MODIFICATION OF THE. LANDS CLAUSES ACTS. (Hansard, 31 December 1916)

§ 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.

§ 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 1713 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.