Clause 2.—(NATURE OF OBLIGATIONS OF NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)

HC Deb 17 May 1950 vol 475 cc1306-48

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, to leave out from "such," to "or," in line 44, and to insert: repairs as will make good that damage to the reasonable satisfaction of the owner of such dwelling-house. We now come to the Clause of the Bill which deals with the nature of the obligations of the Coal Board. They are in alternative forms: they can either make a payment in money or they can carry out, in the words of the Bill: … such reasonable repairs to the dwelling-house as are required in consequence of the damage thereto… It is those words that this Amendment seeks to leave out and, instead, to insert another set of words with very similar effect.

Under the Coal Act of 1938, the Act which nationalised the mineral, the provision was that any subsidence resulting from the extraction of the coal not then in lease, in other words, subsidence resulting from coal which was nationalised as a result of that Act, could be dealt with either by compensation or, with the consent of the surface owner, by the mineral worker—that is, of course, a private person or company—carrying out the repairs. I think it important to look at the words by which that Act imposed an obligation on the coal worker which is now taken over by the National Coal Board. Under that Act the coal worker was obliged: with the consent (which shall not be unreasonably withheld) of the person who would otherwise be entitled to claim compensation for that damage, to make good that damage to the reasonable satisfaction of that person and without expense to him. It will at once be seen that the two sets of words, that is to say the words in the Bill and the words in the Coal Act of 1938 are not identical. I do not think there is any very great difference in effect. Under the Coal Act the test was the satisfaction of the surface owner, and the Committee will realise that that right is left intact by this Bill. The person who suffers damage as the result of subsidence from working coal first put in lease by the result of the Coal Act of 1938 can maintain his right under that Act. He will maintain his right to have his house put in a proper and reasonable state of repair to his satisfaction. Under this Bill it will be seen that the test is to be different. I am not quite certain what is the actual intent of the words. They are neither objective nor subjective. They are: Such reasonable repairs … as are required. I suppose that what is "reasonable" is a matter which would be left to the courts to decide in default of agreement between the parties. I think that an unsatisfactory way to leave the matter. It would be better to say what is reasonable in the circumstances.

I submit that there is some importance in getting the two sets of words in parallel with one another. Here are alternative rights which can be exercised at the option of the owner of a house which is damaged, and it would be very much better if the two sets of words really meant the same thing. That would avoid giving the owner a rather difficult option in an increasing number of circumstances. I therefore suggest that instead of using the words put into the Bill the Government should look at the earlier Act and at those words. So far as I know, there has been no difficulty in operating them and they should be adopted and my Amendment accepted.

Mr. Noel-Baker

The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has shown very clearly what his Amendment is intended to do. As he says, the Bill as it stands has these words: The Coal Board shall…carry out…such reasonable repairs…as are required in consequence of the damage.… His Amendment seeks to change that to the words of the Act of 1938 which would require the Board: to make good that damage to the reasonable satisfaction of the owner. We considered the language of the early Act and we did not adopt it for the following reasons: in the first place, the Coal Board inherited the rights and obligations which went with the coal which was dealt with under the provisions of the 1938 Act. But, in point of fact, they have not yet worked any unsevered coal. In other words, the phrase has not yet been taken to the courts. It is not an accepted term of art which is well understood. It was novel in the context in 1938, and it has not been elucidated in any cases since. We think the phrase "make good" in this context is not really entirely clear or satisfactory and our words are the result of our mature consideration of the subject.

The term, "make good" is well understood in relation to minor decorating work, but it is not at all so appropriate in relation, for example, to a much larger business, such as putting right a sloping floor. Moreover, the Amendment of the hon. Member would provide only for the reasonable satisfaction of the owner of the dwelling-house. There may be many cases in which a tenant would consider that he also had a good right to make his voice heard, and we think so, too. He may have a long lease; he may be under an obligation to do the repairs himself. Under this Amendment the aggrieved tenant could do nothing. If the owner said he had been satisfied by the Coal Board such a tenant would have no voice at all, even if the house were not properly repaired.

8.0 p.m.

Under the Bill the repairs have to be reasonable from the point of view of everyone—the owner, the tenant—whatever his rights—the Coal Board and all the other parties concerned, including the local authority. In proper cases we think it desirable that the tenant or the local authority should be able to speak up. I agree that, under the hon. Baronet's Amendment, if it was a local authority it would have the right. Any tenant who is under a long lease or a duty to repair ought also to have a voice in the matter. We think that our phrase is certainly as satisfactory as that of the phrase in the Act of 1938. We hope that the Committee will agree to leave it as it is.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I was not clear on one point. The Minister said that in the Amendment the phrase "make good" would cover various matters such as minor decorations. Is it the intention that the words now in the Bill should cover decorations and other minor matters, or do they only refer to major repairs?

Mr. Noel-Baker

I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood. I think that the phrase "make good" has a well-known legal meaning in the context of minor decorations, but it has not in this context of subsidence damage. But, of course, in repairs to damaged floors due to subsidence there will often have to be decorating work done.

Mr. Mainwaring (Rhondda, East)

The words under discussion leave us with the old position of the necessary reasonable repairs being largely, if not entirely, at the discretion of the National Coal Board. They are the body who determine whether reasonable repairs have been done. It may be said that there is the possibility of dispute between the owner and the tenant upon whether property has been repaired to a reasonable degree of satisfaction. That point of dispute already exists. We need not wait for this Bill to come into operation for that. It already exists in the earlier obligations which the Coal Board inherited.

The Clause gives a margin of discretion to the Board. They can either undertake the work or have it undertaken for them. If they think fit, they can pay a reasonable sum to another person. It is the Board who determine that question. I can well imagine that there might be considerable delay by the Board before carrying out really necessary essential repairs so that the owner of the property does the work himself. Then the Board might say that under law, such and such an amount was reasonable. In the event of any disagreement on this point, will the owner of the property be able to make a complaint in court? Is there a right for the owner of the property to complain in court in an effort to secure redress if the Coal Board has not repaired the property?

Mr. Noel-Baker

In such a case an owner would have the right to go to court. The Coal Board are now spending £1 million a year in the repair of subsidence damage, and we judge that about half of that amount is spent on small dwelling-houses. That is an estimate. There are, of course, a great number of questions on which their views do not at first fully agree with those of the people whose houses or dwellings are to be repaired, but, in practice, they have very few disputes. Nearly everything is settled by agreement. I think that my hon. Friends behind me who come from mining areas will agree that the system works extremely well. In cases of difficulty they often go to arbitration. If they do not go to arbitration, they can go to court. On this point, they could certainly go to county court and have a decision.

Mr. McKay

I am rather surprised that anyone on this side of the Committee should attempt to argue in favour of the Amendment. Surely the word "reason- able" of itself implies a sensible state of affairs. There is nothing in the Clause to prevent a person who is not satisfied from taking the question to court if he cannot get satisfaction by arbitration. I cannot agree with an Amendment which suggests that the question should be left to one person who, of necessity, is biased.

If a dispute arises, and the law is that the essence of the decision shall be on the word "reasonable", that applies to both sides of the question. There are all kinds of damaged property, and what is reasonable in one case may be unreasonable in another. The Clause as drafted is absolutely correct. It provides an opportunity for both parties if there is a dispute.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

The Minister said that should a dispute arise between the National Coal Board and some other body, under the terms of this Clause there are powers to go to arbitration?

Mr. Noel-Baker

No. I misled the hon. and gallant Member if I said that. I did not mean to say it. I said that if they do not settle matters by agreement, the Coal Board usually call in an arbitrator, in common accord with the other party, and they settle the question by arbitration instead of going to court.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

Suppose the Coal Board exercise their power under this Clause and say either, "This is a reasonable repair" or, if they think fit, "Such is a reasonable payment to somebody who has done the repairs", under what procedure is it possible for the person to apply either to an arbitrator or to a court against the sum so assessed?

