| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 101
Detailed points will be addressed in Committee. Hon. Members have referred to some of them, but I shall make two specific points. Clause 4 provides for British Coal to respond to a damage notice. "as soon as reasonably practicable".All hon. Members agree that the delays in claims for mining subsidence compensation are a major problem. British Coal should be required to respond to a damage notice within a specific time. I hope that that will be dealt with in Committee.
Dr. Woodcock : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that the Bill imposes specific time limits, not on British Coal but on claimants? As my hon. Friend said, the phrase "within a reasonable time" is mentioned several times, but a claimant has only 28 days in which to respond to a schedule served by British Coal. Does my hon. Friend agree that that does not seem to be reasonable?
Mr. Howarth : My hon. Friend makes a fair point which will have to be considered in Committee. I hope that I can be allowed a wry smile about the concept of reasonableness. I introduced a Bill to change the law on obscenity, which introduced the concept of reasonableness. I was told that it could not pass into law because the test of reasonableness was not precise enough. I am interested to see that the Bill is littered with references to reasonableness. I have always found that a difficult concept to apply to British Coal.
Hon. Members mentioned information on previous subsidence claims. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reconsider that point, because prospective purchasers of a property should be aware of its subsidence history. Such a proposal could be bad news for owners of such property who have their houses properly and completely restored, only to find that people do not want to buy them simply because of that subsidence history.
Arbitration has been mentioned. I note that my hon. Friend the Minister is anxious to allow British Coal's voluntary arrangements to operate. The whole House will agree that the jury is out on those arrangements. We shall want to see substantial progress and that the voluntary system is working, otherwise we shall want other measures. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), who unfortunately cannot be present because he is chairing a committee, is concerned about coal mining subsidence and the obligation to repurchase. I have told British Coal that it would save itself hassle if it agreed to repurchase property, do it up and sell it to a prospective purchaser, without any liability attaching thereto and in the full knowledge that the property has been subject to subsidence damage but has been repaired. It occasionally repurchases properties, and I am aware of one instance where it did so. However, that is very much the exception rather than the rule. My hon. Friend the Under- Secretary of State may like to consider whether the arbitrators can suggest obligatory repurchase.
The Bill is an excellent start to remedy an injustice which affects many constituencies. The Government are to be congratulated on introducing such a welcome measure. The history of the issue is testimony to the stubborn foot-dragging of the nationalised British Coal over many years. Bit by bit, no doubt encouraged by the prospect of the Bill, British Coal has had wrung out of it a series of voluntary improvements. Some of the remedies will be
Column 102
enshrined in law by the Bill, but in many respects, particularly on the issue of arbitration, our constituents will remain at the mercy of British Coal's good faith. Speed and fairness are of the essence. Our constituents must be left in no doubt that, if British Coal fails to display that good will, a statutory scheme will be enacted. 9.30 pmMr. Geoffrey Lofthouse (Pontefract and Castleford) : Like many hon. Members over the years, I have spoken about the problems of people suffering from mining subsidence. I welcome the Bill and, as a member of the Energy Select Committee, the fact that it arises out of that Committee's report. The Bill is long overdue. I do not intend to cover ground which has been covered already, but I believe that there are some points that should be considered in Committee. If ever there were a Bill that is a Committee Bill, it is this one.
It is right that I should declare an interest--my home is getting a hammering because of mining subsidence. I am worried about the historic costs. Following the Select Committee's recommendations, the Bill states that charges should be levied at individual pits. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), there is one pit left in my constituency--in 1985, there were eight. Which pit will bear the costs of the seven that have closed? If we stick rigidly to the Bill's provisions, where will the money come from to pay for subsidence damage caused by the closed pits? It could be argued in a tight mining community such as mine, with eight pits, that some of the subsidence was caused by the one pit still operating. The costs imposed on that pit might be so excessive that it could become unprofitable, and we would lose the pit. There must be strict records and strict administration to find out whether all the subsidence results from the one pit that now operates. Blight is a major problem and the cost of full compensation for it would be colossal. It is no good running away from that fact, but that does not make matters any easier for those living in the areas. I am sure that many other hon. Members who represent mining areas will know of estates where some houses have subsidence problems and others display no visible signs of damage. The moment subsidence is identified, however, the value of all the properties goes downhill ; in some cases, they become unmarketable. Redundant miners often have to move to another part of the country to get a job and even if their property has not been damaged it can be an impossible task to sell it. British Coal is sympathetic and sometimes tries to help in some cases, but not always.
