HC Deb 31 December 1916 vol 88 cc1709-14

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.

7. 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.

8. Where the surface of the land is acquired without the mines and minerals lying thereunder, the provisions of Sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, shall apply with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit.

10. 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.

11. 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 within a reasonable time a statement in writing of the amount claimed, together with any information in his possession which may be reasonably required 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 costs 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 information contained a notice of the effect of this provision.

12. The provisions of this Schedule shall apply to Scotland subject to the. Following modifications:

  1. (a) For the reference to mesne profits there shall be substituted a reference to profits:
  2. (b) For the reference to Sections seventy-eight to eighty-five of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, there shall be substituted a reference to Section seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845:
  3. (c) "The Court of Session" and "Act of Sederunt" shall be substituted for "the Lord Chancellor" and "rules" respectively.

13. 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.

Lords Amendment:

In paragraph 3, after the word "Commission," insert the words "an arbitrator or referee or the Commission as the case may require (hereinafter referred to as the arbitration tribunal)."

Sir T. WALTERS

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment would deprive the Commissioners of one of their few solitary remaining powers. The great object of this Bill, so far as I can see, is to deprive the Commissioners of all powers possible, at all events so far as the Amendments apply to the Commission. In this particular respect I would suggest to the House that it is vital that the original structure of the Bill should be maintained. If you refer to Clause 5, you find that it gives power to sell land acquired under the Act.

Sir G. CAVE

My hon. Friend is raising the question of the power of parting with land. This Amendment does not deal with that. It comes under Clause 3.

Sir T. WALTERS

I do not even like it in Clause 3. My objection in regard to Clause 3 is that as it now stands it provides that compensation shall be settled by the Commission. The Lords Amendment is that it is to be decided by a Court of arbitration. If that is to be the doctrine, I should very much prefer that it should be retained by the Commission, and under the order for arbitration the business of settling compensation could be transferred from the Commission to the arbitrator. That seems to me to be reducing the powers of the Commission to a minimum; in other words, the Commission, as I understand, is to be the body who shall decide whether the matter shall be referred to arbitration or not, and it seems to me that it should stand in the Schedule as the authority, whereas if you entirely eliminate it, then the entire procedure would be in the hands of the arbitration tribunal. I will not, however, press the Amendment, which I would point out is a method of depriving the Commission of their powers.

Question put, and negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In paragraph 5, leave out the words "Commission are"["Commission are of opinion"], and insert instead thereof the words" arbitration tribunal is."

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir G. Caw.]

Sir T. WALTERS

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

6.0 P.M.

I want the Commission to be the tribunal to decide, but the Lords Amendment transfers the powers to the arbitration tribunal. That alters the whole position. Supposing the Government want to take only a portion of a factory, they have to go before the Commissioners for their consent to taking a portion and not the whole of the factory. Supposing the Government Department desires to take only a portion and supposing the owner of the factory said they must take the whole, he could put his position before the Commissioners and give his reasons why the whole of the factory should be taken. And the Government Department, who wish only to take a portion of the factory, would put their case before the Commissioners, who would deal with it on its merits, and no injustice would be done and the Government would not be saddled with a huge factory that they did not want. Or, on the other hand, the owner would be in a position to say that the whole of the factory should be taken so that he might not be damaged or ruined by a portion being taken. I say that the Commissioners ought to decide that point. The Lords Amendment throws this on the arbitration tribunal—that is to say, when the matter goes before the arbitration tribunal—evidence is called, and the arbitrator delivers his award as to whether the Government ought to take the whole or a part. The arbitrator is looking at it from a purely technical standpoint—purely from the surveyor's standpoint—and he might decide that it was important, in the interests of the owner of the property, to sell the whole of it rather than a art. Generally speaking, that would obviously be his decision. But he has not regard to other aspects of the question, namely the general national interests, what is fair under all the circumstances of the case, and not merely a question of value. A question of value the arbitrator could very well decide, but this is a question of general policy and general fair play and justice. An impartial tribunal like the Railway and Canal Commissioners, who will take a judicial view of the proceeding, is the proper body to decide whether the whole or part should be taken, and what should be done in these difficult and delicate circumstances. To leave it to a tribunal which will only examine it from a technical standpoint will lead probably to a miscarriage of justice, and will inevitably mean that the State will be required to take much more land and more buildings than it needs. I hope, therefore, that the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment and will retain for the Commissioners this important judicial function which they are well qualified to exercise, and which this House decided, after a full discussion, that they should exercise.

Sir G. CAVE

The hon. Member will understand that I only moved to agree with the Lords in this Amendment for a formal reason. After hearing what the hon. Member has said, and for other reasons, I am rather inclined to agree with him. The point is, which is the authority to say whether a part only or the whole of the premises should be taken. We must go to the Commissioners to determine whether we can buy at all, and it is convenient that they should determine at the same time whether they buy part or the whole. On the whole, therefore, I think we are in favour of leaving the Bill as it stands in this respect, and I will not press my Motion that the House do agree with the Lords.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.

Lords Amendments:

In paragraph 7, leave out the word "Commission," and insert instead thereof the words "Arbitration Tribunal."—Agreed to.

In paragraph 8, leave out the words "with such adaptations and modifications as the Commission think fit," and insert instead thereof the words "subject to this modification, that for the purpose of Section seventy-eight of that Act' prescribed 'shall mean 'prescribed by the Arbitration Tribunal.'"—Agreed to.

In paragraph 10, leave out the word "Commission," and insert instead thereof the words "Arbitration Tribunal."— Agreed to.

In paragraph II, leave out the word "Commission," and insert instead thereof the words "Arbitration Tribunal."— Agreed to.

In paragraph 12 (b), at end insert the words "and for the reference to Section seventy-eight of the former Act there shall be substituted a reference to Section seventy-one of the latter Act."—Agreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Dr. Addison, Sir George Cave, Mr. Salter, Sir John Tudor Walters, and Mr. Dundas White.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Colonel Craig.]