| Previous Section | Home Page |
(b) any loss resulting from subsidence damage as respects which the Corporation's remedial obligation is excluded by section 31(3) or 32(4) or (7) below ;
"employee" has the meaning given by section 153(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 ;
"small firm" means any person who, at the time when the property is affected by subsidence damage, is carrying on a business and satisfies the requirements of subsection (8) below ;
"year" means a calendar year.
(8) A person satisfies the requirement of this subsection at any time if, at that time, the number of employees employed by him, added to the number of employees employed by any associated employer of his, does not exceed 20.
(9) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the number of employees specified in subsection (8) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) such other number of employees as he thinks fit.'.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.] Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 28, 13 to 17, 30, 31 and 35.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : When we debated clause 29 in Committee, it was pointed out that treating subsidence damage to movable property as though it had arisen from British Coal's negligence would allow claims to be made for consequential loss. As a result, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out at the time, the Bill as considered by the Standing Committee was inconsistent in that it allowed claims for consequential loss when these arose from subsidence damage to movable property, but not when they arose from subsidence to buildings. I therefore undertook to reconsider the issue of consequential loss.
I remind the House that the Waddilove committee, which considered the matter, did not recommend that statutory provision should be made in respect of consequential loss arising from subsidence damage, except in specific instances such as crop loss payments to farmers and expenses incurred by householders who had to move home. It was not, therefore, the Government's intention to legislate to allow claims for consequential loss generally. However, it had escaped our attention that, in the case of movable property, such claims would be allowed.
Although the general idea of consequential loss is well known, it is nevertheless a concept that lacks precise definition. Unlike the case of damage to property, consequential loss depends on such factors as the nature of the business affected, the state of its order book, the
Column 832
availability of spare capacity, the duration of the damage, and scope for mitigation. It is hard for any business to assess its liabilities for consequential loss which it may cause in other businesses, given the uncertainties. That is offset for most businesses by the knowledge that a liability for consequential loss will arise only if they are negligent. But it would be much more difficult for British Coal to assess its liability for consequential loss arising from mining subsidence because subsidence is not negligence but part of its normal, day-to-day, lawful business operations.A business can operate without being negligent ; but British Coal cannot realistically operate without causing mining subsidence. Accordingly, there would be a serious risk that substantial quantities of otherwise economically extractable coal reserves might be sterilised simply on account of the uncertain scale of liability that might arise from claims for consequential loss. This consideration alone would point towards proceeding cautiously. Another important point, however, is that British Coal is not acting negligently in carrying out mining operations. It is lawfully entitled to do so, in the public interest, in order to exploit a major energy resource. Where such mining damages property, the law requires the corporation to take remedial action and bear the expense. That is what the Bill is about. That is the case even if, for example, a developer erects a new commercial building in a mining area over mineable reserves of coal. He has in so doing created a new liability for British Coal--the liability to repair any subsidence damage to this new building arising from the mining of coal that it already owns. In a sense, one could describe this as a consequential loss for British Coal arising from the developer's
activities--although in this situation the corporation has no entitlement to compensation for the increased cost of recovering those coal reserves or even for their sterilisation, if that is the consequence of the development.
There are some fundamental issues here, involving a conflict between the legitimate interests of business operations on the surface and the legitimate business operations under the surface of the same land by British Coal.
The House may have to return to this issue in future legislation, but for the moment I recognise that consequential loss experienced by business may give rise to hardship, and in such circumstances compensation would be appropriate.
Mr. Meale : Will the Minister clarify one point? I fully appreciate what is proposed in the new clause. I realise that the Minister is helping the business community, but what about the large businesses in the communities called local authorities? Will consequential loss by them be covered? Such costs ultimately fall on the ratepayers. Is the provision only for small businesses?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I shall come to the types of business that would be covered by consequential loss, but I confirm to the hon. Gentleman something which he already knows. There is no provision in statute for consequential loss, and certainly local authorities are not covered.
