Clause 16. (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 15, line 10, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert: (1) Where a stop notice ceases to have effect, a person

(a) in relation to whom the stop notice was in force, or

(b) who at any time during which the stop notice was in force had an interest in the land to which it related, or

(c) who at any time during which the stop notice was in force was concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations on the land to which it related, or

(d) who was served with the stop notice under section 15(1) or (2) of this Act,

shall, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) below, be entitled to recover from the local planning authority compensation for all loss or damage suffered by him as a result of the prohibition contained in the notice.

Clause 16 deals with compensation for loss due to stop notices, and subsection (1) sets out those who are entitled to compensation. When we discussed this in Committee the Minister agreed that the wording needed amendment, and there is a Government Amendment, Amendment No. 30, which is related to this. I do not know whether it would be convenient to deal with that Amendment at the same time as this?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If that is for the convenience of the House? Yes, indeed.

§ Mr. Page
I am much obliged. The Minister's Amendment is insufficient and inadequate and does not go as far as he seemed to be prepared to go in Committee.
My hon. Friends have endeavoured to spell out the people who might be concerned and might be damaged by a stop notice and, therefore, might be entitled to compensation. They would be so entitled only if they proved damage, loss or expense as a result of the stop notice having been imposed on them for a period of time. Four categories of persons might be affected in that way and they are set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the proposed new subsection; and I will explain each category. Paragraph (a) is the person …in relation to whom the stop notice was in force … 689 These words are taken from Clause 15, which refers to a stop notice being in force in relation to a person who has imposed on him certain duties, to the extent that if he does not carry out those duties he is guilty of an offence and may be fined up to £400. That is one person who is affected by the stop notice and who may suffer damage and loss, described as a person …in relation to whom the stop notice was in force … The second category, in paragraph (b), is the person who may have an interest in the land at the time when the stop notice is served, or—this is an addition; it does not appear in the Bill as drafted—who may have an interest at any time after the stop notice has been served and before it has been withdrawn. This is necessary in relation to somebody acquiring an interest while the stop notice is in existence because there may be a firm contract, the completion of which happens to take place after the stop notice has been served. Somebody may be obliged to purchase a property before the stop notice was served, and he must then carry out his contract and buy the property. He may thereby suffer loss by reason of the stop notice on the property. Thus, the second category concerns a person … who at any time during which the stop notice was in force had an interest in the land to which it related … The third category, in paragraph (c), is a person … who at any time during which the stop notice was in force was concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations on the land to which it related … These words are taken from Clause 15(2), which provides that A stop notice may be served by the local planning authority on any person who appears to them to have an interest in the land or to be concerned with the carrying out or continuance of any operations thereon. Here is someone else who is recognised as being involved in the proceedings of the stop notice and who may, therefore, suffer loss.
The fourth category, in paragraph (d), is the person … who was served with the stop notice under section 15(1) or (2) of this Act … One might call this what is often referred to in Income Tax law as the "dustbin schedule" because it sweeps in all those who neither had an interest in the 690 land nor were concerned with operations but who appeared to the local planning authority to have such an interest or to be concerned in operations. Under Clause 15(2) A stop notice may be served … on any person who appears to … the local planning authority … to have an interest in the land or to be concerned with … operations thereon. They would not come into the earlier categories I have described because one could say that they did not have an interest and were not concerned at all, but unfortunately they were served with a stop notice. I think it would be an exceptional case in which they could suffer loss and be entitled to compensation, but this sets out the categories of persons who may suffer loss. Of course they must prove that loss if they are to be entitled to compensation.

§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)
I am trying to understand how a person with no interest in the land and not concerned with operations on it could suffer financial loss as a result of being served with a stop notice because it appeared to a local authority that he had an interest when he had not.

§ Mr. Page
A number of persons may be concerned, a freeholder, a tenant, a contractor, a sub-contractor or a sub-sub-contractor. It might be that one subcontractor is not concerned with particular developments in respect of which a stop notice has been served but he appears to be so involved and, being served with a stop notice, he may be obliged to stop other work on the land and thereby suffer loss. As I have said, it would be an extraordinary case in which such a person suffered loss, but he is a person who may be served with a stop notice and, if he can prove loss, he should be entitled to compensation.
The effort is to set out conveniently all those who might be entitled rather than leaving it indefinite and certainly not wide enough in the wording of Clause 16(1). It was agreed on both sides in Committee that this needed to be amended. We have tried to find the right words and I hope that they commend themselves to the Minister.

Mr. MaeDermot
I agree that our Amendment No. 30 goes only part of the way. I said in Committee that I 691 thought the Clause is drawn too narrowly both as respects the landowner and the contractor. Amendment No. 30 secures the position of the landowner whose right to compensation will no longer depend on having been served with a stop notice, but it does not deal with the contractor. I had hoped to put down an Amendment at this stage, but I understand from the Parliamentary draftsman that he has found this an exceedingly complex and difficult matter because it involves the contractual rights of the contractor.
The difficulty here is to ensure that the planning authority will not have to pay the same compensation twice over—once to the landowner who may be in a contractual position where he has indemnified the contractor, and duplicating that by giving a statutory right to the contractor to get compensation direct from the authority. That is the reason for the complication and the delay.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby on his bold attempt to draft it, but I must advise the House that I do not think his draft is satisfactory for a number of reasons. I have dealt with the difficulty about the contractor and the risk of duplication. Paragraph (b) is objectionable for a different reason. It would give a right of compensation to a person who acquired an interest in the land after the stop notice had been served as well as to a person who had an interest when it was served. This could give rise to a traffic in claims for compensation by allowing claims to run with the land. As I said, a stop notice is a personal notice. It does not run, and it ought not to run, with the land. A purchaser buying land in respect of which a stop notice has been served would be buying subject to an enforcement notice. Searches and supplementary inquiries should reveal that existence of the stop notice so that he does not buy in ignorance.
11.45 p.m.
The wording at the end of the Amendment about the measure of damages, to which" the hon. Gentleman did not refer, is wording which was the subject of the Amendment which was considered and rejected in Committee, omitting in effect "directly" which appears and which, as I explained in Committee, should remain. 692 I repeat the assurance that I gave in Committee. We will bring forward an Amendment, which I hope that the House will find acceptable, to deal with the position of the contractor.

§ Mr. Graham Page
Our difficulty at present is that this is practically the last stage of the Bill. We shall not be able to see the Amendment which the Government table in another place and will not have a chance to discuss it fully and in detail. Admittedly, the Bill will return here for consideration of Lords Amendments, but there is no opportunity then to consider it in the detail which we would have devoted to it if an Amendment had been made in Committee or on Report. From what the Minister has said, I think that we are at one in what we want to provide in subsection (1). If I am right about that—

§ Mr. Page
—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.