HC Deb 04 July 1957 vol 572 cc1395-415
Mr. Maudling

I beg to move, in page I, line 6, to leave out "commencement" and to insert "passing".

This Amendment is consequential on the acceptance by the House of a new Clause introducing a measure of retrospection. At present, Clause 1 (1) says: This Act shall apply in relation to any subsidence damage occurring after the commencement of this Act… Until we passed the new Clause to which I have referred. "commencement of the Act" and "passing of the Act" meant the same thing. However, it might now be held that the Act commences on 1st January, 1956, from when the retrospection Clause operates. The Amendment is to make it clear that although the special category to which retrospection applies will begin to operate on the day stated, the rest of the provisions will come into effect with the passing of the Bill.

Mr. R. Williams

I certainly think that the Amendment should be accepted. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the fact that if we accept the Amendment, we shall have a Clause talking about the Bill applying to damage occurring after the passing of the Bill and a Clause referring to it applying to damage occurring before the passing of the Bill. I mention that to leave the Paymaster-General with the thought that he may later need a paving Amendment to take up the two points.

Amendment agreed to.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Maudling

I beg to move, in page 1, line 8 after "damage", to insert: (including an alteration of the level or gradient of property not otherwise damaged such as to affect the fitness of that property for use for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection)". It may be convenient with this Amendment to take that in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "land" to the end of line 11 and to insert: not being damage to that land only as the site of an existing building or structure or of existing works such as are mentioned in the two foregoing paragraphs and being damage such as to affect the fitness of that land for use for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

I think that will be convenient.

Mr. Maudling

The purpose of the Amendments is to clear up a doubt raised in Committee. The doubt was whether a drain pipe, for example, which was tilted by subsidence but not actually cracked or fractured and which did not do its job and where the contents of the drain ran in the wrong direction had suffered subsidence damage within the meaning of the Bill. The Amendments are intended to make it perfectly clear that even if there is no fracture of a service pipe, if the change in gradient is such as to affect its fitness for proper purposes, compensation will arise accordingly.

Mr. R. Williams

These Amendments should be accepted and, in suggesting that they should be, note should be taken of the fact that the Minister has honourably carried out the undertaking he gave in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 5, leave out from "land" to end of line 11 and insert: not being damage to that land only as the site of an existing building or structure or of existing works such as are mentioned in the two foregoing paragraphs and being damage such as to affect the fitness of that land for use for the purposes mentioned in the next following subsection".—[Mr. Maudling.]

Mr. Maudling

I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out "as the result of" and to insert "in connection with".

It may be convenient with this Amendment to take the two Amendments in page 2, that in line 16, to leave out "as the result of" and to insert "in connection with" and the other in line 20, to leave out "as the result of" and to insert "in connection with".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That will be convenient.

Mr. Maudling

The Amendments follow a general discussion in Committee when I was asked whether subsidence damage would cover damage caused by the dewatering of worked-out seams. I said at the time that the Bill did that, but after further consideration and discussion with my legal advisers, I came to the conclusion that we would be quite certain that dewatering was covered by putting "in connection with" rather than "as a result of". The purpose of the Amendments is for the avoidance of doubt.

Mr. R. Williams

I am happy to say that on this side of the House we feel that by a neat piece of drafting the Paymaster-General has carried out a promise and we shall be happy to support the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 16, leave out "as the result of" and insert "in connection with".

In line 20, leave out "as the result of" and insert in connection with".—[Mr. Mauding.]

Mr. Maudling

I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to insert: In this subsection the expression "works" includes works of redecoration. This Amendment concerns a point which was much discussed in Committee and to which many hon. Members paid considerable attention. The question is whether the remedial works which the National Coal Board are called upon to perform under Clause 1 (2) include redecoration. In Committee I expressed the opinion that they certainly included redecoration. For example, to replace a wall with merely plain brickwork and no decoration would not be proper remedial work. The purpose of the insertion is to make it quite clear that the remedial work to be done includes the work of redecoration.