British Coal aims to deal sympathetically with such hardship cases. To give an easy example, if a corner shop loses trade while subsidence damage is being repaired, the sole proprietor could well experience hardship. On the
Column 833
other hand, if a supermarket which operates in a mining area but is part of a regional or national chain loses trade in similar circumstances, the proprietors of such a geographically diverse business are unlikely to experience hardship.8 pm
Hardship in this context would be difficult to define in legislative terms. As a proxy, we have prepared a new clause which allows compensation to be paid to small firms which experience consequential loss as a result of damage to their business premises. Amendments to clause 29 treat similarly consequential loss arising from damage to movable property.
Because consequential loss is likely to increase with time, the clause would require the small firm to notify British Coal as soon as reasonably practicable after the loss is first experienced so that the corporation can suggest any mitigating action and the precise circumstances of the loss can be understood by the two parties to the claim to minimise the risk of subsequent disputes.
Clearly, all reasonable steps to mitigate the extent of consequential loss should be taken as quickly as possible, and subsection (2) refers explicitly to the common law rules that apply. Notification of individual property owners under the provisions of clause 44 will alert the firm to the possibility of subsidence damage and therefore will assist in planning mitigating action. The serving of such individual notices on business premises will also remind British Coal of the possibility of consequential loss arising from mining operations. In all the circumstances, we think it right to restrict claims for consequential loss to properties for which such notices have been or should have been given.
The definition of "small firm" is important. We have borrowed it from employment legislation and have set a ceiling of 20 employees, although we propose to vary that number by order and provide for that in the Bill.
New clause 3 and the amendments to clause 29 establish a clear basis on which small firms, those most likely to experience hardship, could claim compensation for consequential loss arising from damage to business premises or movable property used by such businesses. It represents a sensible advance on present law. The wider questions connected with consequential loss will need to be looked at in connection with future legislation.
Mr. Barron : I intend to be brief. We welcome new clause 3, which arises directly from amendments to clause 29 that we tabled in Committee. It deals with the question of compensation for consequential loss to movable property, but not fixed property. We gave as an example a dairy farmer.
New clause 3 is a brave attempt to strike a balance. It addresses the question of how far coal mining is prejudiced by any losses that may be suffered on the surface--not in terms of property, which is easily definable, but in circumstances of consequential loss or of contracts that may be held by anybody working above any areas that are being mined. We are pleased that the Government have taken our arguments on board.
The Minister said that the Government had borrowed the definition of small firms, which was firms of not more than 20 people. We hope that they will be flexible and prepared to vary the number by order to include bigger firms. We look forward to seeing how the proposed new
Column 834
clause operates and whether it brings better, more effective justice to people and businesses, however small, that are affected by mining activities.Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New clause 2
Advice Centres
.--(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Corporation, ensure that the Corporation shall establish advice centres within three months of the commencement of the provisions of this Act.
(2) The advice centres shall offer, free of charge, advice to all claimants in need of legal or technical advice on any matter relating to coal subsidence.
(3) The advice centres shall issue guidelines on the making of claims under regulations made under the provisions of this Act. (4) All reasonable expenses of the advice centres will be met by the Secretary of State.
(5) The Corporation shall submit to the Secretary of State an annual report on the working of the advice centres to be established under the provision of this section.'.-- [Mr. Barron.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Barron : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. On Second Reading on 4 February we had a thorough debate on advice centres. In Committee we tabled a comprehensive new clause about advice, but unfortunately neither the Minister nor Tory Members supported it. We were sorry about that, because even the Government's White Paper on subsidence half-recommended that there should be advice centres or, at least, one advice centre. Many people have been involved in other organisations, such as the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence, and have supported advice centres.
Despite the improvements to the position of claimants that will result from the Bill, particularly when tonight's amendments are included, there needs to be a shift in favour of the claimant at an early stage. From past practice, it is clear that it is not good enough to rely on British Coal to tell a claimant of his or her rights. People need advice before they become claimants.
