HC Deb 14 August 1919 vol 119 cc1749-53

(1) Where the acquiring authority has made an unconditional offer in writing of any sum as compensation to any claimant, and the sum awarded by an official valuer to that claimant does not exceed the sum offered, the official valuer shall order the claimant to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the acquiring authority so far as such costs were incurred after the offer was made.

(2) If the official valuer is satisfied that a claimant has failed to deliver to the acquiring authority a. notice in writing of the amount claimed by him giving sufficient particulars and in sufficient time. to enable the acquiring authority to make a proper offer, the foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply as if an un conditional offer had been made by the acquiring authority at the time when in the opinion of the official valuer sufficient particulars should have been furnished and the claimant had been awarded a sum not exceeding the amount of such offer.

The notice of claim shall state the exact nature of the interest in respect of which compensation is claimed, and give details of the compensation claimed, distinguishing the amounts under separate heads and showing how the amount claimed under each head is calculated.

(3) Where a claimant has made an unconditional offer in writing to accept any sum as compensation and has complied with the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section, and the sum awarded is equal to or exceeds that sum, the official valuer shall order the acquiring authority to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the claimant so far as such costs were incurred after the offer was made.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1) after the word "shall'' ["the official valuer shall order"], insert the words "unless for special reasons he thinks proper not to do so."

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

Sir D. MACLEAN

I observe there is nobody on the Treasury Bench who knows anything whatever about this Bill. I have had no opportunity at all of referring to my right hon. Friend opposite in regard to this matter, but I am quite confident that the House has agreed to certain Amendments which it would not have done had they known what the proposition was. I should like to move the Adjournment of the Debate on that ground. Evidently the hon. and gallant Member opposite, who represents the Government, knows nothing whatever about the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The representative of the Government moved "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir D. MACLEAN

But was the agreement with the full acquiescence of the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The Motion was made by the Government and agreed to by the House

Sir D. MACLEAN

Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, who has come in, will explain the difference which is involved in inserting these words "unless for special reasons he thinks proper not to do so."

Sir G. HEWART

As I understand it, the question is with reference to the insertion of these words "unless for special reasons he thinks proper not to do so." If my right hon. Friend will carry his mind back to the discussion which took place in this House he will remember it was pointed out that there might be eases of hardship where the valuer had no option but to award costs in the way prescribed. An Amendment was moved in this House to give the valuer power to exercise his discretion. That Amendment was negatived, but it has been adopted by this Amendment from another place, and it will be my duty later on to move a consequential Amendment which will give the valuer general discretion to order the claimant costs if for special reasons he thinks fit to do so. This is an intermediate step between the proposal of the Bill and a proposal made in this House in Committee, and it provides for those special cases where the valuer thinks there are good reasons why the costs should not be awarded.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, at end of Sub-section (2), insert the words and when such a notice of claim has been delivered the acquiring authority may, at any time within six weeks after the delivery thereof, withdraw any notice to treat which has been served on the claimant or on any other person interested in the land authorised to be acquired, but shall be liable to pay compensation to any such claimant or other person for any loss or expenses occasioned by the notice to treat having been given to him and withdrawn, and the amount of such compensation shall, in default of agreement, be determined by the official arbitrator.

Sir G. HEWART

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

The object of this Amendment is to enable the acquiring authority to withdraw any notice to treat which has been served. This was an Amendment approved by the Committee which sat on this matter.

Sir D. MACLEAN

If I recollect rightly, this Amendment did not receive the unanimous approval of the Committee upstairs, and I think it is one which the Government would have been wise to resist. But all I can do is to enter another protest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

Leave out the word "valuer," and insert the word "arbitrator."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. RAFFAN

Am I in order in asking the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill to explain the general effect of the substitution of the word "arbitrator" for "valuer"? He was not in his place to give an answer to that question when the first Amendment to this effect was brought forward.

Sir G. HEWART

The answer is a simple one. It is a more appropriate term. The valuer under this Bill has evidently something more to do than merely to value. He may hear and take evidence. The word "arbitrator" is therefore a more appropriate word. It makes no change of substance, but simply describes more accurately the functions which the person called a valuer in the Bill already has.

Sir D. MACLEAN

I am quite aware that no words which are used here will affect the construction which a Court of law may put upon any words in this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, but I wish to ask the Attorney-General whether, in his view, the change makes any difference at all to the construction which may be placed by a Court of law on this Bill when it becomes an Act, especially in view of the discussion which took place in Committee upstairs on that point, when, so far as I recollect, the Government adhered to the use of the word "valuer." In another place that has been struck out and the word "arbitrator" has been put in. Since the Government adopted the view that the word "valuer" was a better word than the suggested word "arbitrator," does my right hon. Friend think it makes no difference at all which word is used?

Sir G. HEWART

So far as I am aware it makes no difference. Undoubtedly there might be circumstances and there might be a context in regard to which it might make some difference. If my right hon. Friend will turn to Clause 6 of the Bill he will see that express provision is made in this Bill for the finality of the award of the gentleman who makes the award, by whatever name he may be called. It says The decision of the official valuer" — the arbitrator as he is now called— shall be final and binding on the parties… but the official valuer may, and shall, if the High Court so directs, state at any stage of the proceedings, in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court, any question of law. In those circumstances, in my view, it makes no difference of substance that the Gentleman who comes to this decision is called an arbitrator. It does not enlarge any power of appeal. It merely describes more accurately the functions which under the Bill he can perform.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY

With all respect, the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfactory. The word "valuer" was considered quite satisfactory in every respect before the Bill left this House. Now it comes back from another place with the word "arbitrator" inserted. If there is no difference in substance, why was it put in in another place, and why did the Government allow it to be put in?

Dr. MURRAY

I am in some difficulty in this matter and am wondering whether there is any real difference between the word "arbitrator" and the word "valuer." The word "arbitrator" is of evil omen in connection with the Scottish Small Holdings Act. It ruined the whole of that Act. I do not see why there should be any change. Why put the House to the trouble, if it is a question of getting a synonym from the dictionary? I do not see why the Lords should have put in this word unless they felt that in connection with proceedings in respect of land they are more likely to get extra value out of an arbitrator so called, than out of a valuer so called. I do not see why we should be put to all this trouble for nothing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sir G. HEWART

I beg to move, in Subsection (3) after the word "shall"[the official valuer shall order the acquiring authority"], to insert the words "unless for special reasons he thinks proper not to do so."

This is an Amendment consequential to the Amendment made in Sub-section (1). It is for the purpose of giving the arbitrator in this case, as in the corresponding case which has already been dealt with, a discretion to vary the costs if, for special reasons he thinks fit. It is consequential upon an Amendment carried in another place and makes the matter fair as between the acquiring authority on the one hand and the vendor on the other hand.

Amendment agreed to.