Mr. Noel-Baker

I think, again, that the hon. and gallant Member has perhaps not quite understood the intention of the Clause. The words: … if the Board think fit. do not give them power to interpret the word "reasonable" to suit themselves. They give the Board a power to decide to make a payment instead of doing the repairs. In the normal course, they will put in their own surveyors and workers and do the repair, but if, for good reasons, they think it advantageous to make a payment to the man instead of doing the repairs they can do that. That is what is intended by the words: … if the Board think fit. On the question of the word "reasonable," if there is a dispute on that the matter goes to court.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd

I do not want to press the point, and I only put it because of the anxieties which are raised in my mind by the remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring). In principle, I feel a certain anxiety about the power of the Coal Board, with its great resources, in relation to the people with whom it deals. Under this Clause it is given power. I accept the interpretation of the limitation of the words: …if the Board think fit. However, it is the Board that has power under the Clause to decide whether to carry out the work or whether to make a payment. I do not wish to press the point, but I think the Committee will appreciate that there might be a situation in which, at least, it would be theoretically desirable that the person who was to be compensated should also have a choice in the matter as to whether the Coal Board should carry out the works of repair or whether he should be given the financial resources to have the work carried out elsewhere.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Coal Board is carrying out a great deal of this work all the time. It may be that the work goes on satisfactorily, but one can envisage a situation in which the Board are so overburdened with work that they have to delay a great deal before they can pay attention to the case of a person who, if he was compensated financially, might arrange for a jobbing builder to do the work for him. Under this Clause, we have to face the fact that the individual has no choice in the matter, and that it is only the Coal Board who can decide. That seems to me to put the individual rather within the power of the Coal Board, and, although I do not want to press the matter, because it might work out all right in practice, I wish to voice this anxiety, and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would bear that point in mind, not only in regard to the passage of this Bill, but also perhaps in regard to its administration.

Mr. T. Brown

May I say to the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that what is provided in the Clause is what is actually taking place under the National Coal Board at the present time? Many of the disputes which we have, such as they are, are settled on the spot by representatives of the Coal Board, the property owner or the trust estate. We find now that the Coal Board, to their credit, are more amiable and reasonable than the private owners used to be; we are getting on very well with them.

The point is that, when there has been damage fairly close to the pit, the Coal Board will send skilled men to execute the repairs, but, where the property is some distance from the pit and Coal Board is unable to transport the men and materials, they will agree, when an estimate has been prepared, to call in a jobbing repairer to do the work. From my experience of the last two years, I would say that we have found the Coal Board to be very amenable to reason. Where there is a dispute we soon settle the matter without ever mentioning going to arbitration or going to court. That is what is happening at present.

Sir H. Williams

I did not listen very carefully to the last speech, because it seemed to me that the bulk of it was devoted to something which happens later on the Order Paper, and which we are not now discussing. This Amendment shifts the onus; that is, the word "reasonable" in the Clause would, I think, be interpreted as what the court would regard as being reasonable in the eyes of a fair and equitable person. The words of the Amendment: .… to the reasonable satisfaction of the owner … do not mean that the owner can do as he likes, but what any impartial person would say would be reasonable. I think I have got it right. This question of what is reasonable has come before the courts dozens of times, and the judge has to direct his mind not to what we are saying tonight but to what the words mean in the legal sense.

I should have thought that the purpose of this Amendment was quite clearly to shift the onus; in other words, the judge has to look at it to see if the settlement is best from the point of view of the owner. If the Bill is allowed to remain as it stands the judge will have to look at it through the eyes of the National Coal Board. I am not a lawyer myself, though I have helped to make a few laws in my time and have acquired a little experience in that direction in the process. I think it should be interpreted in the sense that the owner is a little man, who lives in a house with a rateable value of only £32, whereas the Coal Board is a gigantic octopus. The bias should therefore be cast in favour of the owner and not in favour of the octopus. The Minister said that the Coal Board would call in an arbitrator. I have never heard of one party to any dispute calling in an arbitrator.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Only in agreement with the other party, as I said several times.

Sir H. Williams

No, the right hon. Gentleman used the words "call in an arbitrator." If he suggested that the Coal Board proposed to the other side that there should be an arbitrator, that is one thing, but for one side, and the big side, to call in an arbitrator seems to me quite monstrous.

Mr. Noel-Baker

If the hon. Member will look at HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that, in reply to my hon. Friend, I made it perfectly plain that there was no right about going to arbitration. It only happens when both parties agree to it.

Sir H. Williams

I wrote down the words as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking—"N.C.B. call in arbitrator." Tomorrow, we will look at HANSARD——

Mr. Noel-Baker

I do not think the hon. Gentleman listened to what followed.

8.15 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

I listened very carefully, and I heard that the N.C.B. would call in an arbitrator. I do not like it put that way, and it should not have been put that way. By the terms of an Act of Parliament, arbitrators can be appointed when their appointment is agreed by both sides, and that I can well understand. If the arbitrators disagree, then there is procedure by which an umpire can be appointed.

The legal procedure by which the octopus calls in an arbitrator and then asks the little fellow whether he accepts, bearing in mind that the little fellow is already an employee of the octopus, does not strike me as being very kindly social justice. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why mention that?"] I will go on mentioning it. I did not start the use of the words "social justice." I do not believe in doing it, but in talking about it. The Parliamentary Secretary used the words "social justice," but it is the octopus and not the owner of the house who calls in the arbitrator. I hope the Minister will read the words again a little more carefully and try to appreciate their significance.

Mr. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

I share the feeling that where there is any doubt the benefit should be given to the small man or the householder and not to the National Coal Board. It seems to me that in many cases the owner or tenant may want to take the opportunity of repairs being done to make larger repairs than were actually necessary to make good the damage done by subsidence. In that case, he might well prefer to take a payment rather than have the repairs carried out for him.

I am not quite sure whether the Amendment would give effect to that, but it seems to me that it is a point which the Minister might bear in mind. It may be that some choice ought to be left to the tenant, and I am thinking particularly of farmhouses, and of cases in which the farmer might want to have general repairs carried out, for which purpose he would prefer to take a sum of money rather than have the workmen of the Coal Board do the work themselves.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I think that what has been said on this point is valid, and that "reasonable" should be the qualification which the owner should be able to exercise rather than the National Coal Board.

I hate reminding the Minister of his grim and bitter past, but, if he will look back again at the Bill of 1939, for which he voted and which his Front Bench supported, he will find the words: to the reasonable satisfaction of such owner-occupier. That was the wording chosen by his Front Bench in those days. If that was right and proper in those days, it should be the small man and not the National Coal Board to whom the initiative should be given now.

Mr. Granville West (Pontypool)

Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say where in this Clause it is shown that it must be "reasonable" to the Coal Board?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

If the hon. Gentleman will look at line 41 of the Clause he will find the words: the National Coal Board shall either carry out as soon as possible such reasonable repairs to the dwelling-house as are required in consequence of the damage thereto or, if the Board think fit, make a payment equal to the cost reasonably incurred by any other person in carrying out such repairs.

Mr. West

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the distinction. What the National Coal Board really have to do is to carry out repairs which are reasonable. They are repairs which are not reasonable only to the Coal Board. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health who appropriately defined "reasonable" the other day by saying that what was reasonable was that which appeared to be reasonable to a reasonble man. That is the real test, and that is the test that the court would apply. It is not for the Coal Board to say what is reasonable. If there is a point at issue between the Coal Board and the owner, then it is the court which decides what a reasonable person would judge to be the proper repairs to be carried out in those circumstances.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

In view of the course which this Debate has taken, perhaps I may be allowed to say that I am firmly in favour of giving the Coal Board power to insist on the carrying out of repairs before making a payment. There will, of course, be plenty of opportunity for the Board to come to an agreement with the owner as to whether it is desirable, for particular reasons, to make a payment for repairs, and so on. I am quite sure that the right course is to give the Board the power to insist on the carrying out of the repairs in the first place, and only to make a payment where there are special reasons which make the payment desirable. In view of the attitude of the Minister, and his assurance that he has this matter under consideration, I am not anxious to press the point, and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out from "the," to the end of line 7, and to insert: reasonable cost of such repairs. My remarks in submitting this Amendment to the Committee need only be short, and I hope that we may get an equally short acceptance of it by the Government. It raises a very small point which is that under the Bill as at present drafted no one can claim compensation from the National Coal Board unless the damage exceeds £5. It may be that there would be certain administrative difficulties were every claim, no matter for how little, to be considered. On the other hand, I think that both sides of the Committee will agree that, at any rate to many of the small house occupiers, £5 is not something which can just be ignored and thrown overboard. In many of the mining villages it will mean a great deal to the owner, or to the tenant, as the case may be, if he has to pay £5 through damage caused by subsidence.

