| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 86
any damage to their property or property over which they have default powers if local authorities request such a payment." The next issue is outstanding claims. Clause 51 and schedule 7 are outrageous and need to be amended. For instance, schedule 7 specifically excludes previous claims from the new procedures unless the claimant withdraws the claim and resubmits it. What about the 33, 500 claims that were accepted by a previous Minister from the COALS area? The hon. Member for Sherwood was part of a delegation, when the then Minister accepted all the claims honestly and fairly. All claims had been submitted on time and were accepted by the relevant Minister of the Crown. If the proposed scheme is undertaken, it will jeopardise all those claims. The Minister should think about that matter. If many people withdraw their claims and then resubmit them, British Coal will seek to rule them out of time. The Minister must consider those issues tonight and in Committee.I now refer to the protection of future purchasers. The Bill is inadequate to protect the home owner from the problem of subsidence damage. For example, clause 46 states only :
"The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the Corporation to provide information".
Even with the involvement of the Law Society, information will be available only if British Coal agrees. Such a system is totally useless, and the clause needs to be much more specific. It must provide for a local public register that may be inspected by anyone seeking information, perhaps before purchasing a property. Hon. Members have heard of many constituents being denied the right to know what has happened in respect of coal mining subsidence damage. At the moment, the register is held by British Coal. If people wish to find out information about a property which they are interested in making their home, they must pay a small amount for it. For that, all they get are one or two sentences. If they want more information, they must pay a substantially larger sum, but that information is still not specific--just enough information to enable a building society to consider lending money on the property.
People who are about to make the biggest investment of their lives have the right to know whether something has happened to the home and whether repairs must be carried out. It is just not good enough for hon. Members to consider introducing a law that would not give the vast majority of people such a right. As legislators, we should have every responsibility to protect our constituents.
Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe) : I support the hon. Gentleman's point. In fact, I gave evidence to the Waddilove committee. Most hon. Members have had constituency cases in which subsidence has occurred. People have spent money on repairs that have turned out to be only superficial, and a subsequent purchaser then finds that not only does he have subsidence but no money to repair it. It is essential to have some provision to ensure an entry on the deeds or a record in the Lands Tribunal, so that people will know whether damage has been incurred.
Mr. Meale : Virtually all hon. Members have experienced exactly the same thing. I should like not something extravagant or unusual but something that will enable people to be informed about the largest investment
Column 87
in their lives. I refer to information about past claims and any remedial works to the property that they seek to purchase. Such a register should be kept by the local authority, not by British Coal. The Bill should impose a time limit not upon home owners but upon British Coal to compile such a register and to maintain it. That is a basic right.The Minister will be aware that clause 3 makes a convuluted reference to the time limit for awarding damages, which is six years. Even an examination of the six subsections of clause 3 leaves many matters in doubt and open to misunderstanding--for example, whether it is reasonable to expect claimants to seek expert advice on facts which they have not observed themselves. In line with the COALS organisation, I contend that no time limit for restriction should apply.
If the Minister doubts that we can afford such an approach, he should examine the finances already set aside for compensation for subsidence which have accumulated by way of an additional cost added to every tonne of coal produced from British coalfields since the 1950s. According to the latest estimates, even taking into account the moneys used for repair, the sum is well in excess of £300 million. If the Government and British Coal can shut pits by this method of coal economics, surely they can set money aside and consider legislation to introduce a system of proper repair for home owners in the coalfields areas.
There are many things yet to be said on the proposals in the Bill. I sincerly trust and hope that in Committee we do not simply have a snow job but see a real attempt to sort out the terrible injustices which people in the coalfields have faced in their homes.
8.20 pm
Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : There is a great wealth of agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the Bill. We all welcome it. Looking around the Chamber I see many faces that were here in 1983 when I came into the House. All those hon. Members have fought hard for the implementation of the Waddilove report and have been involved in various subsidence claims and the difficulties which arose from them.
Subsidence damage is one of the greatest injustices that we have suffered, especially in the midlands, the north and Scotland. For years on end, the National Coal Board, as it then was, mined under houses and caused subsidence. Communities and small villages suffered as a result.
Not many people realise that in mining areas there is a high proportion of owner occupation. In villages people's whose greatest investment was their home found that their very occupation, or that of their brothers or close relatives, was causing damage to their major asset. Those people were in a terrible dilemma. The major employer in the area was the Coal Board. Time and time again I have heard people say, "We cannot fight the Coal Board", or, "We do not want to fight the Coal Board." They said that it was not right because, after all, their husband or brother was employed by the Coal Board. So people suffered in silence.
