House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 1991

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : I was interested in what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said about Beveridge's reforms in 1942. I recall newspaper articles written at the time which described, in dramatic terms, the evil giants that had to be slain--he was talking about freedom from want, ignorance, fear and illness. The Labour Government in 1945 introduced the great reforms, based on Beveridge's plan. Such was the force of public opinion in Britain at the time which was in favour of those reforms that no one dared to attack that. Those reforms were introduced by a Labour Government with consent from the Conservative Opposition at the time. The Labour Government introduced better pensions, the health service, universal education and decent housing at affordable rents. That brought families like mine out of the slums into decent housing. They achieved that by an immense programme of public sector building. The Conservatives' record of the past 11 years has slipped a great deal from the view that they held in 1942.

Labour wants to progress from Beveridge who--understandably, in the 1940s-- wanted the father to be the bread-winner and the mother to remain always at home, to produce the conventional picture of mum, dad, two children and a dog. We maintain that women have a right to work and to receive proper payment for it, and that adequate child care facilities should be available to them, so that they can play a fuller role in society. The Government are tying themselves in knots, because half of them think that women should stay in the kitchen, and the other half agree that they should be able to work. The Government have failed to devise reasonable policies. As time is short, I will leave it at that.

6.20 pm

Ms. Jo Richardson (Barking) : We have all benefited from hearing the differing views of right hon. and hon. Members in this interesting debate. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) on his choice of subject, and even on the blandness of his motion, although I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's reference, in respect of families, to the Government "continuing to support and increase their confidence and competence by extending choice".

In fact, the Government do not have any policies for supporting the family. The reverse is true.

The words "family" and "family policies" have been bandied about for years. Many right hon. and hon. Members--although none of those present in the Chamber now--wail and wring their hands over the disappearance of what they think of as the ideal family, of

Column 61

the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) referred. It is meant to comprise a working husband, dependent wife, and two or three children--all living securely and happily in a nice home. That is some people's vision of a happy family, but it has never been true to say that all families are like that.

In reality, in former days there were millions of poor families. Women often bore large numbers of children, who lacked sufficient food. Many kids had to go to work because even the pittance they could earn was a necessary part of the family income. There was no national health service, no welfare benefits, and no sense of responsibility on the part of Governments in those bygone days--which some look back on with a false sense of nostalgia.

Today, more women with children than ever before go to work, but more families also experience divorce. Greater numbers are also remarrying and starting new families. Families come in all shapes and sizes. Some are one- parent families, some contain a disabled person--no one has mentioned that- -and in others it is the parents rather than the children who need to receive care. They are as entitled to that care as are children. The well- being of all types of families is fundamental to society's well-being, particularly at times of great change.

Families deliver love and care to children, and it is within families that children learn the ground rules of good citizenship. The way that parents manage that job is important to us all, because children are literally our future. That is why Labour places so much emphasis on the need for coherent policies that will nourish and strengthen family relationship as they really exist--and not as some people imagine they should be.

We all want children to grow up in a secure and loving environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) mentioned the problems that confront children today, yet, over the past 11 years, Britain has suffered the biggest increase in poverty levels of any European country-- and its children have suffered most. In 1979, 12 per cent. of children lived below the poverty line, but that figure increased to a shameful 26 per cent.--more than double--by 1986, and today more than 2 million children live in families that are on or below the poverty line.

Low wages, changes to the benefits system, poor housing, and less child care mean that millions of parents--especially single parents--cannot keep their children off benefit and off the poverty line. They need new opportunities and to be able to care for their families.

Everyone needs a home, yet the Government have presided over a decade of increasing homelessness, and allow the scandal of bed-and-breakfast accommodation to continue. That form of housing in itself creates strain, and often results in families breaking up. It has also increased the number of children suffering illness and accidents, and the number of babies born prematurely or at low birth weights.

When a Labour Government come to power, one of their first policies will be to provide sufficient decent and affordable housing to meet the nation's needs. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South referred to the right to buy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, we are in favour of that right, but believe that alongside it should run the opportunity for local authorities to build good quality, affordable, rented property for those who cannot afford to buy.

