HC Deb 04 July 1957 vol 572 cc1387-95

Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act a person having a claim for subsidence damage against the National Coal Board shall have the right to refer the matter to the Minister for decision instead of having the decision made in the courts.—[Mr. Proctor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ellis Smith

On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, why the new Clause "Supply of plans and information to local authorities, &c." standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends, was not called? I know that I am not entitled, under Standing Orders, to ask for an explanation, but this is a special case. Some local authorities have asked for this Clause to be pressed. In view of the special circumstances, will you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to say why it has not been called.

Mr. Speaker

I take the view that the Clause cannot be selected because it was discussed in Committee and there was a Division on it. The purpose of Report, as the hon. Member will know, is not to do over again the work of the Committee, but to tidy up the Bill after the Committee has made certain Amendments to it.

Mr. Proctor

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a second time. The new Clause in my name arises out of the experience we have had in the administration of the previous Act. I should like to press the Minister again to consider this matter. We give everyone who considers that he suffers damages rights under this Bill, but I think that we should make those rights available without too great a risk. A person can have rights under the Bill only if he is capable of asserting his rights in the law courts. It is expensive and very difficult for an ordinary person to take up a controversy with a great organisation like the Coal Board, which has such immense and overwhelming resources, expert and technical advice. The ordinary individual has no help except his own resources.

A claimant should, in the terms of the Clause, have the right to refer the matter to the Minister and ask for his decision on the facts of the case. Most of the mining experts are employed by the Coal Board. I doubt whether many mining engineers are employed elsewhere. Therefore, the possibility of getting expert witnesses outside the ranks of the Board is remote.

When a person whose claim is rejected by the Coal Board asks the Minister of Power to decide the issue, the Minister would not conduct the investigation personally, but would appoint an expert assessor to consider the facts. All that the assessor would have to do would be to decide whether the damage was caused by mining subsidence. That is the point of controversy in the cases of which I have experience and it is a matter for an expert witness to decide. There seems to me no reason why, if so requested by an individual, the Minister should not appoint an assessor to deal with the case.

I have referred earlier to two cases in which the persons concerned, although convinced of the soundness of their case, were not in a position financially to take their case to court. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that if they were not sufficiently endowed with the goods of this world, they would be able to obtain assistance from the State through free legal aid. Those cases are at present being considered through that medium. The claimants, however, would be quite willing for the Minister to appoint an expert assessor to decide whether the damage was due to mining subsidence, in which case the Coal Board would be responsible.

I remind the Minister that it is extremely difficult for the ordinary person to secure the benefit of expert knowledge. When a claim is rejected, the individual has no right to apply to the Coal Board for the facts. He cannot examine a witness unless one is brought into court. By our suggestion, the Minister could send an assessor to examine the case from a much better viewpoint than if an expert witness had to be brought into court and the facts obtained from him by cross-examination.

Mr. Ellis Smith

I beg to second the Motion.

The object of the Clause is to minimise litigation and in case of dispute to refer questions to the Minister, in whom on matters of this kind we have complete confidence. Here again, it is the local authority who have pressed for this course to be pursued.

We had a good discussion in Committee, but we made the mistake of proposing to refer disputes to Ministers. We have been advised that it would be better in cases of dispute to refer the matter to the Minister primarily responsible—that is, the Minister of Power That is the reason for our proposal, which we hope will be accepted.

As I have said earlier, the more that ordinary people can avoid litigation the better. The average person is nervous of entering into disputes of this nature. People are apt to accept what officials tell them without pursuing the matter, often with the result that they suffer unnecessarily. If in the case of dispute there could be a representative, whether a trade union official, an employers' association official or a Member of Parliament, who could take the matter right through to the Minister, this would be more democratic, would give more satisfaction and would avoid unnecessary cost.

I will quote only two of a number of cases. One of them has been going on for several years. I have photographs showing the seriousness of the damage. Disputes arose over decoration. The opinion of one of the officials who handled the matter was that if the room was dealt with simply by washing the walls and filling in the cracks that would be satisfactory treatment. Most people, however, including, I am sure, the Minister, would agree that that was not satisfactory.

