House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 1991

Column 73

to their land, such as farm loss payments, crop loss payments, and payments to tenant farmers. It also provides for compensation in respect of moveable property or chattels damaged by subsidence and likewise as regards personal injury.

Part IV deals with preventive works to existing buildings designed to reduce the impact of subsidence damage, with precautionary works to new buildings, and with measures to deal with damage to land drainage systems.

Part V makes a variety of supplementary provisions, including a requirement on British Coal to reimburse any reasonable costs or expenses incurred by a claimant in the successful preparation and prosecution of a claim. I would draw attention in particular to clause 41, which allows the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to prepare and submit for his approval a scheme for the determination of disputes by arbitration. One long-standing difficulty associated with the present statutory arrangements has been the lack of informal and accessible means whereby disputes could be resolved speedily and inexpensively--that concern was expressed by the Waddilove committee. The Lands Tribunal will remain available to deal with disputes. However, the average value of a settled subsidence claim in respect of domestic property is under £3,000. It would not in general be justifiable to take disputes over sums of this order to the Lands Tribunal.

Recognising that difficulty, British Coal has helpfully and commendably arranged for the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to operate an arbitration scheme tailor made to deal with subsidence problems.

Dr. Mike Woodcock (Ellesmere Port and Neston) : We have heard that British Coal is graciously bringing in an arbitration scheme, but there is a major defect to it. British Coal has to give the claimant permission to go to arbitration. How can an arbitration scheme be of any value when the person who is wrong in the dispute can prevent the person who wishes to challenge a decision from going to arbitration? The scheme is worthless unless claimants have the right to go to arbitration, rather than having to seek British Coal's permission to go to arbitration.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I draw my hon. Friend's attention to clause 41, which deals with the issue that he has raised. It would enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to submit to him a scheme for his approval. An approved scheme would oblige British Coal to be bound by the arbitration and to offer arbitration in cases of the sort to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is our objective to allow all disputes that might arise under the Bill to be resolved by means of arbitration in so far as that is possible. In the event of a dispute, the onus of proof will remain with the corporation to show that any damage is not subsidence damage.

Clause 43 would allow the Secretary of State to direct the corporation to establish a further scheme for the investigation of complaints of unfair treatment or maladministration in connection with the way in which the corporation carries out its duties under the Bill. Again, this is a reserve power that can be used if necessary.

Clauses 44 to 46 require the corporation to provide information about future and past coal mining and subsidence damage to occupiers of property likely to be

Column 74

affected, to prospective purchasers of such property and to local authorities in mining areas. British Coal is shortly to introduce a pilot scheme that will be aimed at notifying individual occupiers of future mining plans and that will become a general requirement once the Bill is enacted.

Subsidence damage can be a traumatic experience for the property owner or occupier. The Bill sets out the obligations of the coal operator and the rights of the property owner. It is the result of long and careful consultation and brings together several Acts and codes of practice into one Bill. I commend the measure to the House. 7.21 pm

Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) : Subsidence damage created by coal mining has been a cause of great distress to many households. Those of us who represent coal mining areas know only too well from our constituents what a costly, time consuming and sometimes agonising experience it can be to make a claim against British Coal for subsidence damage. That is why my colleagues and I have argued for years that it is vital to establish a system that is both fast and fair.

Along with many others in the coalfield communities, we heaved a sigh of relief when at long last the Government found a space in their legislative schedule to introduce the Bill. Many of us cannot understand why it has taken so long to introduce such a measure. The Minister rightly said that the Waddilove committee was set up in 1983 to examine the repair and compensation system for coal mining subsidence damage. Thanks to the activity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who first introduced a private Member's Bill designed to deal with subsidence damage in 1979, the committee's report was submitted in 1984. It contained 65 recommendations involving changes to the system. It took three years for the Government to respond to the Waddilove report. It was only in 1988 that concrete proposals emerged from the Department of Energy. Thanks to the substantial pressure that has been brought to bear on the Government by many local authorities and other organisations such as the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association, the Coalfield Communities Campaign and, to a large extent, by the Labour party, both nationally and locally, as well as by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Bill has been introduced seven years after the Waddilove committee was established.