The extent of the redecoration is governed by the rest of the subsection. In other words, the work will be such works as may be necessary to render the damaged property reasonably fit for use for the purposes for which, at the date immediately before the damage occurred, it was or might in all the circumstances reasonably have been expected to be used. There is a proviso referring to the Board's not having to restore the property to a better state than it was before. The principles that were involved and which we discussed to a considerable extent in Committee are not involved here. The Amendment makes it clear that the work includes work of redecoration.

Mr. Roy Mason

I am very much obliged to the Minister for meeting us on this point. We stressed the matter in Committee and were most adamant that the word "decoration" should be inserted in the Bill. We have had a lot of trouble on this point in the past, but the Minister has at least given us a hope for the future.

Nevertheless, I want to draw his attention to the way in which the subsection will read as amended. As Mr. Speaker said earlier, the purpose of the Report stage is to tidy up the Bill. But I have never seen words of such a maze-like character, which would tend to make even a lawyer dizzy after reading them. Before anyone can claim under the subsections he must correctly interpret the meaning of the words: render the damaged property reasonably fit for use for the purposes for which, at the date immediately before the damage occurred, it was or might in all the circumstances reasonably have been expected to be used. I can only repeat the words I uttered in Committee, when I said: one feels almost like a punch-drunk boxer reeling from the ring as one tries to wind oneself round all the eventualities and circumstances which might, in a given case, have to be taken into consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 4th April, 1957, c 192.] There is still room for tidying up the subsection. I seriously suggest that in line 29 the word "reasonably" could be cut out, so that the subsection would read: render the damaged property fit for use for the purposes and so on. Secondly, I suggest that in lines 31–32 the words: or might in all the circumstances reasonably have been expected to be used could be altered to read: at the date immediately before the damage occurred it could be expected to be used.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I would point out that he should have proposed all these Amendments if he wanted them to be made. We are now discussing only the Amendment that has been moved.

Mr. Mason

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am just as keen as the Minister, other hon. Members and yourself that on Report the Bill should be tidied up. This is the only point at which I can argue about tidying up this untidy subsection. I suggest that to tidy up the subsection, half-way along line 29—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member is putting himself out of order. We are now discussing only the Amendment. If the hon. Member had wanted other words inserted he should have proposed the necessary Amendments at the appropriate time.

Mr. Mason

I am sorry to continue this argument, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. All I can say is that I want to make a final appeal to the Minister, when he is making an attempt to tidy up the Bill finally, to break through this jungle of legal jargon and make the subsection more understandable not only to hon. Members, and particularly learned Members, but to people outside, so that everyone can understand it when it becomes an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Ellis Smith

We realise that we are on the Report stage and that we are therefore confined to relatively narrow arguments. We must speak to what is in the Bill and what is proposed in any Amendment. We have done that up to now and I shall try to carry on in that way so that I can remain in order. If it were only the Minister who was going to interpret the meaning of the subsection I should be quite confident about the position, but I am a little unsure about the effect of these words, since they are open to several interpretations.

I do not blame the Minister for looking at me in that way, because he will have obtained the best legal advice. I have great respect for the legal man and it is not up to me to challenge the draftsmen, who are so well versed in the preparation of Bills and Amendments that it ill-becomes a man like me to challenge their words, but I have had sufficient experience of this kind of thing to know that unless the words of a Bill are very carefully drawn, if the meaning of a subsection is disputed and the matter goes to court the judge will say that it is what is in the Bill that matters and not what one party or the other wants to be in the Bill.

It is not what Mr. Deputy-Speaker thinks, or what the Minister thinks, or what any hon. Member thinks; it is what is in the Bill that counts. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the matter again and to see if he cannot draw the subsection in such a way that the very small minority of officials about whom I am concerned will interpret the subsection in the way the Minister desires it to be interpreted, in the matter of redecoration.

