Mining Subsidence (Legislation) (Hansard, 16 April 1956)

§ 1. Mr. Swingler
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now make a statement on the recommendations of the Turner Committee on mining subsidence.

§ 7. Mr. Ellis Smith
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will now make a statement on mining subsidence and on the review of the full application of the recommendations of the Turner Committee and the result of the inter-Departmental consultations and the consultations with the National Coal Board; and if he will reply to the representations made to him by the deputation which was representative of the National Standing Committee on Mining Subsidence.

§ 8. Mr. Boardman
asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, in his consideration of proposals in connection with compensation for damage caused by mining subsidence, he will give full weight to the financial burden at present being borne for repair of such damage by river boards.

§ The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Aubrey Jones)
The Government have reviewed the recommendations of the Turner Committee on coal mining subsidence in the light of developments since the Committee's Report was published in 1949. The Government have concluded that where, as the law now stands, surface interests have no right to compensation when coal mining subsidence occurs, the National Coal Board should be obliged to make good physical damage to land, buildings, service lines and pipes—or make a reasonable payment. The surface interests concerned would include owners of agricultural land and also local authorities. Provision will be made to deal with the problems of drainage authorities, including river boards. Since subsidence damage is part of the cost of winning coal, the Government consider that this cost should be fully reflected in the price of coal.
New legislation to give effect to these proposals, which will, of course, apply to Scotland as well as England and Wales, will be introduced as soon as practicable. 655 It is estimated that the cost of the new measure will be about £5 million a year, or 6d. per ton of coal mined.

§ Mr. Swingler
While welcoming the fact that the Government have at last decided to implement in principle the main recommendation of the Turner Committee to have a comprehensive scheme, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is saying that the whole cost of such a comprehensive scheme is to be put on the price of coal? Is he not aware that the recommendation of the Turner Committee was in favour of an Exchequer grant towards the payment for this damage? Will it not have a very serious effect on the economy of the country if the whole cost of this damage, which, after all, is a national responsibility, is put on the price of coal?

§ Mr. Jones
The hon. Gentleman has understood rightly. The suggestion is that the cost should be borne in the price of coal. The position is that legal rights differ at the moment as between one person and another. Those legal rights are not at the moment reflected in current property values or in the capital assets of the Coal Board. That is the case for starting afresh, and since mining subsidence is part of the cost of winning coal, then it is clear, in the absence of a Government subsidy, that the cost should be borne by the price. Nor, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, is this cost a serious one. Sixpence on the price of coal is one-third of 1 per cent.

§ Mr. Shinwell
As most of the mining subsidence occurred during the period of private ownership, ought not some of the cost to be deducted from the compensation paid to the private owners?

§ Mr. Jones
I went into that question most carefully before coming to this conclusion, and I am satisfied that were a deduction to be made as the right hon. Gentleman suggests it would be infinitesimal.

§ Mr. Fort
Is my hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made, that the Government have looked at this problem afresh, will be welcome in all areas where subsidence has been such a bane to the community? Will he also be aware that on this side of the House we will support any proposal which puts the weight on to those who are responsible for it, namely, the coalmining industry itself?

§ Mr. Boardman
Does not the Minister consider it is a matter of regret that in getting rid of this long standing injustice his only remedy is to add further to the inflationary spiral, which is bound to reflect itself in the costs of industry?

§ Mr. Jones
No, I cannot accept that this would add to the inflationary spiral. This will be a permanent charge and, on the basis of the solution, which I have described, the charge ought to be strictly limited. No one can complain about 6d. when the price of coal is about £7 10s. a ton.

§ Mr. Callaghan
Is the Minister aware that we shall want a much better explanation than that given so far as to why compensation paid should not bear part of this cost? May I ask him whether we can expect to see the Bill this Session? Is it the intention of the Government to pass this into law before the end of this Session?

§ Mr. Jones
Legislation will be introduced as soon as practicable, as I said in my statement, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that practicability does not necessarily relate to the present Session.