We welcome the Bill. It is a long overdue measure--I see that the Secretary of State nods in agreement. Last year, as the Minister rightly said, the Select Committee on Energy reported on mining subsidence. It was aware that, despite British Coal's claim that it has implemented many of the recommendations contained in the Waddilove report, there remained considerable dissatisfaction with the repair and compensation system. We are pleased that some of the recommendations set out in the report and reinforced by the Select Committee's findings have been incorporated in the Bill. We welcome them in general terms but we may wish to improve the Bill's provisions at a later stage in our consideration of them. The method by which British Coal notifies property owners of undermining was criticised by both the Waddilove report and the Select Committee. That is because British Coal fails to communicate with the

Column 75

majority of those who are concerned. That failure could lead to difficulties with later claims. The introduction of an obligation on British Coal to inform owners or occupants of the risk of subsidence will ensure that the majority of owners or occupiers will be made aware of the risk. Despite the reluctance of British Coal, the Bill will allow the use of contractors of a claimant's choice, in certain circumstances, to repair subsidence damage. We welcome that as a positive step forward in handling the problem of subsidence in coalfield areas.

Another positive step is the inclusion in the Bill of a clause on the payment of fees incurred by a claimant. The reimbursement of expenses incurred by a claimant in the pursuance of his claim is a way in which the balance of power between claimants and British Coal can be more evenly matched. It is right also that there is clarification of British Coal's obligation to restore property. I am concerned, however, that as the Bill stands it is British Coal's responsibility to make good the damage so far as it is reasonably practicable to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That part of the Bill will not meet the problem satisfactorily. Many believe that it will allow British Coal to return property to them that is in a worse condition than it was before the damage occurred.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : The hon. Gentleman has referred to an issue that is of great concern to many in Wales who have suffered as a result of damage to their property caused by subsidence. Is he satisfied that the Bill deals adequately with permanent depreciation? Repairs may have been carried out in the past, or may be carried out now, but it may be found in future that the house is valued at a lower price than neighbouring houses when properties come on the market. I know of a house with damage that was sold for £18,000 whereas neighbouring houses are being sold for £30,000. It would seem that permanent depreciation is not covered adequately in the Bill.

Mr. Barron : An attempt is being made in the Bill to cover that problem. We shall have to wait to see whether there is permanent damage. I am pleased that a Bill has been introduced to deal with current damage. As I have said, we shall all have to wait to see how successfully damage is repaired.

I have said that the Opposition welcome the introduction of the Bill, but there are parts of it that are seriously deficient. Equally, there are significant omissions. Arbitration was rightly referred to by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock). The Bill allows the Lands Tribunal to remain the authority to deal with certain disputes. However, in a review of procedures for settling disputes that was issued last year, the Government made this admission :

"Representations indicate that claimants are reluctant to appeal to the Lands Tribunal for three main reasons : cost, time and formality."

The review continues :

"Given the formal nature of the proceedings (involving deposition of evidence and cross-examination) and the fact that British Coal will be legally represented, the claimant feels that he too must be legally represented, and is at risk of being required to bear British Coal's costs if he loses his case. Even if he wins, he cannot be certain of recovering all his own legal

Column 76

and other professional costs since the Tribunal will award what it considers to be appropriate costs, which may be less than the costs actually incurred."

An answer that I received from the Attorney-General last week stated that in 1990 only eight cases of mining subsidence were settled at lands tribunals. That bears out the Government's review. Moreover, the appeal procedure is lengthy. That is largely because of the time taken to prepare evidence that is in a suitable form for the proceedings. Given the Government's findings, we cannot understand why the Lands Tribunal remains the official appeal body for certain claims instead of a body of last resort.

