§ Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the requisitioning of hotels has involved the dismissal of hundreds of hotel servants; and whether, if the proprietor or tenant of these hotels pays the wages to which these servants would have been 563W entitled if requisitioning had not terminated their contracts of service, compensation will be payable in respect of these payments under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939?
§ Captain CrookshankI have been asked to reply. I am aware that the requisitioning of hotels has unfortunately involved the dismissal of hotel servants. The proprietor of a hotel so requisitioned is entitled, under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, to be reimbursed any expenses reasonably incurred for the purpose of compliance with directions given on behalf of His Majesty in connection with the taking possession of the hotel. If such directions necessitate the termination of contracts of service, I am prepared to regard the amount of wages properly payable by the proprietor in lieu of notice, in appropriate cases, as expenses reasonably incurred within the meaning of the Act. The amount to be paid in any particular case would, in the absence of agreement, fall to be determined by the tribunal.
§ Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the First Commissioner of Works whether the compensation payable to hotel proprietors whose property has been requisitioned includes any compensation for loss of profits, the loss of goodwill, the losses which will be incurred while the property is being made fit for re-opening after release from requisitioning, and for the replacement value of furniture and equipment taken over by his Department?
§ Captain CrookshankI have been asked to reply. The compensation to be paid for the occupation of a hotel falls to be determined under Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. One element in this compensation is a sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation and I am prepared to agree that, in assessing that sum, profits derivable from the conduct of the premises as a hotel may, inter alia, be taken into account. The Act provides that after release from requisition a sum shall be paid to the owner equal to the cost of making good any damage to the premises, and if in fact the premises were wholly or partly unusable during the execution of the repairs, a reasonable allowance could, I think, in proper cases be made for this in estimating the cost. With regard to furniture and equipment taken over with564W the hotel, unless an arrangement for hire is made, compensation is paid under Section 6 of the Act on the basis of the price which the owner might reasonably have expected to obtain upon sale of the goods before requisition.
§ Mr. Henderson Stewartasked the First Commissioner of Works why the basis of compensation for requisitioned property has been changed from that laid down by the judgment given in the case of the Attorney-General v. De Keyser's Royal Hotel and endorsed by the Indemnity Act of 1920?
§ Captain CrookshankI have been asked to reply. I am not sure that I follow what the hon. Member has in mind. The judgment in the De Keyser case declared that the Suppliants were entitled to a fair rent for use and occupation of the hotel by way of compensation under the Defence Act, 1842. Under Section 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, one element of compensation, which, in default of agreement, will be assessed by a tribunal presided over by an ex-judge of the High Court, is "a sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the land." Furthermore, the Act makes provision for making good any damage to the premises caused during the occupation and for the reimbursement of any expenses reasonably incurred in complying with any directions given in connection with the taking possession of the premises.