We feel—and again I must quote the Bill of 1939—that no limit at all should be set, and that where damage occurs it should be paid for. We also feel that whatever may be the additional effort which the Board will have to make in entertaining claims for small amounts of under £5, it will be well worth its while accepting the burden, because if a large number of small claims are not met, they will bear very hardly on the people concerned. Therefore, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Robens

I would like to correct what I think is a misapprehension on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said, I believe, that if this Amendment were not accepted it would inevitably mean that unless damage was done to the extent of over £5 no claim would be allowed. I am sure he will forgive me if I read Clause 2 (2) to him, which says: Where any reasonable repairs require in consequence of such subsidence damage as aforesaid have been carried out before the passing of this Act…. Those, I think, are the operative words, and this £5 only relates to anything which happened prior to the passing of the Act. Therefore, any damage which accrues after the passing of the Act is not affected at all by the limit of £5.

Then, very properly, it is said, "Why should you not pay people whose claims are less than £5 just because they have already had the damage repaired? Surely they have paid out money, and they ought to have it back? It would be particularly unfortunate if one man's bill for £5 2s. 6d, was paid, and another man's bill for £4 17s. 6d. was not." I agree that where there is a dividing line that sort of thing will arise.

I would ask the Committee to bear with me while I read three lines from the Turner Committee's Report. It says: We recognise, however,"— this is dealing with retrospective payments; I know the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has read this and it is only for my own edification that I am reading it now— that it will be impossible to do perfect justice in all cases and that any degree of retrospection must be conditional upon the possibility of devising suitable machinery for the assessment and sifting of claims. In the experience of the National Coal Board, it would be administratively impracticable if every single claim from a few shillings up to £5 were admitted.

This is where the Turner recommendation is, in fact, being carried out. After all, this retrospective payment is something which is not normally done under Acts of Parliament, but it is something which we felt ought to be done, and which the Committee feels ought to be done, and, because it is something additional, it is necessary to have this limit of £5 on old claims. It has nothing to do with future claims, nor could a vast number of small, insignificant, and, indeed, trivial claims be dealt with by an organisation, as the cost of determining and proving such claims might easily exceed the real value of the claims themselves.

Sir H. Williams

I believe this relates to the past. Many of us have an insurance policy in connection with our motor cars whereby we take the risk of the first £5. Because of that, we get a reduced premium. That is not quite strictly analogous to this particular matter, but it comes to my mind because I was a member of the committee which examined the Transport Act under which we were all compulsorily insured. We thought it rather mean that social justice only begins after the first £5.

Mr. Messer

The hon. Gentleman would not understand it.

Sir H. Williams

I understand it quite well; I am only rubbing it in because I think that when hon. Members use a dishonest phrase it should be rubbed in. For the first £5 a man cannot have his money back on the grounds of admini- strative inconvenience. Let us be quite honest about this; let us stop the use of these deceiving phrases. I am repeating it time and time again in order that hon. Members shall not talk about social justice and then deprive somebody of £4 19s. 10d.

Mr. Fernyhough

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends deprived them for years.

Sir H. Williams

I know that hon. Members opposite do not like this, but they must take their medicine because it is good for their souls. I think that the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary is totally inadequate, and I hope he will reconsider it. I also hope that if my hon. and gallant Friend withdraws this Amendment tonight he will keep it in cold storage for the Report stage, by which time I hope that the Ministers in charge will be in a more reasonable frame of mind than they are tonight.

Mr. Bracken

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir H. Williams), is rather a pessimist because I am hoping that these Ministers will not be with us when these matters receive consideration. I was surprised at the extraordinary attitude adopted by the Parliamentary Secretary. He quoted against my hon. and gallant Friend the Turner Committee's Report. He said that the Government accepted that Committee's authority, that they were splendid people, and that the Government were doing a most reasonable thing in adopting the view of that Committee which has produced one of the most sensible reports I have ever read.

8.30 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hen-don, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), was one of the most distinguished members of that Committee. If the Parliamentary Secretary thinks so much of the Turner Committee, why does he not adopt their Report? Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of the Report. They may have been muzzled by the Chief Whip, but they were in favour of the Report. Now the Minister comes here and says that he thinks the Turner Report is very wise, in order to justify himself on one single section of the Report. Why does he not adopt the Report?

It is, if I may say so, an abuse of the procedure of the House for a Minister directly connected with the Department which set up the Turner Committee to come here and say that he relies on the Report of the Committee when, in fact, he has thrown over the Report in the grossest possible way without any courtesy, any consideration or any sense. We have heard a statement here tonight which I beg hon. Members opposite to remember more particularly when they go to the hustings. He said it would be administratively inconvenient for the Coal Board to pay any claim below £5. Anything below £5 they must not pay. Was there ever such a doctrine? I know that £5 means little or nothing to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They do not even mention it when they are seeing their dear constituents, but it does mean a great deal, and when the hon. Gentleman talks about the administrative convenience of the Coal Board—which I have often designated as a slate club, that being a much more effective designation for it—I say that they ought to scrap their administrative inconvenience and do justice to the small man.

It is an outrageous doctrine to say, "We won't pay." What would the late Keir Hardy have said of this? He would have supported me strongly tonight. What can we make of a Government that claims to be a friend of the small man when they say: "Oh, no, we are nominees of the Coal Board"—that collection of incompetents. They must not be asked apparently to pay a debt under £5. Now we know the meaning of "Labour gets it done"; they get the small man done in.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) is not here, because I am certain he would have something to say on this Amendment. I remember in his constituency going into a number of houses and being shown the type of damage which is occurring. I can remember very well a lady in one of the houses saying that at night she could hear cracks which were the sign of small items of damage occurring in various places in the house. The following morning some damage might be disclosed. It might cost 5s., 10s. or £1 to put right. It would be nothing very much. A week or six months would go by and then some further damage would occur, costing perhaps £2 or £3 to repair. I do not think that kind of cost is covered by this subsection. If the Parliamentary Secretary will look at the subsection he will see that it contemplates that all damage occurs more or less in a single event, and he has not catered for the case where over a period of a year or so a number of small items of damage occur some of which may be below £5 and some above £5.

Mr. Robens

My own view is that cumulative amounts if totalling more than £5 are to be paid for. It is not a question of taking each bit of damage separately and settling that particular account. All the damage would be taken into consideration.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I do not think the Clause is at all clear. It might well be that two items of damage have occurred at intervals due to the workings of two different seams.

Mr. Robens

Provided the damage is between 1st January, 1947, and the passing of the Act, it will be the total damage, not the different periods, that will come within the £5.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I am glad to get that assurance. I hope that when we reach the next stage the point will have been looked into to make quite certain that the Clause covers the case where there is a series of damage which has occurred at different times.

Mr. Robens

That is the intention.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I should like to reinforce what has been said. It is rather difficult to construe the Clause as covering that point. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary has that intention, but I should be grateful if he would look at it again to make certain the Clause does mean that. It seems rather difficult to understand the Parliamentary Secretary's argument on the other side of the question. It is difficult to understand how the National Coal Board can deal with claims under £5 once the Bill becomes an Act, but cannot accept such claims for the period between January, 1947, and the passing of the Act.

Mr. Robens

I am sure that there is nothing between us on this point. If repairs have been effected bills will have been paid. It is a simple matter to put them together and add them up, provided they cover the period between 1st January, 1947, and the passing of the Act, and then to say to the Coal Board: "Here is the extent to which I have incurred expenses for damage." After that, if a small amount of damage arises, notification is given to the National Coal Board to come and inspect it. That is why they can deal with all the small items afterwards but not before.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

That is a most difficult argument to understand. I do not think there is any question of someone using this Amendment to defraud the National Coal Board. If the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that, perhaps he will say so and we can then develop a different point.

