| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : I view the Bill from my experience as an ex-industrial relations officer for the National Coal Board, as a local councillor for 20 years and as a Member of Parliament whose constituency has been blighted by mining subsidence for some considerable time.
Anyone who has not seen a complete village subject to the severest mining subsidence has not seen mining subsidence. In that village, 142 prefabricated houses, 36 stone-built houses and virtually two streets were demolished. It has taken 20 years for the village to come on stream again, but come on stream it has. Its scars have disappeared and the gaps between buildings are now gardens. The Bill, like every mining Bill, provides no compensation for the stress and strain that those people suffered in those 20 years. There is no compensation for
Column 116
people whose houses were severely damaged and who, as a result, had nervous breakdowns and sometimes ended up in an institution. That happened to two of my constituents. Although one could not put one's hand on one's heart and say that the cause was subsidence, there is no doubt that it contributed.When I asked British Coal why no payments are made for stress and strain, it said that stress and strain cannot be measured. The same used to be said of compensation for diseases, but the Department of Health now measures degrees of disability. I see no reason why stress and strain because of subsidence should not be calculated on the same basis.
The hon. Member for Leicestershire North-West (Mr. Ashby) is a lawyer, and I accept his interpretation of the six-year rule, but what matters is not his but the board's interpretation. It has interpreted its six-year rule in many ways. I understand it as the period not from when coal has begun to be taken out but when it has ceased to be taken out, after which the board accepts no liability. That is why I think that there is a great need for an arbitration scheme that allows either of the parties to decide whether to go for arbitration. Like the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock), I know what will happen : the board will agree to arbitration for cases that it knows it can win, but not for cases that it is likely to lose. If a claimant's bid for arbitration is refused, he can go either to the Secretary of State or the Lands Tribunal. Nobody will apply to the Lands Tribunal because of the sheer cost and the length of time that an application takes. The way in which arbitration works in industrial relations is at the back of British Coal's mind--if both parties agree to take their dispute to arbitration, the case goes to arbitration, but if one party decides not to do so, it does not. British Coal is probably considering the possibility of creating precedents.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said that he would like to remove the clause allowing a person to pick his own builder or to do the job himself. I should like that clause strengthened. I am involved in a case in which British Coal decided that its workmen were too busy to do some work, which meant that a long period would pass before remedial work could be done. British Coal asked the person concerned to get three quotations from three builders on the schedule of repairs which had been agreed. He did so, but because they did not agree with what British Coal thought should be the cost, the quotations were rejected.
I asked the man to get three more quotations, to find out whether the first three were similar, and he did. Lo and behold, they were in line with the three previous quotations. British Coal will not accept the quotations because it says that the cost is £1,000 higher than it would be if it did the work.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I returned to the Chamber just as the hon. Gentleman commented on my speech. I shall check Hansard. I did not say that I wanted that clause taken out of the Bill ; I was merely asking would-be claimants to exercise a little caution if they wished to choose their own contractor, for the good reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) illustrated. We can leave the clause in the Bill, but householders should be careful if they use their own contractor.
Column 117
Mr. McKay : Indeed. If householders use their own contractor, or do the job themselves, all obligations on British Coal cease. If anything happens after that, British Coal can say, "It was your builder, not ours. Your builder must correct the problem." There can be no retrospective claim on British Coal.I shall give some cases which could be put right if the arbitration provisions were remedied. The whole of a farmer's land suffered from mining subsidence which was so severe that he had to sell his herd of cows because his milking and cow sheds fell in. Unfortunately, that coincided with the introduction of milk quotas. He had no cows, so he did not get a milk quota. He now has a marvellous milk parlour and cow sheds, but no cows. There is no compensation to cover such a knock-on effect.
