ADVICE CENTRES

HC Deb 22 April 1991 vol 189 cc834-53

`.—(l) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Corporation, ensure that the Corporation shall establish advice centres within three months of the commencement of the provisions of this Act.

(2) The advice centres shall offer, free of charge, advice to all claimants in need of legal or technical advice on any matter relating to coal subsidence.

(3) The advice centres shall issue guidelines on the making of claims under regulations made under the provisions of this Act.

(4) All reasonable expenses of the advice centres will be met by the Secretary of State.

(5) The Corporation shall submit to the Secretary of State an annual report on the working of the advice centres to be established under the provision of this section.'.—[Mr.Barron.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Barron

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

On Second Reading on 4 February we had a thorough debate on advice centres. In Committee we tabled a comprehensive new clause about advice, but unfortunately neither the Minister nor Tory Members supported it. We were sorry about that, because even the Government's White Paper on subsidence half-recommended that there should be advice centres or, at least, one advice centre. Many people have been involved in other organisations, such as the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence, and have supported advice centres.

Despite the improvements to the position of claimants that will result from the Bill, particularly when tonight's amendments are included, there needs to be a shift in favour of the claimant at an early stage. From past practice, it is clear that it is not good enough to rely on British Coal to tell a claimant of his or her rights. People need advice before they become claimants.

After the issue of notices about the likelihood of mining beneath a property, people will naturally want to take advice on what should happen next. Their neighbours will also have been notified that British Coal may in the near future need to undermine their property. It is not enough to ask people to go to a solicitor or an agent who must be paid from the claimants' pockets. Only successful claimants can have their expenses reimbursed. Many people may wish to seek advice when they receive the initial notice, whether or not they later become claimants. The Bill does not respond to their need.

As I said on Second Reading and as we have said consistently over the years when we have debated these issues at different conferences, particularly in the midlands coalfield, and when we have issued press releases, free, impartial expert advice is essential. The only way to achieve that is through an advice centre. We have won the debates on these issues, but lost the votes.

I do not expect us to press the issue to a vote again tonight. The other place may wish to consider what the Department of Energy, the Select Committee on Energy and other bodies have said about what happens in the initial stages of possible coal mining subsidence damage and how an individual protects his interests against the vested interests of British Coal. Thank goodness British Coal must now notify the individual that the property may be undermined, but it still has a vested interest in not paying compensation for damages or expenses arising from claims, whether or not they are successful.

There is still an imbalance. Has the Minister considered further the arguments that we put in Committee? I hope that they will be put in another place if we are not successful tonight in getting the Minister's commitment to consider the issue again.

We had a long debate in Committee about the location of a "national" advice centre. Conservative Members asked why it should be in one particular place. The obvious place was, and still is, in the north Nottinghamshire coalfield in view of the number of subsidence cases there, but that is not the only area for which the centre would operate. Many agents in that area would make a good living from coal mining subsidence. Some of them have become millionaires in a few years because of the circumstances in that area. Many people in my constituency and elsewhere correspond with those agents because they are expert at winning justice from British Coal when a person's property has been damaged by coal mining subsidence.

That is not a geographical argument. We should have a national base so that people would know who to contact or would be referred to it by a local advice service that may not give advice on coal mining damage. People could write to the centre and receive expert advice without having to go to an agent or a similar organisation and put money up front. If they never had a successful claim, they would have to pay that money out of their own purse even though they had been notified of the likelihood of damage to their property by the British Coal Corporation.

I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, if he has not done so already, so that people can obtain advice without having to confront the British Coal Corporation, with all the money it has to fight its corner.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottinghamshire, South)

The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is right. We had an extensive debate on this matter in Committee. Like all those who lose the vote, the Opposition always imagine that they won the argument. They did not win the argument, nor did they win the vote. As has been pointed out, they were only asking for one national advice centre. We had the impression that it should preferably be in Mansfield, although I acknowledge that the report of the Committee proceedings refers only to Nottinghamshire. We shall not fall out about that.

At that time we were talking about a team of qualified heaven-knows-who's. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is not here today, as he defended the poverty-stricken barristers who were offering their services at a fraction of the cost of all the other experts who had been trotted out.

