- 1. The Department acquiring the land or interest therein shall be deemed to be the promoters of the undertaking, and this Act shall be deemed to be the special Act.
- 2. The provisions as to the sale of superfluous land and as to access to the special Act shall not apply.
- 3. All questions of disputed compensation shall be settled by the Commission.
- 4. No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory.
- 5. Where a portion only of any factory or other building is required the owners and other persons interested in such building may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, be required to sell and convey the portions only of the building so required, if the Commission are of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and in such case compensation shall be paid for the portions required, and for any damage suffered by the owners or other parties interested in the building by severance or otherwise.
- 6. In determining the amount of compensation, the value, of the land shall be taken to be the value which the land would have had at the date of the notice to treat if it had remained in the condition in which it was at the commencement of the present war, without regard to any enhancement or depreciation in the value which may be attributable directly or indirectly to any buildings, works, or improvements, erected, constructed, or made on, over or under the land, or any adjoining or neighbouring land for purposes connected with the present War wholly or partly at the expense of the State, or,
2429 with the consent of the occupying department, at the expense of any person not feeing a person interested in the land: Provided that— - (a) where any such building, work, or improvement was erected, constructed, or made in pursuance of an agreement with any person interested in the land, the consideration given by such person shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest;
- (b) where by virtue of an agreement with any Government Department any person interested in the land is entitled as between himself and that Department to the benefit of any such building, work, or improvement, the value attributable to such building, work, or improvement shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest;
- (c) where, since the commencement of the present War, any person interested in the land has himself erected, constructed, or made any building, work, or improvement, or has contributed to the expense thereof, or has committed any act depreciating the value of the land, the value attributable to his expenditure or the depreciation in value attributable to such act shall be taken into account in assessing the compensation payable in respect of such interest.
- 7. In determining the amount of compensation payable to any person interested in the land, the Commission shall have regard to the extent to which any adjoining or neighbouring land or hereditaments in which the same person is also interested may be benefited by the buildings, works, and improvements so constructed, erected, or made as aforesaid, on over or under the land taken or on over or under any adjoining or neighbouring land.
- 8. In determining the amount of compensation the Commission shall also take into account the amount (if any) of any compensation paid or other payment received in respect of the previous occupation of the land so far as such compensation or payment was payable in respect of matters other than the mesne profits of the land.
- 9. Where the surface of the land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying thereunder, the Commission may
2430 apply a2430ny of the provisions of Sections seventy-seven to eighty-live of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit. - 10. Where by reason of the erection, construction, or making of any such buildings, works, or improvements as aforesaid or the maintenance thereof, or by reason of the user of the land, any interest in the land has become or might become forfeited or liable to forfeiture, the compensation shall be determined as if no such forfeiture or liability to forfeiture had arisen or might arise.
- 11. The Commission shall not hear more than one expert witness on either side except in such cases as the Commission otherwise direct.
- 12. The Lord Chancellor may make rules fixing a scale of costs to be applicable on an arbitration under this Act, and the Commission may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow as costs in the arbitration the cost of any witness whom they consider to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which they consider to have been caused or incurred unnecessarily, and, if they think the circumstances such as to justify them in so doing, to order that each of the parties shall bear their own costs.
- 13. There may be contained in the award of the Commission a finding that the claimant, after having been requested in writing by the Department by whom the land or interest therein is to be acquired so to do, has failed to deliver to such department a statement in writing of the amount claimed, giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time to enable such department to make a proper offer, and, where such a finding is contained in the award, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to cost of arbitrations shall apply as if such department had offered the same sum or a greater sum than that found to be due by the award: Provided that this provision shall not apply unless the written request for particulars contained a notice of the effect of this provision.
- 14. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—
- (a) For the reference to mesne profits there shall be substituted a reference to profits.
- (b) For the reference to Sections seventy-seven to eighty five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, there shall be substituted a reference to Sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845.
- (c) "The Court of Session" and "Act of Sederunt" shall be substituted for "the Lord Chancellor" and "rules" respectively.
