Clause 5.—(NOTICE OF SUBSIDENCE DAMAGE AND REPAIRS TO BE GIVEN TO NATIONAL COAL BOARD.)

HC Deb 23 May 1950 vol 475 cc1868-908

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, after "building" to insert: or any other person who is liable to make good the subsidence damage in whole or in part. As the subsection stands, the duty of giving notice to the Coal Board falls on the owner alone and no notice given by anybody else would be valid. There may, of course, be cases where a dwelling is inhabited by a man who has a repairing lease, where the owner himself is not very closely concerned as to whether the Board discharge their obligations, especially if the lease has a long run, and in such cases the owner might fail to give the notice or fail to give it at the proper time. I think it is only reasonable that anyone who would bear part of the cost of the repairs should be able to give notice instead of the owner so that he may not suffer from the failure of the owner to give notice when notice is required. The Amendment is intended to bring that about, and I therefore hope the Committee will accept it.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

I should like an assurance from the Minister that this Amendment will not in any way prejudice a case in which the owner or the person liable to make good the damage is not himself in possession of the house, and is therefore unable to give notice within the appropriate time. We may find a situation in which the person to be benefited by the Bill is kept out by the deliberate or careless action of the person who could give notice. I do not think his position is damaged by this Amendment, but I should like an assurance from the Government that they have not overlooked that possibility.

Mr. Noel-Baker

No, I think that is all right. When we deal with the period within which notice must be given, I shall tell the Committee that we propose to have a hardship proviso, so that, if anybody does not get the notice in within the due time and if it can be shown that hardship thereby arises, we shall make allowance for that and the Coal Board will nevertheless grant the claim.

Mr. Bracken

Today, the Minister is full of sweet reasonableness. We accept his proposal. We are very anxious to get on with public business—[Laughter.] We do not want this very unseemly hilarity from hon. Members opposite. Perhaps they would like to have a lot of Divisions, but I do not think that is necessary. The Minister has met us, and if his supporters would allow me to congratulate him without interruption it would be a help in getting on with our business. On the other hand, if these vacuous minds opposite will insist on interrupting, it will prolong our proceedings. We have very great responsibilities in the present Parliament, and we are not prepared to have any frivolous Debates or Divisions. Despite those interruptions, I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in following the advice given to him from this side of the Committee. There is no question that the mining Members have grossly neglected their duties, and we on this side have got to take their places.

Sir H. Williams

Did I understand the Minister to say that he proposed to move an Amendment dealing with hardship? I do not see it on the Order Paper. I do not know whether it is something he proposes to do at a later stage.

Mr. Noel-Baker

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said I would explain the intention of the regulations which would be made.

Sir H. Williams

Surely regulations can be made only inside the scope of the statute. They cannot go outside that scope. Therefore, I am very doubtful whether it will be in order for the Minister to make regulations prescribing the treatment of the hardship which he has in mind. I am glad about his intention, but I think he is wrong legally, and I am very concerned about it. If I may use an analogy, about nine-tenths of the houses in my constituency were damaged during the war and a great many people, some absent on active service and some who did not quite understand, did not give notice. Since I got back into Parliament I have had at least 20 cases of people who had been refused war damage compensation because they did not give notice; they thought somebody else had done it. I am therefore very anxious that we should not have the same kind of problem in this Bill that I am already experiencing in my constituency under the War Damage Act. I hope the Minister will go a little further on the question of hardship.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I am very much alive to this. I myself failed to give notice of bomb damage and lost £400, so I am not likely to forget it. I think I shall be able to show later that we shall be entirely within the scope of the Bill in doing what I intend.

Mr. Bracken

I think the Minister has met the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who is a man of little faith—and I do not blame him very much when he has to deal with the present Ministers. We shall expect to see the promise of the Minister enshrined in the regulations. It is on that undertaking that we do not oppose this Amendment. I am sure the Minister will produce a form of regulations which will be laid before the House and which we shall all be quite happy about.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Higgs (Bromsgrove)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out from "damage" to "and" in line 41 and to insert: within such time not being less than six months after the occurrence of the damage as may be prescribed stating the date on which the damage occurred, the nature of such damage and the interest of the owner in such dwelling-house. The Committee will observe that the next Amendment on the Order Paper is put down as an alternative to this. It proposes the insertion in the same place of the words: not being less than six months after the occurrence of the damage. If the Committee preferred that Amendment it would have the same effect as to the length of notice but would leave out the latter part of the Amendment I now move as to the details to be included.

We now come to consider, for the first time, the provisions of the Bill relating to the notice which owners must give to the National Coal Board when their houses become affected by damage. As there is a further provision relating to notices in Clause 13, it is a little difficult to consider the two separately, especially since their engagement has now perhaps become a marriage by virtue of an Amendment tabled by the Minister.

There are two purposes in giving notice. The first purpose is simply to inform the National Coal Board that a house has been affected by damage so that they may be aware that there is a claim, or a possible claim, on the way, and so that they may send their experts to inspect it and, if they are sufficiently provident and the circumstances commend it, to apply the proverbial stitch in time. The second purpose for which notice is required, is where an owner or the other person concerned makes up his mind, if he has two remedies open to him—that under this Bill and that under common law—to go under the Bill and notifies the Coal Board of his election.

Those two notices serve two entirely different purposes, and at the outset one ought to make it clear that the notice to which this Clause specifically refers—that which warns the Coal Board that there is damage happening—ought in the interests of the owner and the Coal Board to be given as quickly as possible. Although we have provided in our Amendment that it was to be given within a period of six months, it would be the hope and aim of everybody to give notice as soon as possible, if need be on the very morning when one wakes up and sees that there is a crack in the wall.

But the other notice which, by the Amendment, will be linked to this Clause is one which may require considerable investigation before it can be given. Hon. Members will recollect that at the moment a man may have, if his rights are such, a very much better remedy under common law—a remedy much more comprehensive and one which will give him damages in respect of things which are not covered by the Bill. He will have to make patient investigation, in many cases, with the help of his advisers, to find out whether he does in fact come into the alternative remedy under common law.

Hon. Members with experience of mining districts will know that very often it will mean research into private Acts of Parliament which may be as much as 150 years' old. Copies of private Acts of Parliament are often difficult to come by, and when obtained it is not always easy to tell whether or not a person comes with the scope of them. Therefore, before deciding which of the two alternative remedies he will adopt, the owner may have to spend considerable time in research and in taking advice.

We had, when the Amendment wag tabled, no notice that the Minister intended to propose that the notice which this Clause requires to be given would also bind the owner in his election, and make the election for him, so that from that moment onwards he has abandoned his greater rights under common law, if he had them. I hope that in considering the virtues of this Amendment, the Committee will bear in mind what may be hitched on to it at a later stage in our considerations when we deal with Clause 13.

It occurred to us in framing the Amendment that it would serve a useful purpose if in the Clause of the Bill itself anyone who perhaps was not very well educated might see just what was required of him. It was for that reason that we framed the first Amendment which, if adopted, would show a man at once, when he sees damage to his house, that he has to give notice to the National Coal Board, and the notice must contain simple particulars, which will be quite sufficient to enable the Board to decide what action to take.

We propose the Amendment with that purpose in view. If the view of the Committee on deliberation were that it would be better that these matters should be dealt with in the Regulations—I hope that the Committee will not take that view because I have a terror of pro formas set out in Schedules to Regulations—but if they do take that view, the alternative Amendment on the Order Paper would deal with it. We think that in view of the investigation that may have to take place, and the very difficult question which the owner may have to face in deciding which remedy will serve him best, he should have as much as six months in which to make up his mind.