We must also consider the problem of tilt. In one avenue in my constituency, British Coal has purchased three or four houses suffering from subsidence damage but has decided not to buy a couple of properties that have been left with tilt. British Coal has put the properties that it has purchased on the market, with advertisements in the local press and in the local estate agents' offices saying that it is offering the houses for £10,0000, £12,000 or £13,000 because they have been damaged by subsidence.
Two unfortunate constituents of mine who live in one of the other houses, which is suffering from shocking tilt, were initially offered £2,500-- later upped to £3,500--in compensation. In other words, although British Coal admits that the value of the houses that it has purchased
Column 103
is only £10,000 to £12,000, it is offering my constituents only about £3,000 in respect of properties that would have fetched £40,000 had they not been damaged. I hope that the Bill will protect those people.Clause 11 says :
"the Corporation shall make in respect of the dwelling-house a payment equal to the amount of the depreciation in the value of the dwelling-house caused by the damage."
I have no general complaints about the administration of the subsidence department in my area. The people who work there do their level best to meet their obligations. Nevertheless, the examples that I have given show that great problems remain for the victims of mining subsidence.
I welcome the establishment of advice centres. When, on a number of occasions, I visited Nottingham with members of the Select Committee on Energy, I found out that there is a real need for advice. I should like the advice centres to be staffed by professional advisers. Many people in Nottingham received no advice, or advice from agents who were far from honest ; I understand that some of the agents have faced criminal charges. Professional advisers would not have been able to act in that way. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that question in Committee.
Let me make a proposal which I believe would go some way towards solving the problems of blight and of excessive damage to some properties. It has always amazed me that British Coal--and, before it, the National Coal Board --could not get down to the problem at the planning stage and say to local authorities, "There may well be subsidence damage in this area."
It should be part of planning consents that houses in some areas should have been built on rafts, at a cost of about £2,000. That would have saved British Coal a great deal of money in having to purchase property, demolish houses or repair them. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the local authority planning departments and British Coal could have worked together to provide new properties with rafts. That would have eliminated many of the problems that have arisen.
Mr. Jim Lester : We invented the Clasp building system in Nottinghamshire to build schools, hospitals and public buildings on rafts that allow movement because our area suffers from subsidence. That system has been valuable in this country and also in areas that suffer from earthquakes.
Mr. Lofthouse : There must be consultation with the planning authorities and I hope that British Coal will get round to that. I am sure that such consultation would be beneficial in those mining areas.
We all recognise that the major problem is going to diminish because the number of pits mining coal is going to decline. If Mr. Baker, the chairman of National Power, carries out his threat to import 50 per cent. of the fuel to generate electricity for National Power, there will be another rapid rundown of the mining industry. If British Coal can take precautionary measures before building houses, that would be a step in the right direction.
The Select Committee on Energy can be well pleased with the main aspects of the Bill because it contains much that the Select Committee recommended. Hon. Members have grumbled in the past, as I have, that we put a lot of work into Select Committees, but no one seems to take any
Column 104
notice. However, we cannot say that on this occasion, because the work of the Select Committee on Energy is evident in the Bill. I hope that the Standing Committee will be able to improve the Bill. I hope that that will benefit the country, and especially Nottingham and Mansfield, where there is a major problem with subsidence. I know from my visits to Mansfield of the colossal amount of work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has done on this problem over the past few years and he should be congratulated on that work. I hope that the Committee will be able to approve many amendments to improve the Bill, which is only a step in the right direction.9.42 pm
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : May I first declare an indirect interest in the subject through my association with Alliance International which looks after British Coal affairs. However, my primary and overriding interest lies with my constituents. Although I no longer have any active pits in my constituency, I can assure hon. Members that the impact of subsidence continues and I am delighted that it seems that we are about to resolve the problem with the Bill.
The Bill has been long in gestation, but now that we are debating it I am glad that it has been largely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the product of fairly objective discussions that have taken place over many years with many different groups. It has been backed across the party divide. The mild chastisement of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) was an understatement, because the hon. Gentleman gave a most ungenerous welcome to a Bill for which we have all waited for a long time. I am sure that British Coal does not agree with everything in the Bill. However, we should be fair and, to its credit, British Coal produced the householders arbitration scheme in conjunction with the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Notwithstanding the scheme that it produced, British Coal welcomes the Bill as a blueprint for a system that it and hon. Members will find will work in practice and not just be words on the statute book.
One criticism might be that much is implied in the Bill that some would wish be made more explicit. No doubt hon. Members will probe that point in Committee.