Arbitration must be easily accessible and the delay must be as short as possible. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State "may" require British Coal to draw up an arbitration scheme, but the Minister tried to suggest otherwise. We have not been given details of timescales for arbitration, on what can be referred to arbitration and on the effects of either party not agreeing to it. If British Coal states that subsidence has not occurred, are we saying that it will have a veto and that the claimant could end up in a lands tribunal? If that is so, the Minister has a few weeks to correct it, because it will not get rid of the problems of damage and compensation in coal mining areas. I hope that he will take that on board.

We should be given the opportunity to examine the details of the arbitration proposals so that we can be assured that they will provide the best service to our constituents. Whatever arbitration system is finally established, our constituents will need access to free and independent legal and technical advice, because claimants have not had access to the same advice as British Coal.

In its 1990 discussion paper on dispute procedures, the Department of Energy conceded that that was necessary and proposed the establishment of an independent subsidence advice centre. That proposal had the support of the Labour party and the Select Committee on Energy and it met the case put by the consortium of authorities liaising on subsidence and the needs of claimants.

Dr. Kim Howells (Pontypridd) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is compounded by the fact that, because of the many pit closures of the 1980s, all too often plans are not available to enable representatives of people who have suffered from subsidence to prove their case? All too often, British Coal has used that to blind people with science and keep them ignorant. Those people cannot pursue their claim because no plans are available for them to prove it.

Mr. Barron : My hon. Friend may be right. The Bill will ensure that plans are made available to householders, but we shall have to wait and see how that operates.

We very much regret the dropping of the proposal for independent advice centres. The Government implied in a letter to me last November that an improved arbitration system that is accessible and well publicised will preclude the need for an advice centre. Labour believes that both are necessary, otherwise the odds will always be stacked in favour of British Coal.

The biggest problem with mining subsidence is the six-year rule. The way in which British Coal operates that rule is causing confusion on top of confusion. Sadly, the Bill will only add to that confusion. We know from evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Energy and from letters to Members that it is seen by the public as the

Column 77

device that British Coal uses to avoid liability when properties have been damaged. Many examples of that were given to the Select Committee. It was told that the problem with the six- year rule is that it can be triggered by British Coal at any time, that when new owners resubmit claims they are sometimes regarded by British Coal as out of time and that it is becoming increasingly common in long-running cases for British Coal to close the file on the ground that six years have expired. If a claimant had not submitted a claim to a land tribunal within that period, British Coal could stop the claimant's case in mid-flight.

British Coal states in its coal subsidence guidelines that it will accept claims within six years of damage occurring or when it would be "reasonable" for the claimant to have known that damage had occurred. That has been agreed with the Department and now the Government want Parliament to agree it.

British Coal appears confused about the operation of the rule, which it says has been operating voluntarily for a long time. Senior members of its staff told the Select Committee on Energy last year that it had paid damages in areas where mining ceased many years ago and even in areas where it could not remember mining having taken place. At one stage, they told the Committee that mining

"may have been in 1845 or something like that".

If the damage is there to see, is obviously current damage and cannot be dissociated from mining, then that is an acceptable claim. But if that damage is there to be seen and has been there for many years, it will reject it as being out of time.

In answer to a later question, British Coal stated that if there is an immediate indication that the damage did not happen last week, last month or even six years ago, that is still within the six-year limit. Senior representatives of British Coal seem to be more interested in entertaining members of the Select Committee when they come to give evidence than in giving a coherent interpretation of the rule. No wonder people outside have doubts about its implementation of the six-year rule.

The Bill should offer compensation for mining subsidence rather than erect statutory obstacles for people to fall over or for British Coal to hide behind. If the six-year rule cannot be interpreted fairly nor be seen to be fair, it should be removed from the Bill, and we shall table an amendment to that effect at a later stage.

Mr. Ashby : Surely the Bill is to be applauded because it puts British Coal in the same position under common law on nuisance or tort as the rest of the country. One cannot ask for more than that.