Mr. Oliver

I am glad that the Minister has inserted these words. The Ministry of Fuel and Power issued a little leaflet explaining quite clearly that the words used in the 1950 Statute mean that decoration is included. Notwithstanding that instruction, many disputes have occurred, even in my area, where the relationship between the Coal Board and the general public is quite good. Controversies frequently arise about the question of redecoration.

I am glad that these words have been inserted, because their presence will remove a lot of unnecessary argument and disagreement. During the Committee stage hon. Members on this side of the House were concerned with the position regarding dwelling-houses, but I see that the Minister has widened the scope. As I read the words, the decoration of offices, shops and buildings of that kind, if damage occurs and decoration becomes necessary, are included. Although we were originally concerned more with the question of private houses, we are grateful for that.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown

It is true to say that the question whether a house has been correctly redecorated has caused more trouble, anxiety and ill-feeling than any other part of the remedial work done by the Coal Board; because one man's idea of redecorating is not the same as another, although both may occupy the same position and work for the same authority. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to insert these words. It will make it easier to come to a proper understanding about whether a house has been decorated to the satisfaction of the people who have to live in it.

In these enlightened days I can scarcely imagine a Coal Board official saying to a tenant who has a claim against the Board that if a crack has been made good and the bricks daubed with whitewash, that is good enough. We live in an age when such ideas are old-fashioned and unsatisfactory. In these days we must conform with modern ideas. I am not arguing that an ordinary miner's cottage should be decorated luxuriously with heavy, embossed wallpaper, but I maintain that the property should be restored to the condition in which it was before the damage occurred. That would not be an expensive job, but it would content the tenant.

I wish, therefore, to express my appreciation to the Minister because, although he has not solved the problem, he has gone a long way to providing that degree of contentment for the tenant, and we welcome that. I hope that officials of the Coal Board will read what has been said not because I have said it, but because hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced a great deal of trouble and anxiety over the interpretation of what is the proper way to redecorate a house. The approach of Coal Board officials in the past has been niggardly.

Mr. Maudling

The purpose of these words is to make it absolutely clear that remedial work includes redecoration. The hon. and learned Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) is right in saying that this goes beyond dwelling-houses. While this makes it clear that there is an obligation to redecorate, it does not follow that in every case the people concerned will be satisfied.

Reference has been made to the leaflet which was distributed a short while ago, and perhaps hon. Members will be interested to know that we are considering the possibility of issuing a similar leaflet after the Bill becomes law. If that is done, I shall make sure that all hon. Members who have a constituency interest in this matter receive copies

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Renton

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, after "large," to insert: or a highway in Scotland managed and maintained by the Secretary of State or by a county or town council. This is a drafting Amendment made necessary because, in Scotland, highways have never been repairable by the inhabitants at large as has been the case in England since the Middle Ages, although that does not mean to say that there are no inhabitants at large in Scotland.

In Scotland, the highway is repaired or managed and maintained, to use the phrase which they prefer, by the Secretary of State or by the county council or town council, and, therefore, the words proposed in the Amendment are necessary.

Mr. R. Williams

When any question of Scottish law arises I take every opportunity to declare that I am completely ignorant of Scottish law and that I am dependent on the advice of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House who have experience of it. Upon their advice I say that this appears to cover the position as it arises in Scotland. If that be so, and it is not questioned by any Scottish Member, we shall give this Amendment our support.