We must remember a parallel factor. One of the greatest industries in Britain was the coal industry. It was all-powerful.
Column 88
Mr. Ashby : I do not mean it in the sense that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) thinks. The Coal Board was a powerful body in midlands areas. It was the largest employer. It pervaded everything. It was a source of income and the National Union of Mineworkers was one of the great unions. Between them, the Coal Board and the NUM seemed to control the very lives of the people. The Coal Board had a gung-ho approach to its mining activities and the subsidence which was subsequently caused. So often it approached subsidence damage in a relaxed and easy manner, caring little for the victims. This Bill changes that. It gives people rights whereas before compensation was voluntary.
The process which led to the Bill began some time ago. The matters which I have mentioned were only too obvious in 1983 when I first represented Leicestershire, North-West. In 1984 we had the Waddilove report and in 1987 the Government's response. The approach to subsidence of the National Coal Board, later British Coal, almost visibly changed. There was a softening of approach. The board thought more about the victims and tried to help more. Much of what Waddilove recom-mended has been implemented voluntarily by British Coal over the years. Of course, that is not enough.
People have rights to compensation. We must consider what happened. People bought their houses and lived happily until suddently they found that someone had mined underneath, causing a nuisance. Their only resort was to voluntary help from British Coal in providing remedies. That was not good enough. People must have a right to compensation. When people buy property they have rights. They have the right not to have a nuisance on their property, or a tort--to mention the legal aspect. The Bill protects those rights. We can argue about many of the details of the Bill in Committee and I suspect that both Conservative and Opposition Members will give details of cases and we shall have a great deal of discussion. But it will be to one end because we are together in seeking to rectify a great injustice which stretches back over the ages.
I am grateful that the Bill has been introduced because I and other hon. Members have approached successive Secretaries of State and begged them to make the Waddilove recommendations into a Bill. We were often told that there was not time or that the legislation could be combined with a Bill to privatise British Coal. I look forward to the day when British Coal is privatised, but it is no good seeking privatisation unless the foundation for it is in place. British Coal must know the rules and the laws within which it will have to work. It is absolutely essential that it should know exactly what its responsibilities will be in respect of subsidence.
It would be wrong for any legislation on subsidence to be incorporated in any other Bill on British Coal. The subsidence legislation stands on its own, as I have argued for years. I was delighted that, within a week of coming to office, the present Secretary of State for Energy told me that he agreed that there should be a separate Bill to deal with subsidence. I am delighted that we have that Bill.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who spoke about the need for the Bill and the balance between the Bill and jobs in British Coal. I do not seek that balance. People have rights. It is not a question of balance. It is not a question of jobs. It is
Column 89
a question of rights and British Coal's duty to work to those rights. I do not seek any compromise or balance in respect of those rights. That would be wrong.Mr. Andy Stewart : Perhaps I did not quite understand my hon. Friend. British Coal has to decide where to mine, and if the only place left to mine is under a town it will not mine there if the cost is too great and will close the colliery. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) remembers that happening to a colliery in his constituency.
Mr. Ashby : I am grateful for that clarification. In that case the situation remains as I said. British Coal will mine, subject to the law, knowing full well what the results of mining will be, and that is as it should be.
Mr. Meale : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider the matter which the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) raised. In the instance he mentioned, when a colliery was closed it was suggested that its closure had been influenced by my attitude to coal mining subsidence in my constituency. Subsequently, that was proved to be totally false because none of the 35 claims which I have made on behalf of people in the area of that mine has been settled by British Coal. The hon. Member for Sherwood knows that perfectly well. Sometimes that method is used by British Coal to try to blackmail certain Members of Parliament so that they will not raise these issues on behalf of their constituents.
Mr. Ashby : Subsidence is one of the ongoing costs that British Coal has to meet. When it decides whether it can mine a certain area it has to take into account the fact that claims will be made against it and will estimate the amount and decide whether it is profitable to mine that area at that time. In 50 or 100 years time, when the price of coal has gone up, it might be profitable to do so. British Coal must mine profitably and that is decided by the time and ease of getting coal out of the ground and the ongoing costs of subsidence. As so many hon. Members wish to speak I shall not go into the details of the Bill. We shall have time to consider them in Committee. However I must mention one or two aspects of the Bill. When it is known that an area is to be mined a notice will be sent to every household, and I am pleased, as that is essential. However, I think that that notice should include advice to the householder to have an independent survey carried out with costs borne by British Coal. So many of the wrangles that take place over the degree of damage to a property are due to the fact that no one knows what state the property was in before mining started, and a survey would resolve many disputes. If British Coal began to mine in my area and there was a high probability that my property would be damaged, I should be entitled to a free survey, paid for by British Coal.
