ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) BILL.

HL Deb 04 August 1919 vol 36 cc269-316

House again in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Tribunal for assessing compensation in respect of land compulsorily acquired for public purposes.

1.—(1) Where by or under any statute (whether passed before or after the passing of this Act) land is authorised to be acquired compulsorily by any Government Department or any local or public authority, any question of disputed compensation and where any part of the land to be acquired is subject to a lease which comprises land not acquired, any question as to the apportionment of the rent payable under the lease, shall be referred to and determined by the arbitration of such one of a panel of official valuers to be appointed under this section as may be selected in accordance with rules made by the Reference Committee under this section.

(2) Such number of persons, being persons with special knowledge in the valuation of land, as may be appointed for England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland by the Reference Committee, shall form a panel of persons to act as official valuers for the purposes of this Act in England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland respectively: Provided that of the members of the said panel for England and Wales one at least shall be a person having special knowledge of the valuation of land in Wales and acquainted with the Welsh language.

(3) A person appointed to be a member of the panel of official valuers shall hold office for such term certain as may be determined by the Treasury before his appointment, and whilst holding office shall not himself engage, or be a partner of any other person who engages, in private practice or business as estate or land agent, surveyor or valuer.

(4) There shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament to official valuers such salaries or remuneration as the Treasury may determine.

(5) The Reference Committee—

1. (a) for England and Wales, shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Surveyors' Institution;
2. (b) for Scotland, shall consist of the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Surveyors' Institution:
3. (c) for Ireland, shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, the Master of the Rolls in Ireland and the President of the Surveyors' Institution, or (if the President of the Surveyors' Institution thinks fit) a person, being a member of the council of that institution and having special knowledge of valuation of land in Ireland, appointed by him to act in his place.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of subsection (3), to omit "as estate or land agent, surveyors, or valuer." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment with the object of eliciting from the Government whether they desire that these gentlemen, who are to be appointed at big salaries in order to carry out the work of official arbitrators, are to be whole-time servants or not. It has already been decided—many of us regret the decision—that these gentlemen shall not engage in private practice or business as estate or land agents, surveyors, or valuers, but there are many other occupations they could follow if they choose. They might be directors of speculative land companies or dealers in agricultural requisites. They might, possibly, become servants or members of building societies, and indeed be building contractors. I am not sure whether as the clause stands they might not even be estate agents or foresters. However, it seems to me most desirable that these gentlemen's services should be secured for the benefit of the public if the public are to pay these high salaries. There are plenty of opportunities in the case of their ordinary work becoming slack, as I believe it will after two or three years, of performing useful service in connection with the activities of County Agricultural Committees, and other like bodies, for which they will possess useful, if not special, qualifications. I do not want to press the Amendment, but I should like to know whether these gentlemen are in fact to be whole-time servants of the State.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out from ("business") to end of subsection (3).—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord has pointed out with indisputable force that there is a great deal to be said on both sides of this question. I certainly think, if I may say so with respect, that your Lordships are right in deciding that these valuers, so far as similar employment is concerned, should be whole-time men, and the noble Lord now raises the interesting and forcible question whether they should be precluded from carrying on some business other than business analogous to that in which the State employs them. The noble Lord did not use one argument which he might have used with considerable force, to the effect that if they were allowed to carry on independent private practice there might be some grievance felt among other Civil Servants who at similar salaries suffered from that preclusion. I think that on the whole it might be considered a convenient course if I state that it is a matter on which there is much to be said on both sides, and which I think might usefully be referred back for further consideration in the House of Commons. I do not bind myself or the Government to accept the Amendment, but I do bind myself that the argument of the noble Lord shall be very carefully considered.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I think I have already intimated that I do not wish to press the Amendment—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But the Government accept it.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I should have thought, in view of what I venture to think was the very reasonable course proposed by the noble and learned Lord, that in order to bring the matter to the notice of the House of Commons we should strike out these words.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Rules for the assessment of compensation.

2. In assessing compensation, an official valuer shall act in accordance with the following rules:—

1. (1) No allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory:
2. (2) The value of land shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise: Provided always that regard shall be had to all returns and assessments for taxation made or acquiesced in by the claimant during the three years next preceding the assessment of compensation:
3. (3) The special suitability or adaptability of the land for any purpose shall not be taken into account if that purpose is a purpose to which it could be applied only in pursuance of statutory powers, or for which there is no market apart from the special needs of a particular purchaser or the requirements of any Government Department or any local or public authority:
4. (4) Where the value of the land is increased by reason of the use thereof or of any premises thereon in a manner which could be restrained by any court, or is contrary to law, or is detrimental to the health of the inmates of the premises or to the public health, the amount of that increase shall not be taken into account:
5. (5) Where land is, and but for the compulsory acquisition would continue to be, devoted to a purpose of such a nature that there is no general demand or market for land for that purpose, the compensation may, if the official valuer is satisfied that reinstatement in some other place is bonâ fide intended, be assessed on the basis of the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement.

For the purposes of this section, an official valuer shall be entitled to be furnished with such returns and assessments as he may require.

LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (2), after "by a willing seller" to insert "to a willing purchaser." The noble Lord said: I think it is very important that the matter raised in my Amendment should be made quite clear. Personally I am not satisfied with the words as they stand, but the Lord Chancellor will tell me if I am right in my view of the intention of how value is to be ascertained under the terms of this Bill. First of all—and I quite agree—the compulsory element as I understand is to be excluded altogether; that is to say, no allowance is to be made because land is being taken under compulsory powers. I entirely agree with that proposition, because all land is subject to the principle of ex-propriation for public purposes, and the fact that it is required for a public purpose ought not to give it additional value in the hand of any particular owner.

But then I understand that it is the intention of the Bill to take as a standard of value the ordinary open market value. I entirely agree that that is the right principle, but I do not think the words are clear, or that that principle is really made certain in the terms of the Bill. The words are, "if sold in the open market by a willing seller." There may be—there are such a large variety of these Acts—some.Act at the present time where "open market" value means the value where some particular owner wishes to sell his land though there is no purchaser. That is not what I understand. Open market value assumes, I think, haggling in the, market, where you have a willing seller and also a willing purchaser; and the words which I propose to introduce make that quite clear, if it really is the intention of the Government.

The principle is, I think, acknowledged by every one. The owner ought to be indemnified against loss, but not to be more than indemnified against loss; in other words the price or value fixed should be fair both to the selling owner and to the purchasing authority. Secondly, I think it is important that in a Bill of this kind, which is largely dealt with by lay arbitrators, the words themselves should be distinct and clear. The first question which arises is, Why are the words "to a willing purchaser" omitted? Does it only mean that you are to take the value of the man who is anxious to sell at a knock-out price, because there is no willing purchaser? I am sure that that is not the intention. If it is not the intention, then why are the words "to a willing purchaser" omitted? Where private property is taken for public purposes the proper value ought to be ascertained on principles laid down in an Act of this kind, on reference to which there can be no doubt, and which give the owner the fair market. value of the property taken from him. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to assent to the inclusion of these words, in order to make what is a question of some importance beyond doubt.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, after ("seller") insert ("to a willing purchaser").—(Lord Parmoor.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

This Amendment also stands in my name. All I desire to say in supplement is that there is to the mind of professional men an obvious lacuna here, which is contrary to their usual experience and practice, and my noble friend has asked with some force why there should be an exceptional form of words in this Bill unless in fact something other than time actual market value is to be ascertained. After all, you cannot make a market in shares or in anything else in the absence of willing buyers. That being so, it cannot surely be intended that only such a price shall be given to the owner of the land as might be given to him where, indeed, there is no market in that particular commodity for the time being. In the view of the profession, I understand, these words in the Bill, left as they are, would indicate the price which a seller could obtain only when there is practically no demand for the land in question. As I hope and believe that the full market value is intended to be given, I should like the noble and learned Lord to explain what is the reason for the omission of these very usual words.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The only answer that I can make to the noble Lord who has spoken last, is that no unusual words have been employed and no unusual method has been adopted. The words, which have been most carefully chosen, are words which are most calculated to bring about the result which both the noble Lord and the Government desire—namely, that the market value should be given. My noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor must, I think, have forgotten that the Bill, in including a reference to willing seller and omitting a reference to willing purchaser does, as I will show your Lordships, follow the precedent of every other Act of Parliament. It follows the language of, I think, Section 25 of the Finance Act of 1909–10, in respect of the assessment of land for the purpose of Land Value Duties. The language employed here has been the subject of judicial construction by a very experienced and authoritative Court in what are known as the "Herbert and Plymouth" case.