In Committee, I said that the clause had a superficial attraction, and it is true that there is a superficial attraction to the clause before us today. However, I still do not agree with it, and I will not support it. I did not approve then and I do not approve now of yet another centre to add to the multiplicity of centres. I am quite certain that with careful thought and discussion between the Department of Energy and British Coal, given the relevant clauses in the Bill, the problem can be solved sensibly, cost-effectively and with the interests of my constituents as much as anyone else's well covered.

Organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, the advice centres of district councils and various solid fuel showrooms can all provide information. When the CABs were mentioned in Committee, the hon. Member for Rother Valley commented that the CAB funding in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) had promptly been withdrawn by the local authority. That decision is a comment on the priorities of Labour authorities. It is sad that a CAB should have its funding withdrawn. There are less important matters that a local council could discontinue if there was a choice between that and funding an important organisation such as the CAB.

8.15 pm

In Committee the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) made a valid point. He said: The scale of the problem is great"— to give him his due, he gave credit to the Bill— as is the scale of the change to legislation proposed in the Bill. I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman. He went on to say: it is unthinkable that the changes to legislation being discussed in the Committee could be implemented without an independent source of advice to property owners and householders. I agree that the advice must be independent. That is why I view with some puzzlement the wording of the original clause and of the new clause, which does not specify independence of advice. That is a problem, and it is why I do not like the new clause. I should prefer that British Coal made a funding contribution to centres not run by British Coal, or to a local authority so that the advice would be independent. The new clause will not deliver that.

I am anxious that my constituents get good advice. I do my best and my city council does its best. On this issue, I am at one with the hon. Member for Mansfield. I hope that I am not getting the hon. Member into difficulties merely because there is cross-party agreement on some of these matters. The hon. Gentleman said in Committee; The most worrying aspect of the problem is that in Nottinghamshire large numbers of claimants have used coal mining subsidence agents. Existing legislation has shoved people in that general direction".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 March 1991; c. 263–64.] The hon. Gentleman is right, but Opposition Members would have to agree that we are now in a totally different ball park. The Bill does away with many of the problems that have bedevilled all hon. Members in recent years. The Bill deals with those problems sufficiently.

Opposition Members, whether they like to admit it or not, accepted our criticisms of their one national advice centre. We mentioned that many hon. Members faced these problems and they accepted that there was no point in having one centre, convenient though it might be, in Mansfield. Lo and behold, the Opposition have come up today with a new clause which proposes a number of centres but does not specify how many. I can imagine them making a meal of this if, heaven forbid, they were ever in government.

However, they have changed one thing from the old clause—they have realised that by the time they have logged up any number of highly qualified engineers all sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone to seek their advice, it would be an unfair imposition on British Coal. So what did they do? They changed subsection (4) so that the cost is now to be met by the Secretary of State. That is a switch from British Coal having to pick up the bill. I have a feeling that they are trying to create another local authority bottomless pit. That is what is all about. It would be a bottomless pit of funding for centres in mining areas.

Every member of the Committee knew that this was a good Bill. It is not any worse without the clause—if I thought that it was, I would vote with the Opposition. There is enough in the Bill to satisfy my constituents and I am more than happy to accept the view taken by the Government in Committee—I presume that they will take the same view today—not to accept the new clause.

Mr. Benn

The issue is not whether this is a good Bill but whether the people who need to take advantage of its provisions know their rights. Without disrespect to the Minister—I have occupied a post in his Department—I noticed the enormous care with which he read the briefing provided by his officials. He could not even look up because he had to get it absolutely right. Many Ministers are in that position, but they have legal advice behind them. The people who suddenly receive notice that British Coal may undermine their house or village panic because they do not know their rights.