If I remember aright, the view expressed by the Minister in Committee was that the property should be at least restored to its state of repair and decoration prior to damage from mining subsidence. Most people would accept that view as reasonable, but, unfortunately, one meets the exceptional official. I am not making a wholesale indictment of officials. I have had too much experience of dealing with them. In the main, they are reasonable men who will make reasonable interpretations. There is, however, the exception, and it is the exceptional official for whom we must make provision. That is why we urge that in the event of dispute, cases should be referred to the Minister.

In another case, which has been proceeding for some years, the house has been subject to mining subsidence on two or three occasions. The owners of the house have been advised to take legal proceedings. They are sick and tired of their experience. It has undermined their health and affected their employment. They have been moved out of their house on several occasions. They have employed a chartered architect and the best legal advice. Now they are right up against it. In the opinion of a number of municipal officers, the whole of their expenditure should have been covered.

In Committee, I gave the cost of decoration of another house as £50. I have since discovered that the cost was £70 in one year. In cases of this description, instead of resorting to the whole procedure of litigation, and rather than have dispute after dispute, it would be better to go direct to the Minister and say, "This is a case which has been dealt with. We have taken it through every stage. We do not want to resort to the legal procedure. We have confidence in you and we want you now to adjudicate." We are confident that in cases of that kind, that is the best procedure.

People who get involved in cases like these follow the judicial procedure until the stage is reached when they decide that the cost is too great and they must drop the claim. Instead, it would be better to allow the Member of Parliament to go to the Minister rather than that the claimant be forced to go to law or adopt other methods. For these reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and I, together with the support we have received from local authorities, have introduced the Clause.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Brown

I support my hon. Friends because they have indicated that we are anxious not to overtax the opportunities or to put too much work upon the Minister. This will reveal, too, to the right hon. Gentleman that we have every confidence in him when we suggest that cases in dispute, instead of going to the law courts, should be submitted to him. It has been sweet reasonableness that has characterised the Minister throughout the proceedings on this Bill—

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

He will not be there all the time, though.

Mr. Brown

I agree that there may be changes, but if we can get the Minister to deal with one or two cases, his successor will certainly follow suit. However, that is for the future and it cannot be determined now.

The salient point is that we are anxious to prevent people who have very little money—decent, honest, good citizens who have worked hard to get their own houses and who have found that events have materialised differently from what they expected—from having to go to the law courts. We have evidence, which was submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary in the course of our proceedings in Committee, that out of 76,000 applications for compensation only two cases have had to go to court. So experience has shown that there are very few of these cases.

It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has said, that we are anxious to save people undue anxiety or worry through fearing that they must take their case to the law courts. I will quote one such case where there was a dispute. After months and months of wrangling and correspondence it was settled, but during those months the old chap who owned the house was in fear and trembling about what would happen. He was an old-age pensioner who augmented his income by letting that house. Owing to subsidence, the tenant left and he cannot relet the house, thus losing part of his livelihood. If he had possessed the wherewithal, he could have taken the National Coal Board to court and have had the case adjudicated on by a judge and assessor, but he had not and so he could not do so.

All that this Clause proposes is that when negotiations have taken place in the locality as to how the house has been damaged, and the amount of damage done, and there is failure to reach agreement by consent, the case should be submitted to the Minister. After all, he has technical advice available in the Department and in the regions upon which he can call. He can examine the plans and the evidence and can then say from his wide experience, and on the evidence submitted, that in his judgment there is a case on which he can adjudicate, and this will avoid taking it to court. That is all we are asking, it is simple, and I think that the Minister should concede the Clause.

Mr. Renton

During the Committee stage I undertook to consider this narrow point as to whether or not, in those cases in which it is necessary to decide whether the damage was caused by mining subsidence, it would not be possible for that issue, and that issue alone, to be considered by the Minister or by somebody appointed by him, instead of being decided by the courts under the procedure in Clause 9 of the Bill.

