§ 3. Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Power if he will give consideration to relieving the National Coal Board of the whole or part of the financial burden of compensation for mining subsidence damage.
§ Mr. PeytonNo, Sir.
§ Mr. SwinglerIs it not time that some consideration was given to this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are anxious that the legislation on compensation for subsidence damage 1479 should be extended to cover consequential damage caused by subsidence, but that we are not anxious to put additional financial burdens on the Board? Would not his Ministry, therefore, now consider, with relation to proposals for extending the coverage for compensation for subsidence damage, that it is time that the Board was relieved of some of this weighty responsibility for compensation?
§ Mr. PeytonI think it would be wrong to relieve the Board entirely of responsibility in this field. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the position of the surface owner was considerably improved by the 1957 Act, and I really do not see that things have changed to an extent which would warrant the upsetting of that settlement.
§ Mr. LoveysWould not my hon. Friend agree that if compensation for mining subsidence became a national Exchequer charge there would also be many very immediate demands on the Exchequer, including the much more deserving cost of coast protection work?
§ Mr. PeytonI do not think that I can be lured into coast protection work at the moment.
§ Mr. SwinglerI do not propose that the National Coal Board should be entirely relieved of responsibility, but would not the hon. Gentleman go as far as to consider that, in further legislation, compensation for subsidence damage should become an Exchequer responsibility and not involve an additional burden on the National Coal Board? Can we not have that?
§ Mr. PeytonI must make it clear that there is no intention in the mind of the Government to introduce legislation altering the settlement reached in the 1957 Act.
§ Mr. SwinglerThere should be.