- (d)"Hereditaments" means "heritages" and "arbitrator" means "arbiter."
2431 - 15. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Ireland with the substitution of a reference to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for the reference to the Lord Chancellor.
§ Mr. HARDYI beg to move to leave out paragraph 2, which refers to the sale of superfluous land and to the access to the special Act. With respect to the sale of superfluous land, I am not a little puzzled by the Solicitor-General's Amendment, which goes rather beyond my knowledge of the Lands Clauses Act, 1845.
§ Sir G. CAVEmade a remark which was inaudible in the Reporters' Gallery.
§ Sir G. CAVENo.
§ Sir G. CAVENone of them.
§ Mr. HARDYBut you leave paragraph 2 as it stands. In regard to superfluous land, I think there never could be a case where the Act dealing with superfluous land should come into operation as in this case, because the land has been taken for very special purposes and at a very special time, and if it is to go back to anybody it ought to follow the lines adopted in other cases for a great number of years. It should not be excluded as one of the modifications of the Lands Clauses Acts which have been brought in. So far as the access to the special Act is concerned I confess that I do not feel very clear. I believe the intention is to get the procedure under this Act and the procedure under the Lands Clauses Acts running concurrently. I should like an explanation from the Solicitor-General why these two particular 2432 provisions which have applied generally and have been considered fitting to apply in connection with the acquisition of land should be excluded from this particular case. I am acting on behalf of the County Councils Association.
§ Sir G. CAVEThat is so. In regard to the Special Act, there is no Special Act in this case.
§ Mr. HARDYHow does that agree with paragraph 1, which says that this Act shall be deemed to be the Special Act?
§ Sir G. CAVEThere is no other special Act. With regard to the other point the provisions as to the sale of superfluous land give the right of pre-emption to the former or adjoining owner. That is the only effect of it. By the Bill as now amended there is an express right of preemption to the former or adjoining owner. The right hon. Gentleman himself got it put in. Having it there once you do not want it there again. It would be absurd to have side by side two different sets of words giving rights of pre-emption.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am not quite clear as to this. I should like to consider the effect of the first two Clauses under which this Act is to be deemed to be the special Act and then the provisions under which the special Act is to be deemed not to apply. Leaving it, and accepting what the Solicitor-General says, the provisions which are now left out and are not to apply are the provisions which are referred to in the Amendment which the Solicitor-General intended to move. That Amendment refers to Sections 127, 128, and 129 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845. The catchwords of these Clauses are —if lands are not wanted to be sold, or in default to vest in the owners of the adjoining land. If they are not really wanted when taken by the undertakers they are to vest in the owners of the adjoining lands. The next, 128, is—lands to be offered to the owner of the lands from which they were originally taken, or to the adjoining owner. Section 129 is the right of pre-emption to be claimed within six weeks. It is quite true that we have already a special arrangement for preemption which deals with matters contained in 128 and 129, but you have not dealt with the point in Section 127. I do 2433 not think that there are many such cases likely to arise. At any rate, we have the fact that the learned Solicitor-General thought that it was worth while putting in a proviso to deal with them. I do not know who altered his mind and made him come to the conclusion that he would not ask for the powers in 127, as it was unnecessary to have them. I should have rather thought that it was necessary to safeguard that Section. At any rate, we have the authority of the draftsmen in support of those who still think that something ought to be done in reference to Section 127, and that it should not be thrown away, in case that it should be needed in specific cases.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAs I am not competent to argue the Amendment which I trust will be moved, I will not pursue it, but it does seem to me rather a peculiar thing that, the Amendment having been put down, the learned Solicitor-General should withdraw it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Colonel GRETTONI beg to move to leave out paragraph 3 of the Schedule.
