HC Deb 09 June 1942 vol 380 cc930-1W
Mr. Hutchinson

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether he is aware that the compensation at present payable in respect of gates and railings requisitioned by his Department is based upon their value before severance, less the cost of severing; and whether, as the result is to make the owner of the gates and railings pay the cost of severance, he will take steps to put an end to this inequitable arrangement?

Mr. Hicks

Under the Defence Regulation 50B and the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, the compensation payable is the price which might be obtained upon a sale of the fixtures effected immediately before severance to a purchaser intending to sever them, provided that where the severed fixtures were required for some purpose essential to the use of the land no deduction is made in respect of the cost to be incurred by the purchaser in severing the fixtures. I do not feel that any amendment of the Act or Regulation is required in this respect.

Mr. Hutchinson

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings, whether he will make provision for the compensation, at present payable in respect of the removal of gates and railings from leasehold dwelling-houses, to be paid to the leaseholder, instead of to the freeholder, in cases where a substantial term of the lease is un-expired?

Mr. Hicks

The "owner" who is entitled to the compensation under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is the person who is entitled to sell the property. It is not proposed to introduce legislation to amend the Act, in this respect.

Mr. Hutchinson

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, in cases where gates and railings are removed from dwelling-houses and requisitioned by his Department, and a substitute is provided for such gates and railings, he will make provision for the payment of compensation, based upon the cost of providing such substitute, to the person by whom the substitute is provided?

Mr. Hicks

These cases are governed by the provisions of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, which does not provide for payment for substitution. My Noble Friend does not feel that it is necessary to propose legislation to amend the Act in this respect.