I think, to show your Lordships how completely the purpose of the noble Lords is secured, I may read one or two extracts from the judgments given by the Court of Appeal, which were not, I think, challenged in the House of Lords. Lord Justice Cozens-Hardy, then Master of the Rolls, said— 'Open market' includes a sale by auction, but it is not confined to that. It would include property publicly announced in the usual way by insertion in the lists of house agents. But it does not necessarily involve the idea of a sale without reserve. The present Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Swinfen Eady, said— A value, ascertained by reference to the amount obtainable in an open market, shews an intention to include every possible purchaser. The market is to be the open market, as distinguished from an offer to a limited class only, such as the members of the family. The market is not necessarily an auction sale. The section means such amount as the land might be expected to realise if offered under conditions enabling every person desirous of purchasing to come in and make an offer, and if proper steps were taken to advertise the property and let all likely purchasers know that the land is in the market for sale. I need only complete this by quoting Lord Justice Pickford, who said— I think that 'sold in the open market' means sold in such a way that any one wishing to purchase was able to do so; for instance, by auction or by putting the house into the hands of an agent to sell; and I think a willing seller means one who is prepared to sell, provided a fair price is obtained under all the circumstances of the case. I do not think it means only a seller who is prepared to sell at any price and on any terms, and who is actually at the time wishing to sell. In other words, I do not think it means an anxious seller. These judgments show with the most indisputable clearness that words such as have been employed here are words which secure, as far as the considered language of the legislature can secure it, that there shall be a free, open, and untechnical method of ascertaining what market value is. The noble Lord who spoke last asked, Why have you omitted from this Bill alone the words which this Amendment seeks to insert—"to a willing purchaser"? The short answer is—my noble and learned friend will tell me if I am wrong—that in no single Act of Parliament do these words occur; at any rate, I do not believe there is one in which they occur.

LORD PARMOOR

I think they do occur, but I have not the reference at the present moment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have had some inquiry made. I do not know of the words myself, and while my experience in these matters is less than that of the noble and learned Lord, I have nevertheless had considerable experience, and nowhere in any Act of Parliament as far as I know do these words occur, and I greatly doubt whether they have been used in any Acts of Parliament which have dealt with this subject or with an analogous one.

Coming to the merits, I think that the language used in this Bill, as construed by the Court of Appeal, gives owners and the noble Lord everything to which they are reasonably entitled. I recognise that you might have a property when from the very circumstances of the case there would be no willing buyers. For instance, you might have a property falling under the compendious description of the "white elephant" class. The noble and learned Lord has known many such cases. Why assume for the purpose of compensation that there will be a man willing to purchase a "white elephant"? All you must secure is that you see by every means in your power that you have arranged that he who owns the "white elephant" which you are proposing to take from him shall get the highest possible price anyone is prepared to pay for it. I am quite satisfied that that has been done in this Bill which has been done in every Bill of this kind.

LORD PARMOOR

I should like to say, in reference to what the Lord Chancellor says, first of all that what he called the "white elephant" clause only gives the process of compensation. Reinstatement is provided for in subsequent clauses of this Bill. Take the case where a school or church is taken, where there is no market value in the ordinary sense, because you do not get a willing purchaser of properties of that kind. The principle of compensa- tion then is that you must have an adequate sum in order to reinstate the building, whatever it be, under reasonable conditions. There is a provision in this Bill which deals with that very matter.

If the noble and learned Lord is of opinion (as he has stated) that the effect of the clause is to give the open market value—I understand that to be his view—I admit that would satisfy me, because a statement made by him would be regarded by the arbitrators as a statement of very great weight and authority. I should like to say one word as regards the Finance Act, 1910–11. I am bound to say that, personally, I do riot consider that conditions imposed under the Finance Act are necessarily those which you require in a Compensation Act. I notice that the words "willing seller" have been construed by the Court of Appeal in the case he refers to under the Finance Act (1910–11), and as he has stated that in his view the same interpretation is to be attached to these words in the Compensation Act I, for one, would not press my Amendment. The only desire I had was that the matter should be made clear. I accept the statement which the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) has made.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. I agree that explicitness in these matters is greatly to be desired, especially where the language used may possibly be read and weighed by the arbitrators. I therefore say in the most formal and explicit manner possible that I do construe the words which are now under discussion in the sense in which the language used in section 25 of the Finance Act was construed by their Lordships in the Court of Appeal in the case to which I have drawn attention.

LORD PARMOOR

I am much obliged for the statement of the noble and learned Lord, and I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PARMOOR moved, in subsection (2), to omit the whole of the proviso. The noble and learned Lord said: The object is to leave out the proviso which runs: "Provided always that regard shall be had to all returns and assessments for taxation made or acquiesced in by the claimant during the three years next preceding the assess- ment of compensation." I noticed that at one stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had down an Amendment of a similar purport leaving out this proviso.

I imagine that there are two reasons why this proviso should be left out. It is a. provision that was first of all put in at a late stage of the Bill, and in a rather different way, in what is now subsection (4) of section (8), and consequently as far as the proviso is concerned I think that in itself it is a vicious proviso for this reason. If an arbitrator, bringing all his experience to bear, is to fix a value at the ordinary open market price, whatever it may be, his discretion in that respect ought not to be fettered by having regard to some other, and in my view inconsistent, method of valuation. I say that for this reason. When you are dealing with compensation you are dealing with capital value, and in a large number at any rate of the taxation cases, and particularly rating cases, you are dealing with annual value. It is perfectly true that in other countries they place taxation of rating and capital values together, but it is not done in this country. You may have very many cases where the annual value is comparatively small, and the capital value is very large. Take the case which is rather notorious—that of a property that is really unlettable, such a. property as is comprised in some of the large houses and properties. Such a house is unlettable, but it may have a capital value very large indeed, and therefore the annual value would be no test whatever of what its capital value ought to be.

Surely there is no reason for this inconsistency. Are you going to trust the arbitrator to give the open market value or not? If so, ought he to have regard to a valuation made under other conditions and for other purposes? I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree to the omission of this proviso. Having regard to subsection (4) of section (8) it appears to me not only to be inadmissible but to be inconsistent with the later provision.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 31, leave out from ("realise") to end of subsection (3).—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The effect of the Amendment would be to strike out subsection (3)—

LORD PARMOOR

I do not mean to strike out subsection (3). It is a mistake. It is only the proviso in subsection (2). Subsection (3) deals with a different matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Well, of course, it is down wrong on the Paper.

LORD PARMOOR

I apologise for that; it ought to be to the end of subsection (2).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It is a disadvantage that most of my artillery was, so to speak, mobilised to deal with the latter part. I think that that Amendment was also covered by the Amendment which I at one time had on the Paper.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes, yours was only to the end of subsection (2).

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will explain the circumstances under which my Amendment appeared first of all on the Paper and then was removed. Undoubtedly there is, on merits, much to be said for the view pressed upon the House by the noble and learned Lord, and when it was suggested to me that that would be an improvement to the Bill I considered it and reached the conclusion that it might be, and under these circumstances I sanctioned the putting of the Amendment on on the Paper in my name. It was discovered afterwards—I will tell your Lordships quite candidly how this happened—that when the Finance Bill of 1909 was passing through the House of Commons the question as to whether these returns should be confidential or not was directly raised by an Amendment put down in the name of Sir Edward Carson. And the present Prime Minister, who at that time was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the debate made the following statement, which appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT— If a municipality is buying land for a public improvement and there is an arbitration to decide the value of the land, I hold that a municipality is entitled to know at what value taxation has been paid. And in the same speech he made the following additional statement— If it is a case of compulsory purchase I think the State valuation should be at the disposal of the parties. It is a proof of what the individual himself thought was the value of the land at the time. The Amendment moved by Sir Edward Carson was rejected by 180 votes to 59, and therefore that view, stated by the Prime Minister, was, after consideration and debate, accepted by the House of Commons of that day. And I am informed that in this House of Commons importance was also attached to the same point.

In these circumstances one may, perhaps, consider for a moment whether the thing is right or wrong. I have given reasons which obviously make it both difficult and disagreeable for the Government to vary a conclusion reached in this way, but when one approaches the question as to whether it is right or wrong I must confess that in all my experience of income-tax legislation, and in conducting litigation as Law Officer concerned with income tax and other matters of taxation, I never have been quite able to understand why this should not be available as one of the criteria by which one measured the valuations of property for these purposes. It is not necessarily conclusive, but surely it is a consideration which no judge should say was irrelevant, or that it was a consideration which might not throw some light upon it. I never, I confess, have understood why, if one takes the words of the proviso which the noble and learned Lord wishes to omit— Provided always that regard should be had to all returns and assessments for taxation made or acquiesced in by the claimant during the three years next preceding the assessment of compensation. I have never been able to understand why, when you are attempting to arrive at a true conclusion as to the value of the land, you should exclude altogether the returns and assessments for taxation which have been made or acquiesced in by the claimant during the last three years. And it deserves consideration whether the knowledge that such returns and the amount of them are at least relevant might not produce a somewhat wholesome consequence in pursuading those who make these returns to exercise the greatest possible care in so making them.

I have tried to be plain in the matter; it is an evenly balanced argument. A number of people hold the view that these returns ought not to be examined. I do not, I quite confess, appreciate the grounds, but the noble and learned lord is perfectly entitled to point out that they must have been grounds which appealed to some official persons whose views are entitled to consideration, otherwise the Amendment would not have been on the Paper in my name. Those are the circumstances under which the Amendment has been withdrawn, and I hope you will not accept this Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

First of all as regards the statement made on the Finance Act of 1909. That is exactly met in Clause 8, subsection (4).