Mr. George

I am glad that this change is made because the absence of these words gave rise to some anxiety. I wonder whether the whole purpose has been changed because, obviously, the intention is to cover everyone concerned and in Scotland many by-ways and rights of way have been taken over by district councils. Perhaps the words "district council" should also appear.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

As the only Scottish Member present on this side of the House, may I thank the Minister for inserting these words? They could have been omitted only by an Englishman and suggested only by a Scotsman.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. Williams

I beg to move, in page 3, line 18, after "not", to insert in the opinion of the Minister". We discussed this point during the Committee stage of the Bill and I was under the impression that the Minister had accepted that, as they stand, the words are unintelligible, or nearly so. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that they were almost otiose and I agree with him. I think that we must look at them again. In page 3, in line 18, are the words: where for any reason it is not in the public interest that the Board should themselves execute the remedial works. How can we decide whether for any reason it is not in the public interest? On whose authority must we say that there is a dispute? Are we to go before the court and ask the county court judge to decide that it is not in the public interest? Or are we to say that, because public authorities will be concerned, if they and the Board are satisfied that it is in the public interest, then it is, in fact, in the public interest? The difficulty here is that these words as they stand are quite obviously meaningless, because there must be an authority to decide whether it is in the public interest or not.

We have complete confidence as to where the authority should reside here, because there will be nobody who will be better qualified to consider the position, both in relation to the local authorities, where they are concerned, the Board itself and the public, than the Minister himself. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that that is too great a responsibility to rest upon his own Ministry, it is quite open to him to say that he cannot accept our Amendment, but will consider, between now and a later stage of the Bill, the question of it being decided by joint consultation between himself and other Ministers. But unless there is some authority to decide what is in the public interest, the point remains at large.

We accepted the proposal of the Minister when he put an Amendment into the Bill in Committee to include the words— where for any reason it is not in the public interest and we accepted it on a clear understanding that he would look at the matter again and introduce something which would quite clearly bring out its meaning. We are not against the Minister on this point, but seeking to give him more power, apparently, than he wants himself, and if anything that I can say will overcome his diffidence I will continue to press the argument.

I wish to say as clearly as I can that if this Amendment is not accepted, and if nothing is done to alter the words appearing in line 18 in Clause 1, the Bill will go out with an absolutely meaningless phrase in it.

Mr. Renton

As the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) has said, this is a difficult point. That was acknowledged by my right hon. Friend when he dealt with the matter in Committee, when he said that he would have a look at it again. Although it is a difficult point, it does not mean to say that automatically one can find an easy solution to it. The very fact that it is difficult means that it is difficult to find a solution, and we have found it so.

We do not accept the solution put forward by the hon. Gentleman. As the Bill now stands, a dispute as to whether or not it is in the public interest for the Coal Board to do the remedial work itself or make a cost of works payment, in these cases which are dealt with in subsection (3), will be decided by the courts under Clause 9, as will other disputes under Clause 1. This question of the public interest arises not in relation to the ordinary citizen and domestic householder. It arises when the Coal Board finds that it has to repair or make a cost of works payment for the property of public authorities.

8.15 p.m.

The sort of issue which may arise is this. We will assume that the property of a water undertaking has been damaged and has to be repaired. We will also assume that, for public health reasons, access to the property of the water undertaking—to a particular reservoir, shall we say?—has to be very carefully controlled because of the danger of contamination. I do not think that a county court judge, if that point is put to him by the water undertaking, in the unlikely event of a dispute, would have great difficulty in finding that that is not a suitable case for the Coal Board to do the repairs itself. Therefore, he would come to the conclusion that it is in the public interest that the water undertaker rather than the Board should do the work. That is only one hypothetical case.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

My hon. and learned Friend has said that it is only in the case of a public authority. The difficulty that I feel about it is that, as I understand these words, they are quite general in their application. It may be the intention of the Government only to use this provision in that case, but there is nothing that I can see that would limit them.

Mr. Renton

In practice, I am advised that disputes in which this issue has to be decided cannot arise in the case of the ordinary individual, but that they will arise only in the cases of public authorities and large undertakings; that, in the case of the ordinary individual, there will never be any question of it being contrary to the public interest that the Coal Board should carry out the remedial works in the ordinary way.