Column 62

Child benefit was introduced by the last Labour Government, and it remains the only benefit to be paid directly to the person who cares for the child--in the overwhelming number of cases, its mother. The Government's own social security statistics, published a few days ago, show that child benefit is currently worth less than at any time since 1977, and worth less to families with three or more children than at any time since Labour introduced the family allowance 46 years ago, in 1945.

Mr. Peter Bottomley : Eleanor Rathbone, an independent Member of Parliament, took that legislation through Parliament before the 1945 election. The House debated that measure for three hours, and no one voted against it. It is not quite proper for the hon. Lady to claim the credit only for her party.

Ms. Richardson : I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but it does not change the fact that the value of the family allowance has been greatly reduced.

The Government froze child benefit in 1987, and now propose to increase it from £7.25 to £8.25--but only for the first child. In 1977, during the life of the last Labour Government, the allowance was worth £6.24 at 1990 prices, and the present payment of £21.75 for three children is the lowest since 1945. That is disgraceful, and it is scandalous that the value of that benefit should drop so low. The sharp increase in 1989 of nearly 8 per cent. in income support for lone mothers sent the Government scurrying away to find a means of compelling fleeing fathers to pay maintenance, to reduce dependence on income support. I support the principle, but we must ensure that women who cannot or will not reveal the identity of their former partner will not be disadvantaged. A future Labour Government will restore the full value of child benefit by uprating it in line with inflation for every child in the family. We believe that that is the way to do it.

The motion calls for extending choice in employment--"Hear, hear" to that. The Government, however, have never had a coherent employment policy. We need a talent-based, highly skilled work force, and we need to develop and train the various talents that people possess. Many of those talents are undervalued--they are certainly underpaid, particularly those of women who struggle to work for their families. The Government proudly say that Britain has the largest number of working women in any European country. That is true, but the increase has come about because of the need for part- time work to fit in with family responsibilities. Part-time work can be excellent and valuable, but the majority of part-time women workers do not receive, pro rata, the pay of full-time workers. Most of them have no right to holiday and sick pay entitlement, which is a disgrace. Home workers, and temporary or casual workers, are treated even more badly, but the work they do is a valuable part of industry.

Last Friday, I received a letter from a constituent which pulls the whole thing together. It relates to a traditional family--a working husband, a dependent wife and three children. The husband is self-employed and the wife has no job outside the home. She had a job but lost it, because the firm for which she worked went bust. The husband owes £350 tax to the Inland Revenue, the couple cannot pay their poll tax and they are in arrears with the mortgage.

Column 63

They are afraid that non-payment of the poll tax will put them in prison and the children into care. They fear that, if they cannot pay the mortgage, they may lose their home and the children may have to go into care.

My constituent is trying to find a job. The letter states : "I'm not lazy and I'm not stupid but trying to find a job is very hard. I do work at home gluing folders and various other things. This is time consuming and very tiring. Most nights I'm up till 3 a.m. doing it enabling me to earn £40 a week."

She thought of killing herself, but decided that that would be selfish because of her husband and children, and I agree with her. I have not written to her--frankly, I do not know what to say. The Government's attitude to training is appalling. There are no coherent policies, which means that not only those who want and need to work cannot increase their opportunities and choice, but the whole community loses the profit that training in our education system and beyond would bring. Our public subsidy of child care--about which much has been said--is the lowest in Europe. Our employment legislation is riddled with inconsistencies and loopholes. If we continue with such policies, we shall be Europe's dumping ground.

We must invest in training, child care, effective employment rights and decent pay if we are to ensure a decent standard for families. We must provide more opportunities at work, to work and to continue to work and earn, as well as ensuring better provision for family care. Child care is not a substitute for family care, although I believe that good quality child care helps in the development of children--as I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles said. Child care supports families and helps them to support themselves.

A Labour Government will engineer a package of child care, because we believe that parents should have options. I believe that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) talked about tax relief on child care, which is one option that might be helpful. However, giving tax relief on child care or child care vouchers would not provide a single extra place, even in a workplace nursery. We need workplace nurseries, good quality, decently paid child minding, pre-school education, including pre-school play groups and nursery education, and out-of-school care to give parents options to choose the best for their children.

