held publicly in all cases and locally in most cases) into a particular scheme would be the decision of the Sanctioning Authority (as embodied in a formal Order) upon that scheme, and would be final, so far as questions of fact or the merits of the scheme in itself were concerned.

(6) The full control of Parliament over questions of policy would be preserved by providing for appeal to Parliament against such an Order, on a certificate of a responsible Minister of the Department concerned, or by the three Chairmen (that is, the Lord Chairman, the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Chairman of the Sanctioning Authority) that a question of policy (that is, of principle) had arisen.

(7) All applications for powers, in connection with schemes involving the compulsory acquisition of land, would originally take the form of a Memorial presented to the Sanctioning Authority.

(8) Failure to obtain sanction, on the first application, should not bar the renewal of the application at a later date.

(9) The constitutional right to promote a Private Bill would be preserved, by permitting the introduction of a scheme before Parliament by way of Private Bill, in any case where the three Chairmen (all being Members of one or the other House of Parliament) thought fit.

(10) Dispatch and finality of decision by the Sanctioning Authority, on any questions of fact or merits of a particular scheme, would thus be secured, while full control would be retained by Parliament, both over the personnel of the Sanctioning Authority and over all decisions involving a question of policy.

In their second report, issued recently, the committee deal with the question of valuation of land acquired compulsorily. The existing system is based upon the Lands Clauses Acts, the principal one going as far back as 1845. It is not surprising that the committee express the opinion, in their report, that the experience of two generations has shown that this Act and the amending Acts require reconsideration in order to give effect to the requirements of the community of to-day. Formerly, the interests of the landowner who was being obliged to part with property which he desired to retain was the primary consideration; whereas to-day more importance is attached to the interests of the general public. The main recommendations of the committee are summarised as follows (para. 61):

(1) The Lands Clauses Acts are now out of date, and should be repealed and replaced by a fresh code (para. 6).

(2) The standard value to be paid to the owner should be the market value as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, in addition to fair compensation for consequential injury (para. 8).

(3) No allowance for the compulsory acquisition of land should be added to the market value (para. 9).

(4) The owner shall not be entitled to any increased value for his land, which can only arise, or could only have arisen, by reason of the suitability of the land for a purpose to which it could only be applied under statutory powers (para. 10).

(5) No enhancement of market value should be taken into account which arises from the use of the premises in question in a manner contrary to sanitary or other laws and regulations (para. 11).

(6) Wherever no market exists for a property which is being compulsorily acquired the price to be paid to the owner may at the discretion of the Tribunal be assessed on the basis of reinstatement (para. 12).

(7) The value of all separate interests in a property having a marketable value should be assessed in separate awards, but by the same Tribunal; and, so far as practicable, at the same time; claims for consequential

damage, &c., being similarly dealt with (para. 15).

(8) The promoters should be allowed at any time within the period allowed for service of the notice to treat to serve a notice to treat in respect of any interest in land to operate as from any date not being later than the date fixed for the completion of the works, the price to be paid to be assessed as at the date of the service of the notice to treat (para. 16).

(9) Where there are persons or a body capable of receiving the purchase money as trustees for the vendors and their successors, the vendors should not be considered as persons under a disability. In general, where the claimant can prove that acting reasonably he is put to special expense for reinvestment, the costs of a single reinvestment should be allowed in the items of the claim (para. 17).

(10) Promoters should have power to take part only of a property whenever they think fit. In cases where, as the result of the owner's claim for injurious affection, promoters find it cheaper to buy the whole site, and it happens that part of the whole projects beyond the limits of deviation, the promoter should have power to go to the sanctioning authority to obtain power for the additional area. The notice to treat could be amended accordingly (para. 18).

(11) Promoters should have power to acquire an easement in, over or under land whenever such easement will be sufficient for the purposes of the undertaking (para. 19).

(12) The promoters should be entitled to withdraw their notice to treat at any time within two months of the delivery of the claim, or such earlier or later date as the tribunal may direct on the application of either party, on payment of all proper costs as between solicitor and client, and also on such compensation for loss or injury as in the opinion of the tribunal has been occasioned by the notice to treat having been given and withdrawn (para. 20).

(13) Notices to treat should be served within such period as the sanctioning authority may direct; or, if the sanctioning

authority make no direction, within twelve months of the order of the sanctioning authority conferring compulsory powers (para. 21).

(14) Where promoters acquire land which is subject to outside restrictions on its use, the promoters should be entitled to use the land free from any such restrictions on paying compensation to the persons entitled to the benefit of such restrictions, if such persons are, in fact, damaged by the breach of such restrictions. And even where no application for land is pending before the sanctioning authority either because the land has been acquired by voluntary agreement or because no additional land is needed, it should be open to the sanctioning authority to extinguish or modify a restrictive covenant upon proper terms as to compensation or otherwise wherever they are of opinion that it is in the public interest that such covenant should be so extinguished or modified (para. 22).

