HL Deb 24 October 1968 vol 296 cc1575-6

[No. 3]

Clause 17, page 17, line 29, at end insert— "() Where a person (in this subsection called 'the contractor') is under contract to another person (in this subsection called 'the developer') to carry out any operations on land and—

  1. (a) a stop notice takes effect (whether in relation to the developer or the contractor, or both) prohibiting the carrying out or continuance of those operations; and
  2. (b) the operations are countermanded or discontinued by the contractor accordingly,
then, unless and in so far as the contract makes provision explicitly to the contrary of this subsection, the developer shall be under the same liability in contract as if the operations had been countermanded or discontinued on instructions given by him in breach of the contract. This subsection applies only to contracts entered into on or before 1st November 1969, whether before or after the commencement of this section.

The Commons agreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment there to:

Line 16, leave out "1st November" and insert "the end of".

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3. In moving this Motion I should like to point out to your Lordships that the effect of this Amendment is to prolong by two months the period during which the provisions dealing specially with the right of a contractor whose work has to be interrupted to claim compensation from his employer remain operative. Your Lordships who participated at the Committee and other stages of the Bill will recall that originally in this House the period was 12 months. This Amendment is an extension of the period, and we hope that it is acceptable to your Lordships in this form.

Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.— (Baroness Serota.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS

My Lords, I think this Amendment is indeed acceptable. It is a transitional matter, and as I said when the substantive Amendment was introduced into the Bill at Third Reading a number of people consider that it is the wrong way round but at that stage there was nothing that could be done about it. It is a pity that the Government were not able to deal with this matter before the Third Reading in this House, because it was raised quite early in proceedings in another place. But if there are another two months of specific protection before it has to be done by contractual forms. so be it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.