After the issue of notices about the likelihood of mining beneath a property, people will naturally want to take advice on what should happen next. Their neighbours will also have been notified that British Coal may in the near future need to undermine their property. It is not enough to ask people to go to a solicitor or an agent who must be paid from the claimants' pockets. Only successful claimants can have their expenses reimbursed. Many people may wish to seek advice when they receive the initial notice, whether or not they later become claimants. The Bill does not respond to their need. As I said on Second Reading and as we have said consistently over the years when we have debated these issues at different conferences, particularly in the midlands coalfield, and when we have issued press releases, free, impartial expert advice is essential. The only way to achieve that is through an advice centre. We have won the debates on these issues, but lost the votes.
I do not expect us to press the issue to a vote again tonight. The other place may wish to consider what the Department of Energy, the Select Committee on Energy and other bodies have said about what happens in the initial stages of possible coal mining subsidence damage
Column 835
and how an individual protects his interests against the vested interests of British Coal. Thank goodness British Coal must now notify the individual that the property may be undermined, but it still has a vested interest in not paying compensation for damages or expenses arising from claims, whether or not they are successful. There is still an imbalance. Has the Minister considered further the arguments that we put in Committee? I hope that they will be put in another place if we are not successful tonight in getting the Minister's commitment to consider the issue again.We had a long debate in Committee about the location of a "national" advice centre. Conservative Members asked why it should be in one particular place. The obvious place was, and still is, in the north Nottinghamshire coalfield in view of the number of subsidence cases there, but that is not the only area for which the centre would operate. Many agents in that area would make a good living from coal mining subsidence. Some of them have become millionaires in a few years because of the circumstances in that area. Many people in my constituency and elsewhere correspond with those agents because they are expert at winning justice from British Coal when a person's property has been damaged by coal mining subsidence.
That is not a geographical argument. We should have a national base so that people would know who to contact or would be referred to it by a local advice service that may not give advice on coal mining damage. People could write to the centre and receive expert advice without having to go to an agent or a similar organisation and put money up front. If they never had a successful claim, they would have to pay that money out of their own purse even though they had been notified of the likelihood of damage to their property by the British Coal Corporation.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, if he has not done so already, so that people can obtain advice without having to confront the British Coal Corporation, with all the money it has to fight its corner.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottinghamshire, South) : The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is right. We had an extensive debate on this matter in Committee. Like all those who lose the vote, the Opposition always imagine that they won the argument. They did not win the argument, nor did they win the vote. As has been pointed out, they were only asking for one national advice centre. We had the impression that it should preferably be in Mansfield, although I acknowledge that the report of the Committee proceedings refers only to Nottinghamshire. We shall not fall out about that.
At that time we were talking about a team of qualified heaven-knows-who's. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is not here today, as he defended the poverty- stricken barristers who were offering their services at a fraction of the cost of all the other experts who had been trotted out.
In Committee, I said that the clause had a superficial attraction, and it is true that there is a superficial attraction to the clause before us today. However, I still do not agree with it, and I will not support it. I did not approve then and I do not approve now of yet another centre to add to the multiplicity of centres. I am quite certain that with careful
Column 836
thought and discussion between the Department of Energy and British Coal, given the relevant clauses in the Bill, the problem can be solved sensibly, cost-effectively and with the interests of my constituents as much as anyone else's well covered.Organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, the advice centres of district councils and various solid fuel showrooms can all provide information. When the CABs were mentioned in Committee, the hon. Member for Rother Valley commented that the CAB funding in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) had promptly been withdrawn by the local authority. That decision is a comment on the priorities of Labour authorities. It is sad that a CAB should have its funding withdrawn. There are less important matters that a local council could discontinue if there was a choice between that and funding an important organisation such as the CAB. 8.15 pm
In Committee the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) made a valid point. He said :
"The scale of the problem is great"--
to give him his due, he gave credit to the Bill
"as is the scale of the change to legislation proposed in the Bill."
I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman. He went on to say : "it is unthinkable that the changes to legislation being discussed in the Committee could be implemented without an independent source of advice to property owners and householders."