Mr. Burns : Does the hon. Lady accept that, if there were tax relief for working mothers or potential working mothers, it would encourage the development of more creches to meet a need? Those people who previously could not entertain the idea of working because it was financially impossible could probably bridge that gap with tax relief and find it worth while to work. That would bring more demand for creches and other forms of child care, which would mushroom as a result.

Ms. Richardson : We shall have to see how it develops. The Government must co-ordinate with local authorities on all the available options. If the Government decide to give some tax relief, we shall be able to see how the system works.

I am also keen that the Government should ask local authorities to give them their action plans for child care, so that we can ensure that child care is available throughout the country and not on a patchwork basis. We need

Column 64

partnerships with local authorities, employers, parents and voluntary agencies, but the Government need to co- ordinate those partnerships--and the Government are not doing so. That is a great shame, because it deprives so many parents of the option of going to work, leaving it all to the hit and miss of the workplace. We have the most rigid maternity rights in the whole of Europe. We have no statutory paternity rights and no concept of parental leave, which would allow us to start to change the culture whereby it is always accepted that the woman looks after the children and the husband goes out to work, without sharing in the rewards and responsibilities of child care. We need all those developments, and we need the Government to introduce them.

I know that somebody, probably the Minister, will say that we cannot adopt the directive on maternity and allow the European standard on maternity provision because it would cost too much. However, my information is that it is estimated that only 1 per cent. of female workers in Europe are pregnant at any one time, so it would hardly be a costly exercise-- [Laughter.] I obviously said something funny.

Finally, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that today is the 20th anniversary of the setting up of the first women's aid refuge. I hope that the Minister will join me in paying tribute to all those people who worked so hard to provide refuges throughout the country. From a survey that I have just conducted, I know that we have only 275 refuges for victims of domestic violence. We have been talking about divorce--some of those refuges are for people fleeing from violent partners. We do not have enough refuges, and we need six times as many places. More work needs to be done in collecting statistics on how many women are in difficulties. That is something that Government should and could be doing.

Only one quarter of all local authorities provide, or help to provide, refuges. That is a disgrace which should be corrected. It is just another example of the way in which the Government could help to provide secure funding for refuges to enable them to continue in the proper way.

Like others, I have had to range over a wide variety of options--policies that the Opposition believe should be introduced. As hon. Members know, Labour will have a Ministry for Women. We believe that policies need to be co-ordinated, and that the work of Government Departments in connection with women and the family should be no exception to that rule. There should also be a Minister for children to co-ordinate the work done by a number of Departments to deal with children's problems. Together, those two Ministries should ensure that all our policies bear in mind the fact that the family is the responsibility not only of itself but of everyone else, and that Government must play its part.

It is, I suppose, a pity--from his point of view--that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will not be here after the next election--[H on. Members :-- "Rubbish."]--but I hope that, when we have a Labour Government who start to introduce a coherent set of policies, he will watch and applaud and will remember this evening, when he initiated the debate.

6.41 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) did not necessarily wish

Column 65

to be congratulated on obtaining this slot, or on choosing this important subject for debate ; nevertheless, I congratulate him on both. He has prompted an extremely interesting discussion, in which a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House have been able to make some valuable comments.

At the beginning of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned that he could have chosen nuclear physics or local government finance as his subject. It was his second choice that made me wonder whether I was not rather fortunate to be responding to a debate on family policy! My hon. Friend gave us an interesting quotation from Philip Larkin about the make-up of a family. A number of other hon. Members have asked the same question : what is the family today? Philip Larkin was right in what he said about grandparents. I am a grandparent, and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) is the youngest grandparent in the House--at any rate, I have no reason to suppose that he is not ; he may also be the smallest, but we do not know about that. Perhaps he can help us in the context of what the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said about the number of pregnant women in Europe at any given time.

I am very interested by the definition of "the family". Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed interesting views. The continuing debate about the proper role for women within the family hinges on the sad fact that there are currently far more marriage breakdowns than there have been in recent years. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) : it is nightmarish to realise that one in three marriages appear likely to result in a family breakdown.