(15) The obligation of or offer by promoters to provide accommodation works for the benefit of vendors, and the nature of the works required, should be dealt with, in cases where the accommodation works are an integral part of the scheme, by the sanctioning authority when the scheme is sanctioned, and in other cases by the compensation tribunal, when the compensation is settled.

In either case the benefit to the vendor of the accommodation works ordered, whether at the instance of the promoters or the vendor, should be taken into consideration by way of reduction in assessing the price to be paid for the land. It is recognised, however, that the sanctioning authority and the compensation tribunal should have power to postpone their decision as to accommodation works, in cases where they think that the question cannot be properly decided until sufficient time has elapsed to gauge the effect of the promoters' undertaking on the vendors' property (para. 25).

(16) Subject to any limitations which the sanctioning authority in sanctioning scheme may think fit to impose in special cases, promoters should have an unrestricted power to hold and dispose of surplus land,

and any general statutory provisions as to the pre-emption rights of adjoining owners, etc., should, as regards schemes sanctioned by the sanctioning authority, cease to have effect (para. 24).

every case the

(17) In sanctioning authority should consider whether the minerals should be excepted from or included in a conveyance of land to promoters (para. 25).

(18) (a) The tribunal may, if the parties agree, consist of a single arbitrator appointed by them, but if the parties do not so agree, the tribunal should consist of one arbitrator to be appointed by the sanctioning authority from a panel. In the ordinary case, we think that the tribunal should be limited to one arbitrator, but in a special case the sanctioning authority should have discretion, if it thinks fit, to appoint a large and special tribunal. It should be within the discretion of the tribunal to exclude the public, but we think that as a rule publicity is desirable (paras. 26 and 27).

(b) Either party should be at liberty to obtain from the Inland Revenue Valuation Department any existing official valuations affecting the property in question, and such valuations should be admissible in evidence (para. 28).

(19) (a) The sanctioning authority should have general authority to make rules as to the practice and procedure to be observed by the tribunal, and the principles on which costs should be dealt with.

(b) We consider it essential that the claimant should be required to serve on the promoters full particulars of his claim which would state the exact nature of the interest in respect of which compensation is claimed and details of the compensation claimed, distinguishing the amounts under separate heads and showing how the amount claimed under each head is calculated.

(c) Subject to any principles to be laid down by the sanctioning authority the tribunal should have an absolute discretion as to costs, and it should be its duty to consider and determine in each case by whom and in what proportion such costs shall be borne.

(d) The tribunal should have power to call expert witnesses, and both parties should be allowed to cross-examine such expert witnesses. The tribunal should also have power to appoint an accountant to examine books and accounts and to order all necessary books and accounts to be produced for the inspection of such accountant, who should be available for cross-examination by both sides. Taxation returns in the possession of the Inland Revenue Department should also be produced upon request by the tribunal (para. 29).

(20) We consider that the sanctioning authority should, in framing their rules of procedure before the compensation tribunal, relax the rigid English rule excluding individual instances of sale and other dealings in land from evidence in chief, in favour of the Scottish practice which admits them (para. 30).

(21) Either party should have the right to appeal to the High Court of Justice on a question of law, and if such a question of law is raised, it should be stated in the award (whether interim or final) in the form of a special case. In Scotland special legislative provision should be made for an appeal on a question of law by way of stated case to the Inner House of the Court of Sessions (para. 31).

(22) (a) As a general principle, where the State or a local authority by a particular improvement has increased the value of the neighbouring land, the State or local authority should be entitled to participate in such increased value (para. 32).

(b) The principle of betterment applicable in the case of undertakings promoted by the State or local authorities as aforesaid is also applicable in the case of private undertakings authorised in the public interest (para. 33), but the share of private promoters in any betterment created by their undertaking should be subject to an overriding limit that it should not exceed the actual cost of the construction of the undertaking (para. 34).

(c) The promoters should schedule the limits of the area in respect of which it is proposed to claim betterment in respect of any

property, and also specify the period at the end of which they propose that claims for betterment should be made. Any person having any interest in land within the scheduled betterment area should have the right of audience before the sanctioning authority as to such betterment, and should also have the right at any time after the works, so far as they affect his property, have been completed to apply to the promoters and, failing agreement, to the tribunal, for the immediate assessment of the betterment, if any, of his property, which it is estimated will result from the undertaking; and further, upon payment of the capitalised value of the betterment charge, or, if there be no betterment, without payment, to obtain from the promoters a certificate of the discharge of his land from liability to betterment (para. 36).

