CLAUSE 54.—(Establishment of claims for payments.) (Hansard, 7 July 1947)

§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 62, line 32, to leave out from the second "the," to the end of line 34, and to insert: settlement of any dispute arising in relation to such determinations by an arbiter appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, or by a special tribunal constituted in acordance with the regulations. This Amendment is to meet a point of complaint by the Opposition in Committee. It was argued that regulations under Clause 54 should provide in terms for disputes as to the amount of the development value to be determined by arbitration under the 1919 Act. We have here gone some distance to meet the Opposition. The Amendment provides for arbitration under the 1919 Act or by special tribunal constituted under the regulations.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
I beg to move, in page 62, line 41, to leave out paragraph (c).
This is for the purpose of trying to clear up a difficulty which arises under this paragraph, which provides: for rendering the right to a payment under this part of this Act conditional upon compliance with the provisions of the regulations with respect to the making of claims. I do not think that the Government mean that if one does not use the right form, or does not sign on the right dotted line, one will not get one's money. But that is what this paragraph means. Surely it is not right to say that because one does not follow the right procedure one will be deprived of one's compensation? I hope the Secretary of State will drop this or give an absolute assurance that there will be no use of this power in the way I suggest when it comes to the making of regulations.

§ The Lord Advocate
I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the regulations which may be made will not be such as to cause the result he has mentioned. But we must have some kind of power, and what we have in mind is 1968 regulations to deal with the matter of submission of proof of title and that kind of thing. This paragraph is for the purpose of having a reserve power for the sort of things which are the substrata of a claim.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
I beg to move, in page 63, line 14, to leave out "different," and to insert "adjacent or contiguous."
This is a matter of rather more substance. The provision here appears to be that although a landowner has a number of parcels of land scattered all over Scotland he may be required to bring them all into the same claim. There seems to be no point in that, but this is what is allowed. This is what the Central Land Board is permitted to do. If one has contiguous parcels of land it is all right. I agree that a man should not get more compensation by dividing an estate into bits, but nor should the Government avoid the payment of proper compensation by taking one piece of land in Berwickshire and another in Sutherland and saying: "Here is a big bit of land, and landowners are very wicked people and they shall not get paid." Can the Secretary of State give some practical reason why distant bits of land should be put into the one claim? Either the right hon. Gentleman means that, or he should drop this altogether.

§ The Lord Advocate
It is not intended to aggregate parcels of land separated by great distances in the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. The difficulty is in really finding a satisfactory word for dealing with this. The term "adjacent or contiguous" will not do because that means just bordering on each other. We have looked into this with the object of finding some kind of formula which would prevent the sort of case which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned. But it is difficult to get any satisfactory formula, and it appeared to be better to leave it to the good sense of the landlords, with the assurance that we will not attempt to aggregate claims in respect of widely separated parcels of land.

§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
Does this mean that the Central Land Board is going to deal with these matters without any definition? 1969 Surely it would be as easy for the Lord Advocate to find suitable words as it will be for the Central Land Board. The Lord Advocate's answer surely means that it will not be possible to tell people in advance whether to aggregate their claims or not and that they will have to make special inquiry in each case separately. Surely the Lord Advocate cannot mean that. It cannot be impossible to find words to tell people what the position is. Is the Central Land Board a greater master of the English language than the Lord Advocate so that where he has failed it will succeed?

§ The Lord Advocate
What the Central Land Board will do is to deal with each case on its merits.

§ Sir W. Darling
The difficulty appears to be that the Lord Advocate cannot find suitable words. He has admitted the desirability of doing so, and the absurdity of collecting different parcels of land and aggregating them for one compensation. He admits that this would be a preposterous and difficult situation. He will not have the words "adjacent" or "contiguous." Would "in proximity" do? It would in my view do justice to the Clause. "In the neighbourhood of one another"—are these suitable? I suggested, in Committee, that the words, "parcels of land," which are in the Clause will lead to the possibility of considerable injustice. There are many counties in Scotland, and I might have a parcel of land in each. Under this Clause they could be aggregated as the Central Land Board may direct. But "contiguity" would give some justice and reasonableness.
The suggestion contained In the Clause will create a position of absurdity. It is at known fact that there are landlords of property in different counties of Scotland. There are landlords of land in the North of Scotland and the South, in the East and the West. I do suggest that the Central Land Board should have some direction or indication how it should aggregate these parcels of land. The words "in different parcels of land" do not seem to give such direction. It seems surprising that the Lord Advocate is unable to give a different interpretation from that which is given in the Clause. I suggest that with the range of resources and the information at his disposal he can 1970 put before the House something which would meet its views on this subject.