All that gloom, however, should not mask the fact that the death of the family and the death of marriage are by no means on the horizon. It is true that we now see more divorces and more single parents ; it is true that more female members of the family choose to go out to work--some because they wish to, and others because they feel that they must.

We must not exaggerate the changes, however. If the institution of marriage did not exist, I believe that we would busily set about inventing it, because it is the best and most satisfactory way in which to ensure that people can raise young children against the background of love, warmth and affection described by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). He cited the speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made to UNICEF, in which she said that time, affection and wise counsel were the most important factors to be devoted to the raising of children.

Mrs. Fyfe : Can I take it from the Minister's remarks that she, like me, disapproves of parents sending their children away to boarding school at the tender age of seven?

Mrs. Rumbold : I cannot agree with the hon. Lady. Such matters are entirely up to individual families ; it would be entirely wrong for me, as a Minister--a mere politician--to dictate what people should choose to do with their children. That would be ridiculous. I fear that the hon. Lady will not be happy with that response, but I am certain that it is the right one.

Most of the issues that we have considered relate to the question that I mentioned earlier : what is the family? Is it the nuclear family--man, woman and two or three

Column 66

children--or the larger family, including grandparents, uncles, aunts and so forth? I strongly believe in that second concept. I share the sadness of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that some of the more bureaucratic processes in--especially--local government planning in past years should have led to the break-up of the extended family, and, in my view, great damage to the basis of our society.

It is perhaps comforting to reflect that we are now seeing a slight reversal of that inherent damage, in that more grandparents are caring for their grandchildren while mothers or fathers are at work. It is reassuring to believe that we have recognised the value of the extended family. I trust that not only individuals such as the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and myself, but the wider world--including those who control such matters-- will learn the lessons and perceive the truth about policies that have been set out so badly.

Mr. David Nicholson : I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that. Does she agree that, although in many instances this country can convey its ideas vigorously to its European neighbours, we may be able to learn from them in the case of the extended family?

Mrs. Rumbold : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that we shall take note of the benefits of the extended family, and the support that it provides--not only when marriages survive for a number of years, but when the partners ultimately find that they cannot make the marriage work, and must resort to as amicable a parting as possible without upsetting the arrangements for the secure raising of the children.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that the current review of family law encompasses not only an examination of the legal provisions, but the jurisdictional procedures and other arrangements for handling family business in the courts. I share his anxiety that we should not lessen the difficulties involved in achieving divorce, but should instead concentrate on maintaining the family and ensuring that, when divorces must take place for the benefit of both partners, the interest and welfare of the children are of primary concern. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South has a particular interest in Relate. I assure him that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are undertaking a review of the work carried out by Relate and other organisations which counsel couples who are going through difficulties. The Government are sympathetic to and support the work of Relate. However, we cannot undertake to increase funding while the review that I have mentioned is being carried out. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with that.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks (Wolverhampton, North-East) : I have not had the opportunity to hear the whole debate, but I am pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's reassurance about Relate. I am aware of the work of that body in Wolverhampton and other areas. Relate has asked me whether, if the Government wish to assist it in its work of trying to ensure that there are no further breakdowns, they could give it greater support. My right hon. Friend's kind words are a great encouragement, and I thank her for them.

Mrs. Rumbold : I have also talked to Relate, and I agree that its work is of enormous value.

