I beg to move, in page 55, line 42, at the end, to insert:
(d) if the title to the hereditament has altered as respects the proprietary interests subsisting therein, or as respects the ownership of the subsistence of a mortgage of any of those interests, between the earliest occasion and the subsequent occasion, the provisions of Part I of this Act, the operation of which depends upon those matters, shall have effect as if the damage had occurred on the subsequent occasion; and
(e) the interest on the single-value payment shall run from the subsequent occasion.
This Amendment deals with the case in which property, which has been once damaged, is transferred, and then, after the transfer, further damage takes place. It is impossible to dissociate the damage that took place on the first occasion from the damage which took place on the second. You therefore deem the damage to have taken place on the second occasion. That would produce no unfairness because the person who owned the property would have dealt with it under the provisions of the Bill.