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The noble and learned Lord, I see, proposes to omit that clause.

LORD PARMOOR

I am not proposing to omit it; I have put down alternative Amendments. I am dealing now with the present proposal. But, so far as Clause 8, subsection (4), is concerned, that exactly deals with the point that the noble and learned Lord raised, and I put down an Amendment in form to omit it. I think it is in the wrong place, but I need not deal with that at the present time.

In regard to the other matter, the noble and learned Lord has appealed to myself and others to know what the substance of the objection is. I may put it in this way. I take the case of rating. You acquiesce in rating, or you do not raise the whole question of rating because you do not want to re-raise, at very great expense very often, the question of the whole of the rating in a district; because, if you have the rating at the present time on what is called the "principle of equality" it does not matter to the ratepayers whether the rates are a little high or a little low, and therefore a particular ratepayer acquiesces in a particular level of rating, rather than put the whole locality to an unnecessary expense. That is a very common matter as regards rating. Of course, areas where municipalities or country districts are rated from time to time and brought up to true value are put to very large expense. There are many districts where that is not done because on the "principle of equality" if all lands in the same district are rated on the same footing it is not necessary to go to the expense of a large system of re-rating, and that is an argument very often used and applied in compensation cases. No doubt if I remind the noble and learned Lord of it he will bear it in mind.

I do think that this proviso ought to be omitted. The words of the 1909 Act are these—"provided always regard shall be had." If an arbitrator has come to the conclusion that a particular figure is the real market value, how is he to have regard to some other valuation which is not based on market value at all but only on income, which, as I have pointed out in many cases, is an entirely distinct matter? I hope the noble and learned Lord will assent to the omission of the proviso, and the matter could be reconsidered in the other House.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We were very much interested to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack give us an account of how by some sort of inadvertence a gentleman in his Office had given notice of an Amendment which he himself had not probably carefully scanned.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Marquess is in error. So far from saying anybody in my Office had done so, I said I had agreed to put down the. Amendment in my name.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not mean to misrepresent the noble and learned Lord, but there is this difficulty. None of us, of course, desires that the land should be bought at more than its real value, whatever that may be. That is common ground. The only question we have now to ascertain is how is it best arrived at. I confess that if the arguments of the noble and learned Lord which he delivered to your Lordships about twenty minutes ago were correct as to market value—which I am sure they were—it does not seem to me that it requires the proviso. If the market value can be absolutely ascertained by the process of considering what "market value" means, and what the effect of having a willing seller means, in the light of a decision very carefully arrived at by the Court of Appeal, then why put in another proviso? How would a man act if he had come to a conclusion that, upon the market value in the light of the decision of the Court of Appeal, a certain figure ought to be arrived at, and then he came to try and interpret the proviso? It might be that by some inadvertence an assessment, too high or too low, had been made. What bearing would it have on the other which may be an absolute figure capable of no interpretation in the light of anything else, because it would be the market value as interpreted by the Court of Appeal? I should have thought that it was bad drafting to have a proviso which appears to be in the teeth of the earlier words of the clause.

The other difficulty is the point which my noble friend has made about rateable value. Every one who knows about these things is aware that rateable value is very often, for the reason that it is an annual value and not a capital value, very different from the capital value. I do not know whether that is included in the words of the proviso.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

If my noble and learned friend says so, then it is so. I am no lawyer, and I should have been happier on the point if the Lord Chancellor had dealt with it and told us the rateable value was included. A fair assessment on Imperial taxation ought not to vary the market value but a rateable value might easily do so, as every one knows who is acquainted with the way rating assessments are worked.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

The noble Marquess who has just sat down has expressed himself with great moderation, but those of us who remember the past could not possibly deny that there is a marked and somewhat profound difference of principle involved, or, at any rate, possibly involved. Those of us who remember the proceedings of 1908–09 know that there was then, and I conceive that there now remains, a strong body of opinion that objects to the valuation of land beyond the figure of its actual annual return, and who do not consider it fair that unoccupied land, for instance, should be valued at what may be conceived to be its true or then market value for purposes of taxation, or Death Duties, and the like. That being so, one cannot be surprised that there are some who would like to omit both this proviso and also subsection (4) of Clause 8, but I am very glad to find that the Lord Chancellor takes the view that this particular proviso ought on the whole to be retained. It is clear that some differences of opinion may reasonably exist in the ranks of the Government on this particular matter. It is one of the incidents of a Coalition Government that on matters of this kind it cannot be expected to find complete agreement among all those who compose His Majesty's Administration for the time. I confess it seems to me that the Lord Chancellor is right in pointing out that all that this proviso involves is that regard should be had to those returns and assessments, not that the returns and assessments should be the sole factor in the decision of the amount to be paid.

On the particular point raised by the noble Marquess, I confess I see the possibility of hardship if rating assessments are to be regarded as the criterion for value. So far as the value, as designed for the purposes of Imperial taxation, is concerned, it ought in my judgment to be almost a determining factor in the fixing of the value and of the price. But it is true that the incidence of rating, depending as it does largely upon occupation, might in a given case work out very unfairly. Presumably the arbitrator would take into account the particular accidents of the rating assessment, but personally I should be content if the proviso were confined—as I confess, not being a lawyer, I should have almost supposed it is confined—to Imperial taxation, although I should be exceedingly sorry to see it disturbed so far as that is concerned.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

I shall certainly support the Amendment. Having been for many years a land and estate agent, I have found that on assessing the practical value of land very little reliance can be put on the assessment values. This clause as it stands would cause the valuer to put an undue value on the assessment, which would affect only the annual and not the capital value.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

In answer to the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) I really cannot appreciate, I am sorry to say, the difficulty of reconciling the proviso here with what I have already attempted to explain has been the construction put by the Law Courts upon the method of valuation which is to be adopted for the purposes of this and the earlier Bill. The noble Marquess says, "But, if the description which the Lord Chancellor has just given of the method by which you arrive at a willing buyer is well founded, how can this be necessary?" That is not a true dilemma. The Judges had to determine—in reliance upon the formulœ which I have read out as defined by the Court of Appeal—what would be the market value, using all the various tests and channels of information of which any prudent trustee would avail himself if he were selling the property of a beneficiary. We say here that this is one of the channels of informa- tion that ought not to be completely disregarded. It may be that the arbitrator will say, "In all the circumstances of the case I do not think this throws much light on it"; but he can apply every one of the standards laid down in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and say at the same time, "Collaterally, do I gain the least guidance by this return?"

The noble Marquess asked me—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, raised the point in his second speech—whether or not this covered rating. The noble Marquess said he was sorry I had not dealt with this point, but I did not hear the noble and learned Lord mention it until his second speech. If he did, I am sorry to say I overlooked it.

LORD PARMOOR

I did mention it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry I overlooked it. Regarding the language which is used here, my own view is that it is of the smallest importance. I greatly doubt whether it is apt to cover rating. I say it is of the very smallest importance, because all the rating assess-mutts are public property; every one can get them. Even assuming, therefore, it to be true that these words contrarie expectatione wore accepted to cover the case of rating, you are not giving the arbitrator any information which is not available to everyone.

The noble and learned Lord may say you are putting this down as one of the indicia upon which he may found himself, and the two subject-matters are not comparable and therefore to that extent it is misleading. I follow that point. On the main point I do not think the fundamental argument has been seriously disturbed by anything that has been said. The expression used here is "regard shall be had to"—that means, inter alia, shall be considered. Subsection (4) of Clause 8 does not, if carefully read, cover the same case at all. It is a different case which can be considered when your Lordships pass to the substantive, Motion to strike that out. That subsection says:—"Either parties to a claim for compensation may require the Commissioners for Inland Revenue to assess the value of the land in respect of which the claim arises." That only deals with a case on which there is an actual claim pending. It does not deal with the case intended to be dealt with in the principal provision in this connection. I still venture to think that it does require very great consideration indeed whether assessments should not be regarded. It may not be decisive, but there is the fact that year after year that assessment has been put forward, and I venture to suggest it ought to be at least a revelant circumstance.

As to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord on the rating, I am prepared, if it meets his views in any way, that it should be a little more carefully considered whether the language used in this section does cover the case of rating. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord between now and the Report stage will allow me to have a word with him to discuss that.

LORD PARMOOR

I am much obliged for the answer which the noble and learned Lord has made. I may speak again on Report. The noble and learned Lord has said that we are dealing here with questions of assessment of compensation—that is to say, arbitration proceedings.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes.

LORD PARMOOR

If the noble Lord is willing, as I understand he is, to consider the question as to whether the rating value should be eliminated from the general principle of taxation of values, I will certainly et into communication with him on that point. I do not desire to press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (2), after "Provided always that regard shall be bad," to insert "to any consequential loss or damage resulting front the acquisition of such land and." The noble Lord said: On the face of this Bill I do not see any provision for taking into account what is generally called consequential loss on the acquisition of a certain piece of land by the Government or by some public authority. The words of the clause are so precise that they would seem in fact deliberately to rule out of account consequential damage; yet consequential loss or damage may represent a very large proportion of the whole of the reasonable claim that an owner of land might make against the acquiring authority.