Column 67

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who is not able to be in the Chamber at the moment, spoke about a widow in his constituency who remarried and lost her pension. We will write to him and explain the rules about the issues that he raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) spoke with great conviction about the importance of the role of the wife and mother in raising children. It is interesting to look at what British women actually do and compare it with the second-guessing about what they ought to do or might want that appears in newspaper articles. A high percentage of women choose not to work when their children are five and under. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne said that a woman's work in raising small children is invaluable. Without that basic care for the very small child, we cannot hope to have the building blocks for a sound and well-ordered future society. The mother is of the greatest assistance during the early years when the baby is growing and learning the basic rules, such as not touching something that does not belong to him, and learning to talk, communicate and mix with others. Sadly, some girls find it difficult to cope with that task. Organisations such as Home Start assist young women in the extremely important task of raising small children. I value that work, especially when it is given willingly by young people who understand that it may well be a personal and financial sacrifice. However, for the welfare and benefit of the young people that they are raising the sacrifice is well worth while.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raised an equally important issue when he said that many young women have careers. Young women are raised and educated in the expectation that they may go to work, and it is perfectly reasonable and natural to suppose that many of them will look at marriage, child raising and careers as a whole--a totality. They do not necessarily separate one from the other. Some women say, "I prefer to take time off while my children are small." Others reasonably say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, "I think that it would be better if I continued with my career, and in order to do that I will make the right arrangements for child care". That brings me to the issue of child care.

I remind the House that the Government have looked carefully at child care and took steps towards improving it in last year's Budget. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is listening carefully to the debate, and no doubt he will read the Official Report and note the views of hon. Members about the way in which child care is tackled.

Last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ensured that employers who provided workplace nurseries would have a tax benefit. That benefit extends further than many people appreciate. It is available to employers who participate in the management of nurseries at the workplace or anywhere else, as long as they are involved in the management of those schemes. It applies not only to

Column 68

workplace nurseries--those that are on the premises or on premises financed by the employer--but to out-of-school care schemes, which are much more relevant to the requirements of the potential working mother.

Women often wish to go to work not when the children are babies, but when the youngest child reaches school age. At that point, the woman looks for some assistance, and the out-of-school care schemes are especially important for such women.

Mr. Dalyell : If the Minister is being more than polite and other Ministers really intend carefully to read the report of the debate, may I ask when I may expect an answer to my question about why Scots families with 10 per cent. of the population are apparently supplying 40 per cent. of service men in the Gulf?

Mrs. Rumbold : I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to have a response. I hope that he will forgive me when I say that I am not immediately able to answer. However, I shall ensure that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs takes note of the hon. Gentleman's valuable point.

Some of my hon. Friends spoke about child benefit. We have noted the various proposals and especially some of the views contained in recent booklets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham said, they have raised a great deal more interest outside than would have been the case if they had been raised in this forum. Over the years, we have had many debates on the issue. It is accepted that such a large and comprehensive social security system will give rise to much public discussion and a great deal of analysis. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already made clear--that child benefit is and will remain a strong element of our family support policies. I hope that that goes some way towards reassuring some of my hon. Friends, whose interest in the matter is understandable.

I feel strongly about nursery education, but it is often suggested that somehow or other such education would provide a solution to the problems and difficulties confronting the working mother. It is no such thing. Nursery education should never be regarded in that light. In my view, it should be regarded solely as a great benefit for children between the ages of three and five, enabling them to learn better the social attributes and, perhaps, to start some of the other early learning processes. In no way should it be regarded as a mechanism to enable women to work. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who is no longer in his place, would agree, as he raised the point. Nursery education is there for the benefit of children. It is available, in one form or another--provided by the voluntary sector, as well as by the local authorities--to 86 per cent. of the children in this country.

I wish, finally, to deal with the whole area of housing--a subject that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South mentioned and about which he feels very strongly.

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government business).

Column 69

Orders of the Day

Coal Mining Subsidence Bill

[Relevant documents : Sixth Report of the Energy Committee of Session 1989-90 on Mining Subsidence (House of Commons Paper No. 287) and the Sixth Special Report of the Committee of the same Session containing the Government's Observations on the Sixth Report (House of Commons Paper No. 663).]

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Secondtime.

The Coal Mining Subsidence Bill represents the culmination of a process of practical reform over a number of years, aimed at improving the arrangements for dealing with subsidence damage caused by coal mining. Hon. Members will be aware that deep mining often lowers the surface land as the overlying geological strata subside into the void created by the removal of coal. This subsidence can result in damage to land and buildings located above such undermining. It has long been recognised as one of the inevitable adverse effects of mining deep coal.