I am involved in another case in which British Coal said, "That was not our fault. The subsidence must have been caused by shrinkage." However, it has pulled down and rebuilt four houses nearby and repaired the adjoining property and other property. There is the spectacle of an 8 ft wall, half of it new--constructed by British Coal--and the other half broken because British Coal will not accept liability for it. It says that the property is too old and that the problems are not caused by mining subsidence. My argument is that it may be old property, but there was a knock-on effect from subsidence. That person is caught. If mining subsidence is not to blame, the damage will be the subject of an insurance claim. The insurance company says that mining subsidence is to blame, so my constituent cannot win. The case will probably end up in court somewhere. Let me return to the question of the board doing the repairs. The board's workmen were advised against
Column 118
jacking up a huge bungalow. The person who lived in that bungalow had spent his savings on building it because his wife was an invalid. He built it with that in mind. The board decided to jack the building up rather than doing what it was doing next door, which was to pull down and rebuild. As a result, the bungalow now has six steps even though the couple built it to provide ground-level accommodation for the wife. There is no compensation for that ; there is nothing that the couple can do about it. The Bill should take such matters into consideration.The board always seeks to include its favourite clause--the full and final settlement clause. How can one have full and final settlement when the earth continues to move? In the village of Elsecar, for example, the earth is still moving after 20 years. Yet I guarantee that if anyone now submits a claim, British Coal will go back to the full and final settlement clause.
Those are some of the matters that the Bill should put right. I welcome the Bill because it is a step in the right direction. The Committee must bear in mind the fact that the Bill could represent our last opportunity to deal with the matter. If the industry continues in its present direction it certainly will be. With the shrinkage of the industry, it could be our last chance to put things right.
Neither the Committee nor the House should rush things. We should get the details right. There seems to me to be a large degree of consensus and I think that the Committee will be a happy one. The agreement between hon. Members on both sides of the House should be translated into fact so that the Bill will be better when it emerges from Committee.
Column 119
10.46 pmMr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) said that this was very much a Committee Bill. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have argued, it will certainly require extensive amendment in Committee and on Report. The Minister described the Bill as a consolidation Bill. To the extent that it is a consolidation Bill, it consolidates legislation which is not acceptable and which needs to be extended. We must ensure that it is a stepping stone to help us to deal with the problems of coal mining subsidence rather than being another stumbling block in our way, and it is in danger of becoming a stumbling block unless some of the ideas expressed in the debate today are taken on board in Committee.
Many hon. Members have referred to clause 41, which I approach from a slightly different angle. It deals with arbitration procedures and says that
"The Secretary of State may give directions to the Corporation" to introduce the scheme. Hon. Members have emphasised the word "may" and I shall not go further into that argument. There may also be a problem as to whether the corporation is the appropriate body to produce the scheme and proposals, given the problems that exist within its existing arbitration scheme.
The corporation claimed to establish its scheme from 1 January this year. On 21 December 1990 it put out a press release to say that the scheme, under the auspices of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, would be coming into operation. In fact, the corporation had been operating a scheme before that date. A constituent of mine, Mr. Briggs, had his case dealt with in a report produced in November 1990, although the scheme was supposed only to be starting on 1 January 1991. Problems with Mr. Briggs's case highlight the difficulties with the proposed arbitration scheme as a scheme that could be developed in future or one that might be acceptable for three or four years before something more substantial is introduced in its place. Mr. Briggs lives in Franklin drive, Staveley, in Chesterfield. That is the address that suffers the coal mining subsidence problem. However, he lived elsewhere for two and a half years after the board moved him out. The board must believe that Mr. Briggs has caused it many difficulties and problems because he was terribly dissatisfied with the work that the board was carrying out.
The case went to arbitration only after a great deal of work had been carried out and the arbitration system functioned only in the board's interests. The scheme was that operated by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and it is the one that was supposed to begin from the start of this year. There are some slight differences in its terms, but it is almost an early draft of the scheme that was introduced in a tidied up form at the beginning of the year. The arbitrator was Mr. M. D. Joyce of M. D. Joyce Associates, a firm of consultant geo-technical engineers. Whether they were the most appropriate people to conduct the arbitration is open to question as they do not seem to have had great expertise in bricks and mortar or the problems associated with the house as distinct from the geo-technical skills that Mr. Joyce undoubtedly possessed.
Column 120
I received a letter from Mr. Briggs on 30 October in which he wrote :"it seems to me that the arbitration cooked-up' between the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators does not permit a person of limited means to enter into Arbitration This method of Arbitration rests, in the first instance, on documentary submissions by both parties and for most this would entail a complainant engaging professional assistance In my case it has cost something approaching £900, so far."