May I illustrate what I mean by consequential loss or damage? You might have the case of a local authority taking land with a frontage upon an important high road, thus cutting off what I may call the hinterland of the estate from all access to that road, with a consequential detriment to the owner in the matter of the development of such land that lies behind. Or, owing to a railway being constructed you might find, as has occurred in the past, a mansion house entirely detached from its lodge or the means of its approach from a highway. In that case the residential value of the property is very seriously depreciated. Those are matters which I venture to suggest ought in fairness to the owner to be taken into account in the case of any such valuation.

There is one other case of consequential loss which is not provided for—that is, the cost to the owner, who may be a poor man, of the reinvestment of the proceeds of sale of the property. It obviously would be unfair to such a person that as the result of his land being acquired he should be actually out of pocket on balance as the result of the transaction, although in fact he may have been paid the full market value of the land itself. I hope the noble and learned Lord will either accept the Amendment, or show in what part of the Bill such consequential loss or damage is provided for.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, after ("had") insert ("to any consequential loss or damage resulting from the acquisition of land and'').—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend has given several familiar instances of loss and consequential damage arising from the taking of land, and he suggests that under the Bill no compensation is provided for these classes of loss and damage. He suggests, in fact, that by substituting the market value for the value to the owner these kinds of damage, or compensation for them, may be swept away. If he looks at Section 3 (1) he will see the words "Provided that where the claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of minerals, or disturbance of business as well as in respect of land, one additional expert" and so on. I quite admit that this is stated rather inferentially, but anyhow it does make it clear that some of these consequential damages are included.

I do not want to take a technical point, but I think the Amendment of my noble friend is rather out of place because the provision is as to bringing in certain assess ments and does not deal with different classes of compensation. The Government do not want to exclude these different subjects to which my noble friend has alluded; but I was going to point out that his Amendment does not really deal very satisfactorily with the subject. It leaves out of account damage resulting from the construction of works and from the user of land. My noble friend only cited certain cases where frontages were taken and what I should prefer to call back land, and not hinterland, is thereby affected. I do not think, therefore, that my noble friend's Amendment meets the case; but no one desires that there should be any ambiguity on this question, and if my noble friend does not press his Amendment the Government will be very glad to consider the matter and deal with it on the Report stage.

LORD PARMOOR

I think this is a matter that ought to be made quite clear I am bound to admit, having some knowledge of compensation law, that in my opinion the market value would include, properly considered, matters of consequential damage, because a man would not be willing to sell his property without taking into consideration what is called "consequential damage "—the value to him would be enhanced by such consequential damage. I agree that this is not the best place to put the words in. But now that the noble Viscount has stated that he wishes the point made clear, I hope that will be done.

VISCOUNT PEEL

The Government will deal with it on Report.

LORD BLEDISLOE

May I ask the noble Viscount a question? Do I understand that the Government themselves are prepared to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to meet this case? I am bound to say that until the noble Viscount uttered the last sentence of his speech I felt considerably concerned at his line of argument.

VISCOUNT PEEL

If it will shorten the proceedings let me say that my noble friend rather threw doubts on whether the Amendment is required at all, but if the Government come to the conclusion that it is required they will put down an Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

I want to be quite clear that, consequential damage is within the terms of the Bill. Whether the particular words are necessary or not is another matter.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Does the noble Lord move?

LORD BLEDISLOE

Yes.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord has put down an Amendment which, allow me to tell him a little more plainly than the noble Viscount did, is hopelessly misconceived. No lawyer would allow such an Amendment to go into a Bill. My noble friend, who has pointed out, not indeed all the technical objections to it, but he has pointed out one or two, has said that the object of the Government is identical with that of the noble Lord, and that between now and the Report Stage we will consider whether what the noble Lord desires can be effected without an Amendment, because it is the true meaning of the Bill now. We will consider whether the Bill requires amendment. The noble and learned Lord himself has some doubt whether it is not already covered, and I cannot see any useful purpose in moving the Amendment.

LORD BLEDISLOE

It the noble and learned Lord, who speaks with very great authority on these matters, is prepared to tell us that the Government will see that this is provided for on the Report stage I have nothing more to say, but I am bound in fairness to state that, considering the Amendment has been carefully considered by experts, I had hoped that such severe denunciation of the terms of the Amendment might at any rate have been omitted from the noble and learned Lord's argument.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I desire to move, at the end of subsection (2), to insert the words "after making allowance for such alteration in the purchasing value of money as may have since occurred." I think it is sometimes forgotten that money is a mere token and nothing more, and that the value of money for the time being is no necessary criterion of the value of goods, or land, or other commodities that come to be purchased with it. I foresee, if this pro- viso remains in the clause, that, unless it has some such qualification, considerable injustice may be done as between one owner and another possibly of contiguous land. This is limited, it will be noticed, to the claimant himself. This proviso refers only to returns and assessment for taxation made or acquiesced in by the claimant, but it does not refer to the predecessors in title. The result will be that no such return and assessment will be considered if the owner—I venture to hope that some member of the Government who is handling the Bill, will do me the kindness to listen to my argument.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord must forgive me. It is sometimes necessary that I should exchange a word with the noble Viscount. I have listened to a great many speeches of the noble Lord with great respect and attention, but if he asks that I shall not speak to the noble Viscount who shares the responsibility for this Bill then I cannot give him any such assurance.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I will proceed with my argument in the hope that it may reach the ears of at any rate one of the noble Lords. What I was trying to point out was that this provision being restricted to the, claimant—meaning the present owner of the land which is being acquired—no such return and assessment will be considered if the owner bought the land him self during the previous three years, although its market value may have very substantially risen. If, however, he owned it three years ago, whatever its market value, his claim will be prejudiced by past returns and assessments. To give your Lordships an illustration, let me take two adjoining properties of equal inherent value, bought by, let us say, farmers, who have been buying land to a very great extent during the last two years. One was bought, say, in 1917 when the pre-war sovereign was worth say 17s., and the other in 1919 at 30 per cent. increase in cost when the pre-war sovereign may be taken to be worth something like 12s. 6d. only. Obviously if such assessments are taken into account in one case and not in the other, comparatively a serious injustice may be done. If, for instance, one of these two persons has had his property assessed for the purpose of death duties and the other has had no such assessment made, has paid a higher price for the land and is able to re-sell at considerably higher value than that at which the neighbouring property has been assessed for the purpose—unless you do take into account the alteration in the value of money, you are bound, in my humble judgment, seriously to depreciate the value of land by comparison with adjoining or similar land. I venture to suggest to your Lordships, therefore, that this Amendment should be made.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 35, after ("compensation") insert ("after making allowance for such alteration in the purchasing value of money as may have since occurred").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I suggest to my noble friend that to some extent he is, I will not say forgetting, but not giving full weight to the argument of the noble and learned Lord behind me as to the meaning of this particular provision. These compensations are not based upon these particular returns. The Bill merely says that regard shall be had to them. If they were to be based on these there would be much that was relevant in the argument of my noble friend. If it is shown that these returns are vitiated and have no bearing on the present value of land, because of the change in the purchasing power of money, no attention would be paid to them by the arbitrator. What yon have to consider is the present value of the land—whether it is £1,000 or £2,000. If it is £2,000 the fact that it was differently valued before the war, when the purchasing power of money was quite different, would be an irrelevant consideration and, therefore, I consider, with great respect to my noble friend's discussion of the price of money, that the Amendment is unnecessary.

EARL STANHOPE

Does not this show the difficulty that arises from putting in only one channel of arriving at the market value instead of putting in all? The noble and learned Lord said that there were many channels of arriving at the market value. The Government have seen fit to put in only one and all these difficulties arise in consequence. I do suggest that it is necessary, if you are specially to refer to one channel by which you arrive at market value before the value, you should take very great care that it is made complete and that the change in the value of money should be brought before the valuer's notice.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not desire to press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "the special needs of a particular purchaser or". The noble Lord said: My Amendment to leave out the word "special" and insert "exceptional" in its stead has got rather out of place, and I think I ought to move my present Amendment first. It is a little difficult to say what these words are intended to convey, but it would seem that they might operate a somewhat serious hardship in the case of an owner whose land was of special value to a neighbouring owner, or some other person, who had, in fact, for a particular purpose, actually offered a higher value than the acquiring authority was prepared to pay. It would seem, also, that a similar injustice might be done in the case where one person owned the surface and another owned the minerals under the land. In that case the owner of the minerals might be expected, for the purpose of developing the minerals, to pay a substantially higher price than the ordinary outside purchaser. I do not press this Amendment but it is one upon which Lord Phillimore felt very strongly and which he would have moved had he been here to-day. I desire to ask the noble and learned Lord the exact meaning and intention of these words.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 1 and 2, leave out ("the special needs of a particular purchaser or")—(Lord Bledisloe.)

