RIGHT TO COMPENSATION (Hansard, 22 February 1973)

§ Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead)
I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 20, at end insert: '(5A) The responsible authority shall remain liable for compensation in cases which they authorise another body to undertake works, which if undertaken by the responsible authority would be public works'. Under the clause, if a responsible authority provides or uses public works it is liable to pay compensation. That is a tremendous step forward, which we all very much welcome. But I have thought of the possibility of the responsible authority letting land to a nonpublic body which then carries out works that might otherwise have been public works. In other words, that body is providing or using works corresponding to public works. The claimant of compensation will then fail to obtain it, because they will not be public works undertaken by a responsible authority.
I am sure that a responsible authority would not seek to avoid its liabilities in that way, but the law might compel it to do so if it were a completely bona fide action in which the public authority did not itself wish to undertake the works but wished an agency to do them for it.
An example in my constituency concerns a helicopter station. The New Town Commission has planning permission for a heliport. It does not want to operate it but to let it to a private firm, which would obviously have to carry out developments, put down hard standings and so forth. If it were a public authority it would qualify under the terms of this clause for liability to give compensation.
However, my right hon. Friend may take the point that according to the wording of the clause, public works includes "any aerodrome", and I take that to mean that a private aerodrome becomes, if we say so, a public aerodrome. In which case, I take it that the heliport would be covered. Can we have a defini- 860 tion of whether a private aerodrome is a public aerodrome? Alternatively, if my heliport is covered, then there must be other cases where the same principle would apply to some public body in not wanting to carry out the works itself.
The immediate thing I can think of is an aircraft navigational beacon, which a public authority might wish to instal but not operate itself. It might employ a private firm to operate it, in which case presumably the same principle would apply. Someone may then say that a public beacon may not come under the definition in the clause of … noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke and artificial lighting and the discharge on to the land in respect of which the claim is made of any solid or liquid substance. But the principle might apply and I think we should be safe rather than sorry in this matter.
My right hon. Friend may object that it is unfair for the responsible authority to remain liable to compensation under my amendment. I do not think it reasonable to put it on the private body, however. I think that it is much simpler for the responsible authority, in making its initial agreement with the private body, to allow for the fact that compensation will become payable. Thus, if, for example, it is granted a lease for a heliport, it will say, "This may leave us liable for £20,000 in compensation and in the circumstances we must charge an entirely different level of rent than we would otherwise."

§ Mr. Julius Silverman
Supposing there is no lease and no contract. Supposing the public authority simply gives planning permission. Would it not, under the terms of the amendment, be authorising another body to undertake works? Would that not mean that a local authority whose planning committee has given planning permission to construct works would become liable in law to any nuisance caused by those works?

§ Mr. Allason
I wish I had had the hon. Gentleman's assistance in drafting the amendment. He has made a good point. Perhaps we should say "authorises directly" and not merely by way of planning permission. We all know that our drafting as back benchers is never perfect. But even if it were we would still be in trouble. In the last Parliament, 861 I put down an amendment referring to "arms and legs". It was turned down by the Government, who replaced it by "legs and arms", which was the way their draftsmen preferred to have it. I do not pretend that this amendment will be perfect and I do not expect my right hon. Friend to accept every word of it, but I do hope that he will accept its spirit.

§ Mr. Graham Page
We must first be clear that this part of the Bill provides compensation only when public works are operated under statutory powers. I read the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) where he uses the phrase: undertaken by the responsible authority to mean that the works are being operated. It is not a question of construction of works but the actual operation of them. That is what this part of the Bill deals with. He puts the case that a public body authorised by statute to operate certain public works may choose to employ someone else to do that. Under the Bill persons managing the operation of the works are the persons who have to pay the compensation.
There is no reason, if those persons managing the operation of the works enjoy statutory immunity, why they should not meet the compensation. For example, British Rail ought not to be liable to pay compensation as a result of actions of the National Coal Board on railway land. There may be cases where a public body authorised by statute to carry on certain public works chooses to allow, or to employ, someone else, perhaps a man of straw, to carry on the work. That person carrying on the operations would not have statutory immunity and would be subject to the ordinary law of nuisance.
There is the possibility of some public body deliberately employing some worthless person so that they might both escape liability. I think it is a rather far-fetched concept that any public body would be so heedless of its duties. My hon. Friend has put the particular point of a New Towns Commission wanting to operate a helicopter station, or having the statutory authority to do so. He asked whether a private aerodrome is a public aerodrome. The answer is "Yes." It may sound rather an extraordinary proposition but that is so. If the New Towns 862 Commission chose to employ some private firm to carry on the helicopter station, assuming that it is an operation which is authorised by statute it would be necessary to look at the arrangement as between the Commission and the private helicopter operator. It would be difficult for a public body, by whatever private contract or authority it gives, to get out of its liability merely by putting worthless managers in to operate the works.
I do not reject this out of hand. My hon. Friend has a point and if there is something in it we will certainly see whether any amendment can be moved at a later stage. I am getting reluctant to say that now because I have said it so many times. This Bill is becoming what one might call a "What about it?" Bill. Time and again, in Committee and now on Report, someone has thought of some new point and said "What about this?" or "What about that?" Generally speaking, they have been good points and we have tried to meet them. I should like to say, without giving any undertaking, that I am interested in my hon. Friend's point and I should like to look at it.

§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)
I am sorry to intervene after the Minister has spoken, but I wish briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). It is necessary to extend the application of the Bill to ensure that it does not fail to do what it sets out to do. It would be a pity if this generous measure, which is long overdue, were to be frustrated in its purposes.
I had hoped to table an amendment to extend this principle still further, going beyond even public aerodromes or private aerodromes. What distinguishes these matters is not that they are public or private, but that they are determined by public planning decisions. Therefore, why not include such things as mineral workings and quarry workings whose operations can be extremely dangerous? Indeed some people in my constituency have come near to being killed by quarry explosions. Since these unpleasant events take place because of a public decision, I had hoped that the time would come when the whole situation would be taken care of in a compensation measure. I hope that my right hon. Friend, having 863 put his hand to the plough, will not turn back and that in due course will put forward another Bill to provide compensation to cover all those who are affected, not merely by public works, but by the consequences of public decisions.

§ Mr. Allason
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming that a private aerodrome will count as a public aerodrome. Clause 1(1) of the Bill does not define who is the "responsible authority". May we take it that the operator of a private aerodrome is the responsible authority and that in terms of an aerodrome we are placing an obligation on private bodies to pay compensation? Since my right hon. Friend has undertaken to look at the general principle, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.