Mr. Barron : That is the problem. The six-year rule has no geological basis. The hon. Gentleman, who I understand is a member of the legal profession, and perhaps still is although he is an hon. Member, points out that it is a question of common law. What powers are we giving British Coal under the six-year rule if it can answer questions rightly put by members of the Select Committee about compensation by talking about mining that may have occurred in 1845? That might sound quite extreme, but that was the answer of a senior member of its staff. The rule gives it licence to use that timetable against people who must prove subsidence damage.

Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood) : The hon. Gentleman cited several cases. Does he agree that in old mining areas, such as the one that I represent, it can take

Column 78

at least two or three years to establish whether mine shafts or old ventilation shafts are on the site? Much of the six years may be taken up resolving the precise location of workings.

Mr. Barron : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The question of what happens with old workings is not dealt with in the Bill. I can foresee ground movement from coal mining being ruled out by British Coal using the weapon of the six-year rule.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : To clear up any misunderstanding, may I point out that the date of the mining is irrelevant. The six years runs only from when the damage occurred or from when the householder might reasonably have noticed it.

Mr. Barron : In those circumstances, why do we need a six-year rule? British Coal's arguments show that it is not clear about exactly how the six-year rule operates. It even said that it would have to send out information to areas to ensure that they operated in the same way. There is nothing coherent about British Coal's interpretation of that rule. If it is used against people who are going to arbitration or before lands tribunals, we will not have done anything to settle the matter once and for all.

Mr. Illsley : I was a member of the Energy Select Committee which questioned British Coal on this subject. We heard different answers from two people--an area director and a member of British Coal based in London. It was put to them that there was considerable confusion about the six-year time limit. The Under-Secretary of State clearly stated that it is six years from the date when the claimant should have reasonably known that subsidence damage had occurred. The Select Committee was given evidence of claims that had been refused as recently as last year when British Coal alleged that, because of the length of time between the date of mining and the date of the claim, the damage could not possibly have been caused by mining subsidence. That should not have happened. In some cases, British Coal stated that, because the period was longer than six years, the claim should be refused. Much confusion has arisen.

Mr. Barron : My hon. Friend repeated exactly what was said last year to the Select Committee by the people who were executing the six-year rule.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : In the latter part of last year, a constituent who had purchased a house in Lowton in my constituency came to see me. Within months of the purchase, he had problems relating to subsidence. He submitted an application but was informed by British Coal that it was out of time as the previous owner had had some work done, but British Coal refused to give him information about that. I wrote requesting information so that an appropriate claim could be submitted. On 6 December, an area director told me : "British Coal consider the detail of claims to be privileged information I am sorry I am unable to be more helpful.

Yours faithfully".

British Coal refused to provide information to allow my constituent to consider whether his application was out of time, what work was carried out, when it was carried out and what subsidence was involved. With that one simple sentence, my constituent's rights were rejected by British

Column 79

Coal. All that happened after the date on which British Coal published a document in consultation with the Government which said that that situation could not arise.

Mr. Barron : There will be opportunities later to obtain clarification on exactly what the six-year rule means and on exactly what can and cannot go to arbitration. I hope that we will be given answers to many of our questions by Report and Third Reading.

Mr. Malcolm Moss (Cambridgeshire, North-East) : Members of the Select Committee have contributed to the debate. On a point of clarification, I should like to read the Select Committee's conclusions on this issue. The report states :

"We see no reason why mining subsidence damage should not be treated in a way analogous to other damage, and do not believe that the limitation period for subsidence damage claims should be any longer than for other sorts of claims. We therefore support the proposed clarification of the six -year rule".

Mr. Barron : The hon. Gentleman may have gathered from my comments that I disagree with the Select Committee's findings on that issue. Its findings are not founded geologically. We shall see whether clause 3 is unamended by Third Reading. I suspect that in a few years' time, if the Bill is unamended, we shall be arguing once again about the need to clear up the issue of compensation for subsidence damage.