On an initial reading of the Bill and of the background papers, the Bill appears to represent a balanced approach between the interests of householders, service interests, and the legitimate interests of mining operators. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) dismissed a sense of balance in these matters. Although, naturally, all of us are much more concerned with the impact of subsidence on the individual householder--the little man facing big brother, British Coal--there must be a balance and justice on both sides.
Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : The hon. Gentleman talks about the imbalance between big brother, British Coal and the householder, but he ignores one major factor--the insurance companies. For many years, insurance companies have been taking a large amount of money in premiums off everyone who buys a house, yet they refuse to pay out for subsidence, or they insert a small clause that limits them to perhaps 10 per cent. of the cost. The Bill
Column 105
does not refer to insurance companies having any responsibility. Surely the third factor should be involved. Insurance companies have made a great profit without paying anything out.Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He was not present to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's intervention is out of context and away from the main point. I am perfectly happy for that matter to be discussed in Committee. Like many other hon. Members, I have come across that aspect.
Another criticism might be the uncertainty in establishing the full extent of repairs that are needed and the extent to which British Coal would be expected to pay. That is not an unreasonable concern for any householder, but I do not believe that the Bill is anything more than a sensible recognition of British Coal's duty to take action--clause 2--prepare a schedule of work--clause 6--and, to put it simply, get on with it--clause 7 --to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. The agreed schedule arising from the notice and its acceptance will cover only damage that it is reasonably practicable to repair.
Nevertheless, the kinds of remedial action listed in clause 2(2) can in some instances be cumulative. It is surely implicit that British Coal could take one or more of the options listed in clause 2(2). For example, it is not uncommon for British Coal to repair damage other than, say, the residual tilt to a property, to which my hon. Friend the Minister and one or two other hon. Members referred, and then make a depreciation payment for the residual tilt that cannot be repaired. Therefore, the mining operator would meet its obligation under clause 2(2)(c).
Clause 11(3) provides the claimant with protection where remedial works have been executed, but where there is clear depreciation in the value of the property and where the making good of the damage simply is not possible --hence a depreciation payment. I can imagine lawyers' eyes lighting up at that--it is bread and meat to them--but I cannot imagine any other way of resolving that problem. Like the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), I have properties in my constituency that have been repaired but are clearly not 100 per cent. right--there is a tilt to them. Any buyer looking at such a house would consider that fact. There is no doubt that the value of such houses has diminished because they are on a slight tilt.
Mr. Jim Lester : Just a slight tilt?
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) has an example of a 5 in tilt, which is a big tilt. I have not had cases of that much tilt, but I take his point.
There have been arguments and misunderstandings tonight about the six-year rule. Provided that it does not disqualify a claimant from claiming for subsequent damage following completion of an agreed schedule of work, the six-year rule seems fair. It is tied not to the date on which the damage occurred but to the first date on which the person entitled to claim became aware of the damage. That concept has already been established in housing legislation. I am not sure which housing Bill made it clear, but claims do not have to go back to when the person bought the house ; the clock begins to run when the
Column 106
person who bought the house from the local council discovered the defect or, in this case, the subsidence damage.If the parties agree that it would be sensible to allow some time to pass, perhaps to establish the full extent of the damage, that could be allowed. I am not an engineer and perhaps people want the matter to be settled and finalised, but at least the full extent of the damage could be established. I have visited houses where a modicum of repair had been carried out by the coal board, but two years later a crack has appeared in the bathroom. That is plastered over, but a year later a crack appears in the kitchen. I hope that a mechanism can be created which will allow a sensible time to establish whether the contractor, British Coal, or whoever is carrying out the repair, has done the full work necessary. I hope that that principle will not be undermined by the six-year rule.
Mr. Allen McKay : The hon. Gentleman refers to temporary repairs. It all depends on how severe the subsidence is. It would be inadequate to ask people to live in poor conditions without remedial work being done.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I have no reason to doubt the hon. Gentleman. I merely wish to illustrate that when someone sees a crack and correctly notifies British Coal instantly, which then mends only the crack, major problems may not be identified because in a sense they were tackled too quickly.
Again, I seek guidance. If a schedule is agreed and fulfilled and further subsidence occurs, will the claimant be deemed to be making a fresh claim that should stand on its own merit, regardless of any earlier repairs? That arises time and time again in Wollaton in Nottingham. The pit there closed in 1966. That is a long time ago and the answer comes back from British Coal that mining ended in 1966 so it cannot be the cause of the subsidence. People who had repairs done in the 1970s and early 1980s were told that the damage could not have been caused by mining subsidence because mining stopped in 1966. That again raises a question about whether the repairs were fully carried out in the first place, perhaps in the early 1980s.