That is why we think it proper to ask the Committee in dealing with the Bill itself to say in advance of the Regulations that the period shall be at least six months. The right hon. Gentleman having drafted this remedy for people whose houses are damaged, will be anxious not in any way to detract from that benefit by excluding people because of inadvertence, or because they do not understand the position, or because of complicated research covering many years, even hundreds of years or more into the titles, which may be necessary. Therefore, I hope the Amendment will commend itself to the Committee.

Colonel Clarke (East Grinstead)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) has said in so ably moving this Amendment. I honestly cannot see why, at any rate, the minimum period necessary should not be put in the Bill in the first place, and why it should be left to Regulations. It seems to me that in the careful consideration which must have been given to the framing of this Bill this point must have been considered, and the Department must have made up their minds, or ought to have made up their minds, as to how much notice should be given. Therefore, why should it not be put in the Bill now and form part of the Act?

I put myself in the position of someone who is asking for advice on the question of subsidence and what difference this Bill when passed will make to the house owner. I feel that if I have to go to people with this Act in my pocket, it will not be too easy to explain to them what is required, and if I have to have a lot of other papers, which I shall probably leave behind and have to remember what is in them, it will make it much more complicated and less convincing.

4.15 p.m.

Sir H. Williams

I find some difficulty in understanding the Amendment. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friends; but let us assume that my house, one morning, falls down a coalmine [Laughter]. I have no doubt that would give great satisfaction to some hon. Members opposite. According to this Amendment, I have, apparently, to wait six months before I can give notice. What does that mean? I see that some of my hon. Friends are shaking their heads at me. I frankly do not quite understand the Amendment because it is curiously worded. It says: "Not being less than six months." That means that one has to wait six months before one can give notice, as I read it. I do not know whether that is the intention of the hon. Gentleman who proposed and supported the Amendment, but that is my reading of it. In that case, it seems to me that by inserting the Amendment we are going to deprive an aggrieved person of very considerable rights, and I am wondering whether there has not been some slip in the drafting of the Amendment.

I have not had an opportunity of studying it before, but I think that it wants looking at again, because, as I see it, the Bill is more satisfactory as it stands than it would be if the Amendment were carried. In the Bill as it stands the Minister in due course has to produce Regulations, and if we or our successors are sufficiently rude about those Regulations they will be annulled, and the Government will have to produce another lot. It is very easy to produce new Regulations, but it is an awful job to get a Government to introduce a new Bill because of the elaborations involved. I think that any person who wishes to make a claim will be better off under the Bill than under the proposed Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The purpose of the Clause in the Bill is to preclude the National Coal Board from having to carry out repairs unless notice is given within a certain length of time. Everyone in all parts of the Committee will hope that notice will be given on the following day. The insertion of the Amendment will not prevent that. It will simply mean that the owner of property has to have at least six months in which he can put in notice before the Clause operates against him to deprive him of his rights against the National Coal Board.

Sir H. Williams

The hon. Gentleman is a barrister and I am not; but that is not what the Amendment says.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

It is what the Bill says.

Sir H. Williams

No; it is proposed to leave out the words: …in such manner, within such time, and containing such particulars, as may be prescribed… They are to be replaced by the words in the Amendment, which says that notice cannot be given until six months have gone by. That is what the words mean, and how I read them. I shall be glad to have an explanation. Obviously the hon. Member who has just given an explanation has not read the Amendment, and I hope that we shall have a further explanation. I know that this is giving great satisfaction to hon. Members opposite, but it is an illustration of the freedom of the party to which I belong which is denied to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Bracken

I rise, not to support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), but to disown him. He has criticised my hon. Friends who know a great deal about this Bill which is based, in part, on the Turner Committee's Report. My hon. Friend, whose bellicosity is beyond all praise, does not seem to have bothered himself with any diligent reading of the Amendment. I do not blame him for that, because no one can deal with the immense amount of paper that is put before us these days.

This Amendment, although my hon. Friend may not think so, is based on very considerable experience. For instance, its foundations are derived from a Private Member's Bill, brought in by the present Ministers of Education and Agriculture. We acknowledge our debt to them, and we are sorry that they are not with us. We are sorry too that the Lord Advocate would like them to abandon the principles they believed in when they were in opposition; but do not let us drag in party politics.

A very good point was made about the difficulties nowadays of trying to discover copies of old Acts of Parliament. It is one of the greatest tragedies in our time, in my biased judgment, that owing to the malice of the enemy an immense supply of old Acts disappeared.

The Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the point before the Committee. If he applies himself to the Amendment, I am sure that we shall make the progress he so much desires.

Mr. Bracken

Your kindness, Sir, in letting other Members refer to the lack of supplies of Acts of Parliament, surely entitles me to refer to it in passing and to commiserate with my hon. Friends? I consider that this Amendment ought to be incorporated in the Bill, instead of being left to regulations. Regulations come and go. They can be altered from time to time, but an Act of Parliament is the basis of the rights for any citizen. We have to put up, as you know to your cost, Major Milner, with nightly introductions of regulations, and your youthful zeal in the Chair seems to be disappearing as you have to sit every night listening to Prayers against regulations.

I beg the Minister to include our Amendment in the Bill. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me to be an impossible task for an ordinary member of the public to discover what regulations have been introduced since the war. The regulations are numbered in their thousands. They mean nothing to the ordinary person as there is no index to them. I hope the Minister will not give us the assurance that he will introduce regulations to cover this point. We want to improve the Bill, and there is no doubt that it wants a lot of improvement, as the Minister of Education well knows. If the Minister is willing to include the Amendment, the courts can reasonably decide, whereas the courts have heard nothing about most of the regulations that pass through the House.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)

Now that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) has slapped the hand of his hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) we can leave them to fight out their little domestic quarrel between themselves. We are grateful, however, to the hon. Member for Croydon, East, for having put in our minds the idea that we might burrow under his house in order to secure a by-election. As for the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs), we have a good deal of sympathy for the views he put forward.

I am glad that this Amendment has been put down, because it gives an opportunity to elucidate my right hon. Friend's intentions in regard to the regulations. The hon. Member was anxious that we should incorporate the Amendment in the Bill and not have regulations. If we accepted the Amendment, it would not necessarily mean the avoidance of regulations, because, as hon. Members who have read the Clause will know, there are other maters besides the time which may be prescribed. Therefore, there will have to be regulations, and it comes to a question of whether we should put just this little bit in the Bill.

If Members give it second thoughts, I think they will agree that it is very much better for this to be included in the regulations. Before regulations are made they can be discussed with the National Property Owners' Association, the local authority associations, and the National Coal Board. Therefore, we can get general agreement on what is the right time to prescribe and also the manner and the form. Thereafter, when the regulations have been made, they can be discussed in the ordinary way. Let us assume it is found that some part of the regulations does not fit in. We can then come to the House and change the regulations. It means that we have that flexibility. If we put it in the Bill, it would mean that we should have to come before the House with a new Bill, which is a very different matter.