This goes a very long way. It states that all questions of simple compensation shall be settled by the Commissioners. Anyone who makes any claim whatsoever for compensation under any Act whatever has always a legal right. In this case there is no appeal, and no legal right in the claimants who may appear before the 'Commission. I do not think it is realised how far this paragraph goes, and I think it goes far beyond what the Government intends. The paragraph should be left out and further considered, so that it may be limited to what is obviously intended, and what alone can rightly be meant in this connection.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe reference in the Schedule is interpreted in the Bill, Clause 3, Sub-section (5):
"For the purposes of the acquisition of land and interests therein under this Section, the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts, subject to the modifications set out in the Schedule to this Act shall be incorporated with this Act."
Clearly this comes within the Clause, and the questions are to be settled, not by a jury but by the Commission. If the 2434 hon. Gentleman accepts the principle that the Commission is to be the body to provide the compensation, then this paragraph must apply.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIt is a most vital proposition, that the Commission should be the tribunal to try questions of compensation. I have not heard anybody in this House suggest that the Commission is a suitable body to try questions of compensation. They are in no way fitted to try such cases. We know that the Commission, in effect, when claims are made, appoint an arbitrator, and they act on his report. Under the Lands Clauses system the owner and the purchaser each appoint an arbitrator, and if they do not agree an umpire is appointed to try the case. I strongly support the Amendment, for I feel sure that such a tribunal ought never to be allowed to settle compensation.
§ Sir T. WALTERSThis is really going to the root of the Bill, and certainly ought not to be disposed of in an Amendment to one paragraph of the Schedule. We have a perfectly clear course given to us in the Bill, namely, that the Commissioners are the tribunal to deal with these claims for compensation, and, of course, they will have a simple procedure and make their award. That can be done without arbitrators on each side, and an umpire if they disagree, with all the agreeable and attractive things which attach to such a procedure. The effect of the procedure in the Bill is to simplify the whole business, to eliminate unnecessary cost, and to have an impartial tribunal that will not be concerned in any of these things, but will simply endeavour to arrive at what is fair and equitable compensation. As far as, my own experience of these matters goes, I view with positive horror the cumbersome costly machinery of the Lands Clauses Acts, though I can see some grounds on which you may criticise this procedure. On the whole, looking at it broadly, it seems to me it is a simple, equitable and inexpensive method of procedure, and I should not support any Amendment that would reopen the whole question and involve us in that hopeless quagmire of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. I believe the Commissioners are a competent body in this matter and that they will be properly assisted by competent surveyors. I have given some considerable thought to this matter, and comparing the principle which this Bill, I 2435 understand, lays down with the ordinary machinery of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, I believe this is simpler and certainly more inexpensive and the better method on which to proceed.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI am surprised to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir T. Walters). I do not think he can have been present when we were discussing the question of the tribunal. He probably did not hear the Solicitor-General say to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Home) that he was prepared to consider what the composition of the Commission should be and before the Report stage to consider whether any alteration should be made in the Commission, and that he had not closed the door at all as to whether or not he would adhere to the Railway and Canals Commission or whether or not there should be a special tribunal. Indeed, he indicated it might be that a special tribunal, either existing or possibly set up before the Report stage, might be found to be a more serviceable tribunal for the purposes of this Bill than the one for which the hon. Member for Sheffield expressed so much love and affection, having regard to the past and with a lingering sort of recollection of the remuneration received. At first I thought he was referring to my hon. and learned Friend the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson), but I found that they were only anecdotal references to his own past career. The importance of this Amendment is that if the matter is left open, and one which the Solicitor-General will consider when he is considering the points which were raised by the hon. Member for Guildford, it seems to be part of the same scheme, and I think it must be left in that way, and I do not see how we can ask for more. How can he determine the matter more definitely if he adheres to this particular Clause, in view of what he said to the hon. Member for Guildford? If we are to take this as a sort of trial ground as to whether or not the composition of the tribunal is to be finally fixed without any reconsideration, and if all questions of disputed compensation are to be settled by the Commission as we at present know it, it is a very debatable question indeed, and the Amendment is a very important one, and it might be that we should be unable to settle it until some further undertaking 2436 was given by the Government. Certainly it could not be left where it was left by the hon. Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield. If it were, it would be taken that this Committee finally adhered to the views which he expressed, without any possibility of modification on Report.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIn the course of the discussion the hon. Member for the Bright-side Division of Sheffield has made some very notable speeches, with nearly all of which I agreed. Therefore, I listened with, great interest to the speech which he made a few minutes ago. I am sorry to say that in this case he has not convinced me that he is right. As far as I understand, all that would happen if these words were left out would be that the Railway and Canal Commissioners would have to be guided by the procedure in the Lands Clauses Act with regard to the compensation. The hon. Member says that that is a very cumbersome, difficult, and costly procedure. One would suppose that under the Amendment the Railway Commissioners themselves would settle the matter. That is not so at all. They would themselves, as I understand, appoint a surveyor. That surveyor would not act without fee.