LORD PARMOOR

I also have an Amendment down to the same effect, and I should like to add one or two words. What we are dealing with here is, values fixed on the special suitability or adaptability of the land for a particular purpose. I quite agree that where that special suitability or adaptability depends on a particular authority having statutory powers to take it, it ought not to be an element in the assessment of compensation. I think the interpretation of the Land Clauses Act on that point has gone too far in the direction of being favourable to the owner, and has sometimes given him an entirely enhanced value for his property. Therefore, I think the clause so far is quite right. But you come to an entirely different question on the words, "the special needs of the particular purchaser." A man may have a property which is of special value owing to the special needs of a particular purchaser, quite outside the purchasing authority which is purchasing under statutory powers. Under these circumstances, if there is a particular purchaser, it gives the land the particular value which constitutes its market value as between the seller and such purchaser, who in the ordinary case would be the purchaser. No man sells his land to a person who does not require it if he can seta it to a purchaser who requires it for a particular purpose.

There is another point which I think should be guarded against. Under these circumstances the statutory purchaser would get, the land at, less price than some of her purchaser would be prepared to give. They might go to the extent of selling off such land as they did not require to such other purchaser and thereby make a profit out of the transaction. I am sure that is not the intention, and it appears; to me that these words would unnecessarily restrict the value to which, on the principle of the ordinary open market, the owner would be entitled.

THE. LORD CHANCELLOR

These words were inserted with the object of meeting a third case in addition to those which are excepted by the noble and learned Lord. The question is, whether or lot the case which is attacked by this Amendment has not at least as much right to be guarded against as the other two cases to which the noble Lord does not object. What does it come to It means that if the increase in price is the result either of the exercise of statutory powers, or is the result of the requirements of any Government Department or public authority, that they shall not be taken into account. Then we come to the subject matter of this Amendment—"the special needs of a particular purchaser." Lord Bledisloe asks what is the meaning of that It is intended to cover this case, usually know as the "Plymouth Case." In that case there was a row of houses, and it was common ground that each of these houses was worth about £750, and no more. One of the houses was next door to a Nursing Home, and it being essential for the extension of the Nursing Home that the house should be acquired £1,000 had to be paid for it, and was paid for it. It was common ground also that the only reason for this additional value was because it was re- quired for the special purpose of the Nursing Home.

It seems to me there is a great deal to be said for the view that there is no reason why the public should pay an increased value for land which is due solely to the wholly exceptional needs of such purchaser as in the case I have quoted. It would amount really to the sanctioning of a monopoly value, which has been excluded without any protest under the other two heads. I am inclined to suggest that this is not an Amendment which ought to be accepted.

LORD BLEDISLOE

In the light of the explanation of the Lord Chancellor, I do not desire to press the Amendment. I would suggest that it might be possible on Report stage to frame some words which would more explicitly show what was in-tended.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will carefully consider that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

EARL STANHOPE (on behalf of LORD ASKWITH) moved, in subsection (5), after "purpose" where that word first occurs, to insert "which is not primarily of a profit-earning or mercantile nature and is." The noble Earl said: As I understand it, this clause is drawn up for the purpose that where places of worship, institutes, or buildings of a similar character have to be removed owing to the Government taking the land, the State would then undertake the obligation of re-erecting those buildings on another site. The clause, as it stands, would apparently also include factories, or places of business, which might be in a moribund condition, and which would rejoice to get a new lease of life by being re-erected on another site. That is quite an unnecessary obligation to place on the State. The object of the Amendment is simply to restrict it to places of worship and not businesses.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 13, after ("purpose") insert ("which is not primarily of a profit earning or mercantile nature and is").—(Earl Stanhope.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I suggest that, this Amendment is not desirable in this clause because, if the land is used for purposes which are primarily of a profitable or mercantile nature, the land would be the class for which there is a market, and therefore does not come within the scope of the sub section. If the Amendment was inserted here it would raise a good deal of doubt as to what the subsection means, and nothing would be more undesirable than that.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

I should like to ask the noble Viscount to consider whether what he has said does meet the case. You might find a country town in which some industry had been active but was gradually disappearing, and nobody would buy the land to erect a factory for the purposes of the particular manufacture. There have been some cases in which the manufacture of silk has been so treated. Would not the Bill, as it stands, enable people to demand the re-erection of the factory on the off chance of resuscitating the business?

LORD PARMOOR

I should like to say that the law as it stands as to reinstatement applies only to churches, school buildings, and buildings of that character, and is never applied to cases of factories or anything of that sort; and as I am desirous that this Bill should be fair to both sides, if there is any fear that this section might be applied then I think words should be inserted, and I dare say the Government will consider the matter.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Certainly the matter shall be considered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Provision as to procedure before official valuers.

3.—(1) In any proceeding-s before an official valuer, not more than one expert witness on either side shall be heard unless the official valuer otherwise directs:

Provided that where the claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of minerals, or disturbance of business as well as in respect of land, one additional expert witness on either side on the value of the minerals or, as the case may be, on the damage suffered by reason of the disturbance may be allowed.

(2) It shall not be necessary for an official valuer to make any declaration before entering into the consideration of any matter referred to him.

(3) The official valuer shall, on the application of either party, specify the amount awarded in respect of any particular matter the subject of the award.

(4) The official valuer shall be entitled to enter on and inspect any land which is the subject of proceedings before him.

(5) Proceedings under this Act shall be heard by an official valuer sitting in public.

(6) The fees to be charged in respect of proceedings before official valuers shall be such as the Treasury may prescribe.

(7) Subject as aforesaid the reference committee may make rules regulating the procedure before official valuers.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "not more than one expert witness on either side shall be heard unless the official valuer otherwise directs," and to insert "the number of expert witnesses permitted to be heard on either side shall be in the discretion of the Official Arbitrator."

The noble Lord said: What I desire by this Amendment is that, in the matter of the allowance of expert witnesses, the discretion of the official arbitrator, who is going to be a person of eminent position in his profession, should not be fettered more than is absolutely necessary. The onus, as your Lordships will see, is upon the valuer in every case where more than one witness is permitted. It is difficult to see why this limitation should be made of one witness, and if there are more that the discretion of the arbitrator should come into play. It should be recognised, in any case, that under the subsequent provisions of this Bill the costs, which no doubt will be enhanced considerably by a larger number of witnesses being heard, would be heavier as against the losing party, and that this ought to act as a considerable deterrent to the calling of more witnesses than are necessary. But, my Lords, there are other matters beyond those referred to in the proviso which follows, which might reasonably justify the employment of more than one or even two witnesses—such matters, for instance, as water rights, or the value of land for the purpose of building sites, and very particularly consequential damage resulting from severance. All those are matters which might require an expert witness who would have a totally different qualification from those experts whose evidence is contemplated in this subsequent proviso.

I have in my hands a letter, written by a past President of the Surveyors' Institution—a man of considerable eminence in his profession. He talks about one witness being allowed, and says— In many cases this would be quite sufficient, but there are cases where it is quite impossible to present the case fairly with only one witness and sometimes even with two witnesses, and in such cases the limiting of the number is likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice. Without almost hearing the case it would be difficult for the Official Valuer or Arbitrator to decide whether or nor more than one witness should be allowed; and the extremely drastic provisions of the Bill as to the costs could not, I think, fail to be a sufficient protection against any excessive expenditure on witnesses or in any other way. I think the fairest way out of this difficulty would be to leave it to the discretion of the eminent arbitrator in every case, to decide, after having a prima facie case put before him, whether the admission of more than one witness is justified in the circumstances.

Amendment moved. Page 3, line 23, leave out from ("valuer") to the end of line 25, and insert ("the number of expert witnesses permitted to be heard on either side shall be in the discretion of the Official Arbitrator").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I confess I am a little surprised that the noble Lord should have thought it worth while to move this Amendment, because what we have done in the Bill is to provide that, in any case where the arbitrator thinks it desirable and gives his direction that more than one expert witness shall be heard, he shall be so heard; and all that this Amendment does is to remove what in the opinion of the Government is most desirable, namely, the indication that prima facie one expert witness on either side should be sufficient. I am clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases one expert witness will be sufficient. In other cases two may be required, and the arbitrator has the most complete authority to allow two, and of course the arbitrator will take the view of the eminent surveyor whose letter the noble Lord thought it worth while to read. If it is a case in which injustice will be done, of course the arbitrator will give directions. It is the commonest thing in the world to give an adjournment for further evidence if it is desirable, and I hope the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved, in subsection (1); after "minerals" where that word first occurs; to insert "severance, consequential damage." The noble Earl said: After what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, I am not very hopeful that the Government will be prepared to accept this Amend- ment. This Amendment, however, raises a special set of circumstances to which I hope the Government will give kindly consideration.