I can imagine the situation arising where the local authority associations may want to make some alteration which is agreeable to the property owners, the National Coal Board and ourselves. We could then say that we would make another regulation to meet the point, which would obviate having to come to the House for further legislation. I think it is right that the intentions of the Government should be clearly defined at this stage. We feel that six months is about the right time people ought to be given as a maximum for notifying damage that has occurred before the passing of the Act. At the same time, it must be agreed that there may be hardship cases, although we cannot think of any such cases at the moment, where it would be wrong for a person to be outside the Bill merely because he had not come within the six month period. We propose to provide in the regulations for an extension in certain cases of that type. After the passing of the Bill, we think that one month is a reasonable time. We propose, therefore, to provide in the regulations that notice shall be given within a month.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove made the point that it is a good thing, in the interests of the owner of the property and of the National Coal Board, that they should both be on the job immediately after the damage has become apparent. That is a sensible point which does not need arguing. Therefore, if a month is given after the passing of the Act in the case of new damage, that should be a reasonable period. I think that I have met the point of this Amendment by the assurance I have given on behalf of my right hon. Friend. As I have said, there is great advantage in having flexibility whereby changes can be made as a result of practical experience. I hope we can leave the matter there.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Raikes (Liverpool, Garston)

Before this interesting discussion is concluded, may I say that I am bound to admit that I find myself out of agreement with everybody who has spoken except, strange to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). It is all very well for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken to dissociate himself from what was said by the hon. Member for Croydon, East. The hon. Member for Croydon, East has convinced me—I was not convinced before, and I always believed in listening carefully to Debates whenever I can—that his criticism of the Amendment is a fair one.

What the hon. Member says is that under this Amendment notice cannot be given until six months have expired. We have been told by my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members on this side of the House that that is not so. I know that that is not what they intend to do, but I am bound to read it into the Clause as it stands, for if it is inserted in the Clause the Amendment would make it read: … the owner of a dwelling-house or part of the building has given notice in writing to the Board of the occurrence of damage within such time not being less than six months after the occurrence of the damage…

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The subsection governing the wording of the Clause is in the negative. Therefore, all my hon. Friend has to do is to read it in the negative. He must read the substantive Clause, which begins, The National Coal Board shall not be required to carry out any repairs. … If he reads the whole of the Clause he will see the purpose of the Amendment.

Mr. Raikes

I am still very suspicious of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, and I will insist in fighting the cause of the miners wherever I find it. I still repeat that as I read it, the Amendment is quite plain in that it lays down that notice cannot be given until six months have expired. However, I gather that the Government are not accepting the Amendment. Nevertheless I was bound to make this comment, and I will just add, that, although the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in his obviously honest desire that under the regulations he would meet the point which my hon. Friends have in mind, I think it would be rather a pity if some unfortunate person, who has to make a claim under this Clause, should be unable to discover what he has to do and will have to watch to see what further regulations are made. We are tending to make it more difficult for the ordinary layman ever to know what the law is. The law is sometimes an ass, but I am quite sure it is not as big an ass as some of my hon. Friends on this Amendment have tried to persuade me it is.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

There is a good deal that the Parliamentary Secretary said with which I would agree, but there are two points raised by the Amendment to which I want to refer. First of all, there is the question of the actual period of time. Although we have not any reason for saying that six months is the right period, there is the period of one month mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary——

Sir H. Williams

Could my hon. Friend say whether six months is a minimum or a maximum?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

At the moment I am dealing with the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary——

Sir H. Williams

He did not deal with the point at all.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

—and apparently I am drawing the fire of my hon. Friend on the flank.

If the Parliamentary Secretary would consult with the War Damage Commission, who have been dealing for some time with claims of a not very dissimilar character, they will tell him that one month is much too short a time in which to expect owners of small houses to put in their claims. I know he has spoken about the hardship difficulties, but in the general run of cases one month is too little.

Mr. Robens

May I say on that point that if, when we talk to the local authorities and the property owners, it is felt that six weeks or something like that is needed, we shall look at the matter. We are not bound by one month. I am thinking in terms of one month being a minimum, but we do not want to go too far along that road. It is very much less than the six months for old damage which we had in mind, but if it were found desirable to have a period of six weeks we should not be too rigid on that.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

We on this side of the Committee think that a period of six months is reasonable, but this matter may be settled after consultation with the authorities concerned.

I want to say a word about this question of flexibility. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that flexibility is desirable in this connection, and he will see that in both our Amendments flexibility is provided for. The first Amendment refers to the power of the Minister to prescribe, and the second one deals only with this period of six months and still leaves the power as drafted in the Bill. We do not want to stop the Minister having that power, but as my hon. Friends have said, it is not really right to put this kind of power into a regulation at all.

The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken of it as if everybody who was going to be affected by this Bill were a Member of this House and familiar with the regulations. He will agree that the people who will be directly affected by this Measure will be ignorant of the difference between an Act of Parliament and a regulation made under it. They will have to look up to see what their rights are. Very often they will be people, who have had no sort of warning of what is going to happen, and they will not have solicitors near them to advise them in the ordinary way. They will go to the Citizens' Advice Bureau or some other organisation in council rooms to get legal advice.

Mr. Robens

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that from the practical point of view what will really happen when there is damage by subsidence is that the individual will go to the local colliery and there obtain the prescribed form, so that none of this problem will arise.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

That might happen, but it is equally possible that he will walk round to the local town hall or somewhere of that sort. I know many cases in which a war damage claim was made at the local town hall, and has now been turned down on the grounds that it was not properly made to the right people at the right time. It is exactly that kind of case that I am anxious to safeguard by an Amendment of this sort. If it is quite plain that this statute does what is the minimum required in order to put oneself within the ambit of the statute, it will become known to a very much wider circle of people and it will be very much welcomed. For that reason I urge the Government between now and a later stage of the Bill to consider whether it is not necessary to put something specific into the Bill, which will be there permanently and will be known to those who may be affected.

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

I personally prefer the wording of this Clause, which is fairly narrowly drawn. This Bill is not very extravagant, and in all cases of this type I imagine that people would prefer that as far as possible it should be left to the regulations. Those of us in this Committee who are interested in this matter will not rest with this proposal. We shall continually press for further improvement, and, obviously, it will assist us if we have as much as possible in the regulations. That is one point.

The second point is with reference to the time. I see no difficulty. We are not dealing here with something which happens to a human being by way of physical disability. If a man ruptures himself you can make a guess at the age of the hernia. There are specified ways in which to do so. If there is a subsidence, who is to tell whether a man who has given notice not in six weeks but in seven weeks, is out of time by a week, or even by six months? Who can say: "You should have given notice earlier, because this damage occurred a long time ago"? We are making too much of this point. I hope that the Minister will agree to leave the Clause as it stands, especially as we have given him warning that we shall push the door which is now opening to us.

Mr. Oliver (Ilkeston)

I hope the Minister will favourably consider the Amendment. It must not be forgotten that we are now dealing with a large number of people whose property is very small, and who will want to find as much as they can in the Act of Parliament. Anyone who has had to deal with this type of work will recognise that it is difficult for the average person to find what he wants in an Act of Parliament, and infinitely more difficult to find it in 2 regulation. For that reason I would advise that we should enable small property owners to find as much as possible in the Act itself. I agree, too, with the idea of limiting the claim to six months.

Mr. Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. Does he think that the Amendment provides what he is asking for? Does he not think that hon. Members who have raised this point before were quite right in pointing out that under the Amendment we should not be entitled to give notice until six months have expired from the date of the occurrence? The Amendment says nothing at all about the extent of time that has to expire after the six months.

Mr. Oliver

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The Amendment makes it reasonably clear that we have up to six months to make the claim. If the matter should be in doubt, we can easily have the point adjusted. The suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary that the time after the passing of the Bill should be limited to one month is unreasonably short. There might be no doubt in respect of owner-occupiers. If they see a crack they will give notice, but those who are to benefit from the Bill are not only owner-occupiers. There may be fissures and cracks in a building, but unless they incommode the tenant he may not give notice to his landlord in sufficient time to enable the landlord to make a proper claim against the National Coal Board. That happens frequently. It is not something that we have not experienced in the past. Immediately a tenant is incommoded he makes a complaint to the landlord, who then passes it to the proper quarter. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter It would be of considerable help to occupiers of small property if he were to adopt the Amendment.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Bracken

There are divisions of opinion on both sides of the Committee. It is a very delicate Parliamentary situation. Hon. Members on the Government side obviously disagree with the Minister. Our consistent follower from Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) for the first time finds himself in opposition to the official Conservative Party policy. I was greatly struck by the speech made by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). He rightly says that the landlord must be taken care of in this matter because he is usually a small man, since miners buy their own houses. Anyone, whether landlord or tenant, who is connected with property may find himself up against the National Coal Board in another capacity. When hon. Gentlemen opposite are so silent this afternoon I wonder why. Why do they not, from their experience, tell the Committee that the National Coal Board may now be judge and jury too, in this matter?