§ Sir T. WALTERSPerhaps I may explain. If you follow the procedure of the Lands Clauses Act the Commissioners would have to appoint one arbitrator, and the owner of the land would appoint another. These two arbitrators would meet, and, of course, they would not agree. They would appoint an umpire, who would sit and hear the evidence. Each side would call professional witnesses, surveyors, who would want to be paid. The arbitrators would want to be paid. The umpire would want to be paid. If you add all those items together they come to a considerable sum. The procedure under this Bill is quite different. The Commissioners appoint a single arbitrator, whose business it is to inspect the land, examine all the facts, hear the evidence submitted to him, and advise the Commissioners, and upon his advice the Commissioners make their award. You reduce to a minimum both the procedure and the number of people who have to be paid. Thus the method of the Bill is more expeditious, less costly, and, I think, better.
§ Sir G. CAVEMay I make an appeal to the Committee? I think everyone will agree that it would be better if, before we 2437 separate for the Recess, we could have the Bill reprinted and circulated. To do that we must get this Bill through Committee to-night, and we can do that only by general consent. We can deal with these other matters on Report.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI think we have made very good progress—
§ Sir G. CAVEI agree.
§ Sir F. BANBURYAnd there are several things outstanding which are very important. I really do not think it matters very much whether the Bill is reprinted and circulated now or whether it waits until the 10th October. I certainly am not going to read the Bill between now and the 10th October. I have other things to do. I have read Bills for the last twenty-four years when the House was sitting, and for the last two years when it has been sitting almost continuously, therefore I do not want to spend my vacation reading this Bill. I should prefer to do it when we get back again. We really have endeavoured to get on, but we have come to some very important points, and I think we must have two or three Amendments. We can do this thing much better in Committee than on the Report stage. Not being very capable in putting my points, I like the Committee stage, for I can speak more than once, whereas, on the Report stage, I cannot speak more than once. What the hon. Gentleman (Sir T. Walters) opposite has said has not changed my view, for, after all, the man can say that he is perfectly willing to submit the case to one arbitrator. He can, too, claim his right under the Lands Clauses Act himself to appoint the arbitrator. I presume he will have to ' pay the expenses if he does that. Therefore, under these circumstances, I really; do not see why the Sub-section should not come out. The procedure then would be that of the Lands Clauses Act. I strongly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Sir E. CORNWALLI would like to try and save time by saying that it would be a great convenience to people outside the House if the Bill were printed. The right hon. Baronet says that he does not want to read the Bill during the Recess, but a very great number of people outside the House would like to see the Bill in print, and give us the benefit of their views.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere is nothing really in that. What are we going to do 2438 after 10th October till Christmas? We will have little to do. We may as well amuse ourselves—
§ Sir E. CORNWALLWe are not legislating for ourselves, but for the people outside.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThey can amuse themselves with it after 10th October. One of the reasons this Bill was brought forward to-day was because there was no work to do.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, to leave out paragraph 4.
This is a very important Amendment. I believe I am right in saying that under the Lands Clauses Acts no words occur which provide that compensation for compulsory purchase shall be given, but that it is left open to the arbitrator, or whoever settles what the compensation shall be, to decide whether or not certain compensation shall be given in view of the special circumstances of the case, and I believe that as a rule 10 per cent., or some percentage, has generally been given in order to cover the cost of reinvestments.
