POWER TO STOP FURTHER DEVELOPMENT PENDING PROCEEDINGS ON ENFORCE MENT NOTICE (Hansard, 23 October 1968)

§ Mr. MacColl
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment proposes to add to the list of matters that can be halted by a stop notice the tipping of refuse or waste materials. There might be some argument as to whether the interpretation of the Clause as it stands would include something which is not specifically building, engineering or mining. Therefore, it is desirable to spell out that if somebody goes on tipping refuse it is quite likely that it would be possible for the planning authority to serve a stop notice.

§ Mr. Graham Page
On a point of order. I think that there was an Amendment—

§ Mr. Speaker
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. On Amendment No. 29, at the foot of page 12315 of the Notice Paper, there is an Amendment which I have accepted—I mean selected.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 16, leave out '1st November' and insert 'the end of'.
The Lords Amendment deals with the contractor's position when a stop notice is served and with his rights against the developer. It defines those rights by saying that the contractor shall be in the same position as if the developer had wrongly stopped the contract.
If a stop notice is served on the developer, he will be forced to stop the work being done, and the contractor will then have the same rights against the developer as he would if the developer had had no cause to stop the contract work. But the Lords Amendment provides that the contractor and developer can contract out of that provision. After 1st November, 1969, they must deal with the subject in the contract.
This is unsatisfactory. If it is right to make statutory provision now for contracts now in existence, why should not it be right to make it for contracts whenever they are entered into? No doubt the R.I.B.A. form, the civil engineering form, or that terrible Government form, the CCC/Works form, will all be amended. Little printed slips will be issued to stick on the printed forms.
But not all building is carried out by such contracts. Indeed, a great amount is carried out by most informal contracts and sometimes no written contract exists at all. Therefore, I doubt the wisdom of putting in the last paragraph of the Lords Amendment: This subsection applies only to contracts entered into on or before 1st November, 1969, whether before or after the commencement of this section I doubt the wisdom of the whole provision but especially do I doubt the wisdom of fixing the date as 1st November, 1969.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the Amendment we passed only a few moments ago altering the date of 20th December to the end of the year because the latter date was far more convenient. My Amendment to the Lords Amendment would shift the date now proposed 1432 as 1st November, 1969, to the end of 1969, making it an easy and convenient date to remember, thereby making the Lords Amendment more practical and more useful to those who have to deal with these matters.
The Lords Amendment would be better without that last paragraph altogether, but if we have to have it let us amend it to put it in a form more convenient to those who have to practise in this work.

§ Mr. MacColl
I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should take this attitude about contracts, because it is surely better to let commercial gentlemen work out their own arrangements with the minimum of interference from the State. It is necessary to have a bridging operation because we are introducing legislation which could alter the contractual position while a contract is running, and it may also take time for people to prepare for the new position.
In general, it seems best to accept that, when people get used to the problems arising out of the "stop" notice, it will be one of the things in the law which contracts will deal with and that they will make their own arrangements as regards compensation, etc. This is a sensible provision, keeping interference to a minimum but giving a reasonable breathing space for bridging operations.
There are many impressive arguments which I could deploy against an alteration in the date proposed by the hon. Gentleman, but Mr. Speaker said he was thinking of accepting the Amendment to the Lords Amendment although per incuriam. I know a hint when I hear one I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the Lords Amendment.