Although it is stated in the board's arbitration scheme that costs are covered, that relates to the costs of employing the arbitrator and the work that the arbitrator carries out. The scheme does not cover the costs involved in preparing the claimant's submission. In Mr. Briggs's case, the matters that had been in dispute for some time cost a considerable amount. Mr. Briggs claimed for 49 items totalling £5,407. In the end, he received £1,471 and he had to meet £900 costs in connection with the claim. Therefore, he received about 10 per cent. of the initial claim. That was said to be in full and final settlement of his claim. However, Mr. Briggs had sought a determination of the costs if the claim had been settled by payment rather than by work that the board was to carry out. Of 49 items, 28 were found in favour of the board and were the more costly items, and they averaged £141 each. One item was agreed--that is, that one third would be paid to Mr. Briggs--and 20 were found in his favour, and they averaged £73. I shall quote section 4.22 of the report to illustrate something about its nature. It concerns a claim for carpet fitting. The report states :
"The fitting of the carpet is poor but it has not been proved that it ever fitted properly."
The onus of proof being in the hands of the claimant rather than being left with the board has presented a great problem. The report goes on to state :
"Present gaps cannot be attributed to subsidence since the walls were not rebuilt in new positions."
That is an astonishing claim--one must have walls that have been rebuilt, rather than walls that have been repaired, and ground that had been disturbed for other reasons for there to be a genuine gap in the carpeting. The report goes on to state :
"Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondent and make no award to the claimant. There is, however, one vent plate still to be fitted, but this will be done at negligible cost."
Whatever that minor cost is, it is to be met by Mr. Briggs. Throughout the report similar provisions were challenged by Mr. Briggs. However, in the end he agreed, because of the pressures that the board began to put on him to make use of the arbitration system. That arbitration system is now fully in place--Mr. Briggs has been used as a guinea pig--and the system is in danger of either being accepted under clause 41 or held up by clause 41. It is operating, and we are asked to see how it begins to pan out in the long run. I hope that the Committee will be careful about that matter. A host of similar measures are contained within the legislation. At the moment they are something we know not what. We may have a decent piece of legislation in the offing and it might be able to be bashed into shape in Committee, but it would be terrible if, in Committee, the Government got out the Whips, pushed the legislation, and claimed that they have produced something that answers the criticisms that have been made. We would then have a cosmetic provision that would not be much different from that which exists in law at the moment. The whole matter is yet to be played for.
Column 121
I hope that the Minister has listened to the arguments and will say that this measure is merely an agenda for further legislation and that that legislation will be properly and fully considered. 10.58 pmMr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) : I shall not attempt to repeat the points that my hon. Friends have made, because the hour is late and they have touched on many points in the Bill that are worthy of consideration in Committee. However, I shall mention one or two points that have not been mentioned. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for the work that he has done on this matter since he came to the House in 1987 and his dedication in pushing for this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and other hon. Members who sat on the Energy Select Committee and visited Mansfield, which is on the edge of my constituency, did a first-class job.
There is something about the Bill which has not been mentioned and which is rather peculiar. It was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, for instance, despite promises that it would be. Now the Bill has suddenly been brought before the House. It makes one wonder whether the previous Prime Minister was against such a measure in view of her vendetta against the miners following the strike. Perhaps a change of Prime Minister has allowed the measure to be introduced. What is the reason for its suddenly being introduced? One reason is certain. At the bottom of page iv the Bill says :
"The Bill is not expected to have any significant effects on central government expenditure."
In other words, the Bill will not cost the Government a penny. Why the Bill could not have been introduced earlier if everyone knew that it would not cost the Government a penny, and why it has been introduced now, when the Government are in dire financial circumstances, has not been explained. But it is obvious to my way of thinking. If the Tory Government are re-elected at the next general election, one of the first things that they will do is sell off the coal mining industry.
Privatisation of the coal mining industry would be severely set back if potential buyers faced vast unknown expenditure on compensation for coal mining subsidence. People will be eager to buy the coal mining industry, not because of the coal under the ground, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) worked out is worth about 3p per tonne to a potential buyer, but for the vast acreage of land which British Coal owns. Many thousands, if not millions, of acres and many square miles of land owned by British Coal have planning permission for industrial development, all in ripe areas, where there is plenty of surplus labour. It will be a bonanza for any potential buyer unless there is a subsidence problem. When pits have shut in my area--in Worksop near Mansfield--we have tried to bring in potential developers to build new factories. The one thing that terrifies potential developers is the word "subsidence". They run a mile, even if they are told that the building can be put on a raft, it will be a light pre-fabricated factory and only girls using sewing machines will be in the factory so there will be no weight on the area. As soon as they hear the word "subsidence" potential developers are off. That will be a great deterrent to anyone wanting to buy the land owned by the coal industry.