The National Coal Board, through nationalisation, has taken on so much property in the mining areas that if a man's house is damaged he may find himself in a position to put in a claim not to the National Coal Board as to an independent authority but to the Coal Board acting as a landlord, and a grasping one at that. I beg hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider that point. As the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) knows, there are——

Mr. D. J. Williams (Neath)

Is the right hon. Member suggesting that if a tenant who was a miner working for the National Coal Board made application for compensation for structural damage the National Coal Board would victimise that man in his employment?

Mr. Bracken

I am not suggesting victimisation, but I am suggesting that the whole life of England has been built up upon the principle of the independent tribunal judging between one party and another. I prefer the courts to the Coal Board. This is a serious matter. The National Coal Board is such an immense landlord that they can judge an unfortunate tenant's claim, a miner who had a little savings——

Mr. Robens

With great respect, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman what this has to do with six months being the time in which to notify the damage?

Mr. Bracken

The Parliamentary Secretary really ought to try to restrain himself; I know it is very difficult. The Coal Board, being the landlord, can offer infinite delay if they wish to do so within the six months. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always talking about unscrupulous landlords. I object to the National Coal Board being in any way the arbitrator——

Mr. Oliver

Will the right hon. Gentleman read Clause 12?

Mr. Bracken

I have done so, with the greatest possible disappointment. I beg the hon. Member for Ilkeston to support me in saying that the Coal Board must not become the judge in its own cause. The Minister has given us an assurance. He has told us that he is willing to consult the local authorities, and the property owners' association. That sounds fine, but, speaking for the party to which I belong, I am not at all sure that we should be satisfied that the ordinary small householder who has suffered damage from subsidence should depend upon the property owners' association or the local authority. I am not prepared to admit that for a moment. One of the characteristics of our country is that we have employers' associations and trade unions too well organised. I want to see the small man, the miner who is prudent and who has put his savings into a house, protected by a judge rather than by a property owners' association, or local authorities either.

The question of the limitation of the period of claim has not been properly discussed in the Committee. We have had a confession from the Minister, a surprising confession, that he lost £400 by a failure to put in his war damage claim He is surrounded by secretaries, menials and lawyers, all the sort of people who serve opulent men, and if he did not remember to put in his claim how can we expect the humble miner, who has to work very hard all day, to do so? [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite should not jeer at the miners. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have risen on their shoulders to their present comfortable jobs. I beg the Minister to consider this. His confession was extremely engaging. He is almost a political Buchmanite. He neglected to claim for damage to his house in war merely because he did not apparently bother on the day, even though he could have done so.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker

I was out of the country on public service and the date went by.

Mr. Bracken

The right hon. Gentleman really must not talk like that. This has gone on for four years. Fortunately or unfortunately for the country, the right hon. Gentleman has not been out of the country for four years; he has had plenty of time to put in his claim. It is no use his saying that he was attending a meeting of the United Nations.

I feel that a measure of compromise could be reached today, and I am very anxious to achieve a compromise because my war-time colleague, that admirable and right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary is away, probably having a well deserved rest, and, therefore, I do not particularly want to see a Division because I am afraid that a large number of hon. Gentleman opposite would follow my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) through the Lobby. It would, indeed, be a peculiar development in politics if the hon. Member for Croydon, East, were to defeat the Government with the aid of Socialist Members opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "It would."] It might easily happen if it were not for the restraint of the right hon. Gentleman who is now addressing the Committee.

I am not the least bit satisfied at the Minister's decision not to accept our Amendment and to force us to rely on regulations, for there are more regulations in this country at present than there is confetti, and it is very hard for anybody to catch up on, or to index the regulations. Sometimes we ought to be a Council of State, and I suppose that the time is now. I do not want to split the party opposite or to find the hon. Member for Ilkeston "whipping" for the hon. Member for Croydon, East, so my advice to my hon. Friends—I beg them to remember that they need not follow it, but as I have said before, we are a democratic party—is, on the whole, to accept the meagre, grudging concession given us by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mainwaring (Rhondda, East)

My right hon Friend said that consultations would take place with local authorities and property owners' associations before the regulations were finally drafted. Local authorities in general have no wisdom in this matter. Only local authorities which have had experience of subsidence in mining districts can offer the Minister any advice. Property owners generally are also not in a position to advise him. He has left out one organisation which above all others in the country could advise him, and that is the National Union of Mineworkers. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are weeping with sympathy for the miners. All right. Let the miners judge for themselves. Let advice be given by the miners' organisation.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Gentleman should not wag his finger at us by way of rebuke. He must know that it is deliberate Government policy altogether to exclude from counsel, Communists like Mr. Horner.

Mr. Robens

Clearly, what we want to do in formulating these regulations is to have the combined experience of all those who have any knowledge at all about this problem, and if consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers would help we shall be very glad to consult them as well.

Mr. Hopkin Morris (Carmarthen)

There is a point of substance about the Amendment. It is concerned not with the form in which the Amendment stands but with what the Amendment does The Amendment seeks to place a limit, and to make that limit known, in which applications in respect of damage can be made. The time limit ought to be made clear. The Government ought to make up their mind what time is reasonable and let that time be known. Who can determine what a hard case is? The only person who could determine it would be the Minister who is making the regulations. That should not be left to him. It is a matter for the House of Commons to endorse what the reasonable time should be. The Government ought to put it in the Bill and it should not be left to regulations. If it were put in the Bill everyone would know what the law is.

I agree fully with the speech of the non. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) and with the object of the Amendment in so far as it seeks to place a time limit in the Bill itself and not leave it to regulations, but I fail to see that the Amendment achieves that object. I do not know what the time limit should he. If it is six months it should be stated as six months instead of "not less than six months." Whatever it is, let the Government make up their minds about it and put it in the Bill. The Government should reconsider the Clause and amend it at a later stage.

Mr. Bracken

The suggestion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) is well worth while accepting. Were we granted the opportunity of consulting the hon. and learned Gentleman we should certainly have improved our Amendment. I must again make the confession that our Amendment is largely taken from a Bill drafted by the present Ministers of Agriculture and Education. They are to blame for any incoherence in it. Now we have with us an eminent lawyer who has been an ornament to the Bench and has come back to the House of Commons to help us. I suggest to the Minister that if he will consult the hon. and learned Gentleman, who represents the Liberal Party with such solitary distinction and other hon. Members on this side of the Committee who take such a great interest in the Bill, we shall have an opportunity to get something more satisfactory on the Report stage. It is obvious that the Minister is not quite satisfied with this form of words and neither is the hon. Member for Ilkeston.

We have a great deal of public business to discharge and I am always anxious to speed up the business of this House. [Laughter.] It is not right to say that this hilarity is out of order, but it is an embarrassment to the Government. If the Minister would consult the hon. and learned Gentleman who leads and follows the Liberal Party today and my hon. Friends who are responsible for the Amendment, we should then get a form of words which should please everyone, including the miners, who are so badly represented in the Committee today.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Janner

It is highly important that we should consider this matter in its full light. First, the Amendment is obvious nonsense because, if what the right hon. Gentleman says he intended to do is correct, the Amendment does precisely nothing towards it. All it does is to ask that there should be a stipulation as to the time when the notice shall be presented. It does not say anything about the time to elapse subsequent to the giving of that notice.