The Bill provides that British Coal pays for the cost of the survey only if a claim is successful. However, everyone in an area where coal is to be mined should be entitled to a free survey, paid for by British Coal, as that would be cheaper in the long run and would resolve many disputes.
Another important aspect of the Bill is the six-year limit and the burden of proof, and I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will consider that carefully because it is perfect as it is and should not be changed. I believe in justice and I believe that any change would result in injustice. The Bill follows common law, which is based upon years of experience that we cannot throw away. The
Column 90
six-year period will come into operation only once damage becomes apparent or should reasonably have become apparent, which is virtually the same. I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will not consider the six-year period on its own because the Bill also reverses the burden of proof, placing it upon British Coal. In that respect the Bill does not follow the common law, which places the burden of proof upon the claimant. Therefore, if one's property is damaged, one will put in a notice and British Coal will have to prove that damage has not occurred because of its mining. That is the most just way to deal with subsidence and will work extremely well.Mr. Barron : Surely, if the six-year rule is changed or abolished, it does not mean that the burden of proof need change.
Mr. Ashby : If one has justice, it must be justice for all. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is too summary. British Coal is entitled to some justice, as well as claimants against it--justice must have its scales evenly balanced.
Six years is a reasonable time, especially when the burden of proof is taken into account. As a result, cases in which there was mining 20 or 40 years ago, or even at the beginning of the century, and maps have been lost, would be on a different footing. The very fact that mining had taken place in an area coupled with the burden of proof would mean that British Coal would have to prove that subsidence had not occurred as a result of mining activities. That is a heavy burden for British Coal because it will have great difficulty in disproving it. I believe that that aspect of the Bill will help in all those difficult cases that hon. Members have experienced. That is the crux of the Bill.
Mr. Meale : When the hon. Gentleman talks about fairness and justice --which are quite different--he implies that anyone can get justice because of the time limit. That is nonsense. Even with the proposals contained in the Bill, people can get justice only if they have enough money to pursue British Coal in the courts and they cannot do that when a time limit is imposed.
Mr. Ashby : That is an unfair comment for a number of reasons. First, the Bill provides for an informed form of tribunal. Secondly, if we get together in Committee and table an amendment which grants the right of a free survey of property in mining areas it will make a big difference. Perhaps it is because I am a lawyer that I realise that the shift in the burden of proof is an overwhelming change. The fact that the burden of proof is now placed upon the mining company protects the poorest people in a way that they have never been protected before. That protection is not absolute but it cannot be lightly set aside.
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : The hon. Gentleman has overlooked one matter and, bearing in mind his work, representing people in court, I am surprised by that. The Minister made it clear at the beginning of the debate that British Coal would decide whether anyone had a claim. After that, people would have to go to the Secretary of State. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that aspect and how will that affect winning?
Mr. Ashby : Any action taken by the board will be subject to the law contained in the Bill, so the burden of proof will have to be shown. The board must direct itself
Column 91
--and in doing so, it must ask itself whether it is unlikely, less likely, or improbable that the damage was caused by subsidence. Mr. Allen McKay rose --Mr. Ashby : I have already given way on a number of occasions, and it is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to expect me to do so again. I had intended to speak only briefly, and I seem to have spoken for much longer than I planned. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can make his point in his own speech.
Other disputes have arisen out of the quality of work done in the past, which aspect the Bill also addresses. Often, British Coal employed shoddy workers to correct the effects of subsidence. In future, owners will be able to make their own choice, which should right what they view as an injustice. Presumably, owners will obtain three estimates from contractors of their own choice to satisfy British Coal.
As to the provision of alternative housing, the Bill aims at rehousing those affected in comparable accommodation. There will be no question of expecting them to live in a caravan at the bottom of the garden, because they will be entitled to housing of a like quality--in the same way as they will be entitled to a standard of workmanship that will restore their property to its previous condition, or as near to it as possible.
Owners will also be entitled to compensation for loss of value if, for example, the property develops a permanent tilt. The Bill will, and can, provide for such eventualities.
