Clause 6. — (Additional payments in respect of temporary works.)

Orders of the Day — War Damage Bill. – in the House of Commons on 29th January 1941.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr William Spens Mr William Spens , Ashford

I beg to move, in page 5, line 45, after "executed," to insert "for clearing the site and."

This Amendment raises a very small point. I shall be quite satisfied if a statement can be made to the effect that the position is covered, but if not, I shall be glad if the Amendment can be inserted.

Photo of Mr Herbert Williams Mr Herbert Williams , Croydon South

I previously raised the question of where the site has been cleared by someone who is not the owner. When I walked down Victoria Street this morning I passed a number of Pioneers shovelling bricks into a lorry. I was glad to see they were using spades to-day as yesterday they were doing it by hand. If members of His Majesty's Army clear the site, the owner is better off than if he had to clear it himself. Where it is considered necessary in the public interest, a lot of this site clearing has been done at public expense. In Victoria Street it has been necessary to do this, but in cases where property—

Photo of Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy , Daventry

I do not think that that point arises on this Amendment.

Photo of Mr Herbert Williams Mr Herbert Williams , Croydon South

The whole question is whether this has to be calculated in the cost of clearing the site, and the Amendment relates to that.

Photo of Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy , Daventry

But not to whom it is cleared by.

Photo of Mr Herbert Williams Mr Herbert Williams , Croydon South

If the Amendment goes into the Bill, the cost of clearing the site becomes a charge which the War Damage Commission has to pay, and therefore, I presume, later on the War Office will have a claim against the War Damage Commission, or may have, because the site has been cleared at somebody else's expense. I am trying to find out whether, where the expense is a public charge, it is to be different from the case of the owner who has to clear his own site, because that is likely to create a serious situation. This point must be cleared up, otherwise there will be great difficulty as between owners of property. The matter is one of real substance. The amount at stake in some cases will be as much as £2,000 or £3,000.

Photo of Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy Lieut-General Edward Fitzroy , Daventry

I will not stop the hon. Member, nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer from replying, on the understanding that this matter is not raised where it should have been raised, namely, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."

Photo of Captain Harry Crookshank Captain Harry Crookshank , Gainsborough

We will clear it up now because it raises quite a different issue from that of the Amendment. As far as the Amendment is concerned, I am advised that as the Clause stands at present it is unnecessary.

Photo of Mr William Spens Mr William Spens , Ashford

In those circumstances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Photo of Mr Francis Douglas Mr Francis Douglas , Battersea North

There is a point that I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider relating to payments in respect of temporary work. In a large number of cases temporary works are carried out by local authorities. They have a statutory obligation in certain cases to execute temporary work upon houses in order to enable occupants to get back into them as quickly as possible. The local authorities are unable to recoup themselves for the cost of carrying out temporary work. Under Clause 6 that right cannot be claimed unless there is a payment to be made in respect of cost of works or value. If no payment is made in respect of these things the local authority will not be able to recoup itself for expense thus incurred. This is of great importance to local authorities, who have proceeded hitherto upon a special enactment which gives them the right to recover from the owner of property, by means of a charge on property, the cost of carrying out the works. The charge is limited, and it is still further limited by preventing any charge being paid which does not exceed £5 in value. I know in the case of a certain council that in respect of some 10,000 houses, the great majority will fall under the £5 limit, but the local authority will be entirely deprived of the right it has hitherto had to recoup the expense. I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is extremely unfair to take away in this connection the statutory rights already given to the local authority.

Photo of Sir Kingsley Wood Sir Kingsley Wood , Woolwich West

I will examine that matter with pleasure.

Photo of Mr Frederick Bellenger Mr Frederick Bellenger , Bassetlaw

Will the private owner who has carried out the temporary repairs himself and has not gone to the local authority be reimbursed when the time comes under the Clause?

Photo of Sir Kingsley Wood Sir Kingsley Wood , Woolwich West

I am going into the question of small claimants. I have already discussed it with the municipal corporations and they have made further representations, and this is one of the matters which I shall take into account.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.