§ Sir G. CAVENot reinvestment.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI cannot see why in this particular case these words should be put in. Why should it not be left to the arbitrator to decide whether or not in his opinion a certain rather larger compensation should be given because of the compulsory purchase, and whether or not they should be entitled to give that compensation. Surely many of the cases here concerned are cases in which people have come forward purely from patriotic motives and placed their land at the disposition of the Government. Cases were given in the papers the other day where the Government have occupied very valuable premises and refused to pay any rent at all for them. They have occupied premises worth about £300,000 or £400,000 absolutely for nothing. Under those circumstances, while I am always in favour of necessary economy, which has not been practised by the Government, I do think these words should not be put in.
§ Sir G. CAVEThe practice has grown up under the Lands Clauses Acts of ascertaining the loss which the owner has had to bear and then adding to that 10 per cent, for what is called compulsory 2439 purchase. It is not allowed for reinvestment, but it is simply a kind of solatium to the owner for having to sell land he does not want to sell. I think in recent years that has not generally been claimed by owners of land, and, in fact, in recent Statutes there has been a provision excluding an additional sum for compulsory purchase. I have a list here. It includes the Small Holdings Act.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThe last Small Holdings Act?
§ Sir G. CAVEYes; the Housing and Town Planning Act, the Development Act, and others. I think it is customary to insert words of this kind, and I think as a rule owners have not objected. I hope, therefore, in this case the precedent will be followed with the general consent of the Committee.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI quite agree it is a very small point, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted cases in which it has been done away with. On the occasion of the Housing and Town Planning Bill I made some strong remarks about the exclusion of the Lands Clauses Acts. Whatever may be necessary in Bills of that kind, surely in a Bill such as this, where the person whose land you are taking is admittedly a person who has allowed the Government to come in under circumstances very patriotic indeed, I do think it is exceedingly ungenerous that a paragraph of this kind should be inserted. I always understood 10 per cent, was put in for compulsory removal. Whatever the basis, hon. Members can trust surveyors to exercise a just attitude in regard to the matter.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI do not. see any reason why because under certain Acts—which, as far as I remember, were not approved by the Solicitor-General at the time they were passed—certain things Were done that now that bad practice should be continued. This is a very exceptional Bill taking very exceptional powers. It is not an ordinary case where one particular property is to be acquired. This Bill deals with all sorts of property all over the Kingdom acquired for very exceptional reasons and where, in nine cases out of ten, the owners do not want to sell. I think it is a little ungracious to insist upon these particular words when the Government must be well aware that the owners have come forward most patriotically and placed their lands at the 2440 disposal of the State. I should like to have divided the Committee on this Amendment, but in view of the late hour I will not press it to a Division.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move to leave out paragraph (5).
This is a very important Amendment, because it deals with the question of severance. I think that that portion of the Lands Clauses Acts which deals with severance should not be included in this Bill. The Committee will remember that the Lands Clauses Acts require that where it is proved that a portion of land is required which causes a severance and damage by so doing, the owner may require the purchasing authority to take the whole of the land, and that seems to be perfectly fair. Supposing you have a house and garden and the authorities require to purchase only the garden and leave the house. That may cause considerable damage to the property, and the only fair way is to buy the whole property, and then the buyer can sell the portion which lie does not require. I think one or two cases have occurred where that has been done, but in this particular Bill, and under these circumstances it is very unfair to introduce this particular paragraph. I do not know that my Amendment would be any great increase in the cost. There might be some, but at any rate justice will not be met if compensation only was to be paid to the owner for the damage. The words are: "If the Commission are of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and in such case compensation shall be paid for the portions required, and for any damage suffered by the owners or other parties interested in the building by severance or otherwise. "Therefore it is only in cases where the Commission are of opinion that such portions can be severed without damage, and then under those circumstances compensation shall be paid. It is very often impossible to arrive at the actual amount of compensation which is just. If you take a portion of a man's property it is only a question of opinion as to what the damage is—
§ It being Eleven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow (Tuesday).