There is still some work to do on the Bill, but it is an admirable and long -sought-after measure, and is excellent in the changes that it makes in respect of the burden of proof and the qualifying time limit. I know that it will be much welcomed in my constituency. 8.42 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : I and my party welcome the Bill, and so will many of my constituents, but we need to know how it will affect certain categories of owners, and we want to be clear that they will have access to tribunal procedures of a kind not guaranteed under British Coal's existing voluntary arrangements. We want to be certain also that the advantage provided by the shift in the burden of proof to which the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) referred will be enjoyed by claimants. As yet, that is far from clear.
The recently introduced and, as yet, untried arbitration procedure does not meet desirable standards, not least because of restrictions on access. It also requires payment of a fairly hefty registration fee, before a claim can be pursued. The Minister must make it clear whether the Bill's enabling procedures under which he can approve a scheme will be used--and used quickly--to establish one to which all can have access without incurring unreasonable cost and a veto being placed on their access by British Coal.
Right hon. and hon. Members have received a number of representations that focus on the use of the word "may" in the Bill. They will know from their dealings with legislation over the years that that is the normal formula. It would be the same if the Minister decided, here and now, to introduce the procedures from the day that the Act
Column 92
came into force. However, the same formula can be used by Ministers to delay enacting new provisions. The House needs an indication of the Government's intention in that regard.I want to cite two cases from my constituency that illustrate the problems that can arise. They both concern properties in Swarland, near Alnwick, and illustrate how easily British Coal can get things wrong--and how unwilling it is to accept liability when it does. In both cases, the owners are pensioners--people who have reached an age at which they do not want to be worried by the prospect of substantial repairs to their property and having to encounter complicated compensation procedures.
In the first case, the pensioner concerned, having decided to purchase a property in Swarland, paid for a National Coal Board survey to determine whether any mining had been undertaken nearby. The survey clearly states : "No recorded past mining." In fact, that was nonsense--as anyone who knew the area could testify. There had been extensive mining in the area in question, from Whittle colliery.
Subsequent correspondence made it clear that the mining report was wrong. A letter I received from British Coal states :
"British Coal did indeed issue a mining report on this property on 8 January 1987 stating that there was no recorded past mining. I have discussed this report with the Corporation's Group Surveyor, who issues mining reports, and it would appear that the mining report was in error. There have been coal workings to the north of the property and to the south of the property The property in fact sits in a pillar of coal between these two workings. The Group Surveyor informs me that all settlement from these workings would have ceased by late 1985."
That letter goes on to deny any liability on British Coal's part for damage to the property concerned. The furthest that it went by way of making amends for that error was that the writer of the letter stated :
"I can only apologise on behalf of British Coal for the error in the mining report, and, with hindsight, an apology in my letter of 17 November 1990 would have been courteous."
That was the full extent of British Coal's apology for having misled a house purchaser by claiming that there had been no mining in the vicinity of the property in question. I have referred that case to the chairman of British Coal, and I hope that it can be pursued under the new arbitration procedures. However, it has yet to be made clear whether they will be adequate to deal with such cases. I found myself dealing simultaneously with another case, involving a property in the same road--Park road, Swarland--which had subsided 14 inches as a result of mining activity. The house owner was rather late in pursuing her case, because at the time that the damage became known her husband was dying. It is understandable that, while she had to endure that miserable and traumatic experience, she could not give her attention to the subsidence affecting her property.
British Coal again denied liability for the damage, and sent that lady a plan in order to prove that her property could not be affected by subsidence. It showed, or purported to show, that her house stood on the pillar of coal between two mined areas. Not even that is conclusive proof of invulnerability, because there is extensive evidence of damage spreading at surface level on either side of mining activity, which takes the form of an angle of settlement that affects a significant adjacent area. In any
Column 93
event, the plan submitted by British Coal turned out to be the plan of my other constituent's house--the house involved in the first case that I have described. British Coal had picked up the wrong plan, and sent it to one of my constituents to justify denying all liability. I should like to see that case proceed through the arbitration system. When the Minister winds up the debate, I should like him to state how soon the arbitration procedure will be set up and whether it will be able to deal with cases of damage that occurred, or were noticed, in 1985. I should like him to say whether the arbitration procedure will be able to consider the sort of incompetence that I have just outlined.Obviously, there are other matters that will be considered as the Bill proceeds. At some stage, perhaps the Minister will enlighten us about what will happen if there is any substantial privatisation of British Coal. I assume that all private mining activity taking place under licence from British Coal will be dealt with, under the Bill, in exactly the same way as British Coal's own mining. The district about which I am talking is now being mined under licence from British Coal, as a licensed private mine. Should any further subsidence occur, I assume that it will be treated in the same way. The issue has caused great agitation and vexation for a long time, and it will continue to do so if the Bill's declared and publicised advantages are not properly available to those most affected and aggrieved. I have given the Minister two examples. It would be very bad if people who have suffered as my constituents have do not benefit from the Bill. They are the sort of people whose pressure, agitation and legitimate concern have formed the basis of the Bill. 8.52 pm
Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood) : Like the hon. Member for Berwick- upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall refer specifically to constituency cases that highlight the problems that we who represent constituencies with a history of coal mining regularly face. It is not generally remembered that Members of Parliament like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I represent former mining constituencies. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment also represents a district that has been partly mined. At various times, 95 per cent. of my constituency has been mined, and problems associated with coal mining subsidence are common.