Mr. Robens indicated dissent.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

Then we are talking about the same thing. As I understand it, all that is at stake is whether the National Coal Board can afford the time and staff to deal with small claims covering the period between January, 1947, and the time when this Bill becomes an Act. If they have the staff to deal with all such claims for the future, I cannot see why it is impossible for them to do so in cases before the Bill passes into law. We again get this illogical attitude of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary.

Take the case of two adjoining houses, in both of which there is damage to the extent of £2. In one case the subsidence happens the day before the Royal Assent, and in the other the damage occurs after. The second house can get payment in full, but the first house gets none at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is absolutely true. It is exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that £5 is the limit below which no claims will be entertained for any work that has been done until this Bill becomes an Act. That is the point. It seems to me a simple point, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite are not going to agree with me.

We get this completely illogical differential, which is not necessitated by any rule, but is a purely arbitrary date chosen for convenience. If the Coal Board can deal with all these claims from the date of the passing of the Act, it should not be beyond their capabilities to deal with a few cases that will arise between 1st January, 1947, and the time this Act comes into force. If the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept this Amendment, perhaps he will give us an undertaking to look at the matter again between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Robens

Before this figure of £5 was decided upon we looked at all these problems, and I am sorry if I appear to be illogical about it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

It is the Bill that is illogical.

Mr. Robens

All right, the Bill is illogical. But there is a big difference between a small claim for 10s. or 15s. in regard to something that has happened three years before and which has to be investigated as being due to subsidence, and a small claim which arises after the passing of the Act. In that case the damage is reported when it is occurring, and a workman is sent along from the colliery. He sees a cracked wall; there is the evidence of the subsidence. He goes back and gets the necessary mortar and does the repairs. There is a big difference between that and the machinery which would be required to sift small, trivial claims.

My hon. Friends on this side of the House who represent mining constituencies will agree that there are literally thousands of claims, which, if they were sifted to decide whether they were due to subsidence damage or not, would cost a great deal in administration alone. That is why we decided that it would not be fair to go beyond this limit of £5. It is not illogical to refuse to sift claims for less than £5 for repairs which happened between 1st January, 1947, and the passing of the Bill. It is for these reasons that we have taken the steps that we have, and I hope the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Bracken

How can the Committee accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says? I am surprised that there are not more representatives from mining constituencies present at this moment. I hope Mr. Horner is somewhere about tonight and will see the poor representation of miners. What does the Minister say? He says it is quite all right to do an injustice to the man whose claim is below £5. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said nothing of the sort."] Yes, he did. Hon. Gentlemen who are squawking had better read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. The Parliamentary Secretary said, "How can you deal with these claims of 15s.?" But all the great stores in the world will go to the greatest possible trouble to look into an objection from a customer if he is overcharged by a 1s. or 3s

Mr. Robens

Not when it is three years old.

Mr. Bracken

Yes, they will, but I am not speaking for the Co-operative Societies. The big stores will look into any complaint that customers make of overcharging. Is the Coal Board something set above God? It would seem to be, because what they say is, "We cannot be bothered with any claim which is below £5." I am delighted to notice what is happening. Many Members, who represent mining constituencies, are away when they should be here, and they have nothing to say about the small man who puts his savings into a house and finds that he is mulcted in £5. Apparently, it does not matter at all, because the wondrous Lord Hindley would not deign to look at such a small claim, nor would the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.

This is one of the gravest exhibitions I have seen here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members opposite are joining with me in condemning the Parliamentary Secretary. It was one of the most extraordinary performances I have known from any Government. They say: "No one with a claim under £5 will be considered. We cannot be bothered to deal with them. Nor can our nominees in the National Coal Board." I hope that that news will spread throughout the country, and more particularly in the constituency of Ince.

8.45 p.m.

The Minister, who is a man of great amiability, approaches his present post with the qualification that he does not know anything whatsoever about mining. That, in other words, is his qualification for being a Socialist Minister. He says that in the case of subsidence all that will happen is that a miner—or "a worker" as he calls him—is sent along to look at a cracked wall. The man fills up the crack with cement, and everything is then all right. That is the Minister's recipe for dealing with subsidence. In point of fact, the cracks may appear on the following day, and the worker would be there all the time unless he was dealing with a fundamental subsidence. This idea that we can have an amateur pottering around filling up cracks when the foundations are shifting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Minister had better hear me out. He approaches these problems as very small affairs. If and when a crack appears it will be filled up with cement at a cost of 30s. or £2. That is absolute nonsense.

The truth is that when subsidence appears on a big scale, cracks appear not only every day but every night. These are very serious matters for the unfortunate people who live in the houses. Yet the Minister comes along and says: "It is a matter of no consequence whatever. If a crack occurs we will spend 30s. or perhaps 50s. on a plasterer who will come along. Once he has done his work and filled up that crack the obligation on the National Coal Board ends." If another crack appears on the following day or the following week I suppose the Coal Board will say: "We have nothing to do with it. We accept no responsibility." All I can say is that the workers' friends tonight are the harshest men I have ever seen I must turn to Shylock as an exemplar.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Higgs

I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out subsection (3).

The subsection which this Amendment seeks to remove relieves the National Coal Board of responsibility for rebuilding or paying for the rebuilding of a house which it is uneconomical to rebuild. So long, as the housing shortage continues in this country, the policy of the Government and of the housing authorities must be on many occasions to insist upon houses being repaired which can only be done uneconomically. The question which the Amendment raises is whether it is right, seeing that we are making the National Coal Board responsible for carrying out repairs, to relieve the Board of the responsibility for those repairs to the extent to which they are uneconomical.

It seems to me that there are two classes of case in which the Coal Board might take advantage of the Clause if it remains in the Bill. The first would be where a house which, before the damage, was sound and, to a reasonable extent, up to modern standards was damaged so extensively that it was uneconomical to repair because the cost of the repair would be more than the house was worth. The other case is where the damage is slight but the difficulty is that the house, being old and out of date and not likely to remain for very long, was of small value before it was damaged In either case the Clause would give the Board the right to pay only a reduced measure of compensation or only to pay something towards the cost of the repairs.

Our object in moving the Amendment is not solely the protection of landlords. Tenants who live in the houses and also the houses themselves in a way have an interest separate to that of the landlord. The sort of difficulty that will arise if the Amendment is not carried will be that owner-occupiers will find that if their house is substantially damaged and they are not given the money with which to repair it they will have to go elsewhere and seek accommodation and they will not be given the full cost of finding accommodation elsewhere, and, perhaps, in the background, there is a mortgage on the house any way.

Owners will also find that they may in those very circumstances be faced with an additional difficulty in the shape of a local authority which comes along and says, "Whatever may be the economics of the thing, the house must be repaired." One way round the difficulty might have been to say that in those circumstances the owner could tell the local authority, "Very well. If you think this house should be repaired, take the thing and pay me its pre-damage value, and you repair it and you can have the National Coal Board's part payment towards it." That might have been one way, but, even so, it might seem a little unjust to put on to the housing authority that which we are in process of saying is the proper responsibility of the National Coal Board, that is, paying for damage due to mining, past or future.

I know that we may be told that there is a risk that spivs and profiteers will see an opportunity, if we omit the Clause, to take properties which have been damaged in order to re-build them and make money out of them, but I believe that on reflection the Committee will realise that such people are not likely to operate in areas where mining subsidence damage may occur again and again. In any event, if the houses are not owner-occupied, the Rent Restriction Acts will very much limit the activities of such people. In any case, I suppose that the difficulty will pass away when the housing shortage goes so that a vacant house has not an artificial cash value which is higher than the cost of building and when a tenant whose house is damaged can seek a house elsewhere. The Amendment seeks to deal with a very real difficulty, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. Mainwaring

In this subsection the word "value" appears for the first time but occurs repeatedly in the subsequent Clauses of the Bill as well as in the Schedule, where the value of a house is defined as the price it might obtain in the open market with vacant possession. What can anyone get for a house in a mining district today? A house whose real worth in Rhondda would be anything from £300 to £500 would easily fetch £1,000 now, not because of its value but because of the stress of the population upon the existing supply.