Column 122
If the Conservatives win the next election they will build the two new ports at Killingholme and suck in imported coal from South Africa, Bolivia and Colombia which will finish off the British coal industry.Mr. Brandon-Bravo rose --
Mr. Ashton : I give way to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), who has just come in.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was here at the beginning of the debate, which is more than he was. He is overplaying the card of subsidence deterring developers coming into former mining areas. I do not know whether my constiutuency is unique. I do not think that it is. On the site of the Wilford pit there is now an industrial site which employs at least five to 10 times as many people as ever went down the pit. That is a massive industrial development. The Wollaton pit to which I referred in my speech has a 600-property housing estate on it. The hon. Gentleman is overplaying that card.
Mr. Ashton : The hon. Gentleman thinks that every pit is the same. I apologise for coming in late, but I had urgent constituency business to attend to. Some of us go to our constituencies and have things planned three weeks in advance. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, who represents a little piece of Nottingham, I represent 300 square miles and the 50 parish councils need a great deal of attention. I shall not respond to his remarks about Wilford or other such pits, because he represents a city area.
The reason why the Government have introduced the Bill and why it will not cost them anything is pretty apparent. They have made this move in case they win the next general election. I do not believe that they will but if they do and they want to privatise the pits, arrangements will be in place to compensate potential buyers. Who will pay British Coal? Has the measure been costed? Of course, it has not. I have not seen any estimate of the costs that British Coal will have to bear. I am willing to give way to the Minister or anyone who can say how many millions it is estimated that it will cost. We all feel sorry for our poor constituents. Some of them have had a terrible time because of planning blight, which has prevented them from selling their houses. They come to my surgeries and ask me to take the matter up, but they beg me not to mention subsidence because they know that if it gets out that a certain street is affected they will not be able to sell their houses.
How many people face that problem, and how much will it cost? As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield knows, our district council carried out a survey and sent out a questionnaire with the electoral registration form, asking, "Has your house got subsidence? Have you ever made a claim?"
Mr. Haynes : They did that in Ashfield.
Mr. Ashton : Yes, the questionnaire was sent out in Ashfield and in Bolsover. It was sent to 37,000 houses. How much will compensation cost? A massive amount : if it were £1,000 per house, it would be £37 million. How many pits will that shut down? Will British Coal have to bear the whole cost? Those questions have not been fully considered, nor has the overall strategy and the economic consequences for British Coal.
Column 123
Another factor, about which I questioned the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, is that when my constituents buy their houses--whether from British Coal or from anyone else--and they get a mortgage from the Halifax, the Alliance and Leicester or some other building society, they are told that they have to insure the property. On top of £200 a month for a mortgage, they have to pay £30 for insurance. God knows why they pay insurance, because when they claim from the insurance company, it does not want to know. Insurance companies say that they are not covered for subsidence and landslip and tell them, the home owners, to read the small print as there is an exclusion clause. Insurance companies do not charge any less for insuring houses in a coal mining area, but they refuse to pay out. Even if it is proved that the pit does not run anywhere near the house--I know of such cases in Worksop--the insurance companies still say that the damage must have been caused by landslip and it is a well-known fact that they do not pay for that.What have the Government done to get to grips with the insurance companies? Why is there nothing in the Bill to ensure that they are challenged before £37 million compensation is loaded on to the coal board which might shut some more pits? But the insurance companies will get away scot free. No one says a word to them. No one says that they have any responsibilities or that they should be taken to the insurance ombudsman. No one says that my constitutents should not have to pay as much insurance because the coal board will pay out. Those major elements are missing from the Bill. There has been a conspiracy of silence between the Government and the insurance companies. Why is the Bill being brought in now? What will it cost? How many pits will shut down because of it? What damage will it do and what will be the economic consequences for British Coal? British Coal are not angels, but they are certainly not villains, as they have been portrayed.
I hope that in Committee we will get some of the answers to my questions. I hope that we will not pass a Bill without knowing what it will cost a nationalised industry, how many houses are involved and without any surveys. There have been no estimates of the costs involved. Someone has to pay and, because coal is a nationalised industry, Conservative Members do not give a damn. If British Coal has to pay millions of pounds in compensation it will shut more pits, and we must realise that before we start down this road.