The two cases that I wish to raise, and by which I believe the Bill will be judged by myself and hon. Members with constituencies close to the eastern Avon district, are fairly typical. They stem from the fact that, unlike the constituencies of many of the hon. Members who have already spoken, they occurred in districts where coal mining ceased 20 or 30 years ago. In many of the cases, the mining records are not readily available. The first problem facing any constituent is the long-drawn-out process of trying to establish whether the subsidence or cracking has anything to do with a coal mine. The arguments go round and round, and backwards and forwards, between the local council, the water board and British Coal.
The number of cases of subsidence that I, as a Member of Parliament, face has increased in the past year or so. I do not believe that is because people are becoming more money-oriented. People I meet in the street, who understand the problem much better than I do, say that the substantially dry summers in recent years have altered
Column 94
the balance of the land. In addition, in my constituency--this may be true in the constituencies of many other hon. Members--there has been substantial infilling and development. The infilling causes problems that are supposed to be related to watercourses. When infilling takes place over former mine shafts, it alters the watercourses and the flow of the water table, so it impacts on other constituents' properties.I have constituents in Woodyleaze drive, Hanham, who, at the height of last summer, had lawns like bogs, on which Professor Bellamy would have been pleased to walk. In what was supposed to be the driest year for many a decade, we could stand on the lawn and sway from side to side. We took buckets full of water out of the trenches, which filled up immediately. After many months of study of that case, the latest information is that water is coming from two different sources, one of which is--it was disclosed last week--former coal mines. That information has been made available after a long period of research by all the experts in the district.
The constituents have to deal with a Coal Board office that was previously in south Wales, but is now in Derbyshire. The office was moved to Derbyshire because of the decline in coal mining in south Wales. I think that the constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) may face the same problem. It adds to the complications and drawn-out process that constituents face. At present, the residents of one of the houses, Mr. and Mrs. Hann, are pursuing their case with great determination, but as yet none of the neighbours has filed a claim. However, it is likely that, when the Hanns' case is resolved, other neighbours may have cause to file claims. I should like the Minister to clarify whether that period will form part of the six years. Do the six years start from the time at which the Hanns started pursuing their case or when damage began to be apparent in the neighbours' houses, as it is likely to be? With respect to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), I accept that the burden of proof has changed, but it is important to make clear at what point the six years will start.
The second case is located at the opposite end of my constituency, where residents of Stanley Park road have just started to face problems associated with subsidence. At present, the resident in 9 Stanley Park road believes that the subsidence is being caused by mining. The mine shafts appear to be on a vacant property where Nos. 3 and 5 would be. But there is substantial argument about whether a ventilation shaft, mine shaft or some other form of previous working is causing the subsidence. The resident at No. 7 has not yet identified any damage to his property that has been caused by the subsidence.
If the resident at No. 7 were to suffer subsidence later, would the six- year period start from the date at which the resident at No. 9 identified the subsidence? It is believed that the property at No. 7 is moving slightly and causing difficulties with other properties. Or does the six- year period start from the date at which any damage becomes obvious at No.7? That is a particularly important aspect, because the cases may involve pensioners who may not be specifically interested in the problem to begin with, due to other family reasons or their own nature, and do not wish to register the problem at that stage.
Would a developer of the site of Nos. 5 and 3 Stanley Park road, currently pursing an argument with British
Column 95
Coal about whether there is subsidence caused by previous mine workings, have the right to claim compensation because of the extra work that he will have to do on a property which was not previously identified as standing on mine workings? As a result of the expert efforts of Mr. Cornwell and some of his colleagues, it has been established that workings had probably been there before ; however, when the developer bought the site on which he wished to build flats, it was not evident from any map available to the Coal Board that such workings were present.Wherever coal workings have previously arisen, our constituents will face difficulties. I think that, in principle, the Bill is going in the right direction, but before I can support it my constituents and I would like certain points to be clarified.