Mr. Bracken

And the Town and Country Planning Act.

Mr. Mainwaring

Let us assume that a house whose real value is £500 is damaged to an extent requiring £50 repairs. If the Coal Board were as soulless as the persons who used to be in possession of the coalfields, they could come along and say, "We have spent £50 on this house. If you sold it on the open market now you would get £1,000. Therefore, we do not need to pay you anything because, according to this subsection, we need only pay you the amount which would constitute the depreciation in the value of the dwelling-house caused by the damage." So it is not a question of the cost of repairs at all, but the difference between the assumed depreciated value of the house and its value in the open market. Some of these so-called definitions in this Bill are amazing, and this is one that needs to be looked at.

Mr. Robens

I am perfectly sure that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) who put down this Amendment, while looking at one aspect of it, did not realise the full implication of what he was doing. If this subsection were wiped out completely it would leave the Bill merely with the responsibility of carrying out reasonable repairs. Who would say what were reasonable repairs if a house were so badly damaged by subsidence that the conclusion reached under this subsection was that it was better to pay a depreciation charge than to spend more money in repairing it than the house was worth? For example, would any court say it was a reasonable repair to spend all that money? Again, what a difficulty we would put the courts in when dealing with other matters in respect to reasonableness that are mentioned in the Bill.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman himself said that we should do all we could to preserve houses—I do not disagree with him on that—but that it would be wrong to waste resources. Would it not be wrong to waste resources in labour and materials? It must be borne in mind that under this subsection a house has to be really badly damaged. It would mean virtually rebuilding the place, but would it not be wrong to do that rather than to apply that labour and materials to new building? In my constituency, as is the case with other mining Members, there is a good deal of subsidence damage. There are a good many houses in my constituency which are due for slum clearance in which miners still have to go on living. Would it be right that if subsidence occurred, bringing those houses within the ambit of the subsection—houses so badly damaged that the cost of the repairs would be more than the value of the houses themselves which are due to be slum cleared—we should spend all that money to make good slums which are to come down in any case?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Higgs

That is the very point I am making. I have known of cases where that has happened, where the local authority comes along and says to the owner, "You must repair the house because it has got to be repaired; it is needed."

Mr. Robens

If the hon. Member would care to come with me one weekend I could take him, not merely to single houses, but to rows of colliery houses which are a disgrace for anybody to have to live in. Local authorities, thank goodness, are mainly Labour controlled, and never would say, "You have got to repair it." They would issue a demolition order and the house would come down.

Mr. Bracken

And put the man on the street.

Mr. Robens

No, they would find him alternative accommodation, which is much more than the party of the right hon. Gentleman would ever do.

We must get back to the concord and harmony which prevailed before I began speaking. I have tried to show, I hope not unfairly, that it would be a great mistake indeed to leave out the subsection, because the effect of doing so would not really be to the benefit of the people in their homes or of the owner occupiers. My last point is that the determination of the amount of depreciation is dealt with by Clause 4 and the Schedule. If I might refer briefly to that matter, I would remind the Committee that when the question of value is dealt with, the present-day market value of the house with vacant possession is taken. I think that, generally speaking, in dealing with this we have done the right thing, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Gentleman is the greatest optimist in the world if he thinks that his thoroughly inadequate explanation will make us cease from trying to do elementary justice to the tens of thousands of constituents of hon. Members opposite who are so ill-represented in the House of Commons.

The Minister told us that he admits that there is a housing shortage. I think that that discovery is almost as miraculous as when Stanley discovered Livingstone. Of course there is a housing shortage, and we know the reason why. It is largely because of the effusive, not to say fizzing, Welshman who was connected for a short time with the mining industry and had the good sense to get out of it.

The Minister did not take the slightest notice of the suggestion by my hon. Friend that many of these houses can be repaired, and must be repaired. It is no use anybody in the Committee thinking that we are going to deal with this appalling social problem, the worst that afflicts our country, of literally hundreds of thousands of people without any place that they can call a home, by talking or writing about building programmes. We must do the best we can with the modernisation of existing houses, and it is for that reason that my hon. Friend put down the Amendment. There is a great deal which can be done.

The Minister talked in a blissful way and said that if he were to accept our Amendment it would lead—I am quoting his words—to the virtual rebuilding of a house, which he calls "a scandalous waste."

Mr. Robens

Yes.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Member agrees?

Mr. Robens

Yes.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Gentleman had better remember, and he ought to remember, for one reason only, the history of a house which he knows something about, and so do I—No. 10 Downing Street. That house was falling down. Everybody said, "You cannot keep that old shack going. It is quite impossible. It is unhealthy, the foundations have fallen." Nevertheless, the House of Commons approved the expenditure of an immense amount of money in putting right No. 10 Downing Street. Let us spend some money in putting right the humble houses of miners. [Laughter.] Look at the gleeful grinning democrats. The Minister ought to be taking notice of this illustration because the fount of patronage in which he wallows is No. 10, Downing Street.

I do not want to go on with this particular comparison but I do say that we in this House have no right to say, as the Minister says, "Pull down these houses, condemn them." An immense amount of accommodation can be provided for people in this country if an intelligent effort is made to repair existing houses. There are plenty of them and it is no use the Parliamentary Secretary telling us that we must allow the destruction of these houses, either by the fact that the Government will not provide the money to repair them, or because they may fall down on their own, and that we must be patient about these methods because in due course there will be a splendid housing scheme and that will deal with all the persons affected by this Amendment. We are not prepared to wait until the crack of doom, as we must if the present Minister of Health is responsible for housing.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I rise to ask whether there is not a principle involved in this which, by custom and usage, has always been accepted in other respects, but which the right hon. Gentleman did not find convenient to himself in his argument just now. All of us on both sides of the Committee were deeply affected by the breaking of his heart and, if it were not for the fact that it is so frequently broken, we would have been even more affected. Is it not a fact that motor cars are also in short supply and that we are accustomed to using rather old ones—at least some of us do and others use none at all?

Mr. Bracken

Not Ministers.

Dr Stross

I notice that hon. Members opposite still have some old Rolls Royce cars and I will confine myself to that illustration, or to 1921 Austin 20's. When such a car meets with an accident and a claim is made to the insurance company are not the insurance company allowed to say, "This is a write off, because it does not pay to put this back into the condition in which it was before the accident happened. It is not a good enough proposition and we will therefore pay a certain amount of compensation which we think is reasonable"? Right hon. Gentlemen have always accepted that from insurance companies in respect of cars. Why suddenly the remarkable sorrow, indignation and rather spurious hypocrisy over this matter?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite (Bristol, North-West)

The Committee must have been deeply moved by the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke- on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) in defence of slum property now owned by the National Coal Board——

Mr. Fernyhough

They did not build it, anyway.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

—and much of his speech will go on record, despite the interruption of the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). I was surprised by the nonchalant reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, who brushed aside, without even a sentence of reference, the important and constructive remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) who, after all, speaks with the greatest and deepest knowledge of this great problem.

It was really astonishing to see the quiescent attitude, particularly of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), whom we are glad to welcome back after his recent illness. I remember him delivering a particularly powerful speech towards the closing days of the recent Parliament, the theme of which was how much he resented the attitude of, "Anything is good enough for the pits." Now he is sitting quite silent when the suggestion is that anything is good enough for the pitman when it comes to compensation.

Mr. T. Brown

I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not want to misquote me. What I said then was that in days gone by it was said "'owt 'ull do for t'pit," but that now we say that only the best will do for the pit and for the pitmen.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

Yes, that is what the hon. Gentleman said. I well remember his speech. His hon. Friends are now saying that "'owt is good enough for t'pitmen" when it comes to accommodation. Should this Amendment be pressed to a Division I shall look forward to marching arm in arm with the hon. Gentleman on this very important issue.

Mr. D. Griffiths

Are not the Opposition going to divide?

Mr. Bracken

I am told that the Whips are in hospital.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I am not informed myself as to the latest position of the casualty list of hon. Members opposite. I am told that the strain of late hours is telling on them, and that when the bell tolls, hon Members arrive in considerable numbers from the Terrace bar—which is usually overcrowded, except when there is a vote taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] To withdraw that remark would be to add to the deficit of the Kitchen Committee, which I am loth to do.

