§ Provisions as to compensation.
§ 4. Where any provision of a preservation scheme could, immediately before the scheme came into force, have been validly included in a scheme, order, regulation or by-law by virtue of any other Act, then—
§ (b) if compensation would have been so payable, the compensation payable in respect of that provision of the preservation scheme shall not be greater than the compensation which would have been so payable.
§
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (b) of provision 4, after "greater," to insert "or less." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, if you look at page 16 of the Bill, you will see that lines 15 to 18 read:—
if compensation would have been so payable, the compensation payable in respect of that provision of the preservation scheme shall not be greater than the compensation which would have been so payable.
The question I wish to ask is why it should be limited to increase only. Why should a local authority or a Government Department be able to get com-
1171
pensation lowered which has been already awarded, or to bring pressure to bear on the unfortunate owner who has been awarded a stated sum as compensation, to take less? I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 17, after ("greater") insert ("or less").—(Viscount Bertie of Theme).
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEMy Lords, if the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount were made, the effect would be that a claimant could elect to be dealt with under some other Act with the sole object of getting higher compensation, and the official arbitrator would be prevented from exercising his proper discretion and might be bound to award compensation in excess of the amount which would be otherwise considered sufficient. The Bill lays it down that a person whose property is injuriously affected by preservation schemes is entitled to compensation subject to arbitration under the Acquisition of Land Act, 1919. The provisions of that Act have been generally recognised as equitable, and I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEThe noble Lord has not explained why it should not be greater. In the Bill it says that it shall not be greater. It should cut both ways, I think.
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEI think the system provided in the Bill for arbitration is equitable, and I do not think it requires any further amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Privilege Amendments made.
§ Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.