8.59 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) drew attention to the balance that has had to be struck between the needs of a mining community that faces various problems and the needs of an industry that generates jobs. I understood the point that he was making and the dilemmas that he described ; they allow me, briefly at least, to present the Bill in the context of the south Wales mining industry. It is a gloomy, nostalgic reflection that this could be one of the last debates on a Bill about coal mining in which any Welsh Member can claim that he represents a coal- producing community. Astonishingly, the House now contains only four Welsh Members who fall into that category. At one time, the industry provided more than 200,000 jobs in the south Wales coal field, and produced more than 200,000 tonnes of coal ; now we are down to 2,000 jobs and about 2, 000 tonnes of deep-mined coal. Since 1985, the number of jobs has fallen from 27,000 to 2,000.
Along with that has come a sea change in attitudes to jobs and industry. The Bill reminds us of the high price that has had to be paid for the vital requirements of the coal industry--the health of the mining communities, for instance. In my community, pits have closed and jobs have disappeared, but there is still a generation of pneumoconiotic miners. Safety has also helped to pay the price : I need say no more than that I represent the pit village of Aberfan. The environment, too, has suffered : generations of communities have put up with tip waste, noise, nuisance, dust and, indeed, subsidence to preserve jobs and allow them to be created so that the industry can survive.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North- West (Mr. Ashby) described, quite effectively, the attitudes of the mining communities to British Coal. He said that they were relaxed, but I think that that is the wrong word : they were, rather, ambivalent about the dilemmas involved in relation to jobs and the development of industry, as against the impact that such development would have on them. There was a reason for that. For generations, communities such as the one that I am proud to represent put up with so much because they had what the Government may see as a rather cockeyed view of economics : they actually believed that the physical
Column 96
economy was important. They felt that making things--producing things ; extracting valuable physical assets--constituted a worthwhile, important contribution to the nation's wealth. Those attitudes are changing ; they have, in any event, been changed by the closure of pits and the destruction of jobs.A couple of weeks ago, I attended a meeting in Edwardsville, Treharris, in my local community. The meeting was packed to overflowing : householders were standing out in the street. That meeting was about the serious subsidence problem in the area. After the meeting, some of us wondered how, in the 1990s, British Coal would ever obtain permission to sink a deep mine of any kind or conduct any form of extraction in such a village--or, indeed, any other village. That pit was sunk more than 100 years ago. Does any hon. Member on either side of the House believe that any such proposal would not provoke a massive residential reaction? The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West spoke about the shifting burden of proof and the rights in the Bill. One right remains unchallengeable, because British Coal now and in the future will have an absolute and total right to undermine pit communities, villages and homes, and that right will probably have to remain. It will be amazing if in the 1990s British Coal receives permission for works that will lead to the continuation of the undermining of communities and neighbourhoods.
It is important to recall the nature and character of the industry which in my community is down to one pit. I spoke about the community of Edwardsville, Treharris, where subsidence has affected not only homes but the swimming pool and the local school. That is just a mile and half from our valley. One can imagine the feelings and worries of residents in that area. The problems will now be lessened because British Coal has suddenly decided to close the deep navigation pit in Treharris. However, after the pit is closed the problems will remain.
As many hon. Members have said, subsidence does not go away when British Coal goes away and the pit closes. The communities that I have described and to which I belong are not yuppie communities. Basically, they consist of two generations of home owners. Many members of the older generation worked in the industry or have strong connections with it. Those people are proud of their homes and have transformed them through repair and improvement grants. Those terraced houses in which they live have been transformed into valuable and precious homes.
The younger generation live in properties which form the first rung on the ladder of home ownership. By south-east standards their mortgages are small, but they are significant in relation to the small incomes and they are often linked to improvement loans. We must judge the value of the Bill in the light of the worries expressed at the meeting that I have mentioned.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West seemed to find the Bill dramatic, as if it were some fantastic shift in power from British Coal to the individual. I do not think that the balance has shifted in that way. If in the past it has been a David and Goliath battle, I take comfort from the fact that David always won. However, in many respects the battle is unequal. Up to a point I welcome the six-year rule as defined by the Minister. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron),
Column 97
I wonder why we have to have a six-year limit anyway if the idea is that at any time damage emerges a home owner will be able to make a claim.The Bill does not address what happens when subsidence occurs. Some hon. Members have spoken about the problem of blight. I quarrel in one respect with the otherwise excellent report by the Select Committee on Energy and therefore quarrel with the Bill in one fundamental respect. The Select Committee backed the Waddilove committee view about blight by saying that mining was no different from any other form of development. There is a case for arguing that subsidence is different in character from the problems arising from other developments in that it raises particular difficulties about borrowing money to buy and about selling homes. Those problems arise as soon as word gets around and the matter becomes public. It is not simply about loss of view or noise which can occur with other forms of development. The problem is insidious and unnerving. It undermines--sorry about the pun--confidence in one's property. There is a very strong case for including in the Bill some additional provision to take care of blight.