Mr. R. Williams

Would the Parliamentary Secretary consider the possibility, if he does not like our Amendment, of making it clear in the Bill that they are so limited, and that it is only in that class of case that the question will arise whether or not it is in the public interest? That, of course, under Clause 9, will fall to the county court judge to decide. It is simply a question of our making it specific and quite clear, and if the Parliamentary Secretary rests his case upon that, he will find nothing but the most conciliatory spirit from this side of the House in co-operating with him to see that the Bill is made better in this respect.

Mr. Renton

I take the point which the hon. Gentleman has made, but I would be glad if he will listen to the case I have yet to put, for this reason. The point which he has just put has to be regarded in the light of the case which I am about to make.

It is nothing new for the courts to decide matters of the public interest. Both under the common law and under Statute law, it is a thing which the courts have become accustomed to do and which we know they do quite satisfactorily. Perhaps I may give two examples, one of common law and one of Statute law. In relation to agreements in restraint of trade, the courts have to decide whether or not the agreement is contrary to the public interest. In the case of the Mines (Working Facilities) Acts, several different questions of public interest have to be decided by the courts. So it is not asking the courts to do something which they are unable to do or which it is not their practice to do.

That being so, let us consider whether, in this case, it is wise to leave the words as they are now in the Bill, or whether we should do what has been suggested by the hon. Member for Wigan in moving his Amendment and add the words: in the opinion of the Minister. If we are to add these words, we then get hack to just that very difficulty which I was mentioning earlier in dealing with a proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Once we bring Ministers into a proceeding of this kind it is obvious that, in spite of the dispensations which have been proposed today, they cannot be expected to undertake detailed inquiries of this kind. They must appoint somebody to hold a hearing, which means a quasi-judicial proceeding. Therefore, we do not carry the matter any further by asking the Minister to undertake this work and we might just as well let the courts do it.

It is in the context of what I have said that I would ask the hon. Member for Wigan to do what I undertake to do. I will consider and if necessary will consult with my noble Friend in another place, whether it is not best to leave the Clause as it is. I will consider whether or not, as the Bill is framed, and in the particular circumstances in which we are legislating, it could be found that the public interest issue had to be decided in relation to the ordinary, private dwelling. I am advised that it is not so, but I will make quite sure that it is not so. If I find that the matter needs elucidation I undertake that an Amendment will he moved.

Amendment negatived

Mr. Renton

I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, after "damage" to insert "(a)".

Perhaps, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, this somewhat innocuous Amendment could be taken with the next two Amendments on the Notice Paper, to lines 36 and 38. They are more substantial and are rather complicated.

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray)

Is that convenient to the House?

Hon. Members

Agreed

Mr. Renton

It may be that when a house or a row of houses have been damaged by mining subsidence they are fit only for a slum clearance or a demolition order under the housing Acts. So far, the Bill does not provide for such an eventuality. Neither does the 1950 Act. It, also, is silent on the subject.

The matter has become very much more important now that the slum clearance drive is well under way. Normally, the Coal Board may discharge this obligation merely by making a value payment to the owner, based on the decline in the market value and on the possibility of a slum clearance order being issued. No doubt the owner would be satisfied. The snag is this. The Coal Board can make a value payment only if it is less than the cost of the remedial works.

There is no point in its doing remedial works if the local authority is to order the House to be demolished. The Coal Board would be obliged to make a cost-of-works payment under Clause 1 (3), which would be payable to the other person mentioned in that subsection, in other words, to the local authority and not to the owner because it would be the local authority who would do the redevelopment.

There is the further point that under the housing Acts any cost-of-works payment made to the local authority would be disregarded in assessing the owner's compensation for having his property taken away for slum clearance purposes. We therefore reach a result which is rather unfortunate for the owner. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with me that the owner will have lost his house through mining subsidence plus slum clearance, and he will also have lost the benefit of the Bill because that will pass to the local authority in the form of a cost-of-works payment, and he will have got virtually nothing.