For the Bill to provide a system of repair and compensation that is as fast and fair as possible, it will need substantial amendment. We hope that we can make those improvements during proceedings on the Bill and we look forward to giving our wholehearted support at a later stage. We shall not vote against the Bill, but we register our disappointment at the Bill's omissions and weaknesses. We hope that the Bill will be toughened up so that we can deal with compensation problems and with the terrible mess that has occurred throughout the country because the current legislation has failed many people and British Coal.

7.45 pm

Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood) : The introduction of the Bill gives me a feeling of great personal satisfaction and will be warmly welcomed by my constituents and other people living in coal mining areas. To use a well- worn football cliche , we are over the moon.

Many people, encouraged by the Opposition, doubted the Government's commitment to legislate. On behalf of my constituents, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy for fulfilling that Government promise by bringing forward this complex Bill. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who allocates time in the parliamentary timetable, must also share our appreciation. Both my right hon. Friends have been patient and understanding about my incessant demand for new legislation.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Department. It takes another PPS to know who really makes all the major descisions in a Government Department. I am sure that if my hon. Friend were not fulfilling his PPS's duty here today, he would be speaking

Column 80

on behalf of his constituents who share with mine the trials and tribulations resulting from mining subsidence damage.

The Bill will rectify the deficiencies of the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957 and the Coal Industry Act 1975 which, to all intents and purposes, left British Coal the offender and the judge and jury in deciding what repairs or cash compensation a claimant should receive for damage to his property. It was tough luck if one was a tenant. However, that unacceptable face of a nationalised company will soon be in the past, and not before time. The proposed changes will bring peace of mind for those who live in Britain's coalfields and will ensure, for the first time, that buying a home there will be an investment and not a depreciating liability. North Nottinghamshire, including my constituency, is located on a raft of coal which has been mined for over 100 years, removing on average 17 million tonnes of coal a year, creating an unsupported void underground. In time, that situation causes trouble on the surface, and what trouble my constituents have had to face. As you would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, appeals for help and complaints against British coal have dwarfed all other constituency considerations.

During the past eight years, I have highlighted here and in the media many of the 2,500 cases on file and I do not intend to bore the House with repetition. Suffice it to say that my constituents' experiences and those of other hon. Members have played an important part in the drafting of the new Bill.

My constituents have asked me to express their thanks to the Under- Secretary of State for Energy--my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)--for visiting Ollerton and Boughton recently to see for himself the scourge of mining subsidence on property and people. Seeing is believing and his visit there will stand my hon. Friend in good stead as he pilots this important Bill on to the statute book.

Supporting our campaign for change with professional expertise and holding discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and his officials were two important groups of people : COALS, the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence, representing the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire local authorities, and the united industry working party, comprising the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Building Societies Association, the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of British Insurers, the Law Society and the British Property Federation. The fact that we have such allies fighting our cause must make British Coal feel like Saddam Hussein--except that nobody is out to get British Coal.

Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : My hon. Friend has put his finger on it. The fact is that British Coal is a nationalised industry and does not need to be accountable to anybody. British Coal is judge and jury in its own cause. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the industry had been in the private sector we should not have had to put up with all this nonsense for so many years?

Mr. Stewart : My hon. Friend has made his point clearly.

Column 81

Mr. Allen McKay : As the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) knows, when the industry was run by private enterprise nobody paid out a penny.

Mr. Stewart : The hon. Member will remember that the last Labour Government introduced the Coal Industry Act 1975, which was supposed to put everything right. In fact, they made a mess of it and that is why we are having to tidy matters up.

Mr. George J. Buckley (Hemsworth) : The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. British Coal is, indeed, a nationalised industry, but I was under the impression that nationalised industries were accountable to the Government. For three years, the Government have been reluctant to introduce legislation to make this nationalised industry accountable in a way that is acceptable to our constituents.

Mr. Stewart : We are in trouble today because those who nationalised the concern could run neither a Government nor a private industry.

Unlike Saddam Hussein, nobody is out to get British Coal. We want only to ensure that claimants receive fair and just treatment--not a penny more and not a penny less than is required to restore their property to its original condition, with compensation being paid for disturbance--and that the provisions apply equally to tenants of rented accommodation who, until now, have been treated as chattels. I am delighted that those matters have been addressed in the Bill, which will also improve standards of repair and set clearer time limits for making a claim. The limit will be six years from the time when a claimant could reasonably suspect damage and not, as British Coal would have us believe, six years from the time when the mining took place.

Emphasis will be placed on repairs rather than cash compensation, so as to maintain the housing stock. Where cash is paid, the compensation schedule must become a public document and must be registered on property title deeds. The reimbursement in full of a claimant's reasonable expenses is another welcome step, although the complexity of the claims procedure demonstrates the need for an independent subsidence advice centre, and that matter will need to be dealt with in Committee.

It may surprise the House to learn that the first notification that my constituents have that mining is taking place in their area comes with visible signs of damage to their homes. British Coal has recently committed itself to introducing a pilot scheme for the notification of individual householders. That must become a permanent feature, and notice must be given at least one year before work commences.

Dr. Kim Howells : Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that there will be a serious problem of blight on property in areas where notification has been given, because, even with the advanced technology now available to engineers, it is impossible to predict exactly what will happen to the strata that lie between a house and the mine beneath it? What will the Bill do to overcome the threat of blight?

Mr. Stewart : I do not think that the Bill will overcome the problem of mining subsidence damage, because it is a fact of life. If one takes the coal out, there will be damage. We merely seek to ensure that those whose property is blighted will get a fair deal.

Column 82

Mr. Lofthouse : The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). Subsidence is a major problem in mining areas and it is an expensive one. Properties that may not themselves have been damaged by subsidence may, nevertheless, become unsaleable. Once it is known that mining is taking place in an area and once there is evidence of mining subsidence affecting certain properties, even properties that have not been damaged are blighted and can become unsaleable. There is nothing in the Bill to protect people from that.

Mr. Stewart : I have been trying to address myself to the Bill and to highlight its deficiencies and the matters that we wish to discuss in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to one of the matters on which we shall have to concentrate to ensure that those whose properties suffer damage will get fair and reasonable treatment.

Mr. Gerald Howarth : Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. If the Bill does what the Government and all of us hope that it will do, which is to provide an efficient and speedy remedy for those whose properties suffer from the effects of coal mining subsidence, the problem of blight, to which the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) rightfully refers, could be severely reduced. At least people will know that a swift and efficient procedure exists for solving the problems of subsidence.

Mr. Stewart : I thank my hon. Friend for answering the question of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr.

Lofthouse)--probably in greater detail than I could have done. Another criticism of British Coal that will have been addressed in Committee relates to the effect of stop notices, especially on family life. Such notices preclude repairs being carried out on damaged property until all mining in the area has been completed. That sounds reasonable to most people, but not to those who have to wait years for repairs to be carried out without a penny compensation being offered.

British justice is recognised internationally as second to none but not in relation to disputed mining subsidence claims. The 1957 and 1975 Acts intended the Lands Tribunal to be the first arbiter, but, alas, experience has shown that to be slow, complex and--where professionals have acted on behalf of claimants--expensive beyond comprehension. Figures of £100,000 were not uncommon.

The House will recall that during the debate introduced on 16 June 1989 by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), I told the House that two of my constituents, Mr. Goodman of Hucknall and Mr. Lancaster of Bilsthorpe, had referred their disputed claims to the Lands Tribunal and I am sure that all hon. Members will want to know the outcome. There is still no decision. The cases drag on and on, with British Coal's solicitors using every legal device in the book to delay and to confuse and intimidate my constituents.