I hope that in Committee the Minister will take a positive view. Indeed, he may be forced to do so, as there are the makings--one sees the danger signs --of cross-party agreement on some aspects of the changes. Certainly, there is a need to examine the whole question of how claims will be dealt with when disputes arise. In saying so, I am referring not only to clause 41. I interrupted the Minister when he failed to describe clause 4. Let me tell hon. Members why. It appears that when British Coal responds to the initial notice of damage it will not have to seek agreement on the nature of works that have to be carried out. If I am wrong, the Minister will correct me-- or perhaps the matter can be dealt with in Committee. When there is a dispute, even the schedules of remedial action will have to go to the Lands Tribunal.
It is 25 years since I was first elected to the House. During my first Parliament we passed the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. That, too, was a matter of great concern. Disputes under that legislation had to go to the Lands Tribunal. The tribunal is no informal, gentle, inexpensive institution. We ought to look at the character and nature of the disputes that arise ; otherwise the change in the balance to which the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West referred will not amount to a right that can easily be exercised by the individual home owner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made a very forceful point about the destruction of records. Surely, given the disputes that have arisen--case after case has been mentioned in the House--an obligation should forthwith be placed on British Coal not to destroy plans or records. British Coal ought to be obliged to deposit such plans and records, not only because of their historical interest and archival value to the coal industry, but because of their practical value in the resolution of any disputes or claims that might arise in cases of subsidence. It is essential that Ministers come to the Standing Committee in the most positive possible frame of mind. In the case of the Broadcasting Act 1990, chunks of the legislation were written in Committee. I hope that Ministers will approach this Bill in the same way. Their approach must not be dampened or otherwise controlled by the hidden hand of British Coal. British Coal must not have any hidden veto.
Column 98
As I said earlier, it is very sad that, in some ways, the responsibilities of British Coal, in respect of subsidence in my area, will become historic rather than current and future. In that context, I want to convey a final message to that very powerful organisation. For generations, our communities have suffered from subsidence and large-scale tip waste. Now, through reclamation--and, it appears, pit closures--subsidence will become a historic problem. I hope that we shall not simply swap the historic problem of subsidence for a new form of desecration by British Coal. I hope that British Coal, having destroyed our jobs, will not return to gouge out our hillsides by way of open-casting. I may have to spend the rest of this Parliament trying to make this a better Bill ; I hope that I shall not have to spend the next Parliament dealing with an "Open Cast Amelioration Bill". Economic forces beyond the control of my community have destroyed jobs and will eventually make subsidence a historic problem there. I hope that, at last, we can look forward to a green and pleasant society such as others seem to enjoy.9.14 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood) : I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has a number of friends in my constituency. He spoke eloquently of the changes that have been taking place in his historic constituency, changes that have affected my constituency over a longer period, so that he is coming to terms with the circumstances with which we were forced to come to terms a little earlier. I wish only that I could add to those matters that we have in common the size of his majority, which I believe is 28,000 which exceeds that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are working on it in my constituency and I hope eventually to share such a majority. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of interesting points. He was right to draw attention to the difficulties of the extractive industries in the United Kingdom, particularly the coal industry, which will soon face many problems in winning coal. The effects of mining activity are felt long after it has taken place. The compensation that the Bill will provide is one of those costs. Some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out that it is no different from any other industry in this respect. For example, in the nuclear industry, decommissioning is a major financial burden. We have to accept that the cost of subsidence is like any other cost such as that for machinery, wages or interest on borrowing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) made that point.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will have to come to terms with this cost. While we welcome the Bill, I feel that we should flag it with the cautionary remark that if the Bill imposes even greater burdens on the coal industry, which will push up the price of coal, we must accept that consequence of the Bill, which I expect will be enacted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West also made the valid point that, in the past, mining subsidence was accepted because the people whose houses were affected invariably were employed in the coal industry or members of their family were employed in the industry. To a certain extent, it was a case of grin and bear
Column 99
it, even where that was because people felt intimidated and thought that the employer might take it out on them if they sought remedies for the injustice.However, the situation is different today. The people with whom we are in touch in our constituencies and who are affected by mining subsidence are no longer connected with the coal industry. They are not employed in it and if any members of their family have any connections, it is usually the elderly relatives who used to be employed in it. That factor highlights the problem.