We feel that we have to meet this situation. We do it in this way. We say that the Coal Board shall be allowed to make a value payment if it appears to it that a slum clearance order is likely and it may disregard the question whether the value payment is more or less than the cost of remedial works. Under the Bill as it now stands, the Board can only make a value payment if it be less. When a house has been damaged and it appears that it might become subject to a demolition or a slum clearance order, the Board must consult the local authority. As has been said often in these proceedings the Board will be in touch with local authorities on many matters. Here is a case in which it must consult the local authority and ask whether a demolition order is to be made.

If the local authority can give a decision straight away, the matter is clarified at once, but it may not be able to give a decision straight away. Therefore, the Coal Board will be in a state of some uncertainty, in having to decide what it must do, in the light of the advice received from the local authority and the evidence which it has of the effect of subsidence on the property.

8.30 p.m.

Of course, it might decide to start remedial works and back its own judgment by saying, "We are going to start remedial works; they will not cost very much and we will hope that that will be cheaper than having to make a value payment", but if, eventually, there is a slum clearance order we say that the owner is entitled to his value payment. He really ought to be entitled to it, otherwise he will not get anything at all for the total loss of his property. The Coal Board will have to be rather cautious before embarking upon remedial works, bearing in mind that it will have an ultimate liability for making a value payment in the event of a slum clearance order being made. That is the purpose of these Amendments and that is the procedure we propose.

Mr. W. R. Williams (Manchester, Openshaw)

This is not quite clear to me. I have the case of Manchester in mind. There is a great deal of demolition of uninhabitable property to be undertaken. We are finding great difficulty in getting the Minister to move in the matter of expansion for overspill, and so on, and it looks as if that work of demolition might be seven, eight, perhaps ten years ahead. Will not any remedial work be done in the interval?

Mr. Renton

Quite candidly, with great respect to the hon. Member, I do not see how his remarks relate to the situation I have been trying to describe. There is no question of any demolition, slum clearance and rehousing being held up in the light of the possibility of mining subsidence.

Mr. Williams

I do not think that the Minister has got the point at all. That is not the point I was making. The point I was making is that demolition of a number of these houses would normally take place immediately, but, owing to certain circumstances, it cannot be done for perhaps three, four or five years. What is the position in that case?

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member asks what would be the position in a case like that if the houses were affected by mining subsidence. The Coal Board would ask the local authority to make a decision as to its ultimate intentions about those houses. If the local authority came to the conclusion that there ought ultimately to be a demolition order, the Coal Board would go ahead and make a value payment to the person entitled to receive it under this Bill and there need be no delay at all.

Mr. Ellis Smith

What determines the value?

Mr. Renton

The value is determined, as the hon. Member will see, by the provisions of subsection (4), paragraph (i), as read in the light of what at the moment is the only Schedule to the Bill. That Schedule is headed, "Determination of Amount of Depreciation and Recipients of Payments." It is a somewhat complicated Schedule and I do not want to go into it. From subsection (4) the hon. Member will see that it applies where in the case of any property affected by subsidence damage the reasonable cost of executing remedial works would, in the opinion of the Board, exceed the amount of the depreciation in the value of the property.

Mr. Proctor

Is not the sum total of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has told us a method by which landlords are to get payment for slum property for which they would get no payment from the local authorities?

Mr. Renton

No, as I hoped I had made clear. It is not a question of what hon. Members opposite sometimes call landlords of slum property. It may be a very humble owner of a house inhabited by his neighbour.

Mr. Ellis Smith

We know of cases.

Mr. Renton

We all know of cases. We think it extremely hard on them that in the event of there being mining subsidence followed by slum clearance there should not only be a loss of the house and of the property but that the benefit under this Bill, which is intended to benefit everyone who suffers from loss of property, should pass merely to the local authority, as it would unless we did something about it on the lines proposed in this Amendment.

With that explanation, I hope I may feel that I have carried hon. Members with me in agreeing to two things: first, that this is a point we ought to deal with; and, secondly, that the method we propose—which we feel is a practical method and realistic in relation to rather difficult—circumstances—is a sound method, and one which is workable.

