§ 2.59 p.m.
§ Lord MIDDLETON rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that before allowing the Bill to proceed they should consider whether in connection with the works authorised by the Bill, the owners, lessees and occupiers of land will have adequate redress under the Bill against the Board in respect of loss or damage occasioned by contractors or other persons let into the land by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the British Railways (Selby) Bill promoted by the British Railways Board is to get statutory authority for the construction of about 14 miles of new railway track and all the works connected with it. It is essential that part of the new Selby coal field which lies under the existing main line—and it would be a substantial part—shall not be sterilised. Everyone now agrees that this new stretch of rail is necessary and the petitioners are now convinced that the Bill is satisfactorily drafted and, therefore, it is no longer an opposed Bill.
As I explained when your Lordships gave this Bill a Second Reading, the interests of those whose land or buildings will be affected by the works will be well looked after by the various statutes under which British Rail will have to operate, 365 and also by the code of practice which has been agreed by the Board with the interested bodies, except in one respect. The British Railways Board do not agree that they should be responsible in any way for loss or damage that may be done to those whose land or premises are affected by the works and which is done by the contractors whom the Board employ and bring on to the land. Damage by contractors operating for the Department of Transport unfortunately occurs all too frequently during road building. It is one of the commonest grievances of occupiers affected by roadworks that damage is done and there is no redress, either because the contractor simply refuses to make good the loss and the wronged person chooses not to pursue him through the courts as this would leave him worse off even if he succeeds or the contractor or sub-contractor cannot be identified, or else the contractor goes bankrupt and cannot pay anyway. This happens so often when roads are built that it is not reasonable to suppose that this new railway line will be built without similar cases. It is therefore hoped that British Rail will agree, in the code of practice to which I have referred, that they will be responsible for damage caused through the negligence of their contractors.
I know that British Rail have not built a new line for some time, but there is another public body which is actively acquiring land for laying pipelines and carrying out construction works, and this is the British Gas Corporation. This body takes a more enlightened view and undertakes in its code of practice to be responsible for the damage caused by its contractors. I quoted the relevant passage from their code of practice on Second Reading. I also quoted from a National Coal Board publication on compensation which demonstrates a rather more helpful attitude than that of British Rail. British Gas admit that their undertaking was made wholly in their own interests rather than from solicitude towards the owners and occupiers concerned. So clearly they find the task of acquisition, compensation and agreeing terms for reinstatement and so on is made much easier by eliminating this cause of grievance. It must be cheaper in the long run for British Gas to act in this way—so why not for British Rail?
366 The argument advanced by the British Railways Board is that such a concession would open the flood-gates of claims upon the taxpayer and set dangerous precedents. I cannot see that there is any merit whatever in this argument. First, I do not suppose that anyone believes that there is going to be a flood or avalanche of new railway lines being built in this country. We are still heavily engaged in digging up miles and miles of disused track. Secondly, there is no suggestion that British Rail should be responsible for contractors' damage after a new stretch—in this case the 14 miles of Selby—is completed. Thirdly, if damage is done to land, buildings or crops, there are three ways of paying for it: first, by the employer—in this case, British Rail—secondly, by the contractor who perpetrates the damage. Thirdly, by the owner or occupier who suffers the loss. British Rail are, in effect, saying that, if the contractor who should pay will not pay, then the occupier must do so since British Rail will have no part in the matter.
It is hard to see how any additional burden can be placed upon the taxpayer through British Rail assuming responsibility. When they enter into a contract with a firm to do work for them, they will presumably use or be guided by the Institution of Civil Engineers' conditions of contract; that is, the conditions of contract in connection with works of civil engineering construction which, suitably amended and brought up to date, have been widely used since 1945. One of those recommended conditions—No. 22—is that a contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the employer against all claims, demands, damages, et cetera, in respect of the works. Condition No. 23 sets out how this should be done by insurance.
We can be sure that British Rail will exact rigorous conditions from their contractors with regard to damage through faulty construction, and they could, I should have thought, also insist on the kind of recommended conditions with regard to damage to third parties' property to which I have just referred. I think it right that the British Railways Board should be required to consider once more why they should not follow the excellent example of British Gas. The amount of the claims in such cases is usually small. It is reasonable that a claimant should not 367 be put to the considerable expense of pursuing a contractor brought on to his land by British Rail, but should be able to go direct to the Board, subject, of course, to a fair assessment of damage. I believe that a more reasonable attitude by British Rail in this particular case, and perhaps in due course by the Department of Transport in the case of road building, would build up a fund of goodwill that would in the end result in cheaper acquisition rather than create an additional burden upon the taxpayer. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that before allowing the Bill to proceed they should consider whether in connection with the works authorised by the Bill, the owners, lessees and occupiers of land will have adequate redress under the Bill against the Board in respect of loss or damage occasioned by contractors or other persons let into the land by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. —(Lord Middleton.)
§ The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has said, this Bill is an unopposed one and will in the normal way be committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee. If the House accepts the noble Lord's Instruction, I intend to follow the new procedure which was recently agreed by your Lordships. Your Lordships will recall that, on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, Private Bill Standing Orders were recently amended to give me discretion to invite members of the panel of deputy chairmen to assist me on an Unopposed Bill Committee. In the event of this Instruction being accepted, that is the procedure I intend to follow. The committee will then consider carefully the matters raised in the noble Lord's Instruction together with the words that he has uttered this afternoon, and will of course also hear submissions from the promoters. Then, as is usual when an Instruction is sent to a committee, that committee will make a special report to this House.
§ Lord MIDDLETONMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.