Above all else, the Bill must ensure that we have a new disputes procedure to provide a cheaper, quicker and less formal way of resolving disputes. A local adjudication system by appropriately qualified experts or a mining ombudsman would suffice. However, we cannot allow an arbitration scheme such as that introduced in January this year by British Coal. It appeared to meet our wishes, but the small print revealed that British Coal had a right to refuse referrals if it wished. Heads, British Coal wins ; tails,

Column 83

the claimant loses. When I submit a case to the local or national ombudsman, it is not at the discretion of the local authority or the Government. The Standing Committee that examines the Bill must ensure that a truly independent referral system for arbitration is established.

Many of the Bill's 52 clauses are consolidation measures and require no comment. In order to allow other hon. Members to contribute to the debate, I have highlighted some of the issues that concern me and my constituents. However, when discussing this legislation, we must not forget--I was surprised that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) did not refer to this--that a balance must be maintained between the needs of the coal industry, which is Nottinghamshire's largest employer, and the consequences of mining activity. If we do not maintain that balance, miners' jobs could be threatened.

The Bill will clarify, revise and consolidate existing law. My constituents' hope for the future starts with supporting the Bill. 8 pm

Mr. Alan Meale (Mansfield) : I want to thank and congratulate sincerely all the organisations that have spent so much time considering the problem and injustices of coal mining subsidence damage in the coalfield areas. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which has worked stoutly towards finding a solution to that problem. I want also to thank members of the united industries working party which has tried to pull together the other organisations in an attempt to put pressure on the Government to find a solution. Above all, I pay tribute to the Consortium Of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence--or COALS--which is at the forefront of the campaign to sort out the injustice of coal mining subsidence damage, particularly in the coalfield areas of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire.

As hon. Members will know, COALS comprises 10 local authorities in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, They are the district councils of Amber Valley, Ashfield, Bolsover, Bassetlaw, Chesterfield, Gedling, Newark and Sherwood, and Mansfield and also the county councils of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, both of which are deeply involved. I am extremely grateful to the executive committee of COALS which meets regularly and tries to organise and co-ordinate activity in an attempt to solve the problem. In particular tonight, I want to pay tribute to Mr. Brian Lewin, who was the co-ordinator of the COALS secretariat. Unfortunately, because of stress and ill health, he has had to announce his retirement. Some of that stress undoubtedly stemmed from the pressure on him throughout the campaign, which has lasted many years. All Opposition Members and some Conservative Members from that part of the country will wish Mr. Lewin well in his retirement and hope that his ill health will not last for too long. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I have no intention of opposing the Bill's passage to Standing Committee. I sincerely hope that it will be noted that I would like to serve on that Committee. However, along with other hopeful Members, I await the outcome of the democratic process of the normal channels in this place.

Column 84

I want to put down some markers for the Government to consider. I welcome the Bill, but much of what it contains is inadequate or needs changing substantially before the Bill can reach the statute book. My worries about the Bill are shared by COALS, and it might help the House if I try to deal with those worries separately.

My first concern is about arbitration. According to the explanatory memorandum, clause 41 sets out a method that allows the Secretary of State to direct British Coal

"to make and submit for his approval a scheme for the determination of disputes by arbitration."

In other words, it is not a matter of "there shall be", but "there may be", and I suggest that it will apply only if British Coal agrees. That is unsatisfactory. In that respect, it is not what the proposal states but what it does not state that is worrying. Clause 41 does not specify the time that the Secretary of State will allow British Coal to draw up such a scheme. That is important when we recall the attitude of the new chairman of British Coal to privatisation of the coal industry.

The Bill does not direct or compel the Secretary of State to give directions about the terms of the arbitration scheme. It simply says that he "may" direct. That leaves it open to interpretation or negotiation by British Coal. As hon. Members who represent coalfield areas will be aware, leaving matters to negotiations with British Coal or for British Coal to interpret has caused many of the problems that have led the Government to introduce this legislation. Clause 41 contains no specific reference to independent arbitration ; nor does it state how such an arbitration body would be appointed or from where its members would come. That is left to the discretion of British Coal and the Secretary of State. Bearing in mind the history of British Coal on that matter, that is perhaps not a wise decision.