Mr. Probert

Before the Minister sits down, may I ask him a question? I am confused about this, and it is an important matter. Let us assume that a local authority has scheduled an area for slum clearance and the area is in the authority's programme for the next five years. A considerable number of houses in my constituency are so affected. Unfortunately, they are also affected by mining subsidence. Do I understand from the Minister that the owners of the property, most of which are owner-occupied, can secure from the Coal Board under the suggested provisions a value payment in accordance with the Schedule? It appears to me that, rightly or wrongly, those people will be in a far better position than if the Bill were not passed, because normally they would receive only the site value.

Mr. Renton

If they were entitled to receive the site value under the housing Acts, then, in assessing the compensation which they would receive, it would be based on site value and the quantity represented by the costs-of-works payment would be deducted from she compensation payable. It might be completely wiped out, because the site value would be very small indeed.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

Is not the answer to this point to be found in the words at the end of the second of these Amendments: that the making of the clearance order will be attributable to the subsidence damage"? The case put by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) was one in which the making of the order was attributable to something other than subsidence damage, and in that case it would be outside the Clause altogether. Is not that the answer to the point which he raised?

Mr. Renton

I am obliged to my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. These provisions will apply only if the house is proceeded against under the housing Acts as a result of subsidence damage.

Mr. Ellis Smith

It is with some hesitation that I enter into the debate, because the subject needs very careful study and we should be advised on it by the legal advisers of our local authorities. I want to make some observations in an interrogatory sense. In my own division we have several areas of this kind—such places as Fenton and Longton. Not only do they suffer from the old mining subsidence but there will be great subsidence during the next twenty years because of the modernised mines.

The local authority has relatively the best housing record in the country, but because of the difficulties which have been created it now wants to proceed as quickly as it can with slum clearance. It is up against all kinds of legal difficulties and it has, therefore, decided to take out what is known as a blanket order. This order is put into effect by the local authority. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) will be well versed in the matter, because he has great experience of it.

The local authority officials proceed to apply the blanket order but they run up against legal difficulties arising from the fact that they are dealing with many houses in a long row, each owned by a different individual. As a result, the local authority is stopped in such cases. Eventually, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government gives notice that it intends to conduct an inquiry. As a result, everything is held up.

In cases of that kind, where they are suffering from mining subsidence, I can see great legal difficulties arising. I hope that between now and when the Bill is considered in another place the Minister will consider the views of local authorities on such matters so that any alteration which is required can be considered in another place.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I should like to put a small drafting point to my hon. and learned Friend. As the Bill is now drafted, the words "that amount" are fairly clear. They refer to the words: …the amount of the depreciation in the value of the property caused by the damage… But when this series of Amendments is made, instead of the words "that amount" we find the words: the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection. Paragraph (a) reads: …the reasonable cost of executing remedial works would, in the opinion of the Board, exceed the amount of the depreciation in the value of the property caused by the damage… The two amounts mentioned are the actual amount of the damage, and the reasonable cost of executing remedial works, which is also an amount. I think that some Amendment is necessary to show that it is the latter amount that is referred to.

Mr. R. Williams

It is fair to say to the Minister that we on this side think that this is a practical way of dealing with an extremely difficult problem, but I hope that the Minister will not misunderstand me when I say that, arising out of the observations given with such clarity and force by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening, I am left in doubt on a number of points. It seems to me that since we have reached this stage of the Bill, the right thing is to say that we accept this with reservations. The Minister must appreciate that we shall be consulting our colleagues in another place, and it may well be that he will find that Amendments will be there submitted arising out of observations made this evening. But I think that it would be quite wrong for us to say that there is so much wrong with these Amendments that we should oppose them.

