COAL MINING (SUBSIDENCE) (Hansard, 21 February 1979)

§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Act 1957; to establish an independent commission to take over certain responsibilities from the National Coal Board; and for connected purposes. Families in every coal mining area in Britain know of the terrible damage that can be caused by coal mining subsidence. When coal mine workings subside, the foundations of houses slowly and irrevocably disintegrate. Some occupants have been compelled to watch the foundations and the floors of their houses literally fall to pieces. They have seen the walls of their houses crack, gaping holes appear in the ceilings, and the roofs open to the elements. Some houses have been literally destroyed by subsidence and have fallen to pieces.

Damage is generally less devastating than that, but for many families damage of any kind to their property is a serious and expensive business, unless it is paid for by those responsible. I believe that those families whose homes are damaged by subsidence should have a right, first, to an early and independent assessment of liability; secondly, to repairs which make good all the damage; thirdly, to payment for loss of any value due to subsidence, and, fourthly, to compensation for consequential loss, such as undue stress and loss of earnings.

The 1957 Act has served the community for 21 years, and the subsequent code of practice has been brought up to date, but I believe that the Act needs radical revision. At present the National Coal Board decides in the first instance whether it is liable. It has the surveyors and expertise, and it tells the householder what its decision is. If the Board says that it is not liable, the small householder is really in a fix. I believe that he is helpless. He has to pay for a surveyor and a solicitor in order to take the Board to the county court or the Lands Tribunal.

Under the code of practice, the National Coal Board says that it will not pay for, but will contribute to, surveyor's fees. It says that it will consider a contribution to the cost of legal advice. It does not 436 say that it will give the money, but merely that it will consider it. If the National Coal Board decides that it will not pay a contribution, the householder must pay for the legal advice.

There is absolutely no provision in the Act for the Board ever to consider paying for legal representation—and that is where the cost arises—when lawyers represent an individual in court or at the Lands Tribunal. In such cases the householder must decide whether he will take this vast and powerful organisation to court. The householder knows that if he loses he will have to pay tremendous costs, which is a daunting prospect.

Should the householder win his case in court, the Board is merely under an obligation to make the house reasonably fit. What constitutes "reasonably fit"? I think that that phrase is as open to as many interpretations as there are area directors of the National Coal Board.

What would happen if an hon. Member had his car bashed in in the courtyard outside the House, and the person who damaged the car told him that he would make his car "reasonably fit"? Imagine the reaction of the hon. Member to that kind of response. But that is the response that the householder gets when his house is damaged by the National Coal Board—that it will make the house "reasonably fit".

I believe that we should impose a statutory obligation on the Board to restore a house to its former standard—after all, the Board caused the damage—where liability is clearly established.

Even when the Board has made a house what it calls "reasonably fit", the house can still lose value, because people are afraid that further subsidence will occur later. What happens then? The Board should be under an obligation to pay the difference between the sale price of the house and its market value before it was damaged. What the Board does at present is to say that it will consider whether to make this payment where a family has to move. It stresses the words "where a family has to move"—meaning in circumstances such as when a man must change his job.

What about a family who want to move, such as a family living in a small terraced house who want a better house for the children? The Board should not 437 simply have to consider that kind of payment. There should be a legislative requirement for it to pay for loss of value. I also believe that the Board should pay for inconvenience and similar losses, such as stress to the householder and loss of earnings due to time off work.

The Act should be amended so that an independent Government commission could be set up to take over some of the powers of the Board and to deal with these problems. That commission should be responsible for deciding, in the first instance, whether the Board is liable for the subsidence. The commission should act on the existing legislative presumption that the Board is liable until it is proven not to be so.

Should the householder or the Board disagree with the commission, either would have the right to appeal to the courts or to the Lands Tribunal. The commission would also be responsible for carrying out proper repairs without necessary delay to enable the house to be restored to its former standard. It would provide for the householder to receive the full value on the sale of the house which had been damaged by subsidence, and it would assess other consequential losses, such as loss of earnings. Under the Bill, that independent commission would be empowered to evaluate such 438 matters and to impose the necessary charges on the Board. I should like to add that the activities of the commission should be subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner.

In short, my Bill would help to assist the householder who gets that sinking feeling when he sees his house falling as a result of subsidence. It would help to redress the balance of power between the National Coal Board and the individual, so as to make them more even matched than they are under existing legislation.