The Bill compulsorily dispossesses a man of his property. Having done so it ties his arms and gives him no means of properly defending himself. I do not wish to delay the measure at this hour, but this particular case is really one of very great hardship. It is one of the special cases already alluded to by Lord Bledisloe—the case of severance or consequential damage. Take the case in point already mentioned by Lord Bledisloe. The case of property cut in half by a railway, or another case, of which I heard the other day, where a man had a very large hinterland and a very small frontage on the main road. A certain local authority came along and said they wished to take the only piece of land by which he had access to the main road. He opposed it, and after some correspondence was able to make an arrangement with the local educational authority, whereby they gave up a small portion of land in exchange for the land which was taken. He still thereby had access to the road, but had that arrangement not been possible the whole of his land would have been of no use for building or any other purpose, and would have been enormously depreciated.

Take another actual case—namely, that of a man with a large house and a considerable garden, and an authority which desired to take a large plot of land running close up to the house. The value of the house and garden are of course depreciated at once. In either of these cases, had the owner desired to bring evidence he would only be able under the Bill before the House to bring one witness, and it is my desire that such a man should be able to bring two expert witnesses to prove his case. Then there are also the cases of trustees, either of private or public property, who are bound to do all in their power to protect their trusts. There is also the case which we have heard cited at various times, namely, the case of the mortgagee, who possibly is the most important of all, because he has lent money on what he believes to be good security and is, suddenly going to be told that he has less than half the security which he received in the first instance.

Many of us have a good deal to do with the buying and selling of land, and we realise what a sensitive thing the value of land is, and how a small circumstance may entirely change its value. I believe that the Government are not very sympathetic towards increasing the allowances paid, but I hope the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, if he cannot accept this Amendment, will at any rate promise to look into the matter before the Report stage. There is one thing which I should like to mention. I have a letter from an expert who mentions this fact. The local valuer will only know the local value of a particular plot of land, whereas an expert witness brought from outside, who has a wider experience of land values, would be able to give such evidence before the Commission as would enable the owner of the land to obtain something like a reasonable price. I think it ought to be clearly understood that the land of this country belongs in a very great extent to those who have invested their savings or their fortune in it, and it would be very hard upon such persons if they were unable to bring expert evidence in order to prove the value of the land.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, after ("minerals") insert ("severance, consequential damage").—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble friend has certainly very exhaustively examined what is a very small point. The object, of course, of the proviso is that, where there is a subject-matter in respect of which the same individual may not be expected to be an expert, there may be two experts called. That is reasonable. But the proposal that is made by the noble Earl is that you should insert "consequential damage." This, one would presume, would relate to land in respect to which the same people would be experts, and not to a wholly different subject matter like minerals. In that case also, the noble Earl says, you should have two witnesses. The view that the Government has taken—and I confess that I share it—is that two experts in nineteen cases out of twenty are sheer waste of money. I remember over and over again taking part in these great arbitrations in which very high fees are paid to these very expensive gentlemen. The first expert witness is taken at great length, perhaps being in the box the whole day. Then the second expert goes into the box and they ask "Do you agree, generally with Mr. Jones"? Mr. Brown very likely gets a hundred guineas for agreeing with Mr. Jones. I never heard him disagree with him. The effect of this evidence in these cases can only be cumulative.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I should be much obliged if the noble and learned Lord would give it consideration between now and Report.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The difficulty is that if I say that I will give consideration to it, it is taken to mean that I have been to this extent affected by the argument that there is a chance that I will accept the proposal. I honestly tell the noble Earl that my present disposition is that I shall not be able to accept it. That is why I did not encourage him by saying that I would consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "land" and insert "premises," and to leave out "is" and insert "are." The noble Lord said: I desire to move this Amendment for this reason. Very often the chief value of the land might rest in the buildings erected upon it, and in that case it is only right, I suggest, that the official arbitrator, if he is allowed to inspect the land, should also be allowed to inspect any buildings which may be erected on such land. In the last subsection in the Bill—subsection (2) of Clause 10—there is a definition of land, but such definition curiously enough does not include any buildings. It includes water and any interests in land, but I do not know that buildings can properly be described as interest in land. It is in order to include land and all that is on it, and if necessary under it, that I move this Amendment, and in order to make the inspection more comprehensive than it would otherwise be.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 39, leave out ("land") and insert ("premises") and leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The word "premises" is a term which is not so far as I know defined by the law, but the word "land" is defined and has an understood meaning, which I certainly was very surprised to hear did not include buildings. I think the Amendment is entirely unnecessary, and indeed almost misconceived.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I should like, with due humility, to say that where you have in a Bill a specific interpretation of the word "land," that interpretation would hold even against other interpretations that a tribunal might be inclined to put upon it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

No, I think the noble Lord is in error. The noble Lord has overlooked the subsection which states what for the purpose of this Act the expression "land" includes. The object of the draftsman is to indicate and define that there are certain matters which you would not ordinarily associate with the term "land" but which for the purpose of this Bill are to be included. But I will confirm myself in this before the next stage, though I really have no doubt about it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved to insert the following new subsection: (8) Either party to a claim for compensation may put in evidence any assessment of the value of the land, in respect of which the claim arises, made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and a certified copy of such assessment shall be admissible for such purpose in proceedings before the Official Arbitrator.

The noble Lord said: In putting down this Amendment, what I really intended to do was to try and transpose into its proper place a subsection to which reference has been already made, and which seems to have got out of its place—namely, subsection (4) of Clause 8—and to express it in such words as would make it relevant to the case of an alteration under Clause 3. I do not want to go at any length into this matter, but I would like to suggest to the noble and learned Lord that in any case the last subsection of Clause 8 is not intended to apply wholly to the circumstance to which Clause 8 has in the main reference—namely, the circumstance of a voluntary reference by agreement to an arbitrator. That clause obviously contemplates other machinery altogether, particularly machinery of compulsory acquisition and reference to the official arbitrator, and I venture to suggest that somewhere in this part of the Bill it would find its proper place rather than where it is. The words which I have used are really an elaboration of the last two lines of subsection (4) of Clause 8, and I suggest that the earlier part of that clause is not really necessary in view of the words which the House has already decided to incorporate with reference to the same subject in an earlier part of the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 6, after subsection (7) insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think there is much substance in the argument addressed by my noble friend, and the Government will be ready to look into the matter and consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Provisions as to costs.

5.—(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 unconditional 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 wiriting to accept any sum as compensation and has complied with the provisions of the last preceding subsection, 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.

(4) Subject as aforesaid the costs of the arbitration under this Act shall be in the discretion of the official valuer who may direct to and by whom and in what manner those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and the official valuer may in any case disallow the cost of counsel.

(5) An official valuer may himself tax the amount of costs ordered to be paid, or may direct in what manner they are to be taxed.

(6) Where an official valuer orders the claimant to pay the costs, or any part of the costs, of the acquiring authority, the acquiring authority may deduct the amount so payable by the claimant from the amount of the compensation payable to him.

(7) Without prejudice to any other method of recovery, the amount of costs ordered to be paid by a claimant, or such part thereof as is not covered by such deduction as aforesaid shall be recoverable from him by the acquiring authority summarily as a civil debt.

(8) For the purpose of this section, costs include any fees, charges, and expenses of the arbitration or award.

LORD FORESTER moved (on behalf of Lord STRACHIE), in subsection (1), to leave out "shall" ["shall order the claimant to bear his own costs"], and to substitute "may." The noble Lord said: My noble friend is unable to be in his place and has asked me to move this Amendment for him. Its object is to give to the arbitrator discretionary powers in awarding compensation to the claimant. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill pointed out instances of how experts were liable to disagree in cases of very big awards. If they are liable to disagree in such cases they are liable also to disagree in cases of very small awards. A small owner may have been advised to ask for compensation slightly in excess of that which the official arbitrator decides is the value of the land and what compensation they ought to have, and it seems to us that it would be very hard for such a claimant who evidently is not trying to get too high a price, not trying to profiteer in land, to be saddled with the costs. I do not think the Amendment will do any harm to the Bill. These official arbitrators are evidently going to be men of great eminence, and I hope the Government will leave this small matter in their discretionary power.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 20, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Forester.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord has put his point very clearly, but he will not fail to gather that our view throughout has been that in the interests of speed, definiteness and the prevention of an enormous number of litigated cases it is only fair that parties should take the risk of refusing an offer which the event proves to have been extremely reasonable. The noble Lord will, I hope, remember that every litigant in the Law Courts is exposed to that risk to-day. Supposing that the noble Lord brings an action against me and I pay a certain sum of money into Court, the noble Lord has to make up his mind whether, after taking advice, he will go on or whether he will take the money out of Court. But if he decides to go on he has to pay the costs to me, if he does not succeed. We are only doing the same thing here, and I cannot see that any hardship will occur. On the other hand the beneficent result that will follow from the words of the clause are evident enough. If a man gets an offer he goes to the valuer and says "Do you think this a fair offer?" and if he is advised that he is within a very slight margin of the offer it is in the interests of everybody that the offer should be accepted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am rather sorry that the noble and learned Lord takes that view of it. You have to remember that this is a very drastic Statute, and it not only affects very wealthy people who have access to very good advice, but it may affect very small people in humble circumstances. I think those people are entitled to consideration. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that anything in the nature of a litigious objection to a reasonable offer ought to be discouraged, and therefore there certainly ought to be power to charge all the costs in a case of this kind against the party which has refused a reasonable offer. But it is not a question of giving power to do it, but whether it should be absolutely compulsory on the arbitrator that he should do so.