I am deeply concerned about this matter because, in my experience, I have come across questions relating not only to subsidence but to the time involved in the presentation of a claim. While I agree, up to a point, with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), I would go a step further and say that we on this side of the Committee, who really consider the miners—all the nonsense spoken on the other side has been a red-herring across the track——

Mr. Bracken

Oh!

Mr. Janner

—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it very well. He has utilised the Amendment for trying to get a certain amount of advantage in relation to the mining population, and he knows very well it has nothing to do with the problem. The position is that people come too late to make their claims and regulations, therefore, should be made in such a way as not only to place a limit in the way suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen, but to make a general allowance in respect of cases where people have not understood the position and, consequently, have not been able to make their claims. That is why we have had all this difficulty with the war damage claims. It is not because the regulations have not been clear or because the law has not been clear. In fact, the Government have been particularly generous about the extension of time——

Sir H. Williams

Not generous enough for the Minister.

Mr. Janner

The Government have made considerable concessions in regard to time so far as the regulations are concerned, but we have to go further. From our own experience in dealing with these matters, we know that people are not aware of the regulations as to time, no matter how strongly they may be made or how clearly they may be stated in an Act of Parliament——

Mr. Bracken

Who are "we"?

Mr. Janner

I am talking about the people in the profession who are daily handling cases for those concerned.

Mr. Bracken

Lawyers?

Mr. Janner

We know that many people who wish to make a claim are misled because they are ignorant of the time within which that claim has to be made.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Gentleman is making a monstrous attack on the legal profession and is also assuming that many people in this country have money enough to employ a lawyer. I am sure they have not.

Mr. Janner

If the right hon. Gentleman would only listen, and would not be so obsessed with the idea of making—I almost used a harsh word but I would not like to do that—political points out of situations which do not call for them, he would realise that what I am saying probably meets what he has in mind. I suggest that the Government should take into consideration the fact that people, in the main, are not aware of the dates within which these applications have to be made and, that consequently, in addition to fixing a date, they should leave a loophole for those who still want to make their claims.

There is another point which has to be taken into consideration, and this was made by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). The tenant-owner is defined in the Bill and the term "owner" refers to a freeholder. It may well be, and it is frequently the case, that the freeholder does not live even within the vicinity of the house he owns. In those circumstances he might not be aware of the fact that damage has occurred because the tenant may not have given him that information. Consequently, he must be given a reasonable opportunity to inspect the place, even though he does not know that damage has occurred, and a reasonable time within which to make his claim.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out "fifty," and to insert fifty-one."

This Bill confers upon owners of property and other persons interested in property the right to compensation in the event of subsidence damage, not merely from the commencement of this Bill but from 1st January, 1947. It follows that whether a person between 1st January, 1947, and the present time has or has not carried out repairs to that damage, no differentiation ought to be made, otherwise one would be penalising the owners who had repaired subsidence damage which had occurred since 1st January, 1947, but before this Bill was introduced into this House.

It is obvious, however, that there must be some limit placed, some date mentioned, after which a person is not entitled to repair the damage and then come afterwards to the Coal Board and ask them to pay the Bill for the repairs. If such a date were not specified in the Bill, the road would be opened to all sorts of malpractices. A person might carry out repairs which were not entirely necessitated by the subsidence damage, and it would then be difficult for the National Coal Board to show that only a part of the expenditure thus incurred was attributable to the subsidence damage.

The question, however, to which I would ask the Committee to direct attention is whether the date written into this Subsection is a reasonable date to specify after which a person cannot claim the reimbursement of expenditure upon repairs of which he had not previously notified the National Coal Board. The date must presumably be one after which any person likely to be affected by subsidence damage ought to be aware of the provisions of this Bill. That, surely, is the consideration which the Committee must have in mind: is this date a date by which time anyone, however humble, in a mining area, in an area liable to subsidence, ought reasonably to be aware of his rights under this Bill?

I submit there is no justification which can be produced for the date, 1st May, 1950. It is not the date upon which the contents of this Bill first became known, for it was published on 5th April. Nor is it, on the other hand, the date of the commencement of the Act, the date when the Bill becomes law. So that those two dates, for each of which some argument might have been advanced, have not been adopted by the Government. They have instead, for reasons which no doubt the Minister will explain, written into the Bill the date 1st May.

If the Bill was published only on 5th April we are, by leaving the date of 1st May in the subsection, implying that within 25 days from the publication of a Bill its contents ought to be known to persons who are interested throughout the country. That assumption is not borne out by experience. I have known cases of Bills which were before the House whose effect, not upon humble individuals, but upon local authorities, has not come to the understanding of those local authorities until after the Bills had passed into law. A fortiori we ought not to expect individual citizens to familiarise themselves with the effects of legislation while it is passing through Parliament within 25 days of the day on which it is published.

Today is only 23rd May and I would be prepared to wager that there are literally thousands of persons in the mining areas who on 23rd May—that is, 23 days after the date specified in the Clause—are still unaware of their duties, as well as their rights, under the Bill. There is also the possibility to be considered that the Clause may not become law. After all, what we have before us is not an Act of Parliament—it is a Bill. What right have we to expect that persons will assume that the Clause will become a Section of an Act and will take action in the interim before it becomes law?

There is a further special case to which I wish to refer. The Minister may say that if a person finds subsidence damage occurring, shall we say, tomorrow to his house, he will at least have heard that there is some such Measure in contemplation and will not rush ahead and get a local builder to repair it and afterwards wonder what to do with the account. Let us, suppose, however, that subsidence damage occurred six months, a year, or even 18 months ago, that the person affected made arrangements with a local builder for the time when that builder was able to get down to the job of effecting the repairs, and that in fact the repairs were only started on 2nd May. As the Clause stands, that builder's account will not be admissible.

I submit, therefore, that whatever date the Committee decide upon or the House at a later stage decides to write into the Clause, 1st May is an unreasonably early date. I am not indissolubly wedded to the date proposed by the Amendment of 1st May, 1951, which I have put forward merely to enable me to raise the whole question. If the Minister suggests an earlier date than mine but one which is such as to give reasonable opportunity for the public to have familiarised themselves with the provisions of the Bill, I do not think that anyone would quarrel.

But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not shelter behind any hardship proviso in the regulations which he proposes to make. We are glad to learn that in those regulations there will be the means of dealing with exceptional cases, of cases where for special reasons the persons concerned have not been able to fulfil the normal requirements. My point against the existing date, however, would not be met by any hardship escape Clause, because my contention is that the provision itself is unreasonable. It is no use, therefore, for the Minister to say, "Yes, we admit that it is unreasonable but there will be a hardship Clause which will enable us to overcome it. "For these reasons I hope that the Minister will recognise that the existing date is unreasonably early and will substitute for it a later date.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Mainwaring

I think that we on this side of the Committee should press for some other date than 1st May of the present year. I must confess that I am in some doubt about the terms of the Amendment and the remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in moving it, because as I understand subsection (1) it is there laid down that owners of dwelling-houses which are damaged by subsidence must give notice to the Coal Board—that is to say, when the Bill has become an Act. It seems logical, therefore, that the owner of a dwelling-house cannot possibly make good the damage to his premises without the consent of the Coal Board. The whole matter is accordingly in the hands of the Coal Board from the time when notice is given. For this reason it seems to me that the position as it was referred to by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, is somewhat different.