I agree that the advice must be independent. That is why I view with some puzzlement the wording of the original clause and of the new clause, which does not specify independence of advice. That is a problem, and it is why I do not like the new clause. I should prefer that British Coal made a funding contribution to centres not run by British Coal, or to a local authority so that the advice would be independent. The new clause will not deliver that.
I am anxious that my constituents get good advice. I do my best and my city council does its best. On this issue, I am at one with the hon. Member for Mansfield. I hope that I am not getting the hon. Member into difficulties merely because there is cross-party agreement on some of these matters. The hon. Gentleman said in Committee ; "The most worrying aspect of the problem is that in Nottinghamshire large numbers of claimants have used coal mining subsidence agents. Existing legislation has shoved people in that general direction".--[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 March 1991 ; c. 263-64.]
The hon. Gentleman is right, but Opposition Members would have to agree that we are now in a totally different ball park. The Bill does away with many of the problems that have bedevilled all hon. Members in recent years. The Bill deals with those problems sufficiently. Opposition Members, whether they like to admit it or not, accepted our criticisms of their one national advice centre. We mentioned that many hon. Members faced these problems and they accepted that there was no point in having one centre, convenient though it might be, in Mansfield. Lo and behold, the Opposition have come up today with a new clause which proposes a number of centres but does not specify how many. I can imagine them making a meal of this if, heaven forbid, they were ever in government.
Column 837
However, they have changed one thing from the old clause--they have realised that by the time they have logged up any number of highly qualified engineers all sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone to seek their advice, it would be an unfair imposition on British Coal. So what did they do? They changed subsection (4) so that the cost is now to be met by the Secretary of State. That is a switch from British Coal having to pick up the bill. I have a feeling that they are trying to create another local authority bottomless pit. That is what it is all about. It would be a bottomless pit of funding for centres in mining areas.Every member of the Committee knew that this was a good Bill. It is not any worse without the clause--if I thought that it was, I would vote with the Opposition. There is enough in the Bill to satisfy my constituents and I am more than happy to accept the view taken by the Government in Committee--I presume that they will take the same view today--not to accept the new clause.
Mr. Benn : The issue is not whether this is a good Bill but whether the people who need to take advantage of its provisions know their rights. Without disrespect to the Minister--I have occupied a post in his Department--I noticed the enormous care with which he read the briefing provided by his officials. He could not even look up because he had to get it absolutely right. Many Ministers are in that position, but they have legal advice behind them. The people who suddenly receive notice that British Coal may undermine their house or village panic because they do not know their rights.
It is no criticism of the Bill that it is so complicated. Indeed, good Bills sometimes have to be complicated to remedy what is wrong with the old legislation. Nobody doubts that the Bill improves the old legislation. Paragraph 4 of schedule 7 happened to catch my eye as I was listening to the previous speech. It states :
"any unreasonable withholding of consent to the execution of preventive works under section 4(1)(a) of the 1957 Act shall have effect as an unreasonable withholding of consent to the execution of such works under paragraph (a) of subsection (2)".
What hope have pensioners who have lived in the same house all their lives of making sense of such language? They have no hope at all. To remedy that problem, one must not only understand the law but ensure that those who need the law's protection know their rights. They can go to a solicitor or an agent, and some people do so. In my consultations with British Coal in Chesterfield, I was informed that the agents sometimes make the process take longer because of the complexity of the correspondence. Sometimes people resist going to an agent because they think that he will make more than they will out of the operation.