(d) Either the promoters or the owner should have the right to call on the Inland Revenue Valuation Department to make an official initial valuation for the purpose of assessing the the betterment charge. This valuation when made should be supplied to both parties within a certain limited time, either party to have power to agree to or dissent from it, and if not dissented from within the limited period by either party, the valuation should be binding on both parties. The same procedure should be adopted for the final valuation. On each occasion each party should, in default of agreement, have the right to have the valuation of the property in question, or its betterment, assessed by the tribunal. At the hearing before the tribunal either party should have the right to call the Inland Revenue valuer as a witness and to crossexamine him on his valuation (paras. 37 to 40).

(e) The principle of betterment should be applied to all interests in land having a market value (para. 41).

(f) In normal cases 50 per cent. should be the percentage of betterment to be taken from the owner (para. 42).

(g) Where the promoter is a local authority, the sanctioning authority should decide when sanctioning the scheme whether the whole of the betterment should be retained

by the local authority or whether some proportion should be paid to the State. In the case of a private promoter, if 50 per cent. of such betterment exceeds the actual cost of construction of the undertaking, the excess should not be payable (para. 43).

(h) The annual charge should be 5 per cent. upon the capital value of the betterment assessed, or such other rate as the sanctioning authority, with due regard to the then current value of money, may determine, and should rank next after rates and taxes (para. 44).

(i) The mere fact that promoters may already have statutory power to take land should not preclude them from applying to the sanctioning authority to sanction a betterment charge and to delimit the area (para. 46).

(23) (a) In our opinion injurious affection. falls into two classes:

(1) Damage to an owner whose land is taken, arising directly from the taking -e.g., by severance or disturbance of occupation.

(2) Damage arising from the construction or user of the works, which may result to an owner none of whose land is taken, as well as to an owner some of whose land is taken.

(b) We recommend that compensation for injurious affection under class (1) should in general follow as of course.

In regard to injurious affection under class (2), the sanctioning authority should exercise a discretion, allowing compensation for direct and substantial depreciation of market value, if they are of opinion that in the circumstances it is reasonable and. expedient to do so. In making such order, the sanctioning authority should have full discretion to impose terms or give directions to the assessment tribunal.

(c) The properties in respect of which a claim for injurious affection, under class (2), may be made should be inserted in a schedule to be settled by the sanctioning authority at the time of sanctioning the scheme, and all such claims should be made

within a limited time, similarly to be settled by the sanctioning authority.

(d) The assessment should not be postponed as in the case of betterment, but take place once and for all upon the claim being made.

(e) Claims for compensation for damage by maintenance or user of the type considered in paragraph 49 should be dealt with by the assessment tribunal, as and when they arise.

(f) Damage caused by negligence or other unauthorised user of the works should, as at present, not be matter for compensation, but ordinary legal proceedings (paras. 47 to 50).

(24) (a) As a general rule we are of opinion that the system of recoupment is not desirable because undertakers should not be encouraged to embark on land speculation, or the management of property not required for the purposes of the undertakings (paras. 51 to 54).

(b) An exception to this rule exists in the case of street improvements, where the public interest, as distinct from the interest of a private undertaker, may render it desirable that the local authority concerned should be granted power to acquire more land than is required for the purposes of the improvement, to enable it to utilise the land necessarily acquired, but not forming part of the street improvement, and to secure that the frontage to the improvement shall be adequately developed, and thereby lessen the cost to the public of the improvement (para. 55).

(c) This general rule should not be construed to debar undertakers from obtaining powers to acquire land to reinstate displaced interests or to acquire land which may be required in the future for the efficient development of the undertaking (para. 56).

(d) We have considered the option given. to an owner by the betterment clauses of the London County Council Improvement

Acts to require the Council to purchase his interest at the amount of the initial valuation or to abandon the betterment charge, but we are of opinion that, in view of our proposals with regard to betterment, there is no ground for extending the system of recoupment beyond the recommendation above stated (para. 57).

(e) Where the sanctioning authority is asked in its discretion to grant specific powers of recoupment, all persons affected by such powers should have the right to oppose the application for such powers (para. 57).

(f) Promoters who have power to take land compulsorily for the purposes recoupment should be authorised to purchase the freehold, or any less interest than the whole, without being required to purchase any other interest in the land, subject to paying compensation for any interest or right injuriously affected (para. 58).

(25) (a) We consider that it is not practicable to impose any general obligation on vendors to accept compensation for land compulsorily acquired in the shape of a perpetual rent charge on the land, but it should be allowed where parties agree, and limited owners should be authorised to make binding arrangements for the acceptance of a rent charge or annual sum in lieu of cash.

(b) So far as the acquisition of land and rights in land is concerned, we are of opinion that any proposals which may be made to substitute annual payments or payment by security for lump sum cash payments should be applicable to compensation given on the compulsory acquisition of land. We express no opinion as to whether it is desirable to create annuities or other new securities either national or local or to permit payment in existing stock, but we think it must be left to the assessment tribunal to decide the amount of annual payment or securities which in each individual case should be given to the vendor as representing the cash value of his compensation (para. 59).