Last Sunday, I must confess, it became necessary for me to withdraw some remarks which I made on Second Reading, when I said that to my knowledge there were no houses in my constituency which would be affected by the Bill. Unfortunately, in the preceding week a whole row of houses became badly affected, and to such varying degrees that I question very much whether anyone can say at present when all the damage will become apparent in every individual case. In two of the houses the front walls have collapsed completely; others are damaged in varying degrees, down to those which are affected in only infinitesimal proportions. As I understand the position, however, the owners, although they may give notice, cannot possibly make good the damage unless they are so instructed by the Coal Board.

Mr. Bracken

They are their landlords.

Mr. Mainwaring

The whole problem is that the consent of the Board is necessary before the owners of individual properties can get the repairs effected.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) has treated the Committee very well. He made a confession that last Sunday he had to withdraw a statement which he made during our earlier discussions that subsidence could not quickly occur. It is not often that I can claim to be a prophet, and generally I accept the view of the late Lord Balfour that one cannot argue with prophets but can only disbelieve them. On this occasion, however, I did tell the hon. Gentleman that no man can foretell the dangers of subsidence. Subsidence, after all, is a cruel act of nature, and as I reminded the Committee last week, in mines which are only six months old and which are surrounded by new houses, very considerable subsidence is likely to occur. This is a matter of the highest possible consequence, not only to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman but, indeed, to any hon. Member who represents a mining constituency.

I feel that we ought to be able to come to some sort of agreement about this. I know the tragedies of subsidence as well as any hon. Gentleman opposite knows them. I consider also that their consequences are incalculable. Therefore, I am not prepared for one moment to accept the view that our Amendment is not one that we should ask the Government to accept; but I am not saying that the wording is perfect and, above all, I am not making this a matter of party politics.

There are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who understand this problem, and the Minister would do well to consult with them. If he does not like accepting the Amendment in its present form we are quite willing to lend him aid and experience to compose a better form of words, but I do not think that the Committee should part from the Bill without making it absolutely clear to the Minister that, so far, he has shown no proper recognition of the tremendous tragedy of subsidence—none whatever.

As far as the idea of giving notice in these matters is concerned—the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) knows this—how can one give notice? The other day we were afflicted by a fierce thunderstorm, and I dare say that some houses in mining areas were affected. If a crack appeared in the walls due to nature acting in another callous form, I suppose that the owner might go to the Coal Board and say, "I have had a great split in my wall; it must be due to subsidence." But the right hon. Gentleman would be equally entitled to say, "This is due to a thunderstorm."

We ought to get together on this Amendment. I think that both sides of the Committee could draft something of value and I invite hon. Members opposite, who are so silent about mining matters when their own Government are in office and so vocal when they are in Opposition, to agree with us. I see the Patronage Secretary is present. Having worked with him during the war, I can guarantee that he will inflict no penalities, provided that we meet privately. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party are absent, but the Conservative Party should join with hon. Members opposite and follow the advice given by the hon. Member for Rhondda East.

Let me tell you, Sir Charles, that a great pleasure awaits the Committee if your eye is benign enough to fall on the hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) who knows a great deal about the legal and other aspects of this question and hon. Members opposite, including the Minister, need a lot of instruction.

Mr. T. Brown

It is manifestly unfair for the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Bracken) to accuse the Minister of not being concerned about damage and inconvenience experienced in mining districts. The fact that this Bill is before the Committee now is conclusive evidence that not only the Minister, but the Government and hon. Members on this side of the Committee, are concerned about it being remedied. I think it manifestly unfair that the right hon. Gentleman should give expression to that statement. As far as I have heard this Debate, there appears to be an attempt by the Opposition to prevent this Bill reaching the Statute Book. I am very much concerned about this Bill reaching the Statute Book, but at the speed with which we are travelling it will not do so. I am particularly anxious that every consideration should be given to the Amendments, from whatever quarter they come. I have learned to be patient in that direction, but I think it unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse the Minister of not being concerned about subsidence.

Mr. Bracken

The hon. Member really ought not to misinterpret me. I complained about the Minister's carelessness and based my complaint on his own confession that £400 mattered nothing to him. It does matter a lot to the humble constituents of hon. Members opposite.

Sir Patrick Spens (Kensington, South)

If I may keep strictly to the Amendment before the House, the fact that it takes the form it does shows that I, at least, did not understand the subsection when the Amendment was put down. I am not at all sure that I understand it now. I think it goes back to Clause 3, because what it is dealing with is repairs carried out by some person other than the owner of the House. In order that there may be any payment for repairs the owner of the house has to give 14 days' notice before repairs are carried out. As far as the operation of the Clause is concerned after the Bill becomes an Act, it seems perfectly workable. That is to say, once it has become law and everyone is supposed to know what the law is, no repairs are to be done by any person and the owner does not accept payments unless he has given the Coal Board 14 days' notice and they have had a chance of inspection.

That is all right, but what is happening at the moment? If repairs are made after 1st May and before 23rd May—today—by some other person, the owner will find himself unable to get one penny for those repairs, unless he gave 14 days' prior notice under a Clause in a Bill which is not yet law. If that is the right construction of this Clause, it is something which this House has never done in the whole of its history. It is expecting people to comply with a Clause in a Bill while it is still a Bill, if they are to get a benefit. That seems such a preposterous interpretation to put on a Clause that I hope and trust I am utterly and entirely wrong and I should be delighted to be told by the Minister that I have hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely.

On the other hand, I am rather suspicious that I have got hold of the right end and that while it will be all right for people who make repairs well in the future, when they know what the law is and have an opportunity under the law of giving 14 days' notice, there will be a substantial class who are carrying out repairs at present who will find that they ought to have given 14 days' notice under a Bill before it was law. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that, to inquire and to make certain that, as at present worded, the Clause will not include a lot of people who are now making repairs.

Mr. David Thomas (Aberdare)

I hope the Minister will give every consideration to this Amendment because, as I understand it, if the word "fifty" remains part of the Clause many property owners will be deprived of compensation in respect of subsidence damage occurring after 1st January, 1947. Take the case where repairs commenced on 23rd April. The owner can only claim the cost of repairs from 23rd April to 1st May. This Bill was ordered to be printed on 3rd April. It was not till some days after that the Bill appeared and many property owners whose property had been damaged did not know that 1st May, 1950, was the date.

I am not tied down to a particular date, but 1951 is in the Amendment and there might be some properties where the contractors commenced a job on 3rd May or afterwards and then went on to other jobs, and it might be 31st May, 1951, before the whole job is completed. I understand that the owner in such a case would be deprived of all compensation. I believe that the Minister will give every consideration to this matter and will alter the date to make it a reasonable period after 1st May, 1950. The National Coal Board ought to know if jobs are going on now and if they are completed, and no notice has been given, say by November next, we want all those property owners to have the benefit of the Bill, but as the Clause is worded I fear that many a property owner will be deprived of his rights.

I plead with the Minister to alter the date, not necessarily to 1st May, 1951, but to a reasonable date beyond 1st May, 1950, in order to cover jobs which are already in operation in which no prior notice was given. As the Bill stands it is impossible for an owner on whose property work started on 27th April to get more than £2 or £3 compensation covering the work performed by the contractor from 27th April to 1st May. Such an owner cannot give 14 days' notice prior to 1st May or until 14th May, and there is a grave danger, unless a change is made in this date, of depriving many property owners of the compensation to which they are entitled.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker

The mover of the Amendment stated the intention of the Clause with great clarity. It is to prevent dishonest persons, immediately on the publication of the Bill, from having repairs and decorations done to their houses and making a claim on the Coal Board, although the dilapidation which they have repaired or redecorated has been in no way due to subsidence. If that happened it would be very difficult for the Coal Board to determine, after the repairs and decorating had been done, whether it was due to subsidence or not. Therefore, it seemed desirable, in order to prevent dishonest claims by ill-intentioned persons against the Coal Board, which would have no justification under the Bill, from being made and met by the Coal Board.