While nearly all hon. Members present in the Chamber have direct experience of these problems, many others do not. I was intrigued to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) say that his constituency had a coal mining problem. I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were also not aware of that, even though you represent a nearby constituency. Many hon. Members do not understand what we are talking about.
Mr. Jim Lester : One of the points about opening the channel tunnel and developing the railway to it--something that will benefit our constituents in the midlands and the north--is that it has provoked in the south-east a great deal of understanding about environmental damage.
Mr. Howarth : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I wish only that some of our hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent were able to make that connection. They are not able to do so when they object to things taking place in the lovely lush green pastures of their constituencies, although they think that it is fine for the grotty old midlands to put up with yet more despoliation so that they can enjoy those green fields. It is time that they considered what their fair share of the burden is. It is hard for some people to appreciate the distress that mining subsidence causes. Not only does it devalue property-- which, for most of us, constitutes the largest investment of our lifetime-- but attempts to seek a remedy and justice are accompanied by incessant wrangling. There is even danger to life. I have experienced all these problems, and I have referred to them in the House on previous occasions. That being so, I shall not go into great detail this evening. I shall merely mention that properties in Church hill and Hednesford in my constituency have been racked by the problem for many years. Some hon. Members may remember the church that had to be pulled down. British Coal paid nearly £250,000 for the building of a new church. The bottom fell out of a working men's club, and British Coal paid for that to be replaced. Home owners, however, were told that there was no evidence of coal mining activity and that therefore the responsibility was not that of British Coal. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that British Coal, following my
representations, has relented and now agrees to accept some degree of liability, although that has not yet been quantified.
I hope that British Coal, in its apparent act of magnanimity and generosity in accepting liability, will not struggle and prevaricate. I hope that it will be decent and honourable. The Bill's provisions will not apply to my constituents because their claims are now being dealt with. I hope also that a pre-emptive strike was not made by
Column 100
British Coal to sort out the problem under the old arrangements before the new arrangements come into effect.I welcome the Bill. As the former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Minister with responsibilities for the coal industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), I pay my tribute to him for the part which he played during the time that I was his PPS at the Department of Energy to bring the Bill into the legislative programme. As some of my hon. Friends know, we PPSs are the important guys in these matters. I know, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South was extremely interested in the matters that are taken up in the Bill and conscious of the concerns that were expressed by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) and for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and by various constituents, who tried to bring matters to a successful conclusion. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister has brought the Bill before the House.
I am sure that the determination that has been shown by the Government over the past three or four years has cajoled British Coal into accepting some of the Waddilove recommendations, such as prior notification and the new arbitration scheme, which started life in the past month. If the Government had not said that it was their firm intention to bring the Bill before the House, I do not believe that British Coal would have taken any action. It was the threat, as it were, of legislative action that prompted it to take action. It is fair to say that hon. Members on both sides of the House have campaigned. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) did not mention that many of my hon. Friends, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, have been battling hard. It is a cross-party matter that affects all our constituents whichever way they vote.
The benefits of the Bill will be considerable and many of them have been alluded to already. There are five, however, that I wish to single out. First, unlike the 1975 legislation, which was introduced by the then Labour Government, this proposed legislation will impose the burden of proof upon British Coal to show that the damage done was not caused by mining subsidence. I am told by geologists in the United Kingdom that there is no such thing as natural movement in the earth's crust. We do not have a San Andreas fault in the United Kingdom. It is legitimate to presuppose that if subsidence has taken place, it is on account of extraction taking place under ground. We are not being unfair to British Coal in imposing the burden of proof upon it.
Secondly, it is extremely good news that repairs will be made to claimants' reasonable satisfaction. Thirdly, the right of claimants to have repairs carried out by their own contractors will be warmly welcomed by constituents who are affected by subsidence. Fourthly, the right to recover expenses will be welcomed. Fifthly--this point has not been made--clause 9(3) provides for local authorities to receive full reimbursement for the work that they carry out--for example, to the public highway. That will be of much interest to Cannock Chase district council, because its £30,000 bill for reinstating the road at Church hill is the subject of prevarication by British Coal, which wants to foot only 50 per cent. of the cost. I hope that it will show goodwill in anticipation of the enactment of the Bill.
| Next Section
| Home Page |