COMPENSATION (Hansard, 5 August 1976)

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 12, line 22, leave out from first 'of' to 'otherwise' in line 23 and insert 'water's being discharged or not discharged to any place or its being discharged'.

The Deputy Chairman
With this we are also to discuss Government Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23.

§ Mr. Silkin
This is a very minor amendment. It extends the compensation provisions of the schedule to cover cases where compensation water is not discharged in a case where, but for the Order, discharge would be required.

§ Mr. John Silkin
I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 13, line 7, leave out "three" and insert "six".

The Deputy Chairman
With this we may discuss Amendment No. 42, in page 13, leave out lines 6 to 17.

§ Mr. Silkin
The amendment has the effect of extending from three to six months the period for the lodging of claims for compensation. It recognises that in some cases the claimant may not have all the information necessary, to lodge the complaint within three months.
It does not go as far as Amendment No. 42, but it goes a further three months' of the way. I do not think we can remove from the Bill any limitation on the time within which compensation can be claimed. I hope that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) will feel that 2277 I have gone some way towards meeting his point.

§ Mr. Graham Page
The Minister has gone some of the way but not as far as I should wish. The sub-paragraph is precedented in the 1958 Act, but I have never seen why claims of this sort should be limited as compared with other civil claims. Why should there be a restriction of three or six months after the end of the period? There may be a number of facts to be collected and perhaps difficult calculations to be made in connection with the damage caused. It could not be all that inconvenient for a water authority to wait the normal period for a claim of this kind.
I do not know what principle the Minister adopted to arrive at six months rather than the original proposal of three months. Why not deal with it in the same way as an ordinary civil claim?

§ Mr. John Silkin
The principle adopted in making the period six months rather than three months was the splendid principle of, wherever possible, supporting the Page. It has carried me through much of my parliamentary career.
I could say that this provision is precedented, but that would not satisfy the right hon. Gentleman or my conscience. I imagine that the reason why we are limiting the time for claims of this sort is that a series of open-ended contingent liabilities would otherwise have to be accepted by authorities without even knowing when they were due to be submitted. It is important, particularly for a statutory body such as a regional water authority to which his situation might occur quite often, that some time limit should be arranged.
I had to reach a decision, and the right hon. Gentleman is probably more likely to agree with six months than with three months. That is the best way I can do for him.

§ Mr. Graham Page
The Minister and I are members of the same profession and he knows how easily a period of this sort can run out and how a client can be penalised. If he has the opportunity in another Bill, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at this matter again to see whether we can get 2278 rid of this unnecessary provision in Bills. There is no principle behind it. I think that it was probably included solely for the convenience of administrators in the water authorities.

§ Mr. Graham Page
My question on this schedule—

§ Mr. Lomas
Come on!

§ Mr. Page
I do not know whether you can restrain the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), Mr. God man Irvine. He is not the least bit in terested in the Bill but keeps intervening from a sedentary position. The Bill is technical and is sometimes rather difficult to follow.
My question on the schedule is, what is to be the compensation payable? I can follow the occasions when compensation will be payable down to paragraph 4, which states: Compensation in respect of the imposition of a prohibition or limitation on the taking of water from a source shall be made by the authority to any persons to whom the prohibition or limitation applies for damage sustained by reason of the prohibition or limitation. Am I correct in understanding that to mean a prohibition not of use but of taking from some source such as a spring, river or whatever it may be?
To understand prohibition or limitation of use we have to turn to the explanatory note, which in page iii, paragraph 8, tells us: Schedule 2 provides for compensation to be payable for all provisions under clause 1 except those which relate to restrictions on the use of water. That is not patently clear from the schedule, unless one interprets paragraph 7(4) as giving that compensation. It states: Where a claim is made during the continuance of an order, the Lands Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, award a sum representing the damage in the three cases illustrated there. I understand that they do not include compensation for prohibition of use. One can get at that only by a negative—by saying that the schedule does not include it—and then turning to the explanatory note which confirms it.
2279 If the right hon. Gentleman will confirm my interpretation of the schedule, it will be helpful to have it on the record. Some people are interpreting the schedule as providing compensation if there is a prohibition or limitation of use.

§ Mr. John Silkin
rose—

§ Mr. Lomas
Before my right hon. Friend replies, I should like to put one point to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). There is not another soul on the Opposition Benches who defends the point that he is making. This is a filibustering exercise. It is not using the time of the Committee in any useful way whatsoever.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I strongly resent that comment. There is no question of filibustering. These are important points arising on the Committee stage of a difficult Bill. There is no question of any filibustering on it. The answers that I have had from the Minister have been very much to the point, and it is useful to have them on the record.

§ Mr. John Silkin
Regarding Clause 2 orders, the provisions largely follow the pattern of the Water Act 1958, which makes no provision for compensation for damage sustained as a result of an Order under Section 2 of that Act. I assume that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), in giving his interpretation, was following the interpretation of the 1958 Act. Of course, he is perfectly correct in everything he said.