HL Deb 04 May 1937 vol 105 cc96-111

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Thankerton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Awards as to value of sheep stock to give particulars.

1.—(1) Where in pursuance of any lease of an agricultural holding whether entered into before or after the passing of this Act the tenant is required at the termination of the tenancy to leave the stock of sheep on the holding to be taken over by the landlord or the incoming tenant at a price or valuation to be fixed by arbitration, the arbiter shall in his award, show the basis of valuation of each class of stock and state separately any amounts included in respect of acclimatisation or hefting or of any other consideration or factor for which he has made special allowance.

LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "of each class of stock" and insert "having regard to the annual revenue producing output of lambs, cast ewes, wool and other yield of the flock." The noble Lord said: This Bill deals with a matter which, rightly or wrongly, has long been considered a scandal in Scotland. Undoubtedly it needs attention, yet I feel it my duty to point out to your Lordships that this particular Bill has neither been asked for nor supported by any association of landowners, for they do not believe it will have any effect in remedying the evils complained of. My own fear is that this Bill, if passed, will stand in future in the way of a better Bill which might really be of use. In any case, if this Bill is to be of any value at all, an Amendment such as I move must be carried.

As your Lordships know, when a sheep farmer in certain districts of Scotland gives up his farm the landowner is bound to take over his stock of sheep. It has long been considered that sheep bred upon a particular hill have a higher value on that hill than any other sheep that may be introduced to it, because they are less apt to stray they do not involve themselves in so many difficulties, and they are accustomed to the climate. In consequence the lambing average is higher, and altogether the flock is a more productive concern than it would be if it were brought in from outside. The landowner and the tenant, therefore, have the value of the sheep fixed by arbitration, the landowner looking to receive his money back from the incoming tenant. In practice, however, in the past and today, the value has generally been fixed by arbitration at so high a figure that the new tenants have uniformly refused to pay it, and indeed could not pay it if they were to get any return from the flock at all. Landowners have thus been involved in very heavy expenditure, and indeed the matter has gone so far that I am told that in some instances farmers who feel themselves short of capital merely give notice of their intention to vacate the farm, in the certainty that the landowner will bribe them to remain sooner than face the heavy loss in which he is sure to be involved by reason of these inflated values.

Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote from the Report of the Committee on the Valuation of Sheep Stocks: When allowance is made for all these factors, however, and for differences of opinion as to the interpretation of the submission and as to the proper basis of valuation to be adopted, we are satisfied that some of the awards of which particulars were submitted to us could not possibly be justified on any reasonable grounds. And then again, discussing the effect of the customary inflation of values, at page 10 they say: Arbiters who wish to act fairly are thus placed in a very difficult position, as it requires a high degree of moral courage to disregard altogether a valuation made, it may be, by a man of experience on a comparable farm in the same district. And again, at page 13: One witness went so far as to say that if he had arrived at a valuation which was such that a capable incoming tenant could not, after paying the valuation fixed, make the farm pay, even if sitting rent free, he would still regard the valuation as a fair one. Yet in spite of these remarks, and in spite of the examination of many instances of completely unjustifiable valuations, the Committee are able to say that they desire to state that we do not subscribe to the view that arbiters as a class are in a conspiracy to maintain the price of sheep in their own interest. We believe that the majority of arbiters endeavour to carry out their duties in a conscientious fashion, and that any criticism should be directed to the basis and methods of their valuations rather than to their bona fides. It reminds me of an occasion when I asked a man for guidance as to the character of his friend, and he replied: "He is not dishonest, but if there were two roads to a place and one of them was straight he would take the other."

The truth is that valuation is a very difficult art, and it forms a separate branch of a very highly trained profession. The people who purport to be valuers under this Bill are not valuers at all, and do not understand the mere elements of their duty of valuation. This is evident from the state of mind of the arbiter who would regard without misgiving a valuation so high that an incoming tenant, sitting rent free as a grant in aid, could not make the farm pay at that figure. It is not surprising that in such circumstances the practice to which this Bill refers has become involved in somewhat scandalous conditions.

