§ Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments, read.
§ Moved, That this Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I desire to call your Lordships' attention, and especially the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to a circumstance which happened last night. When your Lordships were in Committee on this Bill a very strong speech was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shaw, in which, in respect to a certain paragraph which was afterwards struck out by your Lordships, he urged the House not to take that course. He told us that a practice had grown up in Scotland of arbitrators under the principal Act awarding unduly large compensation to landlords in respect of land devoted to small holdings. He quoted a case called the Lindean case, in regard to which he went into some detail, in showing us that everything had been allowed for—all sorts of different items—and that the arbitrator had finally added a very large sum of money for depreciation of the selling value. He said that if your Lordships took the course which the House afterwards determined to take, this practice, which had been followed by other arbitrators, would be pursued, and that the result would be to render the whole working of the Bill, if it became an Act, inoperative. He made a considerable impression upon your Lordships, and, amongst others, upon the noble and learned Lord upon the Woolsack, who used his noble and learned colleague's argument as a cheval de bataille in the arguments he addressed to us on this side of the House. I am now informed that, so far from that instance being apt, there are no arbitrators under the Bill at all. Arbitrators are removed from Part II of the Bill, and conse- 423 quently the decision as to what this compensation will be, will not vest in these arbitrators, who are apparently so misguided in Scotland, but in the Land Courts itself. Therefore, if these arbitrations have been unjust in the past, they will not act as a precedent for the future. The whole matter will be determined by the Land Court, which is certainly not an authority unduly favourable to the landowners' interest.
I considered it right to point this out to your Lordships, because I think that the argument addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shaw, made a great effect on the House (although not a sufficient effect to control your Lordships' vote), and it might make a considerable impression in another place. I think it right to place on record that the whole argument addressed by the noble and learned Lord, no doubt owing to inadvertence on his part, rested upon a complete and absolutely foolish idea that there were to be arbitrators, who would follow the evil example of arbitrators in the past in awarding absurd compensation and so defeat the operation of the Bill. If this fact which I have now ventured to give to the House turns out to be absolutely true, I hope that it will have a correspondingly convincing effect upon the noble and learned Lord and those with whom he has so much influence, with the result that there will be no difficulty in accepting the general wish of your Lordships House as was shown last night.
THE LORD CHANCELLORWhen the noble Marquess says that the whole basis of the argument addressed by the noble and learned Lord disappears he is of course wholly in error. The noble and learned Lord cannot have been unaware—I called attention to it on the Second Reading of the Bill—that matters of this kind would henceforth be not under arbitrators but under the Court of which the noble Marquess has spoken. I was particularly careful to make it plain that I was not impeaching the arbitrators in any way. That was not the basis of my criticism. The basis of my criticism was giving to the tribunal the duty of assessing, by way of compensation, that which did not admit of any reasonable system of assessment. May I remind your Lordships of what I said. I said the objection to this proposal is that you are inviting the tribunal to give compensation on the basis of selling 424 value to an owner who has not sold, and who may not have the slightest intention of selling, and in respect to him you cannot award compensation founded on any scientific or reasonable basis. It is perfectly plain that the same objection applies whether the arbitration is made by an honest and capable arbitrator, or whether it is made by a Court, which cannot discharge this task simply because it is given a principle on which to adjudicate on which, in our view, it is impossible to adjudicate. I will carefully reread what I said, and also what Lord Shaw said, and if either of us gave the impression that the decision in the future would be discharged by an arbitrator we certainly gave an impression which cannot be justified. I should be surprised if we did so, but I will read it again and there will be a further opportunity to discuss the clause.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ LORD LAMINGTON moved a manuscript Amendment on page 7, Clause 6 line 2. The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment with the consent of the Scottish Office.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINLITHGOW moved, in Clause 9, in subsection (11) ("b") after "include," to insert, "any compensation for injury done to the value of the sporting rights of such land or estate in so far as it exceeds the estimated value of such rights if the land was taken and put to the full reasonable use to which it could be let under ordinary lease or ordinary agricultural or pastoral tenancy." The noble Marquess said: The effect of this Amendment is sufficiently clear from its terms. They were handed to me a short time ago by the Duke of Atholl, and I understand that he has had the advantage of a private conference with the Lord Chancellor. I will therefore simply move
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, clause 9, line 5, after ("include") insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Linlithgow.)
THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Marquess will understand that the wording of this Amendment will have to be reconsidered, and it may be necessary to make some modifications in it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
425§ THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved a manuscript Amendment in Clause 9, page 7, line 6. The noble Duke said: I will be very brief over this. The subsection— (11)—provides for compensation being given for loss of selling value both of land taken and of the remainder of the estate. My Amendment confines the compensation to loss of selling value of the land which is taken, and if that be satisfactory to the Government the clause would be limited to compensation for loss of selling value of the land actually taken. The reason I suggest this Amendment is that, as far as I can understand, during the earlier debate objection was taken that excessive compensation had been paid in the past, or if not excessive that it was higher than the Bill could stand, and the other was that too large an amount had been paid for the loss of amenities. I try to meet those objections by my Amendment, which practically provides for putting back half of what was excluded last night.
§ LORD CLINTON (who was indistinctly heard)I trust that your Lordships will recognise that this Amendment is a real attempt to meet the difficulties which were obvious to us last night. The noble and learned Lord, in the arguments which he addressed to your Lordships, contended that the exclusion of the sub-clause struck at the very principle of the Bill itself. I should like to submit, with all respect, that it does not appear to us that the exclusion of the sub-clause affects the principle of the Bill, although it does affect the actual question of the cost. If, however, the cost is a legitimate one it ought not to be ignored. The principle for which we have to contend is the same principle as has been admitted by members of the Government, namely, that where land is taken for public purposes fair compensation should be given for it.
The arguments which were addressed to your Lordships by the Lord Chancellor and by Lord Shaw last night dealt very much more with the excessive amount of compensation than with the principle of compensation itself, and they cited the case which has already been alluded to, in which it was apparent from the figures given that there had been what I think may be termed "excessive compensation"; but that compensation was very largely due to injury presumed to be caused not to land taken but to the remainder of the estate, and this Amendment which we are now 426 considering excludes all compensation for that remainder of the estate, while it I desires to secure compensation for land actually taken.
I should like to point out that while in the past there may have been good ground for paying compensation for the whole of the estate, because in the past the custom was, if there was a sale of an estate, for one owner to sell to another and the amenity value of that estate may to an extent have been struck at, it is not the case now, and when land is sold it is bought almost always by persons who desire to occupy it. That weakens our argument at once for any amenity of compensation for a large estate, but strengthens our argument for compensation for land actually taken, because it is obvious that if you plant on a piece of land, as you are under this Bill, a certain number of tenants with fixity of tenure, there can be no object in an occupying owner coming in, because he cannot get possession of the land. You might, however, find a purchaser who would give a very low number of years purchase for land. There is obviously in that an actual direct loss to the owner which I think he ought not to be required to suffer. There is, of course, the question of mortgages. A man who wishes to lend money on any security will be very unwilling to do so unless he is able to sell, and if the existing owner cannot sell then it is clear that the mortgagee cannot sell with the object of foreclosing. I think those are two certain sources of injury which ought to be considered in dealing with this matter. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will contend that there is considerable difficulty in arriving at any fair valuation of the injury which may be received. I at once admit that there is, but I do not think it is impossible.
THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is the view of those who advise me in this matter, and who have technical knowledge, that the affect of this Amendment would be very slight in diminishing the amount of compensation payable for loss of selling value. The amount of compensation involved is so negligible as not in their view to be such as to make the change involved in this Amendment a material concession. At the same time I recognise, of course, that it leaves the Bill less unsatisfactory from the point of view of the Government than it was in the form in which it left this I House last night. Naturally, under those 427 circumstances, I shall not dream of resisting it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLORThe next Amendment—to insert a new clause after Clause 9—I put down in redemption of a pledge which I gave last night.
§ Amendment moved—
§
After clause 9, insert the following new clause:
. Where the Board make any order for the constitution of new holdings they shall, if so requested by the landlord, be bound to erect and maintain, or cause to be erected and maintained, such march fences, or fences, as may be necessary to prevent the stock of the landholder straying beyond the limits of the land comprised in the scheme, any dispute as to the necessity for or the adequacy of such fence or fences to be settled failing agreement by the Land Court."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment moved—
Clause 14, page 9, line 36, leave out from ("person") to ("shall") in line 38.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ On Question (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.