As has been said, British Coal has already established an arbitration scheme for claims in respect of domestic properties. It is intended to apply to cases where no complex issues of fact or law arise. I am afraid that my legal friends on both the Conservative and Opposition Benches will always be involved when more complex matters arise, which involve evidence, hearings and so on. The
long-established Lands Tribunal is well able to deal with such cases, so no new organisation is needed. While the arbitration scheme should meet the needs of most claimants, I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that we do not end up with an unduly bureaucratic system.
I have one word of caution. It arises from one of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Rother Valley, which was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, about a person who accepts money to do his own repairs or employs his own contractor. I remember problems with housing repairs and improvements grants, when local authorities paid money to residents to pay a contractor and somewhat shoddy work was done by unapproved builders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe says, if someone agrees a schedule of work with British Coal--under the
Column 107
provisions in the Bill--says that he wants to do the work himself and takes the money to do it, in the interests of equity British Coal cannot then be asked to accept responsibility if the work turns out to be unsatisfactory in the future. There could be arguments about whether cracks that reappear are due to fresh subsidence or bad workmanship. By all means let that provision remain in the Bill, but I urge caution on anyone who wants to take that risk.The Bill is fairly technical, even though it is short. Perhaps it will be a lawyers' paradise, as such Bills often are, but, at long last, it provides some certainty for our householders. They have suffered fear and worry for many years : fear of how far damage to their homes might go : fear that they could not afford repairs if they found that they were not covered by the coal board ; and, worst of all, fear that they would never be able to sell the property and move on. I know of a number of pensioner couples who would dearly love to sell their homes and buy something smaller. They feel as if they are locked in a house with cracks, which they know they will not be able to sell for its full value.
The Bill is not everything that we might wish for, but there was no reason for the ungenerous--even mealy-mouthed--acceptance which the hon. Member for Rother Valley gave it.
9.57 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley (Barnsley, Central) : I welcome the Bill in much the same way that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) welcomed it. The measure is long overdue and there is much within the Bill that we like, but there is also much that we would like to be clarified and perhaps improved, and I do not think that my hon. Friend's welcome to the Bill was mealy-mouthed.
I welcome the Bill as a Member of Parliament representing a coalfield area, who receives numerous complaints about subsidence, and as a member of the Select Committee on Energy, which considered mining subsidence in considerable detail last year and produced a detailed report. Many of our recommendations have been taken on board by the Government. The fact remains that too much of the Bill gives British Coal the last word or the final decision, and Opposition Members would like an improvement to those aspects of the Bill. I have received serious complaints from constituents and I shall refer to some of them instead of the mechanics of the Bill. I hope that some of these issues will be tackled, clarified and thrashed out in Committee. Tonight, we have learnt that considerable confusion surrounds the time limits which have been imposed in the past. These limits are clearly set out in the Bill, but there have been occasions when British Coal has used quite a different time limit from that which existed under the law. Liability has been denied in certain cases because of the time that elapsed between mining activities and the date of the claim. The Bill specifies a time limit of six years from the time when a claimant should have reasonable knowledge of damage. Under previous legislation, two months were allowed to submit a claim.
Column 108
Reference was made to the evidence taken by the Energy Select Committee in Mansfield. On that occasion, two members of the coal board giving evidence the same day clearly did not understand-- It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Chapman.] Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Mr. Illsley : I was making the point that even British Coal's own representatives did not appear to understand the time limits, believing that the relevant period was that which elapsed between the ending of mining activities and the claim. British Coal can always use the defence that damage was not caused by mining subsidence, because the workings of a particular colliery would have settled some time before, and that some other factor must be to blame. The Waddilove committee recommended that there should be no time limit, arguing that every case should be considered on its merits, and that if mining subsidence was to blame, then the claim should be met. The time limit applies only from the time that the damage occurred, not from the date of mining.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) said that the Bill's time limits are exactly right, but each claim should surely be considered in its own right. When a person notices damage, he will usually notify British Coal immediately. It will appraise the damage in relation to the area, and consult its plans and records, in determining whether the damage is a consequence of mining. British Coal may go back well beyond six years. As the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West knows from his own professional activities, the time limit only relates to an individual prevaricating about issuing a notice after damage has become apparent. It is designed to deter an individual from staring at a crack in his wall for six years before submitting a claim.