If your Lordships will glance at the second part of the first subsection of Clause 1, from line twelve on, you will see it laid down that the arbiter shall in his award show the basis of valuation of each class of stock, and state separately any amounts for which he has made special allowance. As the Bill was originally drawn the arbiter had to state the market value of each class of stock as well, and the clause provided in detail for a regular built-up valuation, just as one might value a flock down in this part of the world. In fact it tried to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee that the basis and methods of valuation required control and reform. The words were: … the arbiter shall state separately in regard to each class of stock the total value, and the amounts included therein in respect of market value, acclimatisation, hefting, and any other consideration or factor taken into account in arriving at such total value. That is regular, built-up valuation. But when the clause was considered in Committee in another place, it was found that you could not value these flocks which are tied to the ground in this way, and the words "market value" were cut out.

It was explained that such flocks had to be valued as a whole, and that it was not possible to assign to them a value based on the prices of each class of stock in the market. If this is so—and I hope to show in a few minutes that it is—then the clause as it stands shows great confusion of thought, and even if your Lordships do not accept my Amendment, I hope that you will insist upon something being done about it. For if the flock can only be valued by considering it as a whole, on its own ground, then all this detailed specification of items, such as classes of stock, and acclimatisation value, ceases to be an integral part of the operation of building up the value, and becomes a kind of guess-work embellishment after the value has been found. This will be clear at once if we consider the only possible method of valuing a flock of this kind, and I think it only fair to ask any noble Lord who challenges my method to produce another, and show how it should be worked.

Although tied to the hill, such a flock possesses the same kind of value that any other article of commerce possesses, its value as producing a cash return. If being tied to the hill gives it greater value, it is because, so tied, it yields greater revenue. Therefore you have to take the revenue of the flock, by sales of lambs, cast ewes, wool, and any other items, ascertain the number of breeding ewes and gimmers, the lambing average, and such matters. You would consider whether the flock was increasing, stationary or decreasing, and so you would arrive at a gross figure, from which must of course be deducted the cost of the service of the flock in wages, rent, and so on. From this point it is not difficult to calculate a capital figure as the value of the flock as a whole, and such figure would include the value of all the special considerations of which we have been speaking. The whole of the rest of the clause after my proposed Amendment might with advantage be omitted. I admit my Amendment is not perfect; it says nothing of outgoings, which it should properly do; but it is the best which I could frame in the time at my disposal. If the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill will agree, I think the best step to take would be to have a meeting of all those interested in the Bill here and in another place and move an agreed Amendment at a later stage.

The special value claimed for a hefted flock is not sentimental, like Mary's value for her lamb, but commercial. To talk of values which can never be translated into annual or other cash return is nonsense. The closer a valuer is bound to keep to facts, the more reliance can be placed upon his valuation. The Bill as originally drawn did seek to prescribe a method of procedure which would compel the valuer to stick more or less to facts. That has now been taken out, and it is necessary to find a proper substitute. What we have to contend with is the prevalent idea that the value of a hefted flock is something which need not be brought into relation with net revenue, indeed a mere imaginative fiction. It would probably have been a great deal more fair to all parties if from the beginning competent valuers had been employed who knew nothing about sheep, rather than men who knew all that there was to know about blackfaced sheep and nothing about valuation. To pass the Bill without laying down a proper basis of valuation will be a fatal mistake and merely provide a shelter behind which the present system can be carried to greater lengths with impunity until eventually it kills the system. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, leave out ("of each class of stock") and insert ("having regard to the annual revenue producing output of lambs, cast ewes, wool and other yield of the flock").—(Lord Saltoun.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My noble friend Lord Saltoun has in no way exaggerated the seriousness of the position in Scotland, and I will give one further instance to show how serious the effect can be. Some years ago a landowner in my own county who was a member of your Lordships' House—it was during the War—had a tenant who wished to give up his sheep farm. It was a very large farm and carried a large stock. When the acclimatisation value of the sheep, put on the top of the market value, came to be computed, the landlord found it cheaper to give the outgoing tenant the farm as a present, plus a very substantial honorarium, rather than face the actual acclimatisation value plus market value which he would have had to pay. The only way in the past to get rid of this obligation has been for a landlord on a change of tenancy to take over the sheep stock with acclimatisation value, and then to cut his losses and re-sell to the incoming tenant at market value, which is usually a very much lower figure. That was clone by my father in the case of our own properties, so that I am in the fortunate position of regarding the progress or not of this Bill with equanimity from a personal point of view.