Some of my colleagues have already referred to advice centres. Clause 41(2) provides that the Secretary of State "may" direct that a person may be appointed under the arbitration scheme to advise about it. That does not meet the criteria for advice centres as discussed previously in this place. Instead, it points to a role for the person concerned as that of a public relations officer for the arbitration scheme. That is not quite the same thing.

Clause 41 also does not provide for a subsidence advisory officer or a real advice scheme. Nor does it provide for any funding for an advice scheme or pre-funding for professional advice for claimants. Therefore, clause 41 needs filling substantially before it reaches the statute book. A readily accessible, local, independent advice centre is required to assist claimants through the maze of claim rights and procedures.

An effective independent service would also expedite the processing of claims and would minimise the number of cases that would have to be referred to complaints or arbitration processes. That would leave British Coal to do what it is supposed to do--to produce coal at a reasonable price. Its job is not to arbitrate or to be in the courts. Its job is certainly not to work against the coalfield communities to try to stop people rightfully getting repairs to their homes or property.

I want now to consider blight. The Minister is aware that clauses 10 and 11 provide for depreciation payments in lieu in certain circumstances. Schedule 1 sets out the method of determining the basis of voluntary depreciation payments. The discretion or obligation to buy in is required, although that is not covered by the Bill. That

Column 85

would enable owners to have their properties bought out at the market price or to receive a depreciation payment for the loss of value of their property when any damage occurred.

I want now to consider deferment of repairs, or stop notices as they are more commonly known. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has already referred to them. The Minister is aware that clause 16 provides for the review of stop notices and for the provision of emergency and excepted works. That would greatly worsen the situation, as it would allow, even with review, a stop notice or time limit imposition to be extended indefinitely by British Coal, thereby allowing it to delay settlement of claims or to prevent interim payments from being paid to claimants. That proposal would make the position considerably worse than it is at the moment. We want strict time limits to protect property owners. That should be done together with the introduction of an obligatory buy-out mechanism on request if a stop notice and consequential blight has been current beyond 12 months. If a person has been left in such a situation in his own home for that time, it is reasonable that he should have every right to make such a request.

The next matter is incidental costs, a topic on which the Bill is totally silent. In my opinion and in that of COALS, not only damage caused by subsidence but the incidental costs of the remedy should be reimbursed. For instance, in a coalfield area, if a road must be closed because of subsidence damage, as often happens in Nottinghamshire, the cost of providing an alternative route, signs, barriers and additional road safety requirements should be met by British Coal, not by the local authority.

The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) knows that there are additional costs in respect of businesses. During repair work, a shop may conduct no business. It is not right for British Coal to be able to get around that and stop proper compensation being paid to that business. On occasions, businesses close because of such pressure. Clause 44 provides for notices to property owners in respect of proposed mining operations. It seems to limit the requirements of such notices to the judgment of British Coal-- that is to say, land that British Coal feels might be affected. Experience in my constituency is that British Coal always states :

"Because of new mining techniques, land won't be disturbed." How many times have hon. Members from coalfield areas heard that? That is a despicable attempt to impose on an area a system whereby people do not even need to be notified of what is happening in their area.

The Bill should stipulate requirements based not on self-judgment criteria but on fact. Also, under clause 44, the working of licences granted to private operators before 1 May 1991 does not seem to be covered. The Minister might want also to examine that matter, in particular in the light of his party's intentions on coal privatisation.

Clause 9 provides for obligatory payments in lieu to highway authorities and to local authorities that have a duty to carry out remedial works in connection with the maintenance of public services unless the Secretary of State disapproves. The Secretary of State's veto on that matter is unnecessary, as well as extremely undemocratic. The Bill is supposed to be about sorting out British Coal, not local authorities. If that criterion is followed, the Bill should read, "Local authorities should be paid in lieu for

Next Section

Home Page