The present arrangements for dealing with coal mining subsidence damage-- whether by repair or by the payment of compensation--have two distinct kinds of origin. On the one hand, there were the private agreements between the original landowners and coal mine operators. These might involve a variety of arrangements to deal with the effects of subsidence, as it suited the parties at the time. When the freehold of coal was later taken into public ownership, existing obligations to land owners were preserved. But, otherwise, the National Coal Board--now the British Coal Corporation-- was required to make good any subsidence damage or to pay compensation. This is the origin of the provisions in the Coal Industry Act 1975 dealing with coal mining subsidence.

On the other hand, because many landowners had sold the right to extract the underlying coal without any compensation for subsidence damage, considerable hardship was experienced by householders and others who had acquired or built properties on such land at a later date. The resulting sense of grievance led to the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957, which extended the statutory rights of compensation or repair to owners of all land and buildings damaged by coal mining subsidence, regardless of any agreement entered into by the landowner who had originally sold or leased the coal. The position at present, therefore, is that an owner, occupier or tenant can seek remedy for subsidence damage either through the 1957 Act or through the 1975 Act. This results in confusion. We therefore want to consolidate the legislation into a single statute and, in so doing, take account of the good practice that has grown up in recent years.

Because the existing legislation was judged, over time, to provide inadequate compensation, British Coal adopted in 1976 a voluntary code of practice, which provides for compensation for damaged chattels and for home loss payments where, as a result of subsidence damage, a person permanently loses his home. It also provides

Column 70

payments to farmers where a farm is no longer profitable because of subsidence damage. Subsequently, the corporation has undertaken to contribute to the costs of professional advice needed to prepare a claim ; to make payments on account of residual tilt or structural distortion to repaired buildings ; and to make payments to occupiers who endure prolonged inconvenience and disturbance while their homes are being repaired.

Nevertheless, in the early 1980s there were many who still regarded the operation of the subsidence repair and compensation arrangements as unsatisfactory. In 1983, therefore, the Government appointed a committee to review subsidence compensation, under the chairmanship of Lewis Waddilove. We are indebted to Mr. Waddilove and the other committee members for their work. The committee carried out a thorough examination of the position and made 65 recommendations in its report published in 1984. It concluded that the main thrust of the existing provisions, both statutory and voluntary, was right, although some significant gaps remained to be filled.

Most of the recommendations were accepted by the Government in the White Paper of 1987. In 1988 the Government issued a consultative document on the content of new legislation, and much useful advice was received in response. The Select Committee on Energy published last summer a timely and perceptive analysis of current subsidence issues, of which we have taken full account. The Bill is the result. It will repeal the existing legislation and replace it with a comprehensive new statute, which incorporates British Coal's voluntary undertakings.

I shall describe the contents of the Bill as briefly as I can. After the wide definition of subsidence damage in clause 1, part II sets out the remedial action required in response to such damage. Clause 2 imposes an obligation on British Coal to take appropriate remedial action, whether by executing repairs, by paying for repairs, or by making payment in respect of any depreciation in the value of the damaged property.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Is it true that British Coal has no obligation to purchase property that has been damaged? Would my hon. Friend be prepared to consider an amendment to make the provision rather tighter?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : Indeed, there is no existing obligation on British Coal to purchase all such properties, although it does so in cases of hardship. If my hon. Friend cares to table an amendment it will undoubtedly be considered in Committee.

As with the existing subsidence legislation, the fundamental duty that I have outlined is placed on the British Coal Corporation as the owner of virtually all the coal and coal mines in Great Britain.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : I appreciate that an onus is being placed on British Coal. If, in the not too distant future, British Coal should be privatised, would the obligations under this legislation still apply?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : The obligations would be transferred to the new owners or operators.

Column 71

Where, at present, the corporation issues licences for deep mining, it remains responsible for any resulting subsidence damage, although it can recover the cost of remedying such damage from its licensees. Clause 3 requires a prospective claimant to serve on the corporation a damage notice describing the damage that has occurred. He must do so within six years of the first time at which he ought reasonably to have been aware of the damage. The clause makes clear what, under existing legislation, has been rather unclear and is consistent with the position as set out in my Department's guidance leaflet which was issued last year and accepted by British Coal. I believe that six years should be an ample period within which to allow the householder to make his claim.