Mr. Fernyhough

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to make a reflection upon hon. Members on this side of the Committee with regard to the use of the bar, when everybody knows that it is used equally, if not more, by the Opposition?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

I listened very carefully to what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, and all hon. Members were included.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

Further to that point of Order. Do I understand from your Ruling, Sir Charles, that everybody was referred to in this respect? I would very respectfully put it to you that there are exceptions, and that they are mostly on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Bracken

Is it right that an hon. Gentleman should use this opportunity to indulge in some of his squalid temperance propaganda?

Mr. Hubbard

Is it in Order, Sir Charles, for an hon. and gallant Member to give us the advantage of his own experience as to who uses the Terrace bar and who does not?

The Deputy-Chairman

As we are debating a Bill concerning mining subsidence, perhaps we might now deal with it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

No one would accuse the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), who is so constantly in attendance here, of having any leisure whatever for the purpose of visiting the Terrace bar or any bar in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. My remark embraced both sides of the Committee and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) should feel so self-conscious as to rise to a point of Order.

Mr. Fernyhough

I think that the hon. and gallant Member will admit that his hon. Friends sitting around him have now suggested that perhaps it was an improper remark for him to make.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

No. The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is entirely incorrect.

When these various interventions took place, some alcoholic and some temper ance, I was about to remark that the Parliamentary Secretary made, to my mind, the most astonishing observation when replying to the Amendment. He said that what his party would do in the case of a collier displaced because of inferior property, with one wave of the hand—I think the left hand——

Mr. Robens

The right hand.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I wish to be accurate. With one wave of his right hand he said "Oh, that is quite simple. We would find them alternative accommodation."

Mr. Robens

And do.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite

I would merely ask the hon. Gentleman to put this question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, who I am very glad is with us: How and where?

Amendment negatived.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price (Gloucestershire, West)

I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, after "Board," to insert: by agreement with the owners and any person entitled to a payment under this subsection. As they cover the same subject, perhaps it might save time if I discussed, at the same time, the next Amendment in my name, in page 3, line 15, at the end, to insert: Provided that in the absence of agreement with the owner or any person entitled to a payment under this subsection, the National Coal Board may apply to the county court, or in Scotland, the sheriff, for determination that in all the circumstances it would not be reasonable to carry out repairs or to make a payment under the preceding provisions of this section, and the county court, if satisfied to that effect, may determine accordingly, and the National Coal Board shall thereupon make a payment equal to the amount of the said depreciation. and the two Amendments to Clause 3 standing in my name: In page 4, line 10. after "Board," insert: by agreement with the owner and any person entitled to a payment under this subsection. In page 4, line 15, at end, insert: Provided that in the absence of agreement with the owner or any person entitled to a payment under this subsection, the National Coal Board may apply to the county court or, in Scotland, the sheriff, for determination that in all the circumstances it would not be reasonable to carry out repairs or to make a payment under the preceding provisions of this section and the county court, if satisfied to that effect, may determine accordingly, and the National Coal Board shall thereupon make a payment equal to the amount of the said depreciation.

The Deputy-Chairman

I take it that the hon. Member wishes to discuss the four Amendments together?

Mr. Price

Yes.

The Deputy-Chairman

I agree, if that is the wish of the Committee.

Mr. Price

These Amendments will help to clear up the difficulty of deciding what are reasonable repairs and the methods by which they will be determined. As the Clause is drafted the Coal Board may make a payment equal to "the cost reasonably incurred," but that does not leave much latitude. It rather looks as if there is not much right left to the small property owner in determining the type of his compensation. I know a great many small property owners in my constituency whom I think will be involved in this matter.

It also looks, by the wording of the Clause, that the National Coal Board will have something approaching a free band in determining whether the depreciation shall be paid for or repairs shall be undertaken. While I did not agree with the Opposition in their last Amendment, I have no doubt that there will be many cases in which repairs should not be undertaken and in which it should be a question of depreciation, for there is inferior property which it is not worth while the Board undertaking to repair, and in respect of which arrangements should be reached for compensation on the basis of depreciation.

But there are also many border-line cases in which it is difficult to make a decision one way or the other. In such a case one cannot leave the Coal Board free to be judge and jury in their own case. The answer seems to me to lie in these four Amendments. The first one suggests voluntary agreement between the owner and the Coal Board wherever that is possible, and it should be possible frequently for such an arrangement to be reached. Failing agreement I think the best thing is to have an independent opinion about the matter in these borderline cases. I suggest the county court judge. I would point out that in the Turner Report there occurs this passage, in Section 90, on page 25: our recommendations for this…class of property "— surface property— are that the normal tribunal for enforcing claims for compensation shall be the local County Court with a jurisdiction unlimited as to amount. The Coal Board should be made to show reasons for not meeting the full cost of repairs. In some cases they may be perfectly justified in doing so, but not in others. The Coal Board is a big public corporation and quite rightly we cannot ask a lot of questions about its activities. All the more reason, therefore, that it should be laid down that in difficulties of this kind there should be an independent opinion given. I am not tied to any particular wording but I think that the Clause needs strengthening by words of this kind.

Mr. Robens

It may well be that in border-line cases, such as my hon. Friend has indicated, there might be a sense of unfairness, but it is left entirely with the Coal Board to determine those matters. One can envisage a comparatively new house being heavily damaged by subsidence and the depreciation value would not replace that house as it was. Therefore, there might be a case where the owner might insist on repairs being carried out and with some justice. There is, therefore, something in the kind of border-line case with which the hon. Gentleman has dealt. It is perfectly true that under this Clause it is left to the Coal Board to decide, and if my hon. Friend is agreeable, having made his point, to leave the matter with us we will see if anything can be done.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) made a very reasonable speech and got no support from his colleagues. He has made out a clear case, but I am not at all satisfied that the Coal Board are likely to do much justice to the smaller persons. After all, we know that they dwell in the stately homes of England. Our old colleague, Sir Ben Smith, lives in one of the largest houses in the country. It may be that he will go slumming round the mining villages, but I rather doubt it. The position of the Minister is peculiar, belonging, as he does, to a Government which is quite willing to spend over £150,000 in repairing a house in Carlton House Terrace for the Foreign Secretary.

The Chairman

Order. That has no relevance to the Clause.

Mr. Philips Price

In view of the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pickthorn

I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end to add: (5) The amount (if any) by which any sum received under this section by a person who is the owner but not the occupier of the dwelling-house exceeds the cost already incurred by him of repairs to the dwelling-house required in consequence of the subsidence damage shall be applied by him in effecting such repairs. The purpose of this Amendment is plain on the face of it, and I think the argument for it is almost equally self evident; that is to say, the agreed principle of this Bill on both sides of the Committee has been to reduce to the minimum the amount of house property which falls out of use, or out of decent use, as a result of subsidence. I think that is the principle on which we have all been agreed, to whichever party we belong, and upon that principle there is clearly a very strong prima facie case for providing that money found by the Exchequer and the Coal Board under the provisions of this Bill should be used for the mending and preservation of the houses concerned.

I do not know what case there may be against that, but it seems quite plain that on the face of the Bill, and of the principle we have agreed upon, there is that case in favour of this Amendment.

Mr. Robens

I appreciate the case made by the hon. Gentleman, but where the repairs are carried out by the Coal Board then, of course, there will be no surplus money and, therefore, it could not be applied elsewhere. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has the point in mind. The only time when money will pass over will be in respect of the depreciation payments. Would it not be rather unfair to insist that a man who got a depreciation payment should apply that to the effecting of repairs? He has been given a depreciation payment because it was not thought worth while to repair the property. Therefore, to give him a depreciation payment and to lay it down that he must apply it to repairs would be scarcely proper and right. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to do that, but that is precisely how the Amendment would operate.

Mr. Pickthorn

I see that difficulty, but the intention is to provide something which shall be used in the keeping up of the amount of accommodation units—I think that is the expression used by the Minister of Health. The intention of the Amendment, for whose form of wording I have no obligation at all, was to try to make sure that money provided by the National Coal Board, or the Exchequer, under this Clause should go to the maintenance or provision of houses. I am quite sure that everybody in the Committee would desire that result.

I do not for a moment suggest that it is certain that this Amendment would produce the result, or that there is no other better way of producing the result. The obligation which I suggest is on the Treasury Bench is to show whether that result is the result aimed at by the Bill and, if so, how it is to be got, because upon the hon. Gentleman's own argument it clearly is not to be got under the Bill as it stands. I am prepared to admit for the sake of argument that he has proved that neither would it be fairly and properly got under the Bill as I seek to amend it. What remains true is that that is what the whole Committee desires to happen. If it is not going to happen, either under the Bill as drawn or under my Amendment as suggested, then we ought to have some sort of indication from the Treasury Bench of the proposals they desire to make at a later stage.

Mr. Robens

I think that the hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that, in point of fact, all moneys will be spent upon the repairs or maintenance of property. If the Coal Board do the job themselves, then there is no question about it. If they get another contractor to do it, they will merely pay the contractor's charges for the job. In other words, the contractors will be the agents of the Coal Board. I think that the hon. Gentleman could be satisfied that the Bill as drafted will enable all monies to be spent on the repair and maintenance of houses, with the exception of the depreciation charge which I have mentioned.

Sir H. Williams

When the Parliamentary Secretary spoke for the first time, I thought that he was right and that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) was wrong; but the Minister made the mistake of making a second speech. Those who take the trouble to read subsection (3) will see that it provides that if the cost of carrying out reasonable repairs exceeds, or will exceed, the amount of depreciation in value, then the National Coal Board, instead of carrying out repairs, may make a payment. The proposed subsection (5) deals with what will happen if that payment exceeds the amount already incurred. Then it provides that the benefit of that excess payment shall not go to the owner but shall in fact be for the benefit of the occupier. In other words, if an owner receives an amount which is in excess of the cost of what has already been done—if an excess payment has been made to the owner—he cannot put it in his pocket, but he will be required to use that excess money for the benefit of the occupier.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to read subsection (5) a little more carefully to see what is the effect of the argument which he has used, and I think his argument is false from his own point of view. The person whom we are anxious to protect in this case is the tenant, and the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary is that the tenant is not entitled to any consideration. I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will make a third speech to explain the point, because I would not have spoken at all if he had not made his second one.

Amendment negatived.

9.30 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ellis Smith

Before we part with this Clause, I wish to ask for an interpretation as to the way in which certain phrases in it will be administered. In subsection (1), we find the words: The National Coal Board shall carry out as soon as possible…. I want to ask what is the Minister's view of the meaning of that phrase, and I think it is necessary that we should obtain some assurance on the matter. Later, the Clause uses the words "such reasonable repairs."

The reasons why I am asking for assurances on these points are, briefly, these: On a recent Sunday I was walking through part of my division when I came to a street where the houses were as clean as it was possible for women to keep them, yet right up the front walls there were fairly wide cracks. I looked through the front rooms and found that the inside condition of the houses was a credit to those who lived in them, while outside, there were these terible effects of mining subsidence.

Since all areas are involved in this matter to a greater or lesser extent, I would like to ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that the words "as soon as possible" will be applied in such a way that people will not have to live in these conditions as they have had to do in the past, but that, as soon as the effects of mining subsidence appear on ordinary houses, the Coal Board will see to it at once that repairs are carried out. I hope the Minister will be good enough to go as far as he can to make as generous an interpretation as is possible of the words about which I am concerned.

Mr. Peter Roberts (Sheffield, Heeley)

There are two points which I would like to put to the Minister, and the first one is on the question of the licences for these repairs. I should like to know, and I think hon. Members representing areas not affected by this problem would also like to know, whether, if these repairs have to be made by the Coal Board and, for instance, cost over £100, that will come out of the licensed allocation of the area or region, at present covered by the housing regional officer. Will this be building supplementary to the housing schemes, or will it take away from licences going into the building or repairing of houses? It is very important that we should have the answer to that, because, in Sheffield, for instance, we are well behind in our housing programme, and if we are to be cut still further by repairs of this kind, I shall have to think even more carefully about this Bill than I have done so far.

My second question is one of principle which I would like the Minister to answer. There is some principle about this Clause which I do not follow, and I would be interested to hear the views of other hon. Members on the point. I do not see, and I have said so in earlier Debates on this subject, why the Coal Board should be asked to pay half of these repairs. The principle on which I start is this: if we take the period before 1947, when the industry was not run by the Coal Board, we were all agreed, I think, that these burdens should not have been placed upon the mining industry at that time.

The Chairman

I do not think that that question arises on this Clause. The matter of the amount to be found by the National Coal Board arises on another Clause.

Mr. Roberts

The point I am referring to is that the Board shall carry out certain repairs, or pay the cost of such repairs, and, as we know, they can recover half the cost from the Treasury. I do not understand why the Minister says that the Board should pay for all subsequent repairs, for the other 50 per cent. I should have thought that the Minister might say at a later stage in this Clause that the owner might pay a premium for some insurance scheme which would take some of the burden off the shoulders of the Board, and it is to that point that I am addressing my remarks.

Under subsection (2) a right and a duty are placed upon the Board to make repairs. Will the Minister say why this right and this duty were not placed upon the industry before 1947? I do not think that it should have been placed on it before 1947, and neither, apparently, did hon. Members opposite, as otherwise they would have moved the Amendment to that effect. If it was wrong then, how can it be right now? I suggest that those of us who are users of coal have the right to object to this extra burden being placed on the Board's financial structure. I repeat, in so far as hon. Members on both sides were not prepared to place the burden on the industry when in private hands, why should they now want to put it on the industry when in public hands?

I think that when we come to Clause 6 we may find some reason why the Board have agreed to this, because in that Clause there is a very big loophole. If the Minister cannot give a satisfactory answer as to why, if it was wrong to do this before 1947, it is now right to do it, I hope the Committee will seriously consider further Amendments to this subsection on the Report stage.

Dr. Stross

I wish to support what has been asked for by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith). He and I are colleagues, and, like many other hon. Members, are fully cognisant of the evil effects of subsidence. We would certainly like some further clarification regarding the definition of such phrases as "as soon as possible." Obviously, the definition cannot be given exactly, but some of us have experience of property in Stoke-on-Trent. Some of the houses there, owing to their being of a certain type, were able to claim against the colliery companies in years gone by. I did that in regard to my own house, and I did not have to wait a very appreciable time because I was the local doctor, but other people had to wait very much longer.

With regard to the term "reasonable repairs," I remember objecting because a lintel in my house was broken. Setting out on my rounds one morning I saw "reasonable repair" men putting a tiny skimming of cement on the lintel to cover up the break. It is true that when I objected it was cut out, and a completely new one put in, which I thought was a properly reasonable repair. We feel—although we expect very much better treatment in future—that some assurance should be given on this matter. The word "reasonable" does not really mean anything unless we can get a further explanation from the Minister as to its exact definition.

I know that this Clause as it stands, even without the further elucidation for which we are asking, and which I am confident we shall get, is welcomed by constituents of mine because it is a great advance on what we have had in the past. After all, some hon. Members are not aware in the areas where they live that it is possible for a road to open and for human beings to fall in and never be seen again—that has happened in my constituency—and for a lake with everything swimming on it to disappear and never be seen again. We know these problems and have suffered from them in the past, and we would like the amplest possible definition that we can get.

Colonel Clarke

I rise only for a moment or two to ask a question. A few moments ago, the question of licences for these repairs was referred to. I recollect that during the Second Reading Debate the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) made a very interesting speech, and asked whether the labour and materials needed to repair the houses would be counted in the quota allocated to Rhondda for housing purposes. I am not speaking for Rhondda in particular, but I think that we should have an answer to this question in general. I notice that the hon. Member did not get an answer the other day; at least, I cannot find it, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give an answer to it tonight.

Sir H. Williams

I did not quite appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) when he said that before the Coal Board came into being, people used to fall down the shaft—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It sounded very much like that to me, but the hon. Gentleman was not very explicit.

Dr. Stross

It was I who was speaking of the "crack of doom."

Sir H. Williams

They fell down the crack of doom before the Coal Board came into being, and they did not get any compensation, and neither will they under this Bill. I do not see the purpose of the observation.

There is one point of draftsmanship to which I should like to draw attention. The second line of this Clause says: …any subsidence damage occurred or occurs on or after…. I should have thought that the whole point would have been covered by the use of the word "occurs" without the previous words "occurred or," and I have been taught by eminent lawyers that words appearing in an Act of Parliament always have some use, which the courts may have to elucidate. Will the Minister tell me why these words appear, because they seem to me to be redundant, and I think it always dangerous to have redundant words in an Act of Parliament, because they may cause great trouble later.

Other hon. Members have referred to the question of getting licences for carrying out these repairs. My experience is not so much with underground subsidence as with the vertical subsidence caused by Hitler. In my constituency, 15,000 houses were damaged, and there have been great delays in carrying out repairs owing to the lack of licences. I am, therefore, entitled to ask whether the words "as soon as possible" give a privilege to Stoke-on-Trent and other places. It is a fair question. After all, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North, South, East or Central, I am not quite certain which they are, did not experience the kind or horror which we experienced in my constituency, when at least 15,000 houses were damaged, I want to make certain that these words "as soon as possible" do not prejudice my constituents.

I live only three-quarters of a mile from here, and we are only now getting certain damage made good. We are entitled to shout, if I may say so, for our own constituency and our own interests. Vested interests are not merely the vested interests of the wicked capitalists but of the Members for Stoke-on-Trent and other places who come to plead the cause of their own constituencies. If there is a conflict of interest between my own constituency and Stoke, I shall fight for my constituency. I would be grateful if the Minister would clear up that point of draftsmanship in the second line of the Clause.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn

The point I wish to put very shortly is the point which has already been put twice from the Valley of the Trent. First of all, there is this question of "as soon as possible." These are words we have debated more than once before, which must, I am sure, although I cannot remember when and how, have been the subject of judicial interpretation. I should like to be told from the Treasury Bench whether, in their guess, in this connection it means "as soon as materially possible," or "as soon as administratively possible," which, as a rule, means as soon as administratively convenient.

As a corollary, I should like to ask how it is conceived that this matter might be challenged. We heard a personal story from the medical Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stress) about what happened when he had rights as against a coal-getting company. In that case the coal-getting company began by delay; secondly, they papered over the cracks; thirdly, they did the job properly. In that case there was a sanction. He had in the terms of his lease or at common law a legal right.

Suppose that the hon. Member's lintel over the sitting room goes next time, and suppose that the repairs are not made "as soon as possible" in his understanding of those words, and are not made "reasonable" in his understanding of that word. What happens then? Has he the right to a suit in the courts, and exactly what sort of right of suit in the courts is it to be? My guess is that he will have no rights here, and that if he endeavoured to put down a Question he would be told that it is a matter of day-to-day administration. I think it important, therefore, to ask the Treasury Bench to make it plain to us what rights there would be in such a case.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Perhaps I might first answer the point about drafting, as to why the word "occurred" appears in the second line of the Clause as well as "occurs." It is because this is retrospective. The word "occurred" refers to damage before the Bill becomes an Act, and the word "occurs" refers to damage after the Act is passed. I now come to "as soon as possible," which means "as soon as possible having regard to all the circumstances of the case." Later Clauses make it the right of the owner himself to carry out temporary repairs, if he thinks it necessary to deal with burst water pipes or to stop his roof leaking. If he gets that done the Coal Board will pay. He does not have to give notice, but just does it and the Coal Board pays.

Permanent repairs cannot be done with advantage to anyone until the movement or subsidence has ended, and it is not desirable that they should be done. On the other hand before then it may well be desirable to do some temporary repairs or preventive works on the building to prevent the damage from becoming worse. All these things are allowed for and provided for by the Bill. If there is any unreasonable delay, the owner or occupier has the right to go to the county court, and the county court can act under Clause 12 (1, a).

Mr. Ellis Smith

Will my right hon. Friend consider, between now and the Report stage, whether he cannot give instructions to the local officers of the Coal Board that "as soon as possible" must be interpreted in as generous a way as possible?

Mr. Noel-Baker

I think that is done already. If my right hon. Friend receives any complaints I hope he will draw them to my attention, but I feel that we would have heard about it before this if anything like that had happened.

I come to the question of licences for repairs, and I was asked, do they come out of the area allocations, and so on? The bulk of these repairs will be under £100 in value, so that no licences will be required. I am also advised that local authorities themselves issue the licences. They are given the right to give the licences if only to keep an eye on this question of control and what is happening in their areas. I am perfectly sure that they will not refuse licences for this work.

I was also asked if the materials come out of the local authority allocations. I am advised that they do not, but the Coal Board go out and get their own materials. In fact, there is only control on timber. On bricks, cement and the other things required for such work there is no control, and the Coal Board will be able to get them.

Colonel Clarke

But supposing this work is put out to contract?

Mr. Noel-Baker

Then I presume the contractor will make his own arrangements, and will go and get the materials. If there are no controls he will be able to get the bricks, cement and suchlike things. However, normally the Coal Board will do it, and it is working satisfactorily now as I expect it will in the future. As I have already stated, the Board are working now under the existing obligation to the tune of about £500,000 a year. I was also asked what "reasonable" means. "Reasonable" means "reasonable." As we have been told, the courts have dealt with innumerable cases, and they know what it means. If there is any dispute about it the court will decide the matter, and the people have always the right to go there. It should be remembered that the Coal Board have had no trouble about it up to date.

The hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) asked why should the Coal Board pay part of the costs under this Bill? I would refer him to paragraph 85 of the Turner Report, in which they say: We have throughout been convinced that in subsidence, as in so many other fields, prevention is better than cure.…We believe that a direct financial incentive to cause as little damage as possible will be a powerful influence towards preventing damage in the future and that it will be a mistake to leave the National Coal Board with a statutory obligation to get coal cheaply and no direct obligation to take account of the damage caused in doing so. We accept the Committee's view, and we share the cost between the Treasury and the Coal Board.

Mr. Bracken

As far as we can understand from the long explanation of the Minister, the Government attitude is that they cannot be bothered to compensate anyone for past damage. They just brush it aside. That is a curious idea. I wish the Lord President of the Council would recommend it to the Board of Inland Revenue. It raises new principles in other State organisations, for if a debt or obligation is incurred two or three years ago it is not necessary to fulfil it. It is a very strange doctrine, indeed. I hope, as the time is getting on, that the Lord President will do something to correct the slowness of our progress. The Lord President muttered something. Does he wish to interrupt?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

I was only suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman that as he wishes the Bill to proceed with more speed, perhaps he will help us to get this Clause through by 10 o'Clock.

Mr. Bracken

That depends on the Lord President himself, because he has a colleague in the Minister who reminds me of the lines of a famous hymn, which run: Time, like an ever rolling stream, Bears all its sons away. The Lord President should cure his colleague of his volubility. The Lord President has raised this issue. When we want a business-like answer to a point what do we get? The right hon. Gentleman still thinks he is addressing the League of Nations, the United Nations or something else. We want to get a clear answer.

The Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the Clause, and not to these extraneous matters.

Mr. Bracken

I quite agree, Major Milner, but the Lord President made an appeal to me to get this Clause through by 10 o'clock. If I am out of Order then I am in very good company, and just as I accept your rebuke, so I think the Lord President of the Council, with his greater experience, deserves a more severe reprimand.

Major Milner

The Question is——

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil)

I will not detain the House for more than two minutes but—[Interruption.]

Mr. Bracken

On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Major Milner, for the Lord President of the Council to shout at one of his supporters "Shut up"?

Mr. Davies

I think you will agree with me, Major Milner that it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Lord President and myself to settle these matters between us. I regretted to hear the Minister say that licences for repairs costing more than £100 might be necessary before such repairs could be carried out by the National Coal Board. I hope that the Coal Board will realise that looking after repairs which are the consequence of subsidence is work which is an extension of their work of running the collieries of this country, so that no licences should be necessary at all.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.