Even if British Coal can prove that damage has not been caused by subsidence, it might have to check back on workings over the past century. The appropriateness of a six-year time limit will no doubt be explored in Committee, together with Waddilove's recommendations that none should exist.
Delay is also of major concern. I refer not to delayed claims, but to delay on the part of British Coal in undertaking repairs, with house owners having to wait years in some cases before work is completed. I refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). If British Coal believes that there is a risk of further damage, it will issue a stop notice to prevent any repairs being made--unless of an emergency nature--until such time as it is clear that no additional damage will arise. That can lead to houses and even whole estates being left for years before British Coal effects any repairs. I know of one claimant who was re- housed in transit accommodation, pending repairs to his own property, three years ago.
The alternative accommodation offered by British Coal is usually of a high standard and quite acceptable. I have experienced no problems or complaints about the standard of transit accommodation, simply about the length of time that people have to be re-housed away from their homes waiting for repairs to be carried out. The lack of transit accommodation to a suitable standard often
Column 109
causes problems because there are insufficient transit houses to accommodate people while repairs are carried out.Mr. Ashby : The Bill states that a person can have repairs done himself, and therefore push British Coal aside.
Mr. Illsley : It is a welcome aspect of the Bill that claimants can now choose between waiting for British Coal or employing contractors of their own. I hope that that will go some way towards alleviating the delays experienced by my constituents. One street in my constituency has been totally demolished--about six or seven bungalows have been taken down and completely rebuilt. The delays in completing the work were considerable. In the heavily-mined constituencies of most hon. Members present, many claims are pending from people whose properties have suffered significant damage. There is a conflict between the ideas proposed by Waddilove. He believed that the emphasis should be placed on repairs rather than awarding a claimant money to carry out repairs or hire a contractor, which might lead to some claimants looking at the damage, deciding they can live with it and spending the money on something else. We should all want to avoid that because we want to maintain the housing stock and ensure that the compensation system for mining subsidence is genuine, repairs are carried out and there is no malpractice.
With respect to standards of repair, my constituents have sent me photographs time and again of the evidence of subsidence and I have been asked to visit properties to look at the standard of repairs carried out by British Coal or contractors employed by it. In many cases it is quite appalling. In the old days, British Coal had estates departments, with qualified workmen responsible for maintaining British Coal's housing stock and carrying out subsidence repairs. Their standards were quite high, but some of the standards of repair that I have seen in the past couple of years are not entirely adequate. The standard laid down in the Bill is
"to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant."
I hope that that provision will ease those problems.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned repeat claims. Having allowed for the appropriate stop notices and time limits, a claimant often submits a repeat claim for damage to that which has already been repaired. British Coal says that the damage is often due to the movement of the new plasterwork or the settling-in of new window frames. It is obvious that, in the absence of any other subsidence or factor, the damage must have been caused by mining subsidence not settling down properly or the same place being affected again.
With regard to the determination of claims, as many other hon. Members have said, the problem lies with British Coal, which is judge and jury in all matters.
British Coal has all the information relating to mining in the district, which is obviously one of the reasons why the onus of proof has been put on British Coal. In most cases it has the plans, although in some cases it has no records of where mining has occurred. As it usually has all the details, it is in a better position than the claimant to determine a claim. The final decision rests with British Coal and it is difficult for a claimant faced with British Coal to dispute its plans, information or what its mining surveyor says.
Column 110
British Coal is also the final arbiter when it comes to the level of damage. It has set standards relating to tilt, a problem that several hon. Members have mentioned : it can be as much as 5 ins. When a case is on the borderline, it can mean the difference between a compensation payment, the floors of the building being jacked and the property being knocked down and completely rebuilt. In properties in my constituency, claimants have rolled a billiard ball from one corner to another, and seen the tilts and twists. It is a bit like walking into the fun house in Blackpool, where the staircase goes sideways.Few cases go to the Lands Tribunal. The Select Committee found that, in 1987-88, 33 claims were taken to the tribunal, 31 were withdrawn and two were settled by British Coal beforehand. That is a weakness in the Bill which many hon. Members have pointed out. British Coal may present an arbitration scheme--over and above its current scheme, that is--but we have not been told how good such a scheme would be. Many hon. Members have already pointed out that the existing scheme is not good enough, because British Coal's permission is required before a claimant can take advantage of it. Another disadvantage is the imposition of a £50 charge before a case can go to arbitration.