That leads us to the conclusion that there must be a date after which notice must be given. I would say that the drafting of the Clause is perfectly all right and that is why those who seek to make this Amendment suggest only a change of date and not one of wording. To put 1st May, 1951, as the date would really open wide the door to fraud and evasion. We should find a flood of decorating work being done, and the Coal Board would be in a hopeless position because they would have no right to refuse the claims and they could not check whether subsidence had been the cause or not.

Is 1st May, 1950, the right date? Would it be grossly unjust to adhere to it? We took every step we could to make this provision known in advance. When the Bill was published I had a Press conference; I consulted the Lobby correspondents, who secured wide publicity on this point both in the national and local Press. We also had two broadcasts made I do not say that everybody concerned knew about the Bill and about this Clause, but it is a fact that we have already had 487 claims put in—64 from Northumberland and Cumberland, 140 from the North-Eastern Division and Yorkshire, 48 from the North-Western Division, etc.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Are those claims or notices under this Clause?

Mr. Noel-Baker

They are notices. The point I am seeking to make is that the Bill is beginning to be known. It has been strongly put by some of my hon. Friends that to adhere the 1st May would involve some substantive hardship or injustice to people who really have not known about this provision. While I cannot accept 1st May, 1951, as the date I am prepared to look at this point again, to consult the Coal Board, local authorities and other people, and before the Report stage, to suggest some alternative date which may be a little later than 1st May, 1950, but not very much later.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

The right hon. Gentleman's concluding words will go a long way towards placating hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, but there is one point I should like to take up. He has said that we have taken no exception to the drafting of the subsection as it stands. My own view is that an alteration might be made in the drafting which would assist the Minister in the very purpose he has in view. As the subsection now stands the notice has to be given: in respect of any repairs which have been carried out by any other person to any such dwelling-house … after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty, … It is these words that create the kind of difficulty to which my hon. Friend referred, and which have been mentioned by an hon. Member opposite. If the notice has to be given not in respect of repairs carried out after that day but about repairs in respect of damage occurring after that day it would go some way towards meeting the difficulty.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)

The Amendment before the Committee is simply to leave out "fifty," and to insert "fifty-one."

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

With great respect, Sir Charles, I am addressing myself precisely to that point.

The Deputy-Chairman

The Minister gave an assurance that he would look into the matter before Report stage and put down an Amendment. I gather that the hon. Member is trying to press an Amendment on the Minister now.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

In all parts of the Committee exception has been taken to 1st May, 1950, for reasons which have been cited by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—namely, that to have that date in the Bill will mean a lot of hard cases in which it has been physically impossible for the individual affected to give the requisite notice. The point I am making is that that difficulty arises by reason of the fact that we are dealing with notice of the carrying out of repairs, and my argument is that if the Clause dealt with notice as to the damage, in other words, if the crucial date was not in respect of the date of commencement of repairs but in respect of the damage giving rise to the repairs, this particular kind of difficulty would not arise.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is my point. That is not now in the Clause.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I respectfully submit that my argument is directly to the point. The suggested alteration in the date is to meet a particular kind of hardship when hardship arises by reason of the drafting of the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that no question had arisen as to the drafting of the Clause hitherto, and assuming that arguments on that point would be in order, I was pointing out that a question does arise on drafting which has given rise to the difficulty.

The Deputy-Chairman

I think that is a matter to raise on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I have perhaps made my point sufficiently.

Mr. Bracken

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) put his point extremely well, but, if I may say so most respectfully, I agree with you, Sir Charles, that as the Minister has admitted that the drafting of this Clause is imperfect, it ought to be withdrawn. With the aid of the Opposition I dare say we can probably find a form of words that will meet the views of Members on both sides of the Committee. You know from personal experience how anxious we are to get on with business. The Patronage Secretary is shaking his head.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley)

Yes, I have a good right to, have I not?

Mr. Bracken

By not forcing Divisions we are sparing a lot of hon. Members from the physical breakdowns which would otherwise be caused by the Patronage Secretary's brutality. But do not let us become involved in controversies between old colleagues. I suggest that in view of the undertaking given in such robust language by the Minister my hon. Friends can withdraw the Amendment. We can certainly find an alternative form of words, which cannot be worse than the words in the Bill. We shall probably be able to provide the miners who own their small homes with some form of just compensation.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

On a point of order. Is there really anything at the moment before the Committee, except the date?

Mr. Bracken

As you know, Sir Charles, at all times the unfortunate occupant of the Chair sees something before him. The hon. Member rarely attends our discussions, and is always a constant interruptor.

Mr. Silverman

May I have a Ruling, Sir Charles, to the point of order I submitted?

The Deputy-Chairman

I agree that the matter before the Committee is to leave out "fifty," and insert "fifty-one."

Mr. Silverman

Does it therefore follow that comments on any other point or person are out of order at the moment?

The Deputy-Chairman

Yes, that was what I was trying to indicate.

Mr. Bracken

Considering the rebuke delivered to the hon. Gentleman I think we had better get on with the business and withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Powell

In view of the undertaking by the Minister, which has relieved the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. I would ask the Minister to extend his consideration to the wording of the subsection as a whole and not to be misled by the statistics which he quoted of notices given, which I think are irrelevant to the point at issue here; nor to overestimate the degree to which the provisions of this Bill have yet become known.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Noel-Baker

I beg to move, in page 5, line 2, to leave out from "unless" to "has," in line 3, and to insert, "that person."

This Amendment deals with the same point that was dealt with in the Amendment accepted by the Committee in Clause 5, page 4, line 38, but it is in a different context. The subsection provides that the Board: shall not be required to make any payment under this Act in respect of any repairs which have been carried out by any other person … after the first day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty, unless the owner of the building has given notice to the Board. If the owner has not carried out the repairs himself, if they have been carried out by the tenant who holds a repairing lease—that was the case I was speaking on in the other Amendment—the owner may not have troubled to give the appropriate notice. We think it fairer that the person who will suffer from the failure to give notice should be in a position to give the notice himself, and the Amendment will have that effect.

Amendment agreed to.

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

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Powell

There is one point I wish to raise before we leave this Clause, and upon which I would ask the Minister for guidance. It relates to subsection (1) and it is the point which I think was worrying the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring). In order to obtain compensation the owner or other person interested is required to give notice in writing to the Board of the occurrence of the damage within a specified time. If the regulations merely say within x months of the occurrence of the damage, then obviously, unless that period is over three years in length, persons owning property to which damage occurred between 1st January, 1947, and the present time will be automatically excluded, although the object of the Bill is to bring them within the scope of compensation.

I take it, therefore, that the Regulations will prescribe that notice must be given either within x months of the commencement of this Act, or within x months of the occurrence of the damage, whichever is the later time; but I should be glad to have an assurance from the Minister that that point has been taken.

Sir H. Williams

There are three points I wish to raise. The first words of this Clause state: the National Coal Board shall not be required. … that is to say, the owner or tenant cannot compel them to do certain things, but the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us whether they may within their statutory powers demand the Board to make ex gratia payments if by any reason the question of hardship arises. I am not quite clear whether the Board have the power to make payments. I know they have not much money with which to do it, but I should be glad to know whether they have the power.

