EXCLUSION OF MINIMAL COMPENSATION (Hansard, 15 May 1973)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a case in which, during Committee and other stages in this House, I resisted an amendment to remove the first £50 of any claim under Part I. Another place sought to restore that. I graciously bow out and eat my words on previous occasions and ask the House to agree with another place.

§ Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)
We are extremely pleased that, although we did not succeed in our persuasion in this House, we perhaps paved the way for what I think is a sensible arrangement. I am advised by those who deal with these matters that to try to quantify some of the sums down to a precise £50 is extremely difficult. The removal of this barrier is likely to lead to a good deal of good will all round, and I am obliged to the Minister.

§ Mr. Sydney Chapman (Birmingham, Handsworth)
I do not want to destroy the unanimity but I must register at least a personal protest about this Lords Amendment. I understood the reason why the Government wanted to introduce the figure of £50. I always considered, and I said so in Committee, that if it was thought necessary to have a minimum figure for compensation, it would be 1439 totally unfair, if one was not to exclude the first £50 of any claim higher than the £50, that if somebody had a compensation claim for £49 he would get nothing but that if he had a claim for £51 he would get the whole £51 if the amendment put forward from the other side of the House was carried. I have cited an extreme case, but it is one which was used by my right hon. Friend the Minister in Committee.
Whilst I could appreciate that it would be a good thing not to have any minimum limit at all, if one was going to have a minimum limit of £50 it seemed to me fair to have a qualifying phrase saying that any compensation of an amount over £50 should have the first £50 deducted. I must stand by that decision of the Committee on 12th December.
I put to my right hon. Friend therefore one or two issues which must flow from the amendment if we accept it. First, I do not accept that the reason for putting the £50 limit should be to dissuade a multiciplicity of small claims from being made, because the point I made earlier, which is still valid, is that there are just as likely to be as many cases with a minimum limit of £50. What is the procedure for dealing with these small claims? Will it be as part of or separate from the Lands Tribunal?
My right hon. Friend said that he would look into this and I think that the House is entitled to have the information if he is going to remove the deduction of £50 for any claim over £50 but still maintain the £50 as the minimum limit for compensation on. Surely we are entitled to, and perhaps to have written into the Bill, some procedure whereby, if any compensation claim is realised for less than £50, the person should have an automatic right to revaluation of his property. In other words, the rates he will have to pay should be automatically deducted by some suitable amount.
It seems grossly unfair to have this arbitrary figure of £50 without any thought being given to the deduction from rates on the property for any compensation lower than £50.

§ Mr. J. R. Kinsey (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
Is it possible for my right hon. 1440 Friend to tell me what will be the compensation of, say, a pensioner in my constituency who is in close proximity to a motorway? Pensioners are the least able to afford any expenses, even up to £50. How will they be considered if they are municipal tenants, for example, with a small claim such as may lie in the necessity of having a larger aerial installed in order to get better television reception? Will such expenses be entirely excluded? Will the Minister look at the amount in an arbitrary way rather than at the needs of individuals?

§ Mr. Graham Page
I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) that there is no question of the Minister looking arbitrarily at these claims. If it is a claim to compensation under the Bill and it is disputed, it will go before the Lands Tribunal.
Any claimant who is advised that his claim does not exceed £50 will scarcely be likely to make the claim under the provisions of the Bill as it stands. It is reasonable to exclude claims of this small amount. It was decided that on balance there was perhaps after all more to be said for not obliging the claimant to bear the first £50 himself. First if the property owner feels that his property has suffered depreciation through injurious affection in this way, it is highly unlikely that one could sense the amount of depreciation to be worth a figure below £50. Secondly, it would be expecting too much of any valuer to be able to measure differences in values of such a small degree. If a person persists in bringing a claim which he believes to be over £50 and the final decision is that it is less than £50 I imagine that he will suffer the loss of costs from bringing the claim.
Claims of this sort in Part I are intended to be for substantial injurious affection to property. We must exclude the small claims, but there is no reason why, if a substantial claim is proved, one should deduct the first £50.

§ Mr. Mulley
Is it not important to bring out, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, the fact that this provision applies only to claims by property owners, and that the £50 minimum does not apply to home loss, and such benefits that municipal tenants can 1441 obtain. It applies only to the actual owners of property.

§ Mr. Page
We are dealing here only with claims for injurious affection, in respect of property, by the use of public works. There is no question of home loss payment, or payment for the acquisition of land. This is compensation for depreciation.