that is how the work would receive Parliamentary sanction in the year in which it was done. If I am right in that, that is as far as we can press the noble Lord. The noble Lord, having testified to the good nature of the noble Earl, asks for the compliment to be returned. I agree that the noble Lord opposite is very good-natured, but my complaint is that he is too good-natured. When you know that there is a point of justice involved, you do not want to be good-natured with the Civil Service; you need to be a little stronger than that. I hope that the noble Lord will forget his good nature and will try to see that justice is done in these cases which we have pressed so hard. Good nature alone will not do it.

The Earl of MUNSTER

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assurance, which certainly meets the point. There is little difference between us on this. I was not certain whether there was any statutory obligation on the Government in these matters. If the noble Lord tells me that he is satisfied on that point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (1): or, where the land is comprised in a lease determining after the date when possession of the land was given up, the amount of the damages payable in respect of a breach of any repairing covenant contained in the said lease, less any amount so payable in respect of any breach which occurred before the date when possession of the land was taken, whichever is the greater. The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment of which I gave your Lordships some indication during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. The question I am concerned with here is this. If a local authority requisitioned a house and turned it into flats for homeless people and, at the end of the period of requisition, returned it to the owner, the tenant might be under an obligation to restore that house at the end of the lease to the condition in which he found it when he took the lease. I am not satisfied in my own mind that, under the terms of the Bill, that case is met. On the other hand, I know that the case which I mentioned on the Second Reading is met. That is the case where a local authority requisition a property and turn it into flats for homeless people, and the lease, in the course of time, runs out but runs out during the period of requisition. That case is met by the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act, 1944, and I should not be unduly concerned or worried about the tenant. However, I am concerned with the position as it would be in the first type of case that I have mentioned. It seems to me to be particularly hard on the tenant of a building who may have had it requisitioned and turned into flats that, when that building is returned to him, and without any obligation on the local authority or His Majesty's Government, the tenant before the expiration of the lease will have to convert that building back to the state in which it was when he took the house. I think I have a very clear and just case. For that reason, I have moved this Amendment in the hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me some information which will show that the case I have mentioned is met either by the local authority or by His Majesty's Government.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)

Lord CHORLEY

The case about which the noble Earl is thinking is again not a case in which any alteration in the Bill is required. It is a case where the value of the property has, in fact, been considerably increased. It is most unlikely that the owner, whose house has at great expense been turned into a block of fiats during the requisition, will try to insist on its being restored to the condition in which it was when it was taken over. However, if he were so unreasonable as to do that, I am advised that his only remedy would be to apply to the court, which might award damages for the loss which he has sustained; but ex hypothesi he would not have sustained any damages at all, because the value of the property, now returned to him as a block of flats instead of as a single dwellinghouse, would be so much greater than it was before.

The Earl of MUNSTER

Not to the leaseholder; to the freeholder, yes.

Lord CHORLEY

To either the leaseholder or the freeholder.

The Earl of MUNSTER

No. If the leaseholder is subject to a tenancy in which he has to put the building back into the state in which it originally was, then I agree that the freeholder will be better off; but the leaseholder will be forced to convert property back to the state in which he found it.

Lord CHORLEY

The leaseholder can be forced to restore it to the state in which he first of all had it only under a mandatory injunction from the court. I am advised that it is inconceivable that a court would make a mandatory order in a case of this kind. An injunction is entirely a discretionary remedy, and if the situation can be met effectively by monetary compensation, the court will award monetary compensation. This case ex hypothesi is a case where the value of the property has been substantially increased by being converted from a dwellinghouse into a block of flats, and therefore the court would say: "This is not a case for the discretionary remedy of the mandatory injunction; no damages will be awarded because no damages have been sustained." I suggest that this Amendment is misconceived and I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.

The Earl of MUNSTER

I am advised that that is the best answer we have received so far to any of these Amendments. Possibly in this case I am wrong—although I am certain that the noble Lord was in the wrong on the previous two Amendments. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10, agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

Registration of rights as to government oil pipe-lines.

14.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, Section twelve of this Act shall not after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, apply to any pipe-line, or works accessory thereto, unless the rights conferred by subsection (1) of that section have been registered in the prescribed manner in the appropriate register of local land charges.

The Earl of MUNSTER

My next Amendment deals with the pipe-line. As I mentioned this point on the Second Reading of the Bill, I need not refer to it again, because I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has some statement or guarantee to make on this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 16, at end insert ("and notice has been served in the prescribed manner on the owner or occupier of any land to which the said rights apply").—(The Earl of Munster.)

Lord CHORLEY

The noble Earl and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on the Second Reading of the Bill very properly drew attention to the difficulty in which the owner or the occupier might be placed in the event of the pipe-line going under his land without his being aware of it. A new owner might have purchased the land since the time when the pipe-line was established, or a new occupier might have taken it over. We had a word together on this point, and I was able to assure the noble Earl that the Minister of Works and Buildings, who will be the appropriate Minister for dealing with this type of case, has already been in touch, so far as has been practicable and possible, with owners and occupiers in every case. We are very anxious indeed that there should be no hardship in a case of this kind. I am prepared to give an undertaking that in every known case written notice will be served upon the occupier and that, in all cases where it is possible to find the owner, a similar notice will be served upon him. I hope that those assurances will satisfy the noble Earl and that he will see his way to withdraw this Amendment.

Lord LLEWELLIN

We are much obliged to the noble Lord. All we wanted to make quite clear was that these people should not have to go and look at the land register, but that the Department which knows where this pipe-line goes should get in touch with these people and show them. I do not know whether the noble Lord's undertaking went so far as that. He mentioned serving a notice, but I would like to see the Department showing the people concerned where it is. They will always be able to find some occupier of the land; that is pretty clear, just as I agree that the owner sometimes may not be easy to find. It is not just a notice that I want. I want the occupier shown where the actual pipeline runs under his land. This will prevent him erecting a cowshed, or something else, which will eventually have to be pulled down, on or near the pipe-line, which would be a waste of labour, money and everything else. I would like to see—and I am quite certain that the noble Lord will do this—the officer of the Department explaining to the man where the line runs under his land, and so enable him to mark it out on his estate plan. I would like to ask whether that is the intention.

Lord CHORLEY

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for raising that question. Of course, the notice would not have much value unless in some way the precise spot on the land were indicated to the occupier or owner, as the case may be, and I am quite prepared to assure him that, wherever possible, the precise spot will be indicated.

The Earl of MUNSTER

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.