I am very much afraid that there is great risk, if the clause passes with "shall" instead of "may," that a large number of persons will be unfairly treated who have really got a good case but have not got access to legal advice—quite humble people, owning very small pieces of property. Such people will say "The risk is too great; we will not go before the arbitrator at all. We might be mulcted in costs if we did. We are ignorant people, and we are not quite clear as to the value of our land. We should like it settled by the arbitrator, but if it involves these risks we had better submit to possible injustice." I think that is a very conceivable case.

That you should discourage by wore.: in the Statute anything like a frivolous objection to a reasonable offer is perfectly right, and nobody would give the noble and learned Lord greater support in that than I would myself, or my noble friend would. But when it comes to saying to very poor people, "Look here, you had better not make any objection to this offer; you run tremendous risks," then I think we are likely to run into a possibility of a great denial of justice. It does not apply in the case of a large landlord—any of your Lordships for example, because we have access, of course, to our own legal advisers and our agents, and we are perfectly secure. But these are humble people who own very small bits of property. I think the Lord Chancellor should reconsider this point, and I believe that he will then find that there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will reconsider it between now and the next stage, but the noble Marquess might perhaps also reconsider this—the case of a man whose property is so inconsiderable that on the State proposing to acquire it he cannot even pay the very small sum to obtain, not the conduct of the case in Court, but an opinion as to whether an offer which is made to him is an adequate offer. The number of people who own land at all who could not do that must be extremely inconsiderable. In answer to a further observation of the noble Marquess who says that in the case of the owners of big estates the rule is a fair one, this might be borne in mind, that it is an unwavering rule in our Law Courts for great and small people alike—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

In the case of small people injustice is very often done.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Does the noble Marquess mean in the Law Courts? I do not think so, for this reason. Supposing that a small person brings an action in the Law Courts and there is a payment into Court, he or she makes up his or her mind whether on the whole it will pay to take it out. If they decide they will take it out that is the end of it. If they decide they will not, and they recover less, they are hit in costs. I have never heard of that leading to any substantial injustice. I should be misleading the noble Marquess if I did not say that I suspect that those in another place, who are responsible for this Bill hold rather a clear view on this point. But I will direct special attention to the debate and to what he said, and I will discuss it with them before the next stage.

LORD PARMOOR

On this point it may be convenient to say what I have to say on an Amendment of mine which deals with the question of costs, because the matters will have to be considered together. I do not think the analogy of the action is quite right, because it not a question here of litigation but of a man's land being taken for public purposes; and where a man's land is so taken the principle is what I will state in a moment, unless he has acted in any way so as to prevent the public authority or the public purchasing body having a fair intimation with regard to the nature of his claim; and in that case in private Acts special provisions with regard to costs have been introduced.

I am not quite at one with the noble Marquess on this point. At the present time the claimant in compensation cases pays his own costs where he gets a sum less than the sum which has been offered. That is the existing law upon the subject, as the Lord Chancellor, of course, knows. But what appears to me to be the unfair provision is that not only has he to bear his own costs in such a case, but the liability to pay the costs of the inquiring authority.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Not liable to; it is compulsory.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes. I propose to put in the words "may order the claimant" to pay; and in giving that his discretion goes further than in the present Compensation Acts. The words are "so far as such costs were incurred after the offer was made." A considerable amount of costs may have been incurred after that date, and that may place a heavy liability on a small claimant such as that to which the noble Marquess has referred. I have intervened only to express my hope that if this matter is being considered—costs are a very important question to small owners—the Lord Chancellor will pay special attention to a liability which is really imposed for the first time. In these circumstances an owner may not only have to bear his own costs—for which I think there is a good deal to be said—but to pay the costs of the other side, which costs may be a heavy liability.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It shall certainly be considered. I will only add that when the noble and learned Lord speaks of the present system under which costs are awarded, I have long regarded that system as one of the scandals of our present procedure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved (on behalf of Earl GREY), at the end of subsection (1) to insert, "Provided that, where the sum offered is less than the price that was paid for the land in question on the occasion of the last previous bona fide sale when such sale has taken place within ten years, the provisions of this subsection shall not apply."

The noble Lord said: I have been asked, in the absence of the noble Earl, to move this Amendment. As your Lordships will have realised, this clause provides for the unsuccessful claimant paying both his own costs and those of the inquiring authority; and the noble Earl desires in this Amendment to rule out that clause as applying to cases where the sum offered is less than the price that was paid for the land in question on the occasion of the last bona fide sale when such sale has taken place within ten years. The object of the Amendment is to render inoperative this very drastic procedure where the claimant, having good reason to believe that his property has been maintained, finds in fact that, according to the view of the official arbitrator, it is to-day of less value than it was when the last bona fide sale took place.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 22, at end of subsection (1), insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I think there is the same difficulty here as the one I suggested a few moments ago. It is not a question of what the land fetched eight, nine, or ten years ago, but of what the value of the land now is. The value of the land may have gone down a good deal in price in certain cases from what it was ten years ago; therefore I think it would be extremely undesirable to bring in the special rule as to costs in this special case; and unwise, in fact, to disturb the general rule for a case where the land has gone down in value. After all, although it is not often the case, land does go down in value sometimes.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not feel justified in pressing the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PARMOOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and in the event of the promoters not signifying their acceptance of the amount claimed they shall, not less than fourteen days before the case is heard, deliver to the claimant full details of their offer, distinguishing the amounts under separate heads, and showing how the amount offered under each head is calculated."

The noble and learned Lord said: The object of this Amendment is that the same information which is properly asked for on behalf of the purchasing authority should be supplied to the claimant or landowner, in order that he may have information on which he can make up his mind whether or not to accept the offer before entering upon arbitration proceedings. The Lord Chancellor will appreciate that it is equivalent to what are called "proper particulars" in an action, to which matter he has referred more than once. I will ask the noble and learned Lord whether he thinks this a proper Amendment to be accepted in order that proceedings may be as economical as possible on both sides. Will the Lord Chancellor accept the Amendment simply on that ground?

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is a superficial attractiveness about my noble and learned friend's Amendment, but I am not sure whether the two cases—the case of the claimant and the case of the public authority—are the same. The noble and learned Lord will see that the claim includes, for instance, such items as compensation for disturbance, or good will. The promoters can get the information only from the claimant; they cannot know the history of the estate in the same way that the claimant can; indeed, they cannot test the accuracy of what is told them on these matters which must be a good deal of the material upon which their offer is based. I think it would be a little difficult to think of words that would give the necessary protection and at the same time secure the noble and learned Lord's purpose. How ever, the noble and learned Lord has to see me on another point and, perhaps, we might discuss this at the same time.

LORD PARMOOR

I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at the end of subsection (6), to insert "but in no case shall the claimant be ordered to pay costs exceeding in amount the assessed value of the land."

The noble Lord asid: In moving this Amendment I want to ask your Lordships to see what I think you may regard as a somewhat serious injustice does not operate in the case of a very poor person, the value of whose land is not in, fact sufficient to pay the whole of the costs which he is required to pay as the result of his claim being unsuccessful. in such a case he loses not only the value of his land in payment of those costs (which may be considerable) but he may be hauled before a county court Judge and made to pay as a civil debt whatever other money beyond the value of his land may be due—which money he may not possess—with the result that he may be sent to prison for the non-payment of the whole amount of the costs so far as the land itself is not represented. If I may say so, I cannot conceive a more unjust result from proceedings described as "proceedings before an arbitrator."

I ask your Lordships in all seriousness whether in such a case it is not fairer to say that the costs in which this claimant is mulcted shall not in any case exceed the value of the land about which the arbitration is taking place. There are a very large number of poor persons who really have no idea whatever of the value of their laud, and who, because they have no idea, naturally think that it will be only right to bring the matter before a judicial Tribunal such as these official arbitrators will be. Having done so, and asked that what they regard as fair value should be given to their land, they lose their case, and, as a result, they lose not only the value of their land but may conceivably find themselves in prison because they cannot pay anything over and above in order to satisfy the large expenses involved in the arbitration.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 17, at end insert ("but in no case shall the claimant be ordered to pay costs exceeding in amount the assessed value of the land").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR:

I really cannot see how this Amendment can be defended. The case supposed by the noble Lord is, I should have thought, the most unlikely case in the world to arise. I cannot imagine such a case arising in prac tice; but if it did, and if the claimant or the owner in one case out of a thousand had not been well advised and had been so indiscreet as not to accept a reasonable offer and happened to have an estate so small and the costs happened to be so great that they swallowed it up, I cannot see why an exception in those circumstances should be made. We must console ourselves by the reflection that it was the unlikely that happened.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Finality of award and statement of special cases.