Mr. Illsley : That may not sound much when repairs costing thousands of pounds are needed to a property, but it presents rather an obstacle to those in receipt of low incomes and benefits. I welcome the appointment of an adjudicator. The Select Committee report recommended the appointment of some kind of ombudsman, and I hope that the adjudicator will help to resolve some of the difficulties--although I still feel that an entirely independent adjudication system would ultimately be preferable. No doubt amendments to that effect can be debated in Committee.
I agree entirely with the idea of an advice centre, suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). If nothing else, it would get subsidence claims out of Members' surgeries. A national centre, or centres in various localities, could provide far more expertise than my hon. Friends or me.
On finding subsidence damage, many of my constituents go first to an estate agent or mining subsidence agent. Such people, however, simply act as a postbox between the claimant and British Coal, picking up the fee at the end of the day. Claimants come to me asking, "Will you please help me with my mining subsidence claim? The agent has told me that he can do nothing", or "The agent is dragging his feet." Usually, after an intervention by letter, things get moving again ; the agent generally does not know what to do, or simply does not want to do it. If more is involved than sending a letter to British Coal and waiting for a cheque, they do not want to know.
Mr. Meale : Many agents use hon. Members, or attempt to use them, simply to extend that postbox system, so that they can charge clients extra fees. Labour Members have received hundreds of letters from agents about their constituents, all of whom have been charged small amounts at some stage.
Mr. Illsley : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of mining agents. We on the Select
Column 111
Committee were surprised when we visited his constituency to see such a proliferation of mining subsidence agents. In my constituency, where coal mining has been carried on for hundreds of years, I cannot think of one such agent. It is usually surveyors or estate agents who provide a service for mining subsidence. I have considerable doubts about the involvement of agents and would prefer to see a simple, uncomplicated, free arbitration service backed by an advice centre from which people could get free and fair advice.I support the call for British Coal to keep a register. The Select Committee touched on that when we said that we thought that a register going back about 15 years and providing details of claims relating to properties should be brought into operation. British Coal has considerable records, and it would be its task to computerise them, bring them up to date and centralise them. There should be a register at some point to help claimants to avoid the problems of blight, and to show purchasers exactly how many claims have been made against a property. Searches by British Coal solicitors should remain compulsory, and more should be done to ensure that purchasers have enough information about property to enable them to be advised about exactly what dangers lie ahead.
I welcome the Bill's proposals about notification. Far too little notice is given to people in mining areas about when mining is to take place. Such information is always difficult to find and is always subject to change by British Coal. The notification provision would help in relation to time limits, and it would also help British Coal which could say that people had been notified about mining in their area at a precise time and should therefore have been on their guard for damage which occurred after that. It would alert residents of the possibility of damage, and that would be a big advantage. Some hon. Members talked about blight. The blight in some areas would be alleviated if people had confidence in the fairness of a compensation system and a simple arbitration scheme. Much of the blight on properties in mining areas could be removed by such schemes.
I am conscious of the effect of subsidence on collieries. Some collieries in my constituency were closed because of subsidence and some have been calculated as too expensive to run because of the projected cost of damage to buildings above the mine workings. Subsidence is a heavy cost on the industry at a time when it is facing many difficulties. I agree with the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Leicestershire, North-West that a balance must be struck. If all subsidence claims went ahead and the cost of them became excessive, it would be a greater threat to the future of the industry than the threats from imported coal and other forms of power generation.
Mining subsidence causes great stress and heartache. As many hon. Members have said, a person's property is probably the biggest investment he will ever make. I give the Bill a guarded welcome and look forward to the proceedings in Committee.
10.18 pm
Dr. Mike Woodcock (Ellesmere Port and Neston) : I warmly welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. The Government can take some credit for seeking to remove some of the worst injustices arising from the damage
Column 112
caused by subsidence. However, they can take a little less credit for the time that they have taken. As we all know, Waddilove reported as long ago as 1984. The Government took three years to respond, a further year to issue a consultation paper, and another three years to introduce the Bill. In 1986-87 the Energy Select Committee said that it was not satisfied with the system and asked why it had taken three years, following Waddilove, to devise a more equitable system of determining subsidence damage. A further four years have elapsed. Yes, the Government are to be warmly congratulated, but this action is not before time.I mention the delay because I seek not to be critical of the Government, but to stress the importance of getting it right this time. So many people have waited for so long that it would be tragic if we got it wrong again and if we did not ensure that the Bill contained all the right provisions. I pay tribute to the people who have campaigned long and hard to have the Bill brought to fruition. I mention particularly, but not exclusively, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who was particularly helpful while he was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The united industry working party has joined many other organisations that are concerned about remedying subsidence damage. Without its efforts, we should probably not be debating the Bill tonight.