11.9 pm
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : I am a little surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who has poured cold water on the argument about mining subsidence and the way that it seriously affects the coal mining industry.
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy, who is here for this debate, is a nice young chap. He is learning fast about the coal mining industry. He will certainly learn fast in Committee. I can assure him that I will be one of the Opposition Members in Committee, arguing in favour of many of the provisions in the Bill, but also arguing--along with my colleagues--for certain amendments to the Bill, with a view to further improvements. That is not altogether satisfactory.
Column 124
This issue came to light just before I first entered the House, and it has been argued about right up to the present day. We are led to believe that, at long last, the Government have got off their backside and are prepared to do something. I welcomed the Waddilove report. That committee did a first class job, and clearly stated that claimants were not getting a fair deal. The Government eventually took that report on board and accepted it. The then Secretary of State for Energy stood at the Dispatch Box and said so.Even though the Waddilove report said wonderful things to the people in my constituency and those in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), we have been kicked from pillar to post. For years we have been asked at our surgeries, "What are you going to do about this problem?" People queue up to discuss their claims.
Only this morning I received a letter from a constituent whose claim had been rejected by the Coal Board, and that individual wants to know what action I will take. I informed him that we were to debate a Bill on the Floor of the House this evening that I hoped would sort out his problem. One issue that will confront the Under-Secretary in Committee is the situation in respect of people whose claims have been rejected in the past. There are many of them in my constituency, as there are in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
When Ian MacGregor's appointment as chairman of British Coal was announced, the then Secretary of State was the Member of Parliament for a Croydon constituency. What did he know about mining and subsidence? We warned him not to appoint MacGregor, because we knew what would happen. He caused a flipping strike right through the industry. He also got his consultants and advisers to examine the cost of mining subsidence. When the Government saw the figure, they said, "We'd better shove this over to the Energy Select Committee, to find out the real global picture."
Those of us who represent mining constituencies knew the real problem--not that Secretary of State from Croydon. Mr. Speaker is the Member of Parliament for a Croydon seat, and I also want to give him a warning-- through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker plans to retire at some stage.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : So does the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Haynes : That is correct. I am retiring too, but this evening I am representing my constituents, because they have been given a raw deal. We are looking to the young Minister to give them a fair deal. I think that we might win in Committee. There is obviously agreement across the Floor of the House that something must be done. At long last, the Government are prepared to do something. When we get Upstairs, we shall see how much.
I have advised Mr. Speaker that, when he retires, he should come to live in the beautiful county of Nottinghamshire. It is gorgeous. Mind you, Mr. Speaker passes by my constituency from time to time. In fact, he has accepted an invitation to visit the Royal British Legion in my constituency in June. He returns to that beautiful county. He often visits and stays the weekend with some friends. He travels the Nottinghamshire roads in his limousine with Robert, his driver. Being on those roads is like being at Blackpool on a switchback going up and
Column 125
down--it is caused by mining subsidence. He has experienced mining subsidence on the Nottinghamshire roads. Until the problems and negotiations are sorted out, it will cost the county council a fortune to put things right on the roads.I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw that a great deal of cost is involved, but there is also much suffering on the part of our constituents. An elderly lady of 82, who lived in a bungalow, came to my surgery. She and her husband, who had died, had spent all their lives saving so that they might own their own bungalow. They did not want to live in a local authority bungalow, although they were plentiful then, before the Tories came to power. She came to my surgery, told me that her bungalow had subsidence and asked me to help. I said, "Let me know about it, ducky." She explained the problem in detail.
The board said that it would not settle the claim because it was going to mine another, lower, seam under the bungalow. By the time the seam came through, eight years had gone by and the board rejected her claim. Similar incidents will occur with a six-year limit. We must clarify the six-year period in Committee.
When I became the Member of Parliament for Ashfield, having worked in that wonderful pit at Clipstone, just outside Mansfield, for 35 years, the National Coal Board in Nottinghamshire offered a fairer deal. The time limit for working things out with the Coal Board was not six years, but 12. But what happened? MacGregor was appointed chairman of the board, and he stopped that allowance straight away. There was fairness in Nottinghamshire, but that man from America--fancy appointing an American to run an industry in this country when we had people, including one in the House of Lords, who would have done a marvellous job-- [Hon. Members :-- "Name him!"] He was the former Member for Barnsley--now I have named him.