Mr. Proctor

The Parliamentary Secretary's explanation causes me considerable misgivings. If I am correct, owners of slum property have no right to compensation when their property is demolished, though there are exceptions. From what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, it seems that certain sections of the owners of slum property will receive compensation which they would not receive under the present law. If that is so, it is putting an unfair burden on the Coal Board. I express that view only in order that consideration may be given to the question of whether, by this Bill, we have slipped into an alteration of the present practice as to no compensation for the owners I have mentioned.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) said that he thought that it might be unfair on the Coal Board, but I do not think that it really is. If a demolition is to be delayed for several years, the Board will probably do the remedial works in any case. Once the remedial works are completed—and perhaps I did not make this clear enough before—no question of value payment arises. It is only if it has spent some money starting on remedial works and has made a mistake in doing so that it incurs this ultimate liability for making the value payment.

I do not think that this is unfair on the Coal Board, because this particular form of slum clearance is different from all others. It is slum clearance which is clue to mining subsidence. The subsidence has been caused by the Coal Board. The fact that it has been caused by the Coal Board should not debar a local authority from carrying out its duties with regard to any property which gets into a deteriorated condition, from whatever cause. Therefore, I do not think that it can possibly be said that this is unfair to the Coal Board.

8.45 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) raised a drafting point, which I shall look at very carefully. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) said that he hoped the local authorities would be consulted. Certainly, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government has been consulted, and I shall ensure that, through it, the local authorities are.

Finally, may I say that I appreciate the attitude of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) about this. We have presented the House with a very difficult, but very important, set of Amendments. I appreciate that, normally, we should wish to follow the Committee stage procedure in analysing all this and getting it as straight as we can. In view of the fact that we are now at the Report stage, I accept that he will wish to consult his noble Friends in another place.

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House, for not having asked leave to speak again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 36, after "damage" insert: or

  1. (b) the property is a dwelling-house and it appears to the Board that a notice to treat for the compulsory purchase thereof is likely to he served under Part III of the Housing Act. 1936, or Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950 (which relate to clearance and redevelopment) in such circumstances that compensation payable for the purchase will fall, but if the subsidence damage had not occurred would not have fallen, to be assessed subject to subsection (2) or (3) of section forty of the said Act of 1936 or, as the case may be, subsection (2) of section thirty-six of the said Act of 1950 (which provide for compensation by reference to site value); or
  2. (c) the property is a dwelling-house and it appears to the Board that a clearance order under either of the said Parts III is likely to be made in respect thereof in such circumstances that the making of the clearance order will he attributable to the subsidence damage".

In page 3, line 38, leave out "that amount" and insert: the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection; and if in the case of any dwelling-house affected by subsidence damage the Board do not elect to make a payment under this subsection but, before the completion of remedial works or, in a case falling within paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection, before all sums in respect of which the Board are liable to make payments have been expended, a notice to treat is served tinder either of the said Parts III either in respect of the dwelling-house in such circumstances are mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in respect of the cleared site of the dwelling-house, or a clearance order is made under either of the said Parts III in such circumstances as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of this subsection, then, notwithstanding and without prejudice to any expenditure or liability of the Board in respect of works already executed, the Board shall make a payment in respect of the dwelling-house equal to the amount mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection in like manner as if they had originally elected so to do under paragraph (b) or (c) thereof and shall be absolved from any further obligations in respect of the dwelling-house under the two last foregoing subsections".

In page 3, line 39, at end insert: paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of".—[Mr. Renton.]

Mr. Maudling

I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end to insert: (6) Where a dwelling-house is affected by subsidence damage, the provisions of the Schedule (Provisions as to dwelling-houses rendered uninhabitable) to this Act shall have effect. This is a paving Amendment, which paves the way for the new Schedule which sets out the substantial provisions which are to be made for helping people or doing things for people whose houses are rendered uninhabitable. I imagine that the House will not want to discuss the substance of it on this Amendment. I suggest that it would be more convenient if we discussed the substance of the matter when we come to the new Schedule. I hope that the House will let us have this Amendment for that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 28, at end insert: subsections (3), (4) or (5) of."—[Mr. Maudling.]