Let me declare an interest--in fact, several interests. I advise the Chamber of Coal Traders ; I live in an area and in a house affected by subsidence damage ; I have business premises that are affected by subsidence damage ; my home is surrounded by farmland that is affected by subsidence damage. But, more important than all that, I know hundreds of people whose homes have been damaged. These people, without exception, regard the present law as inadequate. They think that British Coal is operating unreasonably and unfairly, and they are of the opinion that new legislation is long overdue. Similarly, every solicitor, every professional adviser and every accountant to whom I have spoken regards the present position as being unfair. Thus the Bill is to be warmly welcomed in principle. It is a large and complicated piece of legislation. I do not intend to deal at this stage with matters of detail, which can best be addressed in Committee. However, I want to mention a few points that the Bill addresses adequately, and a few of those with which it does not deal adequately. Let me deal first with those matters in respect of which the Bill does a good job. The Government are to be congratulated on the definition of the standard of repair. The Bill resolves the differences between the Acts of 1957 and 1975. British Coal will be obliged to carry out repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. That is satisfactory. Some commentators have argued that British Coal is not required to carry out repairs to the standard that applied before the damage occurred. I understand that argument, but I believe that, in practice, the courts will find little distinction between the two standards.
The second area in which the Bill does a good job concerns clarification of the time limit for notifying damage. Under the 1957 Act the requirement is two months. Clearly, such a short period is ridiculous--especially when viewed against British Coal's record in the discharge of its responsibilities. The six-year rule that was
Column 113
unilaterally imposed by British Coal under the 1975 Act was very often applied incorrectly. Many hon. Members have related their experience of British Coal's interpretation of the six years as starting on the date of the beginning of mining, rather than on the date on which damage occurred. That rule had no basis, either legally or morally. Clause 3 makes provision for claimants to serve a damage notice within six years of the first time they ought reasonably to have been aware of the damage. That is much clearer and much fairer. The third area in which the Bill does a good job concerns the obligation imposed on British Coal to meet claimants' expenses that have been reasonably incurred. That is a good provision, which is wider than the voluntary code that British Coal applies now under which it pays only for professional advice in many cases, and often for only part of that professional advice. I note that there is no definition of "reasonable", and that could cause a problem. It is wrong that anyone who undertakes a successful claim against British Coal should be left out of pocket. Those are the best provisions of the Bill. They are excellent and do a good job.Unfortunately, the Bill has many shortcomings, about which I hope that Ministers will think, and which I hope that the Committee will address. The first is the arbitration provisions covered by clause 41. Waddilove recommeded as early as 1984 that there should be an arbitration scheme. It was obviously necessary. I am sure that we can understand the reluctance of the man in the street to go to law against a mighty state industry using the taxpayers' money to fight its legal battles. For several years, British Coal claimed to have a voluntary system of independent adjudication, a system which it replaced in January this year, and that that voluntary scheme was one of the reasons why legislation on arbitration was not necessary. In reality, that scheme meant almost nothing. It was rarely used because British Coal stood in the way of its use.
Since 1 January, a new voluntary arbitration scheme, which at first glance appears to be fair and reasonable, has been in place. It is conducted by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, British Coal pays most of the costs, with claimants paying a £50 registration fee if it is proved wrong, and the findings are binding on both parties. One may think that that is excellent because, for the first time, claimants have the right to cheap, fair adjudication in disputes with British Coal. However, we must not be fooled. If one reads the small print, one sees that the scheme can be used only if both the claimant and British Coal agree. What nonsense that is. What use is a right of arbitration if the party that is in the wrong can refuse access to the arbitration process even if the claimant wants to use it? Arbitration is a common feature of many commercial contracts. For example, if parties cannot agree on a rent review, each has the right of arbitration. That fact is a spur to each party to act reasonably, not to make excessive demands and to seek agreement. If one party to any commercial contract can act unreasonably and then deny the other party access to arbitration, an arbitration scheme is made worthless. It is like saying that anybody anywhere can agree to arbitration. Of course he can, but that is not a right to arbitration. A right exists only if both parties can go to arbitration even if the other party objects.