People need advise, and to make fun of whether there should be one advice centre or many is absurd. Advice is needed in the areas where people's properties will be undermined when that undermining occurs. That varies from coalfield to coalfield and from seam to seam. It is absurd to say that it will mean a bottomless pit of expenditure, when all we ask is that people should be able to take avantage of the rights that the Government are giving them under the Bill. I cannot imagine anyone whose house or business is threatened by British Coal's mining operations wanting to waste money. Such people want to find out their rights, take advantage of the Bill's
Column 838
provisions, have the matter put right and put it behind them if they can. What possible motive could they have for wasting time on such a matter?The Bill is so precisely drafted that, once it is enacted, the rights of claim will have to be granted. If people who make claims are not eligible, they will be dismissed. The Bill does not represent an endless right to time-wasting consultations. This issue contrasts sharply with all the lectures on consumer rights and the right to choose. Surely the basic right to choose is to know one's rights when they are threatened by a public authority which, as the Minister said, is legally engaged in excavating for coal reserves which, unhappily, happen to be under one's house or village.
The amendment is modest. Any hon. Member who has had, as I have, anxious constituents coming to see them, or who has visited areas where subsidence has occurred, will have seen the desperation on people's faces when they discover that the homes that they have bought are subsiding, with splits in the walls and gaps in the roof or the road, or the disconnection of mains supplies. Invershall special school for mentally handicapped children in Chesterfield, which I have just opened and which has just raised money for new facilities, has discovered that one of the seams of the Markham colliery would threaten that school.
It is no good speaking as though we were a convention of lawyers examining the matter. We are all lay persons discussing the drafting of the legislation, but we can speak confidently about how the Bill will be seen by those who need its provisions. We are representatives, not legal experts. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the amount of money involved would not only be trifling but might save British Coal and others from time-wasting negotiations with agents and solicitors who do not have the interests that the promoters of the new clause or British Coal might have. British Coal also wants to dispose of such matters quickly. It does not want them to drag on for months or even years with people using the services of agents. It wants a quick settlement.
The Bill gives a clear statement of British Coal's obligations and I have no doubt that it will wish to discharge them quickly and effectively. People need advice so that they can claim immediately. By the expeditious discharge of claimants' duties and rights, we can save public money. I hope that the Minister and the officials listening so attentively to the debate will reflect again. The new clause will be a minor addition which, if carried, will make the Bill real to the millions of people whom it intends to help and will not handicap the discharge of its provisions.
Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood) : It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as I referred in my maiden speech to his contributions as Member for Bristol, South-East. I now refer to a number of locations that he will readily identify because they are in and around Bristol.
In Committee, I criticised the fact that the amendment referred to first one centre. I do not believe that an advice centre would be warranted for the Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire area. I use the word "area" not only because I refer to my constituency but because I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's former constituency and that of the Minister. It is also your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The area has, on different occasions,
Column 839
been mined for coal and some houses have been affected. I am sure that advice centres are not necessary and that people in my area would refer to centres based in south Wales--in Newport or Gwent, for instance. The vast majority of my constituents would not go to advice centres but would seek advice on subsidence, as they currently do, from other sources that are readily to hand.As Committee members heard ad nauseam, I am currently dealing with cases in Kingswood and Hanham, on which I and other people are providing advice. That is how, even under the amended legislation, that advice would be provided. The Bill makes substantial improvements to existing legislation, particularly as a result of the amendments on arbitration which the Government accepted and which protect those pursuing subsidence problems.
Mr. Illsley : The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) says that the arbitration scheme will provide protection. Yes it will, but it will not provide advice. The arbiter will be required to adjudicate only on a dispute between the claimant and British Coal ; he will not be able to give advice to the claimant or to British Coal.
Mr. Hayward : I accept that point, but I was saying that, in terms of strengthening the Bill, the arbitration right is the pinnacle of an overall pyramid of support given to individuals in those circumstances. I also asked in Committee--and I do not believe that the matter has been dealt with--why we should have free advice centres in this sector when we do not have them in relation to the Housing Defects Act 1984 or the right- to-buy legislation and other areas affecting large numbers of people. Advice centres are available in one form or another--why should they not cover this legislation as well as other legislation?
8.30 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Might it not be that people may require advice on the procedures leading to the very arbitration that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) says is worth while? Might they not want advice on whether to seek to make use of the arbitration procedure and some of the cases that they should put to arbitration?
Mr. Hayward : Yes, they could. However, as I said in Committee, since I have been a Member of Parliament eight years--in the subsidence cases with which I have dealt under what is, compared with the Bill before us, totally inadequate legislation, advice has always been available to my constituents. If one follows the argument in terms of the legislation and the provision of advice centres, why should we not provide advice centres for every other piece of legislation that we pass in the House? We would have a myriad advice centres down every high street, replacing the current myriad building society outlets in every high street. We received clarification from the Minister in response to our debate on the subject in Committee. He said that he accepted the points that had been made and agreed with those of us who said that it was not necessary to have advice centres, but he made it clear that British Coal intended to provide a series of leaflets and videos available to people to whom individuals would naturally turn.
Column 840
For those reasons, along with those already ennumerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon -Bravo), I believe that it is not necessary to accept the new clause.Mr. Lofthouse : I am surprised about two issues. The first relates to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). I believe that he would think differently if he had had the opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I have had, to investigate in some depth the problems of subsidence and its administration in the Nottinghamshire district. In 1985 or 1986, members of the Select Committee on Energy and I went to Nottinghamshire, to Mansfield, to investigate the issues. We found that agents there were operating in a professional way--some of them were ex-Coal Board employees and some of them finished up in gaol. At that time, British Coal's total budget for subsidence, as shown in the annual report, was about £215 million. Some £200 million of that had been spent in Nottingham.
Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and I went to Nottingham, we had a chance to question the agents. Two of the agents, former Coal Board employees, did not leave British Coal on retirement or redundancy terms when they were in their middle fifties or sixties to take up consultancy posts, which seems to be the habit of some British Coal management these days. They left British Coal when they were young men. I asked them why. One of them said that he liked tennis and wanted more time to watch it. The other one was a bit more honest and said that he wanted to set up his own business because he saw that there was potential for it. He was right, because he and the other agents--I am not referring to the ones in gaol--finished up riding about in Rolls-Royces. There must have been a reasonable rake-off from the £200 million of the Coal Board's budget.
If any hon. Members should support the new clause, it should be those from Nottingham. Some of the people whose properties were, unfortunately, damaged had to rely on the agents and hope that they would receive the correct advice. However, the agents did not do too badly out of it. If the new clause were accepted, it would go a long way to cutting out many of the problems. If ever there was a need for advice centres anywhere, it is in Nottingham.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : Let us be clear on one point. Nobody is seeking to justify some of the outrageous activities that went on among agents under the old legislation. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) should look at the new clause, which my hon. Friends and I believe is unnecessary in the light of the Bill before us. It is in the context of the Bill that we now say that formal advice centres are not needed. We are not saying that advice is not necessary, but there are plenty of ways of providing it. However, we should set the matter in the context of the Bill, which protects our constituents.
Mr. Lofthouse : I would not for one moment suggest that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) would support the jiggery- pokery that went on in the early 1980s. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not feel that advice centres are necessary under the Bill. Perhaps the Department does not feel that they are necessary, but that was not always the case.
Column 841
The report of the Select Committee on Energy, which the House ordered to be printed on 17 July 1990 and which deals with mining subsidence, states, in paragraph 22--and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Minister for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) well remembers this :"In its discussion paper of 1990 on dispute procedures, the Department of Energy raised the possibility of a Subsidence Advice Centre, staffed by chartered surveyors and solicitors with experience of subsidence damage, which would aim to provide advice to those who were dissatisfied with the way in which British Coal had dealt with their case.' "
Many other witnesses before the Committee supported the Department's views and, arising out of that evidence, paragraph 24 of the Committee's report states :
"Nevertheless, we support the Department of Energy's suggestion of an independent Subsidence Advice Centre on an experimental basis." My second surprise resulted from the fact that the Bill did not contain that provision when the Department had been suggesting it. If that is the case, what is the argument of the Minister and his colleagues against the new clause?
Some of the agents are still operating in Nottingham--fortunately, my district and those around it do not have that problem. The only way to put an end to that practice is through the new clause. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give serious consideration to it. The Select Committee believes that the new clause is necessary, and if anyone had had the privilege, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and I had, of listening to the witnesses and researching the matter in depth, I am sure that he would agree that there was a need for the new clause and advice centres.
Mr. Meale : I have been greatly saddened to hear some of the comments of Conservative Members. I had thought that we were all at one on the need to clear up this problem once and for all with this Bill. I was particularly surprised by what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said. He knows about the despair that subsidence has caused and is continuing to cause people in his area, and he should not have made light of it ; that was beneath the belt. Thousands of properties in his constituency continue to be damaged by this problem and that damage is getting worse all the time.
All we are proposing is an advice centre. The new clause does not stipulate whether it should be a national centre or whether there should be one in every coalfield area or in every district council area that includes mines. We want only a place where people can get advice--although the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that a centre was not needed in his constituency. Perhaps he thinks that a citizens advice bureau is the answer, but a centre such as the one that we propose would still be useful because on cases in his constituency CABs could refer to such a centre, wherever it might be. That is the whole purpose of setting one up.
The centre is not to be a centre of excellence for lawyers, solicitors, architects and surveyors ; it is to be a place to which people can go for proper advice. I have the highest regard for CABs and local authorities, but people should not go to them for advice on this matter because they are not experts on it. To refer cases to such bodies would be to repeat what has already gone wrong : self-proclaimed experts have set themselves up to give advice. People should be given advice free of charge. This Bill provides the opportunity of giving them that advice for as little as £50, plus VAT, which is now running at 17.5 per cent. If a person is badly advised on making a claim, he
Column 842
may be involved in further expenses when pushing his claim to a successful conclusion. Cases which are not won or which go to arbitration may also involve additional costs, which shows that people need good advice from a centre of this sort.8.45 pm
People ask where the money is to come from and whether the Secretary of State can afford it. Of course he can. The sum of £300 million has already been added to the price of coal that is produced in this country for the sole purpose of paying for subsidence damage claims. If the money had been set aside in a separate account accumulating interest, as it should have been, it would have provided hundreds of millions more pounds, thereby avoiding these difficulties. In some cases, the money has been used to close mines. If it can be used for that, it can certainly be used for the purpose that we propose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) rightly mentioned coal mining agents. Unless we set up an advice centre to give advice to people suffering from the horrendous difficulties of subsidence, the problem with agents will continue. Nothing in the Bill would curb the activities of these agents--quite the reverse. We must take this opportunity to set up a centre that will give people good advice on the most important matter in their lives--their homes. If we do not, we shall push them further in the direction of the so-called experts, some of whom know little more than how to read a slide rule.
Mr. Brandon-Bravo : I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thought that I was treating the new clause in a lighthearted way, but I shall not withdraw the compliments that I paid him on what he said. If a person pays a fee to a solicitor, he at least has some protection in law. That should give the hon. Gentleman pause for thought about his demands for free advice. What happens to the claimant if that free advice is found to be inadequate?
Mr. Meale : My constituency is full of solicitors who have advised thousands of people with their claims. It has cost those people on average more than £1,000 per household, and most of their claims have been turned down. Many solicitors have used the legal aid system, up to a maximum £1,500 or £2,000, depending on the case, to advise people wrongly. The result is that the legal aid system has been stripped of the money--a bad system.
This is why we need an advice centre. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pointed out, it would be cost-effective. British Coal should not be involved in legal disputes all the time. This Bill will allow agents the same freedom that they have enjoyed before. It is no good the hon. Member for Nottingham, South saying, to use his unfortunate terminology, that we would be dropping local authority money down a huge pit. British Coal's job is to dig and sell coal, not to fight legal cases.
Some years ago, when British Coal had a different attitude to this problem, its estates department in Nottinghamshire employed about six people, with four secretaries. Today it employs more than 50 advisers, architects and surveyors, and many more outside consultants, with a whole department of secretarial support. And the cost of all that is being added to the cost of digging coal in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.
| Next Section
| Home Page |