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : The Minister may think that six years is ample time for a person to notify the board, but cases of damage due to mining subsidence occur after six years. Will people be debarred from making claims in such cases?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : The six years runs not from the conclusion of mining but from the time that the subsidence damage appeared in the property and the time at which the occupier should have been aware of it or might reasonably be expected to be aware of it. That covers the possibility of cracks being covered by panelling or something similar that prevents the householder from being aware of damage. The six years will run from when he might reasonably have been aware of the damage.

Clause 6 requires the corporation to provide the claimant with a costed schedule setting out the works necessary to make good the subsidence damage, as far as is reasonably practicable, to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That means that the standard of workmanship of such remedial works shall be that which would meet the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : The Minister has missed out clauses 4 and 5. Will he give a modest explanation of clause 4?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : If I were to go through each of the 50-odd clauses, that would take up most of the time available for the debate. If the hon. Gentleman cares to raise specific points, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to respond to them in the winding-up speech.

Clause 8 specifies the circumstances in which British Coal may elect to make a payment in lieu instead of executing remedial works. These include situations where the claimant wishes to carry out the work himself, or to use his own contractor, and where it is proposed to merge other works with the works arising from the subsidence damage. Such payments in lieu are not intended to result in cash compensation in place of repairs.

Clauses 10 and 11 set down the particular circumstances in which British Coal may make a cash payment corresponding to the depreciation in value of the damaged property caused by subsidence. So far as housing is concerned, these circumstances are tightly defined because, in agreement with the Waddilove committee, we wish the primary duty placed on the corporation to be the repair of subsidence damage in order to minimise deterioration of the housing stock. Clause 11 does, however, require the

Column 72

making of a supplementary depreciation payment in the case where a property has been repaired as far as is reasonably practicable, but where, nevertheless, there remains a depreciation in value as a result of the effects of subsidence. One example would be where a building remains somewhat tilted after repairs are completed. The other clauses in part II complete the arrangements for remedial action to properties damaged by subsidence. Let me mention in particular the new rules governing the operation of so-called "stop notices" served by British Coal in cases where further damage to the property is likely. The corporation will be obliged to review the need to continue a stop notice within a year of the notice being given and to settle claims if no further ground movement will affect the property in the next 18 months.

Part III makes provision for additional remedies, over and above remedial action in respect of damage to land and buildings, and places on a statutory basis for the first time obligations voluntarily assumed by British Coal and recommendations made by the Waddilove committee.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : One of the problems that has been encountered is that British Coal, when providing alternative accommodation, often does so in the form of caravans in the grounds of the houses that have been damaged. It is hard for someone living in what can be described as four-star accommodation then to have to live in a caravan for four or five months. Could such a person insist that his alternative accommodation is up to a standard to which he is entitled?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : British Coal will be obliged to provide reasonable alternative accommodation, although I understand that sometimes householders prefer caravans next door to their homes.

Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : Part of the problem with subsidence repairs is that British Coal provides alternative accommodation to a reasonable standard. However, as it cannot afford more of such reasonable accommodation, there are delays in subsidence repair. Should not more facilities be given to British Coal so that it can take over more properties as temporary housing?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : That is essentially a matter for British Coal. We are laying down in statute the obligations and it will be up to the coal operator to meet the requirements.

The Bill makes provision for home loss payments to people who may lose their homes on account of exceptionally severe subsidence damage and for temporary alternative accommodation to be made available if that is necessary for repairs to be carried out.

There is provision to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the corporation to compensate householders for inconvenience and disturbance which may be caused as a result of repairs being carried out while the householder stays in the house. That would enable British Coal's existing voluntary arrangements for compensation for exceptional inconvenience or disturbance to be placed on a statutory basis, with improvements should that seem desirable. If these and other voluntary arrangements by British Coal work well, regulations may not be necessary, but the reserve powers will exist.

Part III also provides for different forms of compensation to farmers arising from subsidence damage

Next Section

Home Page