Mr. Haynes : No, my hon. Friend has got it wrong there. Those are the sorts of problems that we have in our constituences and that we want sorted out. I am sure that the Minister has listened to every contribution that has been made this afternoon, even from Conservative Members, who said that their constituents were not getting a fair deal. He has had his ear bashed today, and he will get it walloped in Committee if he does not take the right course. I have given the Minister fair warning. I have covered the issue of the board disqualifying a claim because it has been made after a certain period.
I have been to see some of the work done by the contractors that the Coal Board is supposed to have on a list. Local authorities could do the work, but the board appoint contractors--some of them are cowboys. We talk about residents having to be in a caravan in the front garden while their house is being repaired, but more often than not the contractor pushes off to do another job and leaves the residents in a caravan well into the winter. That is ridiculous and we want to get away from all that. I hope that the Bill will achieve that.
Hon. Members have talked about the board buying properties because they are so severely damaged. The board has paid the complainant compensation, he or she has been satisfied with the amount and accepted it--agents have been used, some of whom have made themselves
Column 126
millionaires. They have made a fortune-- riding around in Rolls-Royces. I hope that we are going to get rid of that. The board, however, has been using the properties that it has bought as transit properties, which people can move into while their own properties are being done up. It should be encouraged to do much more than that, so that people do not suffer in the interim. We must look after the people whom we represent.I am sorry that I have to mention the next point--individuals being refused by the board. The Minister said earlier that, if the board rejected the claim, the claimant had the right to go to the tribunal ; but through the Secretary of State. What if the result is a heap of claims awaiting the OK from the Secretary of State? I am sure that you have experienced that yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have put questions to Ministers--including Secretaries of State--and have sometimes waited months for a reply. What if that happens with claimants whose cases have had to be referred to the Secretary of State?
The Secretary of State has not been in the job for long ; he is an accountant, or something like that. He does not know anything about mining ; he hasn't a flipping clue. He should come and talk to people like my colleagues and me, who know what mining and mining subsidence are about. We must speed up the process of referrals to the Secretary of State. Then we shall be getting somewhere--helping those poor people living out in our constituencies who have been suffering for so many years. What has been happening is scandalous.
I shall sit down in a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You need not look at your watch ; there are four clocks here, and I can see them all. Do not worry about it. This debate is open-ended, by the way : you know what that means, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After all, you are experienced in this regard. You serve in a mining area, and there were many pits in your constituency in years gone by. You know what it is all about. You knew all about it when you were Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, and spoke from that Dispatch Box. You knew what the workers had to go through in mining and other heavy industries. I thought that you had a problem with Doncaster racecourse at one time, but I understand that the hot weather caused that problem rather than mining subsidence. Well, we have overcome that problem, have we not?
In the 15 years in which I worked for Nottinghamshire county council--and even before--it had a system called Clasp. I think that the hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) will know about that, because they know how local authorities work. The council built many schools and elderly people's homes that were able to take the movement of land, especially when it was due to mining subsidence. It built the properties throughout the county--right out in the mining areas. They could stand the movement, which was a good thing : we sent salesmen to foreign parts, and they were flogging them like nobody's business. The same kind of progress and advancement could be used in the mining areas. Nottinghamshire county council--Labour-controlled, of course- -has given everyone a lead.
I hope that the Bill will not be long in Committee--I am sure that the Minister will agree--and that the right things will be in it, in the interests of the people whom we serve.
Here comes the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste)--and he has only just walked in!
Column 127
11.24 pmMr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet) : I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me now that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has subsided into his seat. I apologise to the House for not being present for the bulk of the debate. I had to attend to some pressing constituency matters. I shall be extremely brief and take up a small fraction of the time taken by the hon. Member for Ashfield. It is important to place on record the fact that the Bill has the widest possible cross-party support of hon. Members in mining constituencies from one end of the country to the other. Families can have few more distressing experiences than to have the quality of their home and home life destroyed by subsidence. Many of the technical problems of the past have led to long and distressing delays and great difficulties in achieving fairness.