But, unfortunately, there are still a great many landlords in Scotland who may be faced at any moment by a demand from a tenant to leave his farm with an offer to hand over his sheep stocks at a value which is completely absurd in relation to what they will fetch if placed on the market. Acclimatisation value is certainly not a figment of the imagination; it undoubtedly exists. But at the same time there has been in the past, and there are to-day, a great many arbiters who seem to use very strange rules of their own for arriving at the proper value, and although they may be all men of knowledge and integrity it is an unfortunate fact that in nineteen cases out of twenty the award they give bears very hardly upon the landlord of the farm. Therefore I hope very much that the Government will give earnest consideration to what Lord Saltoun has said, and if they are unable to accept his Amendment in the letter I hope they will at least pay some attention to the spirit.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I should also like to support my noble friend Lord Saltoun in this Amendment. I do not adhere to the actual wording of the Amendment. There may be, as Lord Saltoun has said, other words by which we may arrive at the same conclusion. But it is perfectly right, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, that landlords in Scotland, both in the North and in the South, who are in the position of having to change their farmer, or their farmer wishes to go, are confronted with this acclimatisation compensation, which is beyond all measure. I cannot sec why it is an extraordinary thing to ask that in arriving at the value of the sheep you should take all the points in connection with that valuation. The ordinary way in which you would arrive at the value of anything would be to take first its market value and then perhaps any other consideration which would add to that. But here under this form of valuation the arbiters take any market value apparently which they like to place upon the sheep, and then they add the other considerations—acclimatisation and so on—and are not bound to declare the market value of the sheep, or how they have arrived at the whole valuation. I can see no reason why it is impossible to arrive at that first market valuation.

Supposing a farmer at the end of the season is selling some of his sheep not as acclimatised sheep, but as sheep which he is placing on the market in the ordinary way, he takes them there and gets the ordinary market value. The arbiters are similarly in the position of ascertaining, in the first instance, what the market value is. This question is a very serious one for the landlords of Scotland. This Bill, I submit, will help the tenants, but will not help the landlords at all. The fairest method of settling this whole question would be to arrange, instead of utilising the services of these arbiters, that the Land Court be established as the arbiter in all cases. That is not a point, it is true, which is before your Lordships at the moment, but I submit to the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill that that would be the fairest way of getting out of this situation. At any rate, on this particular Amendment, I wish to support the noble Lords who have spoken, and I sincerely hope the Government will see their way, if not to adopt these words, at least some other words which will meet the object we have in view.

LORD THANKERTON

First of all, let me say that I regret very much I cannot accept this Amendment, and I shall give your Lordships reasons why. I am willing to take it that the Amendment might be improved in drafting. In the first place, this Bill has come from the other place practically as an agreed Bill as it stands, and, to say the least, it is very unlikely that any such contentious Amendment as this undoubtedly would be regarded there would improve the prospects of getting the Bill through. That may not be in itself a sufficient answer. On the merits of the question, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has referred to the Bill as originally introduced in the House of Commons, but he omitted to observe that the clause then was restricted to future leases while the clause now deals with leases, whether past or not. What he proposes is that a definite basis of valuation should be prescribed by Statute. That would be the result of the Amendment, although it is insufficiently worded, and merely mentions some of the elements to be considered in making such a basis.

One thing the Committee were agreed upon was that it would not be possible to prescribe, certainly in the case of existing leases, a statutory basis of valuation. To begin with, the clauses in the leases—some of which provide a basis themselves—vary in every district in Scotland. They vary in individual leases on the same estate and in the same district. I have seen a great many of these leases, for this question has not been free from the Law Courts during the time in which I have practised. The first thing is to look at the purpose of the clause. The purpose of the clause is not to prescribe a basis of valuation, but to provide that when an arbiter makes his valuation under existing or future leases he shall disclose the method by which he has arrived at that valuation. The great complaint—and this is referred to by the Committee in their Report—is that so many arbiters deal in huge figures without giving any explanation of how the figures are got at and on what basis they are got at. If any inflation occurs the reason is not disclosed, and that is a thing, as the Committee point out, which has given more dissatisfaction than anything else.

This Bill may not achieve much, but it will at least result in the method being disclosed by which the arbiters arrive at their valuations. That by itself is a public corrective, and may prevent some of these arbiters who have been mentioned being employed as arbiters under future leases. The great thing is to know, this inflated value having been arrived at, how it has been ascertained. The purpose of this clause is merely to get publicity, to get information, as to how these valuations are got at and not to prescribe a statutory form. May I read what the Committee say on this point? It was suggested to the Committee that a statutory basis of valuation was the remedy which should be applied. Their view on that point is given on page 16 of their Report, and they say this: With regard to (4) of the suggestions"— that is a suggestion that the award should be in accordance with a specified basis— … whilst we recognise that a definite basis of valuation should be adopted by each arbiter, we do not feel that it is possible for us, nor is it our function, to lay down a definite formula to be followed in every case. The circumstances may be very different in different areas, and in any event the basis to be adopted may be affected by the terms of the contract between the parties as exemplified in the submission. It was in view of that that this clause was made to apply to existing leases as well as to future ones. As regards future ones, it is possible to have clauses in the lease if they can be agreed upon; individual landowners can put these clauses in future leases if they think they have a good basis. It is not, however, the purpose or scope or intent to prescribe in any sense a statutory basis of valuation, but merely to get disclosure. For these reasons I regret very much that I am unable to accept this Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

I am a little at a loss to understand my noble and learned friend, because in the first place he says it is not the intention to lay down the basis of valuation, and yet he wishes to retain the portion of this clause to which I object on the ground that it does disclose the basis of valuation. It is quite possible there may be more ways than one of valuing such a flock. I do not think so. When I was a young man I was apprenticed to a surveyor in London as a valuer, and for a long time I paid my subscription as a professional associate of the Surveyors' Institution. I should never dream of laying down the law to your Lordships on such slender qualifications, but when I was preparing and considering this Amendment I did take the trouble of going to see some of the most eminent valuers in the country, and I am assured that the way in which I stated to your Lordships such a flock must be valued is the only practical way. That being the case, all this business, as I have said already, about putting in each class of stock and amounts for acclimatisation, is merely putting in fancy figures after you have arrived at the real figure on which you are going to decide. It is not a step in arriving at your valuation; it is merely a little embellishment afterwards.

I cannot help thinking that, however well agreed this Bill may be in another place, it is a mistake to pass legislation which in itself is absurd. As I have said, I do not quite like my own Amendment. I have not had time to consider it, but I am very sorry that my noble and learned friend cannot see his way to have a general discussion amongst all the friends of the Bill as to what would be the best manner of saving the Bill from what I feel to be an absurdity. As the matter stands, with your Lordships' leave I shall withdraw my Amendment and, if your Lordships will give me leave, I shall produce a better Amendment, and one more satisfactory, at a later stage if I can find one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Submission of questions of Jaw for decision of Sheriff.

2.—(1) In any arbitration in pursuance of a lease entered into after the passing of this Act as to the price or value of sheep stock to be taken over at the termination of the tenancy by the landlord or incoming tenant, the arbiter may, at any stage of the proceedings and shall, if so directed by the Sheriff (which direction may be given on the application of either party) submit, in the form of a stated case for the decision of the Sheriff, any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration.

(2) The decision of the Sheriff on any question submitted in pursuance of the foregoing subsection shall be final unless within such time, and in accordance with such conditions, as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt, either party appeals to the Court of Session, from whose decision no appeal shall lie.

(3) Where any question is submitted in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section for the decision of the Sheriff, and the arbiter is satisfied that, whatever the decision on the question may be, the sum ultimately to be found due will be not less than a particular amount, it shall be lawful for the arbiter, pending the decision of such question, to make an order directing payment to the outgoing tenant of such sum, not exceeding that amount, as the arbiter may think fit, to account of the sum that may ultimately be awarded.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (3), after "to" ["to make an order"] to insert "make a report in writing to the Sheriff accordingly, and thereupon the Sheriff may if he thinks just." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to deal with the case that arises when there are submissions on points of law to the Sheriff. At the present moment the person who has to say how much is to be paid into Court is the arbiter. When there is a question of law arising on this matter it seems to me that it is rather ridiculous that the arbiter, or the oversman as he is generally called, should be the person to say how much is to be paid to the outgoing tenant pending the decision on the point of law. The object of my Amendment is that the Sheriff should be the person who should say how much is to be paid to the outgoing tenant in cases where a point of law arises. In another place it was mentioned that as much as 95 per cent, of the valuation was to be paid pending the Sheriff's decision.