Mr. Barron : The hon. Gentleman is making a good case about the arbitration scheme which we were told was
Column 114
introduced on 1 January. He asked earlier whether carrying out repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the person whose property had been damaged was the right sort of test. "Reasonable" crops up again in relation to the six-year rule. One has to show that it is reasonable to expect a person to know that the damage had occurred six years before. A dispute on that point can be denied referral to arbitration if British Coal denies that it falls within the six-year rule.Dr. Woodcock : The hon. Gentleman has still not grasped the point, which has been made several times, that, under the Bill, a claim can be made up to six years after the damage occurred, not six years after mining. If we were to rely on the provisions of the arbitration scheme, British Coal could refuse anyone the right to go to arbitration, no matter whether the case arose in fewer than six years, six years or more than six years. Whatever it is, British Coal has to agree. If it wished, British Coal could say, "If we feel that we are right and that we have a cast iron case, we shall let you go to arbitration. If we think that you are right and that we are wrong, we shall refuse you arbitration and you will not be able to go before the arbitrators." That is crazy.
The Bill will allow the Secretary of State to direct that British Coal sets up a proper scheme, and in that respect the Bill is deficient. It should require the Secretary of State to require British Coal to submit such a scheme. We all know what will happen in the absence of a requirement. We have a voluntary new arbitration scheme, and it is likely that the Bill will be enacted. If we are not careful, the Secretary of State will say, "Let us see whether the arbitration scheme works. Now is not the time to legislate." If that happens, we shall have another three or four years of British Coal refusing arbitration while the Secretary of State makes up his mind whether to introduce a scheme. The arbitration should be put on a statutory footing now. Claimants should have a right to go to arbitration irrespective of British Coal's wishes.
Secondly, the Bill's provisions to provide compensation for inconvenience and disturbance are deficient. Clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to require such a scheme. It should go further and require imposition. British Coal has demonstrated time and again its ability to persuade the Department of Energy to adopt a course that is not in the interests of the victims of subsidence damage. The House should not leave a further loophole. Instead of giving the Secretary of State the right to ask for a scheme, it should require a scheme to be introduced.
The third defect is the three-year limit on instituting legal proceedings from when British Coal was first in breach of its duty to repair. On the face of it, that seems reasonable, but what is the position of all the claimants who, during the past seven years since the Waddilove committee reported, have had their claims rejected under the old arbitrary rules? Those claimants would not be turned down if the Bill were an Act. Are we saying that such claimants will be disbarred under clause 42, which imposes a three-year rule? If so, that is not justice.
It is right that the Bill should impose a three-year limit on new claims, but it should allow all claimants who were rejected under the arbitrary approach to institute proceedings under the terms set out in the Bill or to make a new claim under the Bill irrespective of the six-year rule for notifying damage. If the Government do not accept that, thousands of people will be denied justice. There are
Column 115
thousands of householders who had claims rejected by British Coal's interpretation of its self-imposed six-year rule.The fourth defect is to be found in clause 43, which deals with the investigation of complaints. The clause allows the Secretary of State to set up a scheme but I believe that it should impose one. We have watchdogs for all sorts of things in public life and in industry. We even have a watchdog for coal consumers, the Domestic Coal Consumers Council. Yet we have nothing for the victims of subsidence. Experience dictates that there should be such a scheme.
I shall detain the House for not much longer. I have mentioned some of the Bill's principal defects but there are others, including the discretion that British Coal has and retains in determining the method of meeting a claim. No similar discretion is allowed to claimants. There is no requirement to notify all owners of property rather than occupiers. A time limit is imposed on claimants but not on British Coal. British Coal may take months to prepare schedules of damage in the absence of a specific time limit. On receiving such a schedule, the claimant has only 28 days to consider it and reject it. He may be on holiday or he may have other matters to attend to. He may be in need of professional advice but he has only 28 days. Why are time limits imposed on a man who has no professional advice and expertise, whereas no time limits are imposed on British Coal, which has professional advice and expertise and is staffed to deal with matters in a timely manner?
All those matters should be dealt with by the Bill. Basically, it is a good Bill and it should be welcomed. It has the right intentions, but I fear that it is still weighted in favour of British Coal and against the man in the street. The Government should take the opportunity to table suitable amendments and so ensure that justice is no longer denied to the thousands of claimants who, because of lack of money, expertise, will or courage, have had full justice denied to them for so long. Yes, the Government are to be congratulated on at last introducing the Bill, but they have some way to go yet. They must not lose the opportunity to accept sensible amendments in Committee and to ensure, once and for all, that the problem of subsidence damage is eradicated.
10.35 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |