House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Apr 1991

Column 860

record of the property's condition to major preventive works. I must stress that a clause 44 notice means that there is a risk but not a certainty of the building being affected by subsidence. Therefore, it would not be right or proper that all expenditure on all such building should automatically be reimbursable to the property owner or household.

Clause 36(5) as presently drafted provides that nothing in the clause is to be taken as prejudicing the powers of the Lands Tribunal in respect of any costs or expenses of the proceedings before that tribunal. The provision means that the Lands Tribunal can award costs without regard to clause 36, but, alternatively, clause 36 could still allow a claimant to attempt to recover from British Coal costs that the Lands Tribunal had not thought fit to award to him, which is wrong.

Therefore, amendment No. 21 does two things. First, it broadens the scope of subsection (5) so that not only does it apply to the Lands Tribunal but it brings arbitration procedures within its scope. That should commend itself to all hon. Members, who have been concerned to ensure that arbitration expenses are ranked in the same way as those incurred before the Lands Tribunal. Secondly, the amendment clarifies the relationship between the award of costs under a formal procedure and clause 36. Where any particular set of costs falls within the jurisdiction of a formal process, the outcome of that process is to be definitive as regards the recovery of those costs.

That rules out the possibility, which I mentioned earlier, of a claimant having a second go at recovering costs under clause 36 which were denied by the Lands Tribunal. The amendment does not prevent a successful claimant from recovering reasonable costs which an arbitrator would not have been able to award. For example, a claimant might have had to employ a structural engineer or surveyor. Those costs will be fully reimbursable.

Having given those explanations and expansions, I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Meale : I merely wish some clarification on amendment No. 26. Has the Minister given way on the right of a local authority reasonably to reclaim money that it has spent in acting on behalf of a claimant? Secondly, as landlords--as the Minister knows--local authorities have thousands of houses, sometimes whole housing estates, which are submitted for claims to British Coal because of the damage throughout the estates. Would it be reasonable for the local authority to reclaim both amounts as the acting agent authority--first, as landlord and, secondly, acting on behalf of claimants resident in their district?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : The only costs that will be reimbursable are those incurred by the local authority as landlord and owner of the buildings in question. For that purpose, the local authority is in exactly the same position as any other landlord or freeholder. As I explained, we did not think it right to place local authorities in a privileged position or draw specific attention in the clause to the rights of local authorities in that regard.

Mr. Meale : A short time ago, when debating another part of the Bill, the Minister suggested that there was nothing wrong with local authorities establishing themselves as agents representing the people of their areas. That would not prevent the setting up of advice centres ;

Column 861

indeed, it would help to get rid of the problem of coal mining subsidence agents. If local authorities do that work it is surely reasonable to consider reimbursing them for it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : If local authorities provide the necessary expert advice, reasonably incurred expenditure would be treated in the same way as if the advice or expertise were provided by any other professional organisation. The provision does not extend to general reimbursement for advice. If it did, we should slip back into the idea of reimbursing the expenses of advice centres, a course that the House has already rejected.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Business of the House

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr.Nicholas Baker.]

Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered. Question again proposed.

Mr. Meale rose --

Mr. Speaker : I remind the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) that this is Report stage, not Committee stage, so he should not make a series of interventions.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : I found the brief read by the Minister an unconvincing argument against amendment No. 27. As the Bill stands, a householder would not be able to claim expenses unless he or she were certain that damage to the property would subsequently take place. The only definition of a successful claimant is someone whose property has sustained damage. A long time will pass before anyone will know whether a property has been damaged. In that time, under clause 44 (4), householders will be served with notices about the continuing threat of damage to their property. But it could be two or three years before any damage is seen, and only then can one be a successful claimant. In the meantime it is reasonable for such a householder to seek legal advice or advice from a surveyor. At present, he or she would not know whether those expenses would be reimbursed under the clause.

If a householder is continually served with notices under clause 44 (4) and as a result seeks advice, we suggest that any such reasonable expenses should be covered even if the property proves not to have been damaged. Will the Minister tell us why he considers that unreasonable? Why should a householder being served notices warning that his property may be damaged not be allowed reasonable expenditure for seeking advice even if he is not ultimately a successful claimant?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney knows, and indeed has said, that a successful claimant will be reimbursed reasonable costs such as those incurred in making a pre-survey of the condition of the property. Unsuccessful claimants, however, will not be reimbursed. The hon. Gentleman is

Column 862

asking me automatically to underwrite all such expenditure which may be incurred by anyone served a clause 44 notice.

Mr. Rowlands : No, a clause 44 (4) notice.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : The fact that someone may be served a notice is no guarantee that their property will be damaged. Notices can be withdrawn. Mining plans can change. Even if mining goes ahead, only between 30 per cent. and 70 per cent. of properties in the area will finally be damaged. If all such expenditure incurred in advance of damage were automatically to be reimbursed, we should be paying for a great deal of nugatory expenditure.

Mr. Rowlands : We are concerned specifically with subsection (4). A person will be served with a notice after 12 months, followed by a notice 12 months after that, and so on. If notices continue to drop into a householder's home, it is reasonable for him to take advice. If no damage is found to have been sustained, it is reasonable that the householder should be able to claim reasonable expenses.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I understand that the hon. Gentleman is talking about repeated clause 44 notices, but my observations still apply. Damage to the property is still only a possibility. I accept that in some areas it will be a probability. There is, however, plenty of scope for the property to be undamaged and for any expenditure undertaken to be nugatory. The arrangements that we have put in place seek to strike a balance between the understandable desire of claimants to take precautions before mining occurs and the need to protect British Coal from unnecessary cost.

I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfyl and Rhymney believes that we have tilted the balance slightly in the wrong direction. There matters were discussed in Committee and I must ask the House today to endorse the judgment that we reached.

Mr. Barron : We may wish to try to obtain satisfaction in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made : No. 19 in page 28, line 24, leave out and (4)' and insert to (5)'.

No. 20, in line 39, leave out in relation'.

No. 21, in page 28, line 42, leave out subsection (5) and insert (5) Subsection (2) above does not apply to any costs or expenses incurred in or in connection with any proceedings before any tribunal, court or other person if an order for their payment has been or could have been made by that tribunal, court or other person.'.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 38

Disputes : general

Amendment made : No. 22, in page 29, line 18, after or', insert other'.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 41

Determination of disputes by arbitration

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 30, line 17, after person', insert independent of the Corporation'.

Column 863

Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 25.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : We accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that the arbitrator should be independent. It was always our intention that he should be. The Institute of Arbitrators takes suitable pride in its professional integrity and independence. To remove any doubt, I accept in full the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Barron : I thank the Minister. I have spent the past few weeks wondering how he would take away the words "independent of the corporation", he being somewhat doubtful of them in Committee.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : The amendment underlines the independent nature of the arbitration that the Bill provides and which will be available when the scheme is approved. At what stage will there be access to the independent arbitrator? What will be the position of those who are currently undecided whether to go ahead under the present procedure, which is not the one approved by the Minister and which, as he mentioned in his opening remarks, involves the Institute of Arbitrators? There are those who will be undecided whether to go ahead with that procedure or to wait, as I would advise, for the amended procedure, which also includes placing the onus of proof on the coal board to show that the damage did not result from mining. There was considerable discussion on the matter in Committee where a great deal of valuable work was done. Can the Minister make it clear that nobody who is waiting for him to approve the scheme will find that they have passed a time limit merely by waiting until the scheme is fully in place before they pay their money and go ahead with arbitration?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that they need not wait, because the scheme has been running on a voluntary basis since the beginning of January this year. It was brought forward by British Coal after consultation with us ; therefore, to all intents and purposes, the scheme is up and running. We shall be reviewing with British Coal the operation of the scheme later this year to see whether it is satisfactory and whether it can be extended in any way.

The Bill allows, if necessary, the Secretary of State to put into regulations the exact details. We intend to do that only if the scheme is unsatisfactory or if British Coal or its successors backtrack in any way from the scheme as outlined. However, I confirm that early indications are good and that British Coal has agreed to remove any doubt about people's rights to go to arbitration. Some doubts have been expressed about the wording in the existing guidance leaflet and the notes attaching to the arbitration scheme. They will be altered and amended where necessary to make clear that people have the right to go to that arbitration scheme in appropriate cases.

Mr. Beith : I am grateful to the Minister. If someone were to take the Minister's advice and go ahead now using the existing scheme before the Bill is enacted, where would they stand in relation to the onus of proof?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : They would not be disadvantaged in any way. British Coal will carry over existing cases

Column 864

which are presently in train and treat them as though the new Bill were an Act of Parliament so that those claimants will not see the join.

Mr. Gerald Howarth : Can my hon. Friend confirm that, when he says that people will have the right to arbitration, it will be a unilateral right under the existing scheme proposed by British Coal, and that British Coal will not have to give approval for that person to go to arbitration? That is an important point which we discussed in Committee.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I was able to give that assurance in Committee and I am happy to repeat it. If some case, due to its complexity or technical nature, is more appropriately dealt with by the Lands Tribunal that will be a decision for the arbitrator and not for British coal.

Mr. Meale rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Is it an intervention or a speech?

Mr. Meale : A short speech.

Mr. Speaker : This is a Report stage. Hon. Member should make their speeches and then the Minister should wind up and respond to them. It is not really a question and answer debate as is appropriate in Committee.

10.15 pm

Mr. Meale : I am grateful to the Minister for the various assurances he gave in Committee. I am also grateful to him for repeating and expanding on a few of them in his reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Will he confirm in the context of the present debate the guarantee that he gave in Committee concerning cases that had been disqualified under the old six-year rule? Under the new arbitration procedure, will the people involved be able to have their cases reviewed?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I can confirm that some difficult disputes have not been settled to the satisfaction of the claimants. It is appropriate that these should be dealt with under the new arbitration scheme, and British Coal has indicated that if they are brought forward, they may be settled in that way.

Mr. Haynes : Suppose an individual--it could be a person from any constituency--has a problem of this sort, and he goes through the procedure that the Minister is introducing. What will happen at the end of the period of six years? Is the Minister saying that the new rule is in operation now? Under the new system, the burden of proof will be on the corporation, whereas, previously, it was on the individual. Will the corporation now have a duty to prove beyond doubt that damage was not done by the mining industry? Has the new six-year rule now come into operation?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : The Bill clears up the present ambiguity--the conflict between the two existing Acts. It lays down very clearly how the six-year rule will operate. If there are disputes or difficulties about interpretation, or about matters of fact, they can be referred to arbitration. The solution will not be at the unilateral say-so of the British Coal corporation.

Amendment agreed to.

Column 865

Clause 42

Time limits for certain disputes

Amendment made : No. 24, in page 31, line 2, after or', insert other'.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 43

Investigation of complaints

Amendment made : No. 25, in page 31, line 24, after person', insert independent of the Corporation'.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 44

Notices to property owners etc

Amendments made : No. 38, in page 33, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert--

owners or occupiers of the land'

and insert

person to whom the notice is to be given'.

No. 40, in page 33, line 17, leave out first any'.

No. 41, in page 33, line 20, leave out persons' and insert any person who is the owner or occupier of any part of the land or is'.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Schedule 7

Transitional Provisions and Savings

Amendment made : No. 42, in page 54, line 12, at end insert Notices

6A. Where any underground coal-mining operations proposed to be carried on after the commencement date can be regarded as a continuation of operations carried on before that date, nothing in section 44(1) (notices to property owners etc.) or section 45(1) of this Act (notices to local authorities) shall require the Corporation to give any notice with respect to those operations before the end of the period of one month beginning with that date.'.-- [Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Order for Third Reading read.

10.17 pm

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

We have reached the end of the Bill's proceedings in this House, and I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee that examined it at an earlier stage. I thank them in particular for the constructive and co- operative way in which they examined the issues. The Bill started as a very considerable step forward, and some of the decisions of the Standing Committee have improved it. In its original form, it was a consolidating measure, bringing together two Acts of Parliament, and making a number of improvements. It also formalised claimants' rights to use their own contractors in a way that has been repeated this evening ; allowed the reimbursement of all the reasonable costs incurred by claimants in pursuing a successful claim ; clarified the very difficult issue of time limits in a way that is now clear and unambiguous ; provided for households to be individually notified about British Coal's mining plans ; provided a statutory basis for the informal resolution of disputes through an arbitration scheme ; and placed British Coal's code of practice on a statutory basis. The Bill also imposes a duty on British Coal to safeguard property that is vacated while undergoing repair.

Column 866

In Committee and again this evening, the Bill has been further improved. On the question of stop notices, an interim standard of repair has been laid down, and a maximum duration for stop notices has been declared. On the difficult issue of blight, a new clause requires British Coal to purchase property blighted by subsidence damage or its imminent likelihood where hardship would otherwise be experienced. As to the use of an own-contractor in undertaking repairs, there is clarification of, and an emphasis on, a claimant's right to use his own contractor, except in specified circumstances. The independence of the arbitrator has been affirmed, and the Bill now includes provision for small businesses to recover consequential losses.

On Second Reading, I said that it was my intention to make a good Bill better. I believe that I have done that, with the assistance of the Committee and of the House.

10.20 pm

Mr. Barron : On Second Reading, although we welcomed this well- overdue Bill, we identified serious weaknesses and omissions that we hoped to rectify during the legislation's progress through the House. In Committee, the Minister accepted many of the arguments that we put, and tonight the Government presented a substantial number of amendments that cover the issues raised by my hon. Friends in Committee.

We received an assurance from the Minister that British Coal will not be able to block a claimant's right to refer his case to arbitration. By removing that veto, the likelihood of referrals to the Lands Tribunal has been lessened. In view of the recent history of the Lands Tribunal in respect of subsidence claims, thousands of people will be breathing a sigh of relief that they will not have to travel that route in future.

We welcome that advance, together with the amendment relating to the independence of the arbitrator. Taken together, those changes go a long way to meeting our concerns about the scheme. The Bill has also been greatly improved by the clause dealing with blight and the amendment on consequential loss. Many small agricultural businesses that suffer consequential losses, in terms of future yield, will be pleased with that improvement and we hope to see that new provision operating to their advantage in the near future.

The rights of claimants to use their own contractors in carrying out repairs, and the introduction of criteria for stop notices and their revocation, have been strengthened. The latter issue was raised forcefully on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). His advocacy on behalf of his constituents has been most effective, not only in relation to the Bill, but during all his years as a Member of Parliament.

People in all areas affected by subsidence will welcome the Bill. It was thanks to the pressure consistently exerted by Labour, both locally and nationally, that the Bill saw the light of day. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) waves his hand at me. I have before me a letter that he wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) on 2 May 1989, in which he referred to the absence of any action in respect of subsidence damage, and said how awful it was that people had to pursue their claims through the Lands Tribunal, and risked substantial costs being awarded against them. He added :

Column 867

"To make matters worse, we have now had the Opposition spokesman for mining, Mr. Kevin Barron, in the Sherwood and Mansfield constituencies, claiming that they will put matters to rights when returned to power".

That is absolutely right. They may be jumping in on our legislative programme today.

The hon. Member for Sherwood smiles. He will smile, because I also have here a letter from one of his hon. Friends who spoke on Second Reading. Unfortunately, he was not with us today. He also wrote to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere on 27 April 1989--[ Hon. Members-- : "Who was it?"] I think that it was the hon. member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock). He wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, saying that he was enclosing

"a copy of an article which appeared last week in the Mansfield local newspaper".

At the end of the letter he said :

"I can only say that I fully endorse what Kevin Barron says and hope that you will treat the issue more seriously."

I am pleased that the issue has been treated more seriously, after the years that Labour has been arguing here and elsewhere that the matter should be put to rights.

The Bill leaves the House as a superior Bill to the one first introduced and that is substantially due to the improvements that we promoted in Committee. I hope that it will not be too long before the people whose lives have been so affected by coal mining subsidence will see the benefits of this legislation when it has left the other place.

10.25 pm

Mr. Andy Stewart : Having campaigned with other hon. Members for the need for new legislation to deal with the effects of subsidence due to coal mining, I believe that the Third Reading of such a Bill closes a chapter and heralds a new beginning for communities living in coal field areas.

The present methods adopted by British Coal as a result of the 1957 and 1975 legislation will soon pass into the history books. Also it is worth recording there for posterity my thanks, and that of my constituents, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for coal for bringing the Bill before Parliament and seeing it through its Committee stage, and shortly on to the statute book. Further appreciation should go to COALS and the united industry working party for their extensive work in the past three years.

The new legislation will end the long delays, endless disputes and sheer misery that claimants endured under the present procedures. They will no longer be at the mercy of British Coal. Indeed, for the first time claimants will be in the game with the same number of players as British Coal, which previously acted as referee and moved the goal posts when it was opportune to do so.

Once enacted, the legislation will be comprehensive, righting the injustices of the past. My enthusiasm for the new measure is shared by my constituents. Our acclaim for the Bill is because, from the beginning to the end, it encompasses every aspect of the consequences of mining. To start with, anyone whose property may be affected by mining must be informed by British Coal in advance of underground workings. Claimants will be clear that they have six years to initiate a claim after the appearance of damage, not after the ceasing of mine workings. Claimants

Column 868

will be able to agree the use of their own contractors. Costs incurred in pursuing a dispute will be reimbursed if the claim is successful. The Government agree that consequential loss should be compensated. British Coal must purchase, or compensate for, property affected by blight. Last, but not least--and most important--is the right of claimants to unfettered arbitration.

The end result of the Bill will be a fair settlement of claims at nil or minimal cost to successful claimants. It will ensure fair practice and fair play. This legislation goes that extra yard, providing fairness, respectability, honesty and understanding for all involved with coal mining subsidence, while recognising the major role of the coal industry in our national and local economies. 10.28 pm

Mr. Beith : It is a pity that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) felt it necessary to compliment himself so extensively because, judging with the much greater impartiality of someone who did not serve in Committee, I was going to say that it was a good Bill to start with and was significantly improved by the efforts of Opposition Members in Committee, of whom I was not one.

The effort that a number of hon. Members put into the Bill was well justified and shows on the face of the Bill. Many of our constituents will be in a better position to raise difficult issues that are the source of great anxiety to them, now that a better procedure is in place, and now that there is a better basis for proof, and what I hope will prove to be a proper arbitration system, which, if it does not emerge via negotiation, can be brought into being through the provisions of the Bill.

I am glad that the Bill was introduced. In principle, it was a good Bill from the start and it has been significantly improved by the efforts of those hon. Members who have devoted a considerable amount of time to it.

10.29 pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth : As you know, Mr. Speaker, better than most, the public perception of the House is that it engages in a succession of gladiatorial contests, with printable insults hurled throughout our debates. We have dispelled part of that public perception this evening.

Although a great number of hon. Members are not here, all those who are here have participated in the campaign over many years to right the injustice caused to our constituents by coal mining subsidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) suggested, tonight marks almost the end of the battle--but not quite. This is an excellent Bill which represents the culmination of years of debate, the distilled wisdom of the Waddilove committee and that of a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House. It was a little churlish of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to respond as he did. I pay tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who I know has campaigned vigorously, but especially I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, who throughout has adopted a thoroughly principled stance, as befits a Member of Parliament for his constituency.

The Bill will provide a clearer and fairer framework for the hopefully speedier settlement of an injustice that causes enormous distress and heartache. My hon. Friend the

Next Section

Home Page