6.—(1) The decision of an official valuer upon any question of fact, shall be final and binding on the parties, and the persons claiming under them respectively, 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 arising in the course of the proceedings, and may state his award as to the whole or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the High Court.

(2) The decision of the High Court upon any case so stated shall be final and conclusive, and shall not be subject to appeal to any other court.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after "but the official valuer may, and shall, if," to insert "on the application of the claimant or of any person having an interest in the land." The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment with a view to providing some sort of machinery by which the High Court may be put in motion. On the face of it, it does not appear how the High Court is to direct that a special case shall be stated. It would appear that the High Court can only take such a course on the application of a claimant or some person having an interest in the land. With the object of providing machinery I move the insertion of these words. If the noble and learned Lord is able to say that the High Court may be put in motion without any such initiation of proceedings, I shall be satisfied; but on the face of time Bill that apparently is not so.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 28, after ("if") insert ("on the application of the claimant or of, any person having an interest in the land").—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am obliged to the noble Lord. My impression is that it should be done by Motion; but I quite agree it is a matter which ought to be cleared up, and it will be looked into.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PARMOOR moved, at the end of subsection (1), to leave out "for the opinion of the High Court." The noble and learned Lord said: I do not propose to insist upon this Amendment if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expresses the opinion that it is not likely to be accepted. It is an important matter, however,.

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("for the opinion of the High Court").—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

As the noble and learned Lord has been good enough to address the question to me, it would not be respectful of me to say that the Amendment would not be accepted. I may, however, tell the noble Lord quite candidly that it is not an Amendment which the Government would willingly accept. They would only accept it if constraint was put upon them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Saving of power to refer to arbitrator by agreement.

8.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent, if the parties so agree, the reference of any question as to disputed compensation or apportionment of rent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or to an arbitrator agreed on between the parties.

(2) Where a question is so referred to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the Commissioners shall not proceed by arbitration, but shall cause an assessment to be made in accordance with the rules for the assessment of compensation under this Act, and the following provisions shall have effect:—

1. (a) The parties shall comply with any direction or requirements as to the furnishing of information (whether orally or in writing), and the production of documents and otherwise;
2. (b) Any officer of the Commissioners appointed for the purpose shall be entitled to enter on and inspect any land which is subject to the reference to them;
3. (c) The Commissioners, if either party so desires within such time as the Commissioners may allow, shall give the parties an opportunity of being heard before such officer of the valuation office of the Commissioners as the Commissioners may appoint for the purpose;
312
4. (d) The assessment when made shall be published to the parties and take effect as if it were an award of an official valuer under this Act;
5. (e) if either party refuses or neglects to comply with any direction or requirement of the Commissioners, the Commissioners may decline to proceed with the matter, and in that case the question shall be referred to an official valuer as if there had been no reference to the Commissioners, and the official valuer when awarding costs shall take into consideration any report of the Commissioners as to the refusal or neglect which rendered such a reference to him necessary.

(3) Where a question is so referred to an arbitrator, the provisions of this Act except sections one and four and so much of section three as requires proceedings to be in public and as provides for the fixing of fees, shall apply as if the arbitrator was an official valuer.

(4) Either party to a claim for compensation may require the Commissioners for Inland Revenue to assess the value of the land in respect of which the claim arises, and a copy of any such assessment shall be sent forthwith by the Commissioners to the other party, and a certified copy of such assessment shall be admissible in evidence of that value in proceedings before the official valuer.

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, at, the end of subsection (4), to insert "and the servant of the Commissioners who made the valuation shall attend if required for cross examination before the official valuer, but the costs of and incident to such attendance shall be borne by the party so requiring, unless the official valuer shall otherwise direct."

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Phillimore. I do not, however, propose to develop an argument on this subject at this stage. This contemplates a case where the finding of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with regard to the value of the land may be given in evidence. The whole object of the Amendment is that the person who, on behalf of the Crown, actually made the assessment which is challenged shall, if necessary, be allowed or requested to explain how that assessment was arrived at.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is a great objection to this particular proposal. The Inland Revenue are quite willing, if they are asked to do so, to make a valuation for the convenience of the parties, and I think the parties will find that a very great advantage. They are not prepared, however, and I think they must be right there—to allow their officers to be subjected to cross-examination, which might very well range over the whole ground of the methods of assessment adopted by the Commissioners through the whole country. It would be very difficult to restrain the cross-examination, and it would be intolerable that questions should be asked which, as I say, went into the whole of the methods adopted. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that I do nut think there would be the same feeling of objection if, on the Report stage, the noble Lord were to put forward an alternative proposal limiting the right of putting questions to the official valuer. I should certainly myself recommend the adoption of that. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 agreed' to.

LORD FORESTER moved to insert the following new clause— When a Government Department or any tonal or public authority are desirous of acquiring any land by agreement, the owner of the land may apply to an official valuer to have the value of he land assessed, and, if the land is sold at the price so assessed, it shall be deemed to have been sold at the best price that could reasonably have been obtained.

The noble Lord said: At this late hour I will be as brief as possible. We all recognise the use of this Bill for compelling landowners to sell land who would otherwise, without just cause, withhold their land when it is required by local authorities for the good of the community, and especially for the benefit of the men who have fought and won the war for us. I would humbly suggest to your Lordships that there are landowners who have already done what they could to provide land for this purpose. The noble Earl, Lord. Selborne, in the spring of 1918, in a speech he made in this House, pointed out the urgent need for providing land for this purpose, and, as far as I can remember, he said that if were not provided it would result in disaster to the country. The Central Landowners' Association, of which Lord Selborne is chairman, got out a scheme for finding land for discharged men, and the Lords Lieutenant of various counties—I know it was so in the case of the Lord Lieutenant of my own county—took up this scheme and did what they could to find land for this purpose. There was, however, one almost insuperable obstacle which was found—that was, the extraordinary difficulties and the costliness of the present methods of transfer of land. I refer particularly to the case of tenants for life, whose trustees cannot accept less than a certain sum or they would be liable for possible action for breach of trust.

I move this Amendment to ease the position of those landlords who are willing to do what, they can to help in this object and have not got to be forced. I cannot see any clause in all these land Bills to help landlords who are willing to do these things. My Amendment will have that effect. It would also enable these official arbitrators to earn. the justification of their salaries more than ever at the present time, and it may have the effect of saving the landowner who is willing to do these things from having to apply to the local authority for a compulsory order to enable him to carry out what he wishes to do and to save himself perhaps an action for breach of trust.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Forester.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

My noble friend has made an eloquent appeal on behalf of [...]for life w, want to sell their land at a fair price and vet be protected from the consequences. only want to point out, that this Bill deals with the compulsory acquisition of land. It is not really dealing with the kind of case to which he refers. No doubt it would be possible for the official valuer to be consulted on such cases as those he mentioned, but I am advised, as regards the tenant for life, that if he sells at a price at which a competent surveyor agrees the land might fairly be sold, he would be fairly safe and be protected. In the circumstances I think the tenants for life to whom he refers would be sufficiently safeguarded. At any rate, I am afraid the proposal as he makes it would be a little outside the scope of the Bill.

LORD FORESTER

Can the noble Viscount consider the matter between now and the Report stage and put in anything else? I want to safeguard them absolutely.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I quite understand the aim of my noble friend, but if the official valuer was consulted I take it that would meet his case without putting anything in the Bill.

EARL STANHOPE

I hope the Government will consider it. We are all anxious to simplify the transfer of land where we can and if the Amendment will effect anything in that respect it does seem to be one that the Government ought to consider.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RITCHIE OF DUNDEE moved to insert the following new clause— 9.—(1) The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any purchase of the whole or any part of any statutory undertaking under any statutory provisions in that behalf prescribing the terms on which the purchase is to be effected. (2) For the purposes of this section the expression 'statutory undertaking' means an undertaking established by Act of Parliament or order having the force of an Act, and the expression 'statutory provisions' includes the provisions of an order having the force of an Act.

The noble Lord said: I understand that my noble friend Lord Stuart of Wortley intended not to move the clause down in his name but to adopt the one standing in my name. The object of the clause is to protect statutory undertakings. Subsection (1) gives them protection and subsection (2) gives the definition of "statutory undertaking." I hope the noble Viscount may see his way to accept the clause.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ritchie of Dundee.)

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am quite ready to accept this clause.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

Short title, commencement and interpretation.

10.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. and shall come into operation on the first day of July nineteen hundred and nineteen, but shall not apply to the determination of any question where before that date the appointment of an arbitration, valuation, or other tribunal to determine the question has been completed, or a jury has been empanelled for the purpose.

(2) For the purposes of this Act the expression "land" includes water and any interests in land or water and any easement or right in, to, or over land or water, and "public authority" means any body of persons, not trading for profit, authorised by or under any Act to carry on a railway, canal, dock water or other public undertaking.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I move to substitute the word "September" for "July" in the first subsection.

Amendment moved— Clause 10, page 8, line 30, leave out ("July") and insert ("September").—(Viscount Peel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

House resumed.