The last line on page 4 refers to any repairs: which have been carried out by any other person. I have often wondered what those words mean. If I cause alterations to be made to a house, are they carried out by me or by the builder to whom I entrust the contract? Are they carried out in accordance with my instructions, or actually by me? I am wondering what is the correct interpretation of that, because if there is any chance of a misunderstanding it ought to be cleared up on Report stage. It is purely a question of drafting, but it struck me on reading the Clause that there might be a risk of a misunderstanding in the future.

The third point is the proviso to subsection (2), a very important and legitimate proviso: Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any works urgently required in consequence. … etc. Who is the judge of "urgently"? On reading through the Bill I do not see anybody who is to decide whether a person has done something improper in deciding that he must undertake urgent repairs. Suppose that later on the Coal Board refused to pay, has he any redress against them because he had interpreted "urgently" in a different way from them? I should be grateful if that point also could be cleared up.

Mr. Robens

Upon the point raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) the answer is that in the event of a dispute the courts would decide that matter. We have already pointed out during the passage of this Bill what has happened in the past. As a matter of fact, with regard to specific payments, the Board, since they became the Board, and private owners before, have made it a normal practice where there is a dispute to go to arbitration. If they cannot accept the decision of the arbitrator they can go to the county court. If the Coal Board were to say to an individual, "We do not regard this as an urgent repair and we are not going to pay for it, "they would very likely submit to arbitration whether it was an urgent repair or not. If the Coal Board did not accept the decision the aggrieved person might go to the county court. It is within the recollection of the Committee that we have said from time to time that we do not like tribunals and we leave the courts to deal with it.

So far as ex gratia payments are concerned, this Bill is something additional to what has already been done by the Coal Board, and does not prevent the Board from doing anything which it normally did. I am not certain under what circumstances the hon. Gentleman was speaking in terms of an ex gratia payment. The difference this Bill makes is that automatically every structure damaged by subsidence will come within its terms, and therefore there will be payments for the structural damage; but I am not certain in what way he is now talking in terms of an ex gratia payment.

Sir H. Williams

Suppose a man fails to give notice in what turns out to be the permitted time in the regulations later to be published, and the Coal Board dispute it. Are they free within their powers to make an ex gratia payment?

Mr. Robens

Yes, Sir. It is merely a question of whether the Coal Board can be generous in the interpretation of its duties under this Bill. The answer is of course, "Yes." There is nothing to prevent them doing that. Perhaps I ought to emphasise once again that my right hon. Friend has agreed that when he makes the regulations he will put in provisos covering late claims. Clearly, there is no intention on the part of the Government, and certainly none on the part of the Coal Board, to try to get out of the obligations put upon them by this Bill. We shall have to make provisos in the regulations covering late claims.

Sir H. Williams

Has the hon. Gentleman anything to say on my last point about the words "carried out by any other person."

Mr. Robens

Subsection (2) deals with repairs carried out in the time from the publication of the Bill until it becomes an Act. This merely relates to repairs which will have been carried out by persons other than the Coal Board. Any other person than the Coal Board who has carried out repairs, provided that notice has been given at the appropriate time, will be able to get the cost of the repairs done between the dates I have mentioned.

Sir H. Williams

I do not think the hon. Gentleman has got the point. He will remember that we proposed an Amendment, in page 5, line 2, to leave out from "unless" to "has" in line 3, and to insert "that person." That brings us back to the words on page 4 "carried out by any other person." I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the same person in both cases. The words may be interpreted as "carried out by a builder" or, "carried out upon the instructions of the person referred to in page 5, line 2." This is a question of legal interpretation.

Mr. Robens

It is the instructing person who is referred to.

Mr. Bracken

The Parliamentary Secretary is a master of paradox.

Mr. Robens

He needs to be when he has the right hon. Gentleman in front of him.

Mr. Bracken

His grasp on the obvious is really like that of a vice. What has he told us? He says that if a person has an urgent claim, the Government will provide him with certain machinery. Urgency in this case means if there is a great split in the roof of a man's house and the house is likely to fall down. In circumstances like that, one hopes for quick action, and the Minister offers this splendid opportunity: first, he says one can go to arbitration; later he says that if one is dissatisfied with arbitration, one can go to the county courts. What a way of suggesting that one should get the repairs done.

Mr. Robens

With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman may get away with a good deal, but he really cannot get away with this. We are talking about a man whose property is damaged by subsidence. He regards the matter as urgent and, without notice to the Board, he gets the property repaired. Then the Board, it is suggested, might say that the matter was not urgent and they might refuse to pay. The right hon. Gentleman asks what would happen, and I replied that in that case the split in the roof is covered up. There is no rain coming in and everything is fine. The only point at issue is——

Mr. Bracken

We know that.

Mr. Robens

Right. Then we come to the machinery I have described. I am perfectly certain that the right hon. Gentleman, as the champion of the miners in this House, will agree that it is good machinery.

Mr. Bracken

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his two tributes—that he treats me with great respect and that I am the champion of the miners. That is a duty which should be discharged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they have failed in it.

I daresay that the Parliamentary Secretary does not quite know what happens inside his own Government. Nobody really does know, but there is a gentleman called the Minister of Health, and, in order to assist him in his operations, there is a gentleman called the Minister of Works. I am told that they are on speaking terms at present. If the hon. Gentleman tells me that it is possible to get straight away, a licence to repair a split roof caused by subsidence, he is wrong. It is not possible. It will require a recommendation from his own Department.

Mr. Robens

If the right hon. Gentleman was in the House more often, he would know that any work costing up to £100 need not have a licence.

Mr. Bracken

That is the sort of argument that one hears from the hon. Gentleman. Does he know, for instance, that in any case of serious subsidence the cost to the unfortunate dweller in the house afflicted is far more than £100. The Minister puts his finger up and says, "Crack in the roof." A crack in the roof may lead to the destruction of the house.

If I could interrupt the conversation between the Lord Advocate and the Minister, it would be of advantage to this Debate. I agree that it is a pity that an inferior Law Officer from Scotland should take the place of the Attorney-General, but Dr. Johnson once told the Scots to be civil, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to take his advice. I asked the Minister to reconsider this matter. It is a pretty serious proposition. I think that the Minister is benign, and I feel sure that he will take a lot of notice of the advice I have given in such moderate terms.

Mr. Redmayne (Rushcliffe)

Before we leave this matter, I should like to stress one point. In discussing both the Amendment and the Clause, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister talked about referring these matters to the local authority associations and to the property owners' associations. I wish to speak most strongly in support of what was said by the hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Mainwaring) and the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). It is doubtful whether these associations represent a majority opinion on the question of coal mining subsidence and whether they represent the type of people whom we are trying to protect under this Bill. I ask that the opinion received from these bodies should be balanced by a consideration of the general opinion from the small man's point of view.

Mr. Powell

Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer the question I asked about the Regulations under subsection (1)?

Mr. Nabarro (Kidderminster)

It might be pertinent to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to whom a notice of subsidence should be sent in the event of such subsidence occurring as a result of opencast coal mining activity, instead of deep mining activity. There appears to be a good deal of misapprehension in this Committee, and there was a good deal of misapprehension during the Second Reading Debate, as to whether subsidence could occur at all after opencast coal mining activities had taken place. For instance the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies), who is a distinguished mining engineer, almost challenged whether subsidence could occur; yet in many official reports on this subject in the last few years there has been direct reference to the dangers of this type of subsidence.

In the final stages, shortly before the conclusion of the Second Reading Debate, I tackled the Parliamentary Secretary on the point, and he gave a definition which was a trifle confused. He said that, at short notice, he had only been able to skip through the Bill, and that he found that damage caused by opencast mining activities would be compensated under Defence Regulation 51 B. When I asked him if that covered subsidence caused by opencast coal mining activities the Parliamentary Secretary said, "No" and added that that would come within the terms of this Bill.