IRONSTONE MINING, EAST CLEVELAND (SUBSIDENCE) (Hansard, 9 December 1964)

§ Mr. James Tinn (Cleveland)

It is surely one of the most generous customs of this House that enables a new and untried hon. Member like myself to stand equal with the most distinguished and senior of Members in applying for the privilege of drawing the attention of the House to some matter of importance to his constituents. At the same time, it would be a churlish abuse of this privilege if I were to take up the time of the House for one moment longer than is absolutely necessary for me to put my case as effectively as I can. So, I address myself to this task without further courtesies which would surely be misplaced at this hour.

The hillsides of East Cleveland are honeycombed with mine workings from which were extracted the ironstone which was originally the raison d'être of the prosperous iron and steel industry of Tees-side and the north Yorkshire coast. One by one these mines have closed—the last of them only this year—leaving behind certain problems for the settlements and townships of this otherwise highly attractive coastline. Not the least of these problems is the damage to public and private property which has resulted 1785 from earth movements which have every appearance of resulting from these abandoned workings.

It is a tragic irony for the victims that, if the damage had occurred a few miles further north, across the Tees, as a result of coal mining, the issue would have been comparatively simple. Under legislation passed when the coal mines were nationalised, it is only a matter of proving that the damage is due to mine working and, if this could be done, all that would remain would be to make an assessment of the damage, which the National Coal Board would then have the statutory obligation to pay, regardless of whether or not the Board had carried out the mining operations.

There is no comparable legislation which imposes on the iron and steel industry, or on individual firms, a responsibility for subsidence damage similar to that imposed on the National Coal Board. Remembering that it was only with the nationalisation of coal that this responsibility was unequivocally accepted by the industry, I am emboldened to draw the attention of my hon. Friend to this precedent, confident that it will be borne in mind when framing the Statute for the public ownership of the steel industry, of which the steel workers of my constituency have so long been advocates. I realise that my hon. Friend cannot anticipate the details of this future Measure, but the moral responsibility of this industry is undeniable.

It was, indeed, accepted, although only to a limited extent and with important reservations, by one of the largest firms in a case to which I will refer later. What I ask the Government to do is to translate this moral obligation into a binding statutory duty, with retrospective effect.

My confidence in the success of this plea is strengthened by the reflection that the scale of the damage and the cost of the compensation is so minute in comparison with the vast capital assets of the industry on Tees-side alone, and the wealth, much of it traceable to these very workings, to the labour of generations, to the loyal, strike-free work of the very people who now find their homes and hard-won security threatened without realistic right of redress.

1786 In June, 1962, subsidence occurred to two bungalows and four flats owned by Loftus Urban District Council. These cost £1,150 and £1,232 each respectively, and they are still uninhabitable. The loss of rent to the council amounts to approximately £500 a year, but the council still has to meet its loan obligations and has had to rehouse the occupants.

Further subsidence occurred on a larger scale on 11th May, 1963, and this time affected privately-owned terrace houses in Gladstone Street and East Street, Loftus. This time, 116 dwellings were affected, and the council surveyor reported that 7 were dangerous, 9 had suffered major damage and another 7 were considerably affected. The Council rehoused several families and, at present, 10 houses are empty.

In April of this year yet another instance occurred, this time some miles away at North Skelton. On this occasion, however, the owners of the recently closed pit nearby, Messrs. Dorman Long (Steel) Ltd., whilst disclaiming any legal responsibility, did meet the cost of repairs and redecoration which came, at that time, to £1,560. This action was welcomed by everyone concerned, but it presumably left the legal position unchanged, and certainly left the much more serious plight of the people of Loftus entirely unrelieved.

I am sure that I need no oratory to gain the sympathy of hon. Members for the plight of the victims. The private houses damaged at Loftus last year were worth some £700 to £800 each, although one of the most seriously damaged houses, now completely unhabitable, had been modernised and decorated at considerable trouble and expense. It would touch the heart to see it now, with windows shattered and walls cracked beyond repair. Some of these victims were elderly people who through hard times had skimped and saved to buy, as they thought, some security in their old age. Others find themselves burdened with debt on houses they can neither occupy nor sell. The sums involved are small and the legal responsibility is obscure but, in contrast, the consequences to these people are clear and considerable.

The mineral rights of the land are owned by Zetland Estates Ltd., representing landlords who have done well out of these mines in the past, and whose 1787 consciences seem to have sufficient resilience to allow them to shelter behind what they no doubt regard as legal invulnerability. Zetland Estates originally leased these rights to Pease and Partners Ltd., who subsequently assigned the lease to Skinningrove Iron Co. Ltd., by whom it was terminated in December, 1959. The conveyancing of the land on which the council and the private houses were built contains clauses excluding the right to compensation.

It may be argued that these were contracts freely entered into, but if one considers the local circumstances, the ownership of the land, the contrast between the wealthy landowner and the humble purchaser, this argument must be seen to be as much a legal fiction as were similar arguments which were advanced about free contracts of labour in the early days of trade unionism.

It has been suggested that the local authorities concerned might promote a Private Bill to empower them to meet the cost of this damage. This is an argument, I feel, of little merit other than expediency. It would fix a legal responsibility where no moral responsibility could by any stretch of the imagination be laid, and would be a heavy charge falling mainly on the people of the area who have worked so hard for the prosperity of the industry and the landowners who now ignore their obligations.

Surely this House, even at this late hour, is the last court of appeal, in a sense, for my constituents in their distress. Parliament can, by the exercise of compassion and ingenuity, help them. I am counting on my hon. Friend not merely to express sympathy or to spell out difficulties, but to promise action where his predecessors failed. If the present responsibility cannot be brought home to those who enjoyed the wealth those mines produced, then let us at least follow the precedent set in the case of coal, where the problem was so much more massive, and make the payment of compensation a charge on the industry as a whole. If we cannot now do justice to the wealthy, at least let us see that it is done to the poor.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Morris

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend 1788 the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) on his speech? He has raised what is undoubtedly a very important issue to his constituents. He has told the House at this late hour that this is the last court of appeal for his constituents. I do not wish to be legalistic but, after all, a court of appeal is the place to which one should resort if one has exhausted all the remedies. I want to make some suggestions, which I hope will be useful to my hon. Friend, on the line that his constituents have not yet exhausted all the remedies which are before them. His constituents should be proud of the manner in which he has placed their case before the House tonight and I add my congratulations that in the short time he has been here he has seized this opportunity to present his case so admirably.

This is undoubtedly a local issue, but that fact does not minimise its gravity to the people concerned. It has not been proved conclusively that the damage at Loftus in my hon. Friend's constituency is due to subsidence. There may well be other causes of ground movement and they cannot be ruled out entirely. Even if this doubt were removed it would not mean that the Government would adopt a different view about this matter; so for the purposes of my argument tonight I will assume that the damage which has occurred to houses in my hon. Friend's constituency is the result of subsidence.

The damage at Loftus was the first to be reported in this area since 1937 and, as I understand, there has been no damage there since May, 1963, apart from a minor incident at North Skelton in April, 1964, when the mining company to which my hon. Friend referred made an ex gratia payment. Future damage cannot be excluded, but there is no reason to suppose that damage will occur frequently or on a large scale.

I am making no attempt to minimise the hardship which undoubtedly has been suffered by my hon. Friend's constituents. He has drawn tonight a comparison with subsidence from coal mining. The Acts dealing with coal mining subsidence were passed as late as 1950 and 1957 but surely there is a difference between an essentially local issue to which my hon. Friend has referred and a widespread national problem in coal mining subsidence. In the latter case there is widespread damage and great hardship. 1789 I suggest very tentatively to my hon. Friend that a better comparison than with this national issue is the example of houses which have become liable to flooding, houses built on a hillside which has started to slip, or on reclaimed ground which turns out to be unstable.

None of these comparisons may be entirely adequate, and while I have sympathy with my hon. Friend, the Government's difficulty is in drawing a line between one case and another; and in my submission there is no obligation on a Government automatically to help individuals although they may well suffer hardship. Contracts have been freely entered into, and, where there is no misrepresentation—I understand that there is no suggestion of it here—very strong argument is needed for a Government to intervene if one party finds himself in an unfortunate position.

For a Government to intervene, the whole of the circumstances must be looked at. This was so as regards coal. There was a national problem which had to be tackled nationally by means of national legislation. This is a local problem, and for the Government to intervene there must be a much stronger argument for national action. I appreciate the strength of conviction and sincerity with which my hon. Friend has argued his constituents' case, but, with respect, I suggest that, first of all, local remedies should be thoroughly exhausted before he makes his case for national action.

What are the Government's powers? The Government cannot compel the former companies to pay compensation. It is suggested that the Government should themselves pay compensation to private owners? In the past, such help has been given only when damage and loss have been of disastrous proportions over a known area. This is not so here. 1790 Moreover, even in those cases—flooding over a known area is an example which springs to mind—Exchequer grants were not made directly to individuals. The contributions of the Exchequer were made to bona fide relief funds which had been set up locally, and certain contributions were expected from the areas concerned. Here, although the loss, damage and suffering are undoubtedly serious, they are not disastrous over a known area in terms of the comparison which I am putting to the House.

I shall reflect again very seriously on what my hon. Friend has said, but I feel that the suggestion which has been made to the local authority, that it should seek local Act powers to set up a fund from the rates for the relief of distress, has more to commend it than my hon. Friend has acknowledged. Such a fund would, subject to Treasury approval, attract a rate deficiency grant, so that there would be, in effect, a national contribution to the local fund. Naturally, the Treasury cannot be committed at this stage, but, subject to this, I can say that Government Departments would be ready to give all the help they could. I emphasise that.

I hope, therefore, that the local authority, with which the decision to promote a Bill would lie, will give this suggestion most careful consideration. I can tell my hon. Friend tonight, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that he would be very willing to discuss this matter with the local authority again if, after further thought, it wished to come back to the Departments concerned, and my own Department would certainly be ready to join in any such discussion.