My right hon. Friend and I have given the matter careful consideration and I want to be candid with the House about it. It is not just as easy as saying that the matter shall be referred to the Minister. If it was so referred he would have to appoint somebody to hear it. It is a question not merely of finding somebody who has mining experience and knowledge, but of finding several people who have had experience of deciding matters judicially, because there might be a number of these cases to be decided in different parts of the country. There would have to be arguments and evidence presented by both sides.

In other words, all that one would be doing would be to establish yet another ministerial or administrative tribunal. We have a vast number of them already, and they do not all give that satisfaction to which the hon. Gentlemen have referred, and as people hope when they go before them. On balance, we have come to the conclusion that it would be both cheaper, simpler and quicker, and altogether more satisfactory, for people to use the traditional method of the courts for deciding this issue, than to establish yet another procedure.

I assure hon. Gentlemen that we have given careful consideration to this matter. I said during the Committee stage that my undertaking was given very cautiously. In retrospect, I am glad that I said it.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Before the Minister sits down, could he consider the following? Often the Ministry will say—I am not talking about this one—"Oh, well, there is something in this, we will make an ex gratia payment." When we find ourselves up against such a situation, would it not be reasonable to suggest that the Minister should say, "There is something in this. Rather than allow it to proceed to court, cannot we get round a table and settle it?" If it can be done, would not that be the better way?

Mr. Renton

The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a fundamental difficulty in this matter. To quote his words, the Ministry will say, "We will make an ex gratia payment in this case." In fact, of course, it is the National Coal Board which will have obligations under the Bill and which will make the payments. The National Coal Board is an independent statutory corporation appointed by the Minister, but the Minister must not interfere with its day-to-day administration. It follows that we must not place the Minister in the position of virtually dictating to the National Coal Board as to whether or not it ought to make an ex gratia payment in a specific case.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Unhesitatingly, I accept all that explanation, but it is based upon a wrong premise. What I said was that we get cases of dispute where a Ministry will say, "We will make an ex gratia payment." I suggest that in such cases it would be better for the Minister to say, "Rather than allow this to proceed to the courts, I will suggest to the National Coal Board that it should look at this again in order to avoid further litigation expenses."

Mr. Renton

No, Sir, with great respect, that is placing the Minister of Power, and those who advise him, in an extremely difficult position. After all, experience of the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act, 1950, has shown that those who handle these matters on the part of the Coal Board, although they do not always give satisfaction, have for the main part managed to settle some thousands of claims without there being any necessity at all for going to court. In that comparatively small number of cases which arise, it is much better for there to be a perfectly clear cut rule that these matters of dispute shall be decided by the courts, as envisaged by the Bill.

Mr. Proctor

The hon. and learned Member said that a very small number of cases go to court. The cases we are envisaging would not go to court in any event because the prospective litigants do not have the money to take them to court. Those people feel that they cannot take the risk of fighting the Coal Board in the courts. There may be thousands of such cases, and it is no argument to say that only two have gone to litigation. There are two people in my constituency who will not go to court about this sort of case. Certainly the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider, on the narrow point of deciding whether there is a liability, whether an assessor appointed by the Minister would not be the better arrangement.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member has said that people concerned could not afford to go to court. If they cannot afford to go to court with the aid of the Legal Aid Scheme, they are not likely to be able to afford—in fact, they are less likely to be able to afford—to take part in a hearing before the Minister—because it would have to be a hearing before the Minister's representative—in which the Legal Aid Scheme would not apply.

I hope that nobody will accuse my right hon. Friend or myself of lacking patience and thoroughness in this matter, but this is a matter which has been very strongly pressed. The Chairman of the Standing Committee showed great indulgence in allowing me to go as far as I did in discussing the merits of the Legal Aid Scheme as it applies to the proceedings under this Bill, but I should be raising false hopes in the minds of hon. Members opposite if I were now to say that after all the consideration we have given there is any hope of there being a concession in this matter.

Question put and negatived.