On behalf of my hon. Friends from Yorkshire, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward a Bill which will address serious practical problems. The onus of proof is now firmly on British Coal and people will be able to bring in outside contractors if they are unhappy about delays caused by British Coal. Plainly, it is important for the Bill's details to be right, and that will be determined in Committee. I again congratulate the Government on an important measure which will improve the quality of life of many people. 11.26 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) explained why he could not be present for the whole of the debate and he congratulated the Government. His congratulations are a trifle premature. It would have been more appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to express gratitude to the Government for presenting the House with an opportunity to put right a matter that has caused problems for a long time.
As the Minister knows, we do not intend to divide the House, but that does not mean that we do not have deep reservations about some aspects of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) has announced his retirement, but the energy and vigour with which he spoke show that he will not go out with a whimper. There are some bangs left, and no doubt we shall hear a few in Committee if the Minister does not pay heed not merely to the suggestions of my hon. Friends, but to some of the pointed criticisms of Conservative Members. We have taken careful note of those criticisms and we trust that Conservative Members will join us in Committee to see to it that the improvements that their constituents and ours want to see are embodied in the Bill.
I want to be brief, but I need a little time to refer to some of the issues that have been raised. While we welcome the opportunity provided by the Bill, some hon. Members pointed to the rather protracted period that has elapsed since the subject was first raised. Some hon. Members were deeply concerned about the matter before I entered the House in 1970. Concern has been growing for years and it is a pity that such a Bill was not presented to the House three or four years ago.
I am especially grateful to the Select Committee for building on the recommendations in the Waddilove report to the point where the Government could no longer ignore the issue. I shall not go into great detail because close
Column 128
scrutiny is a matter for the Committee. Before the Minister makes his winding-up speech, perhaps he would look at paragraph 12 of the Government's response to the Select Committee report. It says : "cases where claims have been rejected on grounds of time limits could be referred to the new voluntary arbitration procedure." That needs to be set against the six-year proposal and the Minister may feel disposed to comment on that in his winding-up speech. If not, we shall certainly feel it necessary--as I hope Conservative Members will--to pursue the matter in Committee.The Minister referred to the principle embodied in the slogan "The polluter pays". That is a slogan which both parties have voiced for a long time, but it seems to me that it has been accepted uncritically by Conservative Members. For that reason I want to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward), who referred to subsidence and pollution from ancient mining operations. Not only are maps and plans of such antiquity unavailable ; we do not even know who owned the mines. It may be argued that subsidence from collieries and, indeed, coalfields that had closed, or were approaching closure, before the passage of the nationalisation legislation of 1947 ought not to be a burden on the British coal industry as it makes enormous efforts to survive and succeed. It is all very well to make the polluter pay, but absolute reliance on that principle can have dangers. A polluter who has been dead for several hundred years cannot be made to pay.
There is another aspect of Government policy to which we should turn. If the polluter lacks the means to pay--if he becomes bankrupt, if his business folds, as so many businesses are folding now--who will compensate the community? Who will make up for the pollution? Excessive reliance on a slogan, without any detailed consideration, can be dangerous. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that matter before the Committee stage starts.
Very little has been said about the proposals to provide compensation for farmers. I am amazed that two Conservative Members from Nottinghamshire devoted their attention to their constituents rather than to their agricultural interests. They may feel that the Bill will assist them to retain their seats. However, if, in Committee, they do not support amendments to which they appear to have been giving credence, we shall ensure that they are more dependent on the farms. If they fail to support us in Committee, that factor will loom increasingly large.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) gave a detailed analysis of the Bill. Several hon. Members have paid very full tribute to him for the considerable amount of work that he has done. He referred to COALS, the local authority organisation which has done a great deal of work. I invite Conservative Members who may serve on the Standing Committee to look very carefully indeed at the balanced and informative material that that organisation has provided. I hope that it will help to determine some votes on the amendments that are necessary.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and several of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), referred to the almost inevitable weaknesses of the unrefined arbitration system that looks likely to emerge. I suggest that the Minister pays particular attention to the
Column 129
case of Mr. Briggs from Staveley. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield made the point that society and the industrial base are changing. He feels that people may now be more prepared to speak up against the interests of the large coal industry in order to defend their rights as individuals. There may be some truth in that. The most important reference to current developments came from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). In effect--these are not his exact words--he said, "If we can't have the money, we in the coalfields are not going to have the muck." The problems in south Wales and in areas like mine in south Yorkshire have been sufficiently oppressive to convince us that we must press for environmental decency. Environmental decency means not compelling people to suffer the unfairness--sometimes protracted unfairness--and hardship caused by subsidence.My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), in referring, quite properly, to the work of the Select Committee on Energy, said that the evidence given to it showed that compensation for subsidence was about 1.5 per cent. of British Coal's total costs. We are not talking about vast sums that would cripple that industry. My hon. Friend also made it clear that we are not criticising the officials of British Coal who have to administer the costs.
Mr. Allen McKay : Subsidence payments went in three stages. The first was the learning stage, the second was when the then National Coal Board was extremely generous, so much so that some buildings were improved, and the third was when purse strings were tightened. That stage coincided with the decision to move the levy on coal into a global sum and for each pit to pay for local damage. That was a terrible mistake.
Mr. Hardy : It was a mistake and it was dangerous, given some of the people at the top of British Coal, to make each colliery pay such costs. That sometimes assisted them to close a colliery rather earlier than it should have been closed. We should make it clear that the people carrying out these responsible tasks in British Coal are not being singled out for criticism. To illustrate the point, I can quote a constituency case of mine, particularly as the individual involved did not support my party. One of my constituents savagely criticised British Coal for not being kind and helpful in dealing with his demands for substantial compensation for subsidence. The reply of the British Coal officer concerned took the rather unusual form of sending a copy of my constituent's letter complaining about the damage that subsidence had done to his house and demanding money from British Coal together with the estate agent's blurb, which said that his house was a wonderful mansion in perfect condition. In those circumstances, I did not feel disposed to criticise the staff of British Coal in my area.
The area that I represent has had coal mining under it for up to 340 years, and has suffered mightily. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) spoke about the effect of subsidence on a dairy farmer in his constituency, but I recall that, as a result of subsidence in my constituency, he once had to rescue a cow--rather an amusing story.
Mr. Allen McKay : I was a retained fireman when a shallow seam subsided. That was when I saw three cows underground.
Column 130
Mr. Hardy : That was due to a decision made by the National Coal Board as it then was, when I served on the local authority. It told the council that it was essential that it mined the Melton field from Wath main colliery and that, although it was a shallow seam, the quality of the coal was desperately needed in the national interest. The board assured us that it would do its best to ensure that there was adequate compensation. The local authority agreed that mining should begin. Within days, houses had begun to collapse, and within a short time the council had to rehouse what were significant numbers of people for a relatively small authority. We received a letter from a lady who complained about the foul language being used by workers whom she could hear from her dining room while they were working underground extracting coal. We were naturally able to assure her that no miners at Wath main colliery indulged in strong language, but that helped us to put a case to British Coal for adequate compensation for our community.
However, that community was hurt. As some of my hon. Friends have said, distress and trauma--the Minister used the word trauma--are caused when people have to leave their homes for months or when housewives who are proud of their homes find them in semi-dereliction, as a result of which they have to move into less satisfactory or smaller accommodation, without even knowing when they can return to the home that they have cared for for many years.
As some hon. Members have suggested, if such problems occurred in some of the more salubrious parts of the country, the Bill might have come before us a little sooner. We have, of course, shared the anxiety that has been expressed about the channel tunnel, and especially by those in Kent. We hope that those who have voiced their concern about matters that affect the more salubrious areas of the south-east will not object if the Minister decides to accept some of the sensible amendments to the Bill that have been recommended by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I could pay tribute to several hon. Members who have spoken and to whom I have not referred. I apologise to those I have not mentioned. I feel, however, that the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) should not escape attention. We suspect that the Government feel that it is necessary to legislate on subsidence in coal mining areas to facilitate the privatisation of the mining industry. They feel that there are areas where loot can be garnered.
There are Conservative Members who know a great deal about the mining industry and they might join us in urging caution before there is any hasty removal of the industry from public control. If we do not have a substantial and significant body such as British Coal that is charged with properly fulfilling its responsibilities in matters of the sort that we are discussing, those responsibilities may not be fulfilled. The problems to which we have pointed have made it necessary for the Minister carefully to consider how the Bill, which my right hon. and hon. Friends welcome in principle, can be made welcome in the coal pits.
Column 131
11.42 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |