Clause 15.—(INTERPRETATION.) (Hansard, 23 May 1950)

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
On a point of order, Sir Charles. I understand that it is likely that you will rule out of order certain Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) and other hon. Friends of mine, on the ground that they go outside the Money Resolution attending this Bill. Before you call an Amendment which would necessarily make one of those Amendments a thing of the past, I should like to ask whether you would perhaps reconsider your attitude to this matter in the light of certain considerations which I hope to be able to put to you.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Perhaps I may give my view first. The first Amendment to which the hon. Baronet refers is in Clause 15, page 10, line 44, to insert: 'curtilage' shall include one-half of any road not repairable by the inhabitants at large on which a dwelling-house abuts so far as the same is co-terminous with the frontage of such curtilage to that road.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
Yes.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
That is out of order because it goes beyond the Money Resolution. It goes beyond the garden into the middle of the road. I do not select the Amendment to page 11, line 25, to insert: ' repairs' in the case of a dwelling-house includes decoration. because it is unnecessary. The Amendment to page 11, line 27, after "structure," insert: or to the surface of any land within the curtilage of such building or structure. is out of order for the same reason as the first one.

§ Mr. Bracken
On a point of order, Sir Charles. While we do not claim to be intellectual giants—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am glad to receive the endorsement of hon. Members opposite—so far as we can discover, the Amendment does not seem to us to put any charge on the Revenue.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Which Amendment is the right hon. Gentleman referring to?

§ Mr. Bracken
The Amendment to line 27. I understood you to say that it would increase the burden on the Treasury. Of course, it is not open to Private Members so to do. When you have been acting as Deputy-Speaker, Sir Charles, you have seen from time to time Ministers denying that they have any responsibility for the expenditure of the Coal Board. In my humble submission, we are well within the rules of the House by asking you to consider this Amendment. It is a very complicated matter. All the Speakers of the past, if revived, could never really reconcile the statements of the Government. The Government say at one period of this Debate that they are not responsible for the Coal Board, and on the other hand they say "We will put pressure on the Coal Board." My submission is that the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) hopes to move is in order because it does not put any charges on the Treasury. It puts charges on the Coal Board for which the Government claim they have no responsibility.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Yes, I see that point, but there is a Money Resolution. 1961 I think the Resolution applies quite clearly to what money can be spent under this Bill.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I desire to address you on that point, Sir Charles. If you look at the wording of the Money Resolution you will see that it refers first of all to the Title of the Bill and to damage affecting certain dwelling-houses. I suggest that as far as that is relevant, it means that any damage affecting them in any degree whatsoever is within the Title of the Bill, and therefore within the terms of the Money Resolution. The Resolution continues to authorise payments in respect of subsidence damage to any dwelling-house to which the said Act applies and that damage is quite unlimited. It may be direct, it may be indirect, it may be to any degree of remoteness; there is no qualification in that respect whatsoever.
There is a definition at the end of the Money Resolution. If that is the governing definition then I submit that I am right in my contention, for this reason, that we have heard that subsidence damage means damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land as the result of the working and getting of coal or any other mineral which is worked with coal, and the reference to subsidence damage to any dwelling-house or building shall be construed as including a reference to subsidence damage to any structure, sewer, drain or installation within the curtilage of that dwelling-house or building. In other words, it is not limited to that; it includes that. Here are definite items of damage not to the house itself but to matters specifically outside the house.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I have obliged the hon. Member by giving my Ruling in advance and it would be impossible to discuss all the Amendments at once. I will deal with them one by one as they arise. The first Amendment I rule out of order because it is beyond the Money Resolution.

§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page II, to leave out lines 8 and 9, and to insert: 'hereditament' means—

(a) in England and Wales, a hereditament which is separately valued for rating purposes;
1962
(b) in Scotland, lands and heritages within the meaning of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, which are separately valued for rating purposes."

This is a drafting Amendment in order to incorporate the Scottish legal terms for the English terms in this Bill. Where the word "hereditament" is used in the English sense, we seek to substitute the Scottish expression "lands and heritages." That is the purpose of the Amendment.

§ Mr. Bracken
Sir Charles, you need no reminding that the Scots are good all the way through, that they are very restive under the present Government and that a bone has to be thrown to them from time to time, because these Covenanters are ferocious creatures. I, therefore, feel that anything we can do for Scotland—and there is a very little we can do, with the Government taking control of everything that affects Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "A dissertation."] It is a dissertation all right, because someone must stand up for the Scots as well as for the miners.
On the whole, I think there is nothing very much wrong with the Lord Advocate's brief explanation. There is, however, something wrong with his performance. It is now a quarter of an hour since I invited him to go and have a bowl of porridge, or whatever Scotsmen have in the evening. He has sat there all day long. The Ministers really ought to go—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—we have a right to make this suggestion. I know back benchers do not like their leaders and I do not mind that very much. We can do with only one Minister here for the time being. I thank the Lord Advocate for his explanation and I think, in the interests of Scotland, he ought to have a meal.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I wonder whether it would be convenient for the Lord Advocate to say something at this stage about the various undertakings which were given by the Minister on this question of what would constitute a separate hereditament. I would not wish to press it, but he might feel that this is a convenient moment to make a statement.

§ The Lord Advocate
I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, after "list," to insert "or, in Scotland, the valuation roll."
1963 This is a purely drafting Amendment in order to incorporate another Scottish term, "valuation roll," which is the equivalent of the "valuation list."

§ Mr. Bracken
I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Member for his very brief explanation of the terms and all we can say is, "Scotland for ever."

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I do not select the next Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken), in page 11, line 25, at the end, to insert: 'repairs' in the case of a dwelling-house includes decoration. It is not necessary.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
If I may make a submission to you, Sir Charles, on the next two Amendments——

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The hon. Gentleman accepts that the Amendment is not necessary?

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I am now speaking of the next two.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
One at a time, please.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I should like to move, in page 11, line 27, after "structure," to insert: or to the surface of any land within the curtilage of such building or structure. I was going to say that this and the next of our Amendments, in page 11, line 31, after "caused," to insert "directly or indirectly" are alternatives in a sense. If you could see your way, Sir Charles, to call the latter, it would include the first. It may be, if I could make a submission to you on that, that you will see that it is not possible to discuss this Bill without discussing some such Amendment. Let me draw your attention to the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, when I interrupted the Minister in the course of his speech.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
With which Amendment is the hon. Gentleman dealing now?

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
With the earlier one of the two I have mentioned. In that Debate I asked this: 1964 Does the Bill cover the type of case in which no actual damage is done to the house, but where subsidence has made it liable to flooding, and other incidents of that kind? The right hon. Gentleman said: Yes, Sir; it will certainly do that. Then, perhaps rather rudely, I said: It does not. To which the right hon. Gentleman replied: We will look into that point in Committee, but I am advised that it will."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 802.] Here we have a pledge from the Government that we should discuss in Committee this kind of point where damage is not done to the house itself, but is done to the surface of the land on which the house stands.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
No doubt, if I had called the Amendment, the Government would have been willing to speak on it, and to accept or reject it; but I am not prepared to call it.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
If that is your Ruling, Sir Charles, of course I must bow to it; but I would ask whether our rights may be protected, and I would protest against having been misled by the Government, and, perhaps, I may have an opportunity of doing so on the Question that the Clause stand part.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
It may be that I have misled the hon. Gentleman. However, I think the Amendment is outside the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Bracken
On a point of order. Nobody on this side of the Committee would accuse the Chair of misleading anyone but in point of fact we are more than willing to accuse the Government of that, because that is what they have done. They gave us an assurance which now they cannot fulfil. By the time we have finished with this Bill, hon. Members interested in the matter of subsidence will have to hire submarines from Tobermory, or one of those places, in order to go to look at the consequences. I think that, perhaps, it would be asking the Chair to go beyond its duties to remind the Minister of his promises, but, nevertheless, on undertakings given by members of the Government we have accepted or allowed to pass a number of Amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has pointed out that if——

§ Mr. Messer (Tottenham)
Order.

§ Mr. Bracken
This is a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the Chairman's place he will have to have greater popularity in the House and the Committee. All I wish to say now, with all respect to you, Sir Charles, is that, although it may be inevitable in our procedure, nevertheless, it will make nonsense of the Government's promises if my hon. Friend has not the right to deploy the merits of this Amendment and to discuss points which the Minister had led us to suppose would be discussed in Committee.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
The Amendment on page 11, line 31, after "caused," to insert "directly or indirectly," and the next, in page 11, line 32, after "support" to insert "whether such support be lateral or vertical," are outside the Money Resolution, which defines subsidence damage, and I do not select them. The next Amendment selected is that in page 11, line 33.

§ Mr. Higgs
I am afraid that I am going to trouble the Chair in another respect to seek your guidance, Sir Charles, not for the first time. In the last hour or so it has been pointed out that this Amendment goes a good deal further in the wrong direction than in the right. It was put down for the purpose of seeking an assurance from the Minister, and I do not know whether formally to move the Amendment now or to raise the matter on the Question that the Clause stand part. I am entirely in your hands, Sir Charles, as to which you think is more convenient.
I beg to move, in page 11, line 33, after "getting" to insert: by the National Coal Board or their lessees or licensees.

§ Mr. Robens
The Committee will probably remember that when the question of opencast mining was raised this same point was discussed at the same time, when I indicated that it would not matter who worked the coal; if subsidence damage was caused, under the terms of this Bill the National Coal Board would have to accept responsibility for the repairs or the payment. I think that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.

§ Mr. Higgs
With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Robens
I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, at the end, to insert: (2) For the purpose of this Act subsidence damage shall be deemed to occur or to have occurred at the time when evidence of the damage first appears or appeared. We have put down this Amendment because on Second Reading we had an argument about the meaning of the words "damage occurred." We said that we would, after consultation, insert other words, and we therefore seek to insert this subsection in the Interpretation Clause. I think these words are clear in their meaning, and if one takes them together with the Clause itself I am certain that it puts the matter beyond doubt.

§ Mr. Bracken
What is the real meaning?

§ Mr. Robens
The words are clear: For the purpose of this Act subsidence damage shall be deemed to occur or to have occurred at the time when evidence of the damage first appears or appeared. There can, I think, be no question as to when the damage occurs, or is manifest, or is seen, or there is evidence of it. As 1967 soon as there is evidence of damage liability arises, and if that is within the period laid down—after 1st January, 1947—it comes within the Bill. This Amendment has been put down in order to meet the argument raised on Second Reading, to clear up what might be an ambiguity.

§ Mr. Bracken
I am sure that the Minister meant well when he said that he had found a new form of words in an attempt to fulfil our hopes. I have been trying to parse that sentence as read by the Minister, and I have had a good look at it in writing. It strikes me as being hardly grammatical. I do not know the meaning of the words, and I do not think that the Minister does either. I am sure that they express a good intention, but they are not very clear, and I am wondering what exactly the judges and others who have to interpret them will say about them. As the Minister no longer has to keep his unfortunate civil servants up all night—this night being an exception—surely they could have a good look at this and construct a better English sentence. I am no grammarian, but as a student of Fowler, one of the greatest grammarians, I cannot make anything out of this sentence, and while we raise no particular objection to it, we think that he might read one of the best books I have read, issued by the Treasury to civil servants, "How to Write English." I suggest to the Minister—and this is not a party matter—that that part of the Clause should be re-written because, like the peace of God, it passeth all understanding.

§ Sir P. Spens
I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary have attempted to do. Whether they have done it in the best English, I am not prepared to say, but what I am reasonably sure of is that instead of the very indefinite phraseology of "occur" and "occurring" we have now something which any county court judge, the Coal Board and anybody else will be able to understand. Instead of the possibility of unknown, unseen occurrences in the foundations, we have now to look for something that is apparent. Some one said to me, "Suppose one of the houses was inherited by a blind man, how would he know that the damage had occurred?" Of course 1968 that is not the meaning of this phrase at all. It means any ordinary person using their ordinary senses would be able to say either by eyes or touch that something had happened to the structure.
I am a little more doubtful when we know that structural damage has occurred to drains and other things underground, but I understand that a very good authority in the person of the right hon. Gentleman says that, at any rate, there will be something which will become apparent to some of the senses very quickly, and that will be accepted as apparent evidence of the damage that has occurred. I think that the Bill to that extent is better than it was, and all I can say is that, disappointed as I am at its contents, I think that in this respect it is slightly better than in the form in which it was introduced.

§ Sir H. Lucas-Tooth
I desire to raise a question which we have so far been precluded from raising by reason of the way in which the Money Resolution was drafted and the terms of the Clause as it stands. The kind of case we have in mind, about which there is anxiety in all parts of the Committee, is the case where damage occurs to a building which is not of a purely structural character, but which may be far more damaging than perhaps the collapse of the roof or one of the walls.
The sort of case to which I am referring is that where, perhaps owing to the extraction of many feet of coal beneath the building, the level at which it is built subsides for a distance of as much as 20 feet, leaving the principal features, railway lines, canals and other such objects, protected on pillars of coal, as a result of which the building loses not only its aspect, its light and its air, but also its capacity to remain dry. In many cases, it is possible to make some arrangements to keep the worst of the water away, but it means that a building which was originally dry may become a dirty, wet little place sunk in a hollow in the ground as a result of mining subsidence.
Members opposite who represent mining constituencies know very well that there are such places in practically every 1969 constituency where substantial subsidence has taken place. If the building falls down—and the owner will pray that it will do so—he will be entitled to compensation, but if it remains standing, as a great many of these buildings do remain standing perfectly well, no compensation is possible under the Bill as it stands.
There is another class of case, perhaps not so serious, where no compensation will be paid, and that is where some serious damage affects the surface of the land immediately contiguous to the building. I think it was the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) who delighted the House with a complete description of how a railway train was completely swallowed up in the ground as a result of mining subsidence. Where something of that sort takes place right on the doorstep of a house, it must obviously affect the value very greatly indeed. Everyone knows that, where serious subsidence takes place which affects not the house itself, but the immediate neighbourhood of the house, there is a very serious loss to the owner. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should go to endless degrees of remoteness. I am not suggesting that because there is subsidence in a neighbourhood which has a depressing effect on property, the owners should be compensated. That would be going too far.
We are not dealing here with houses with several acres of ground. The curtilage of a £32 house is not very great. They are usually houses with a doorstep and a backyard. That is the type of property with which we are here dealing. When there is subsidence which seriously affects these curtilages, it is reasonable for the Government to say either that compensation should be paid, or that the damage should be put right to the best possible extent. Whatever the Government may say, I am quite satisfied that the Bill does not cover that type of case, either of flooding or damage to the immediate curtilage of a house, and I ask them to look at the matter again. You, Sir Charles, would have ruled out of order any Amendment on this matter on the ground that the Financial Resolution is too narrowly drafted, so that we cannot do anything here. It is for the Government to review the situation, and I hope that they will do so before it is too late and before this Bill gets a bad name, which it will get if it perpetrates injustices.

§ Mr. Redmayne
I should like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said in this matter of the definition of curtilage, which has been mentioned before. I understand, Sir Charles, that you would not accept an Amendment which asked for a definition, but at the same time I feel that we could be given a verbal definition which would achieve something of what we want. In many areas, particularly in mining areas, curtilage includes the services of those houses, which are usually terrace houses. They run at the back of these houses, and therefore the curtilage covers all the services to the house. In more newly developed areas, the services run in the centre of the road facing the houses, and it is absolutely vital for the purposes of this Bill that compensation should include full cover for the services in the centre of the road. I hope we shall at least have a statement from the Minister on that point.
One other matter which has been raised again is the making up of private roads, which should be regarded as being part of the curtilage of the houses that the Bill covers. I should be wrong, too, if I did not deal in some small degree with the matter of indirect damage, if only because my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) is not here. He is suffering from subsidence of the tonsils. The point I wish to make has been simply put by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. We must at lease consider it, and ask the Minister to make a statement in regard to subsidence damage caused by the fall in the land which can affect many buildings normally dependent on a dry and level surface. My hon. Friend has already dealt with the subject of flooding in sufficient detail, and I need not weary the House by repeating it. We have heard it before in debate on this Bill. The Minister himself has made statements about flooding, some good, some bad; the Parliamentary Secretary has made statements, nearly all bad. I ask them to bring within this problem of flooding, damp basements, ruined greenhouses, garages, and so forth.

§ Mr. P. Noel-Baker
I only want to say a word or two. Firstly, I should like to deal with the pipes outside the curtilage, though I think that matter is out of order. 1971 In the ordinary way, the Coal Board are to carry out repairs inside the curtilage, but they will go on and do the few feet into the road. However, I do not think we could in this Bill include the part outside the curtilage as a definite obligation.
With regard to flooding, it is quite true that it is possible to conceive a case where dampness will make a house very unpleasant and structurally damaged. The purpose of this Bill is to deal with structural damage. As a rule persistent damp will effect structural damage. If the subsidence has been many feet below, there must be structural damage as well. Where it is simply damp and nothing else, it is not a case for repair but for land drainage. That is really outside the purpose of this Bill, and I am afraid we could not include it.

§ Mr. Bracken
It is rather sad to hear that speech from the Minister, who has been very amiable so far. I know the right hon. Gentleman wants something to eat.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
I have had something, thank you.

§ Mr. Bracken
The right hon. Gentleman is a meagre feeder, but I do beg of him to recognise that the consequences of subsidence are completely unpredictable. The right hon. Gentleman shares the same experience as some of my hon. Friends, who understand the consequences of subsidence merely because of mining training. It is very hard to discover the exact effects of subsidence caused by water.
9.15 p.m.
I have personal experience in this matter. Not long ago, in a part of the world I will not mention, in opening up a mine we drove water apparently seven or eight miles away from the mine. The local farmers kicked up such a hullabaloo that they might have been Scottish Covenanters. We were faced with plenty of threats of writs, etc. Now, the farmers are thanking us because this particular water is growing crops—but I am never so sure of farmers' gratitude. I am wondering—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), wish to say something? Apparently he is being funny to himself. A 1972 joke in the hon. Member's mouth is not a laughing matter. I heard some noise which was hardly English from the hon. Gentleman sitting opposite. If he could interpret it to me in clearer language, I might possibly answer him.

§ Mr. Daines (East Ham, North)
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was proceeding to reason, and I asked "What with"?

§ Mr. Bracken
The hon. Gentleman, as a wit, is the heaviest thing experienced in this Committee. He ought not to make jokes unless he can explain himself in lucid English. Even then, I doubt whether that would be good in his case We have got along very well on this Bill today. It may be that we are too meticulous, but we are a bit doubtful about this point and we think the Minister ought to look at it again. He has some very good advisers. They are overworked, but we would be satisfied if they could carefully consider the case put to them so well by my hon. Friend. There will be another stage of the Bill and I feel sure that those advisers could find words that would please us all. We are not unreasonable. All we want to do is to improve the Bill, but that is very hard work. We are trying to improve this poor Bill. If the Minister will give us an assurance that he will meet us on the point, we could get on a little further.

§ Mr. Redmayne
I should like to put to the Minister, in connection with what he has just said, a point which he made in the Debate on the Financial Resolution. He said: If there is flooding which causes physical damage to the house—the floors rot, the foundations do not perform their functions and so on—then, if subsidence is the cause of that, there is a claim for compensation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 1812.] I should like to have an assurance that if the foundations do not perform their function, that is to say, if they have gone, thereby allowing the house to become damp, the case will be covered by the Bill.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
Will the Minister give us an answer? Here is a case put forward by the Minister which covers most of the remarks which have been made. If he is now going to say that the Bill cannot substantiate what he 1973 has said we have been led astray. If it does, will the Minister tell us under which Clause the safeguard provision comes?

§ Mr. P. Noel-Baker
What I said on the Financial Resolution was perfectly clear. I have examined it since and I stand by it. It was that if there was any dispute about any such matter the owner or the occupier could go to the courts.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
That does not seem to cover the case at all. A person can go to the courts under the Bill whether he has a justifiable claim or not. Does the Minister say that what he said means that a person with that type of case has a remedy against the National Coal Board? If he did mean that, under which Clause and which subsection does he say that claim can be substantiated? If he is merely saying that if this sort of thing happens, somebody can go to the courts and the Bill will turn it down, he has not advanced our case any further.

§ Mr. Bracken
I feel—[Interruption.] Tonight is not dark and I am not far from home and I tell hon. Gentlemen opposite who want to interrupt that we are going to ask the Minister for a clear answer. The Minister now tells us that if anybody has any grievance he can go to the courts. We do not want the right hon. Gentleman's permission to do that. If the right hon. Gentleman will remember, during the discussion on the financial Clauses of the Bill I had, I think for the first time in my life, to use some rather harsh words about the language which he used when he said that there was not very much in foundations shifting. I pointed out to him in a reasonably logical way that shifting foundations were not really things upon which one could depend.
My hon. Friends do not want to waste time. They are anxious to improve the Bill, and I think that the Minister should give them a clear undertaking about the matter. It is no good saying that we can go to the courts. If we could only get to the courts often enough and if the Government would stop legislating, how happy the country would be. We still have the right to go to the courts without the permission of the Minister of Fuel and Power or anybody else.

§ Mr. Fernyhough (Jarrow)
Assuming that the Bill is not passed, under what law could that hypothetical case be taken to the courts.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We are now considering Clause 15. The Committee is getting out of order. We are only dealing with the question of interpretations under Clause 15.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I am sorry, Sir Charles, but this is a very important point——

§ The Deputy-Chairman
Does it arise on Clause 15? If it arises on Clause 15 I will call the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Otherwise I will not.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
With great deference, Sir Charles, I understood that you had allowed subsidiary matters to be discussed at this stage. If am wrong I will not, of course, continue.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
We are dealing with Clause 15 at the moment and it is a very narrow debate on the Question that the Clause stand part. If the hon. and gallant Member will keep to Clause 15 I shall be very glad.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
With great respect, I do not think I am out of order because the definition of subsidence damage occurs in the Clause. We have merely asked that the Minister should give an interpretation of a very specific undertaking which he gave on an earlier stage of the Bill, and he has ridden it off tonight by saying that one can go to the courts. We feel that something rather more concrete is needed and we have asked him to say under which Clause this is permissible. Again, referring to the definition of subsidence damage, we ask the Minister under which head he is able to make good the guarantee which he has given. If, of course, it is not in the Bill—and in fact this guarantee is not there—all we ask is that he should put it in the Bill at a later stage, but I think that either the Minister should substantiate that or give an undertaking to deal with it later, whichever he prefers.

§ Mr. P. Noel-Baker
If the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch, had not intervened, I was about to rise and say this. What I said on the Financial Resolution about flooding was perfectly clear but I repeat it. If flooding causes structural damage, and it can be shown that subsidence is the 1975 direct cause of the flooding which causes the structural damage to a house, then there is a claim under the Bill.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I quite agree that the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry but this is an important point. Would the Minister say under which Clause——

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I cannot allow the Minister or anyone else to discuss other Clauses. We are on Clause 15 now.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
I quite agree, Sir Charles, but if you will look at Clause 15 you will see that it defines subsidence damage. All I am asking is that within the terms of that definition where can the Minister give this assurance? If he can tell us, I am perfectly happy but, at the moment, we have only a bald assurance with no corroborative statement from the Minister. Perhaps he will give it to us.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker
It is perfectly clear in Clause 15 itself: 'subsidence damage' means structural damage caused by the withdrawal of support from land as the result of the working and getting of coal. … If this withdrawal of support causes flooding and the flooding causes structural damage, there is a claim, and if there is any dispute about whether the approximate direct cause of the flooding was subsidence, it can go to the courts.

§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Northants, South)
I should like to say a word on this in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am rather doubtful whether the interpretation of this definition of subsidence damage would be sufficient to include damage which is due to flooding. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the phrase "structural damage caused by the withdrawal of support" would probably be narrowly construed by the courts and not be deemed to mean structural damage caused by flooding caused by the withdrawal of support. That is what the right hon. Gentleman says he wishes it to mean.
May I suggest to him that, in view of what he has said, he should give further consideration to this point with a view if necessary to making an Amendment to embody his undertaking? After all, damage caused by flooding where the flooding is caused by the withdrawal of support, may not be easy to prove. It 1976 should be covered by this definition. It would really be much better to insert words to make that clear beyond doubt than to leave it to possible arguments in the courts, going from one court to another, and probably incurring great expense on both sides, including the Coal Board. There is a great deal of other work to be done tonight and perhaps the Minister could save time by saying that he will give further consideration to the point which he has himself raised.

§ Mr. Bracken
We really must get a proper definition of this. I listened to what the Minister said. I listened to every word of his rather long sentence—a bit ungrammatical but it is typical of him. Perhaps the Lord Advocate can help us by explaining the meaning of the promise of the Minister, that when subsidence appears owing to a collapse of land or the pillars supporting land, the Coal Board will accept this development as a charge upon the State. That is not a good explanation and if I may for a moment interrupt the Lord Advocate whose contribution to this Debate has only been to explain Gaelic to the House of Commons—or what he this is Gaelic, Scottish Law—I suggest that as we have the Attorney-General here, it might be a good thing for the Minister to hold some confabulations with him. We are grieved, Sir Charles, because as you know every hon. Member of this House costs the country a great deal of money merely to send him here. The next thing is to understand that our legislation is a vast cost on the community and there are rare occasions when one can get a clear interpretation from the senior Law Officers both of England and Scotland.
9.30 p.m.
May I suggest that as the Attorney-General is lounging beyond the range of your eye, Sir Charles, he should come forward and provide the explanation which we have tried for hours to get from the Minister? This is no reflection on the Lord Advocate because we both recognise the Attorney-General's pre-eminent abilities I think that on the whole, the Government could invite the Attorney-General here to explain the Minister's prose, which is about as shapeless as a blancmange——

§ Mr. Janner (Leicester, North-West)
rose—

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I hope the hon. Member will sit down when I stand up. We have had a lot of discussion and surely we are ready to come to a decision.

§ Mr. Janner
I want to say one word. It seems to me that what is taking place is really for the purpose of trying to kill this Bill altogether. There is no doubt at all that the words are perfectly clear and that, instead of assisting with regard to any question of flooding, if any additional words are put in, they would limit the Clause, rather than extend it. I hope the Minister will not agree to amend it in any way.

§ Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite
The hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest (Mr. Janner) is a distinguished member of the legal profession and members of the legal profession somewhat favour obscure language in Bills, for obvious reasons, on which I will not dilate. We are still in some little difficulty. I confess that I only entered the Committee during this discussion, but I was in time to hear the right hon. Gentleman say just now that his speech on the Financial Resolution was crystal clear. He went on to define the clarity and said that those who could not understand him could go to the courts. With all deference to the right hon. Gentleman, the duty of the House of Commons is so to word their legislation that the fewest possible people have to resort to the courts. I think that is the difficulty in which the Committee find themselves now——

§ The Deputy-Chairman
On the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" it is impossible to amend the Clause now.

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
We always bow to your Ruling, Sir Charles, but you did allow the Minister to say that there could be resort to the courts. All I am saying is that on Report stage there will be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman so to clarify the wording of this very important Measure that there shall not be litigation in the future. However welcome it might be to the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West and his friends, the duty of the House of Commons is to avoid litigation if we can. I hope that in the interval during the Whitsun Recess the right hon. Gentleman can consider this. I see an hon. Member behind the Chair supporting the Attorney 1978 General—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—My eyesight is not out of order. It is a very bad state of affairs when an hon. Member's eyesight is out of order.

§ Mr. Messer
No, the hon. and gallant Member is out of order two inches higher up.

§ Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite
You would probably rule me out of order if I dealt with the intolerable levity and astigmatism of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer). All I suggest is that the Minister of Fuel and Power should spend the Whitsun Recess in studying this matter to see if on Report stage he can introduce words which would allow of no ambiguity.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
This is a point which I do not think we can leave so easily. It seems to me to be a matter of considerable importance. You, Sir Charles, in your capacity as Chairman, have already said that the words "directly" or "indirectly" could not be considered on a previous Amendment, and of course they were outside the scope of the Money Resolution. We now have the Minister saying that flooding can be considered as an indirect cause of damage, and it seems to me to be an impossible position that, in one case, it is ruled, and rightly so, that a particular thing is outside the scope of the Money Resolution, and on the other hand the Minister is allowed to take refuge behind exactly the same thing, to defend the particular interpretation which he has put upon it.
The right hon. Gentleman has said—and I am quoting his words—that if flooding occurs as a result of mine subsidence in one place and damages a house in another place, then the people in the house concerned have a case against the National Coal Board. That is the perfect example of indirect damage due to subsidence, which is the very thing which you, Sir Charles, have ruled out of order as being the subject of a previous Amendment. Of course, Sir Charles, you must be right, which therefore means that the Minister must be wrong, because it must mean that the definition by the Minister is something which no court would uphold.

§ The Deputy-Chairman
I thank the hon. and gallant Member for that polite compliment. I would remind him, however, 1979 of Standing Order 20 under which, if he indulges in irrelevant or tedious repetition, I can ask him to sit down.

§ Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre
With great respect to you, Sir Charles, I do not think that anybody so far in this Debate has mentioned the particular point which I have just mentioned. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I hope you will correct me, Sir Charles, if I am wrong. What I wish to ask you, is this: That you, in your capabilities, have ruled out a certain Amendment and have said that a certain line of argument is out of order on the present Clause, yet the Minister has made this self-same case in his own defence. What I want to ask is that in view of that, the Minister now be asked to produce a reason which was within the terms of the Clause as you yourself have defined it.