I have cases—and they are well known in Scotland—in which sheep stocks have been valued at three times their actual market value, and it seems to me that it is not right to leave it to the arbiter, who has made this extraordinarily high valuation, to say, when a question of law arises, that an amount up to 95 per cent, of the valuation should be paid. Take a simple case. Perhaps the arbiter's valuation has been as much as £9,000 for stock that is worth £3,000. When the point of law arises the arbiter says that the sum of £8,000 is to be paid into Court. If that is done I think it would, to a certain extent, prejudge the issue when it came to getting a legal decision. I think it ought to be placed in other hands to say how much ought to be paid into Court and that that should not rest with the arbiter when a legal question involving the amount of the valuation has to be decided.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 17, after the first ("to") insert ("make a report in writing to the Sheriff accordingly and thereupon the Sheriff may if he thinks just").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to support the noble Earl in this Amendment. I hope he will press it and not withdraw it. This Amendment gives me much pleasure because I hope we shall hear an explanation from His Majesty's Government as to the reasons underlying this clause. The power that is referred to is not, I believe, one that is commonly given to an arbiter. I am aware that the Committee on this subject said about the arbiters that in spite of appearances they really were trying to make their valuations fairly. I entirely accept that, but that does not mean that either your Lordships or anybody else could stand for all valuations. You have, for example, a case like this. An arbiter has given a valuation of at least £4,000, and, according to the suggestion in another place, he orders payment to the amount of 95 per cent. Let us suppose that the arbiter orders a payment of 95 per cent.—that is £3,800. The proprietor, being perhaps rather foolish, or having some ready money, actually pays on the arbiter's order the £3,800, not into Court but to the outgoing tenant. Now outgoing tenants often have debts, and when that is the case that £3,800 will be immediately seized upon by the creditors of the outgoing tenant.

Farmers all have transactions together, and it may be that the arbiter is one of the creditors of the tenant. In that case the arbiter gets his debt paid out of the £3,800. Then, perhaps, a friend comes to him and says: "Look here, my friend, you are a little out of order; you are a creditor and you will be disqualified as an arbiter." What can the arbiter do in such a case? He is in a delicate position. He looks at Clause 1 and sees that the valuation is not a valuation until he has put it in with allowances for acclimatisation and so forth. He merely sits down and does not put it in, and the arbitration never becomes effective. What happens to the £3,800? How does the proprietor get it back? My noble and learned friend will probably put me right on one point if I am wrong. I believe in Scotland the law is that if money is paid in error and wrongfully it cannot be recovered at Common Law. Could this money be recovered if it was possible to get it from the farmer, or could it be recovered from the creditors if they had got it from the farmer? I think it is a most extraordinary situation.

Another point is this. The suggestion has been made that there may be delay in getting a decision from the Sheriff on a point of law. I believe that if a Sheriff has a point debated before him it is almost invariably the practice that his decision is given upon it within a month or six weeks. If not, the Department inquires into the reasons for delay. In cases like these, where there is no appeal, the decisions are given very much more quickly. I do not think the Sheriffs of Scotland really deserve the slight that has been put upon them in this clause—the suggestion that there is undue delay in arriving at their decisions.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will accept this Amendment. I, too, would be very glad to have some explanation as to why this very remarkable clause should ever have appeared in the Bill, and why it should be found necessary, or considered advantageous, to make this interim payment which, as far as I can see, could be 100 per cent.—it may not be confined to 95 per cent.—to the outgoing tenant. Would my noble and learned friend not be prepared, if he cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, to insert some Amendment himself at a later stage saying, for instance, that the amount shall not exceed 50 per cent, of the amount of the valuation? As the clause stands it is not only inexplicable, but it is also unjust, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, pointed out, highly dangerous.

LORD THANKERTON

This point was raised, I think, on Second Reading, and I hoped that it had been made clear that the suggestions made by noble Lords just now arose from a complete misunderstanding of the clause. Let me take an illustration to make it clear. The arbiter finds an award of £5,000. A point of law is raised, and a case stated which affects the whole £5,000. The arbiter in those circumstances cannot order a penny to account under this clause, not a penny. Take the next case. The arbiter has made an award of £5,000. A point of law is raised and a case asked to be stated which affects only £2,000 out of the £5,000. The arbiter is entitled to order payment of such part of the whole of the remaining £3,000 as, in his discretion, he thinks should be paid. Now, observe that the award as regards the £3,000, there being no point of law about it, is final and binding. Why, therefore, should not the arbiter give a payment on account of that. It is due in law. That is the plain meaning of the clause. If noble Lords will look at the clause again and accept that explanation from me the whole thing is quite simple. The Sheriff has nothing to do with that part of the award which is not appealed against.

I will read subsection (3) of the clause if I may to make that clear: Where any question is submitted in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section"— that is a question of law as an appeal to the Sheriff— for the decision of the Sheriff, and the arbiter is satisfied that, whatever the decision on the question may be"— those are the important words— the sum ultimately to be found due will be not less than a particular amount"— that, I suggest, clearly means cannot be affected by the appeal— it shall be lawful for the arbiter, pending the decision of such question, to make an order directing payment to the outgoing tenant of such sum, not exceeding that amount, as the arbiter may think fit, to account of the sum that may ultimately be awarded. That surely means, if the appeal can only affect £2,000 out of the £5,000, that the arbiter may in the meantime give a payment to the tenant to the amount of the £3,000, as to which no question is raised and which is final and binding on the parties. That is what the clause says, I suggest, quite clearly, and there can be no hardship or unfairness. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

LORD SALTOUN

May I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? As I read the clause, the arbiter is the sole judge of the question. The Sheriff may say this concerns a great deal more than £2,000 but the arbiter, as I read the clause, is the sole judge. How can all the conditions of Clause 1 be implemented before the order is made complete and final? If Clause 1 is not fully implemented does the order fall?

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation he has given us, and I am pleased to know that he finds the clause very simple and clear to understand. I confess that I, with a non-legal mind, had to address myself very carefully to the wording of the clause to discover what it meant. There is, however, one point which I think needs further elucidation, because it may involve a very large sum of money, and it is a matter which I think should be left to a more impartial person. It is a very common thing in Scotland to find in a lease that sheep stock is to be taken over at market value. To most noble Lords, no doubt, that would appear a very simple matter. Market value would seem to mean the price the sheep would fetch if put into the neighbouring market the next day, but I am informed that a very different interpretation is sometimes put upon the term market value. Even when these words appear in a lease arbiters and oversmen have placed a considerably higher value on the stock than it would fetch in the open market. If the arbiters and oversmen fix the price at £2,000 more than the sheep would fetch in the open market, would it be right to raise a point of law as to the interpretation of the term market value?

I do not think that a case has been tried on that issue, but from all I hear the interpretation of the term market value is very different when it is settled by the arbiter and when it is settled by the unfortunate incoming tenant who has to pay for the stock. It seems to me that there might be a very large sum of money in difference which might result in the raising of some legal point. I still think it is rather hard that it should not be left to the Sheriff to decide finally how much is to be paid and that the arbiter should have really the last word in saying how much is to be paid even before the legal question has been settled.

LORD THANKERTON

The answer to the last question is very simple. That clearly would be a case affected as to 100 per cent. by appeal, and the arbiter would not be able to give a single penny to the owners. Noble Lords will remember that the point of law must be stated, and it must be made quite clear in a stated case whether the appeal affects the whole or only part of the matter. Where the point of law may affect the whole this clause does not come into operation. The answer seems quite simple. On the other hand, if there is clearly a part which cannot be affected, because there is no appeal against it and the arbiter's decision is final, I cannot see why there should not be an order for payment on account.

LORD SALTOUN

Would the noble and learned Lord answer my question about all the conditions of Clause 1 not having been implemented?

LORD THANKERTON

That point you would raise at once as being ultra vires and, there not being a proper award, that would come in before any question of legal appeal.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

After the noble and learned Lord's explanation, for which I thank him, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.