It is no criticism of the Bill that it is so complicated. Indeed, good Bills sometimes have to be complicated to remedy what is wrong with the old legislation. Nobody doubts that the Bill improves the old legislation. Paragraph 4 of schedule 7 happened to catch my eye as I was listening to the previous speech. It states: any unreasonable withholding of consent to the execution of preventive works under section 4(1)(a) of the 1957 Act shall have effect as an unreasonable withholding of consent to the execution of such works under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) What hope have pensioners who have lived in the same house all their lives of making sense of such language? They have no hope at all. To remedy that problem, one must not only understand the law but ensure that those who need the law's protection know their rights. They can go to a solicitor or an agent, and some people do so. In my consultations with British Coal in Chesterfield, I was informed that the agents sometimes make the process take longer because of the complexity of the correspondence. Sometimes people resist going to an agent because they think that he will make more than they will out of the operation.

People need advise, and to make fun of whether there should be one advice centre or many is absurd. Advice is needed in the areas where people's properties will be undermined when that undermining occurs. That varies from coalfield to coalfield and from seam to seam. It is absurd to say that it will mean a bottomless pit of expenditure, when all we ask is that people should be able to take avantage of the rights that the Government are giving them under the Bill. I cannot imagine anyone whose house or business is threatened by British Coal's mining operations wanting to waste money. Such people want to find out their rights, take advantage of the Bill's provisions, have the matter put right and put it behind them if they can. What possible motive could they have for wasting time on such a matter?

The Bill is so precisely drafted that, once it is enacted, the rights of claim will have to be granted. If people who make claims are not eligible, they will be dismissed. The Bill does not represent an endless right to time-wasting consultations. This issue contrasts sharply with all the lectures on consumer rights and the right to choose. Surely the basic right to choose is to know one's rights when they are threatened by a public authority which, as the Minister said, is legally engaged in excavating for coal reserves which, unhappily, happen to be under one's house or village.

The amendment is modest. Any hon. Member who has had, as I have, anxious constituents coming to see them, or who has visited areas where subsidence has occurred, will have seen the desperation on people's faces when they discover that the homes that they have bought are subsiding, with splits in the walls and gaps in the roof or the road, or the disconnection of mains supplies. Invershall special school for mentally handicapped children in Chesterfield, which I have just opened and which has just raised money for new facilities, has discovered that one of the seams of the Markham colliery would threaten that school.

It is no good speaking as though we were a convention of lawyers examining the matter. We are all lay persons discussing the drafting of the legislation, but we can speak confidently about how the Bill will be seen by those who need its provisions. We are representatives, not legal experts. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the amount of money involved would not only be trifling but might save British Coal and others from time-wasting negotiations with agents and solicitors who do not have the interests that the promoters of the new clause or British Coal might have. British Coal also wants to dispose of such matters quickly. It does not want them to drag on for months or even years with people using the services of agents. It wants a quick settlement.

The Bill gives a clear statement of British Coal's obligations and I have no doubt that it will wish to discharge them quickly and effectively. People need advice so that they can claim immediately. By the expeditious discharge of claimants' duties and rights, we can save public money. I hope that the Minister and the officials listening so attentively to the debate will reflect again. The new clause will be a minor addition which, if carried, will make the Bill real to the millions of people whom it intends to help and will not handicap the discharge of its provisions.

Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood)

It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as I referred in my maiden speech to his contributions as Member for Bristol, South-East. I now refer to a number of locations that he will readily identify because they are in and around Bristol.

In Committee, I criticised the fact that the amendment referred to first one centre. I do not believe that an advice centre would be warranted for the Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire area. I use the word "area" not only because I refer to my constituency but because I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's former constituency and that of the Minister. It is also your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The area has, on different occasions, been mined for coal and some houses have been affected. I am sure that advice centres are not necessary and that people in my area would refer to centres based in south Wales—in Newport or Gwent, for instance. The vast majority of my constituents would not go to advice centres but would seek advice on subsidence, as they currently do, from other sources that are readily to hand.

As Committee members heard ad nauseam, I am currently dealing with cases in Kingswood and Hanham, on which I and other people are providing advice. That is how, even under the amended legislation, that advice would be provided. The Bill makes substantial improvements to existing legislation, particularly as a result of the amendments on arbitration which the Government accepted and which protect those pursuing subsidence problems.

Mr. Illsley

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) says that the arbitration scheme will provide protection. Yes it will, but it will not provide advice. The arbiter will be required to adjudicate only on a dispute between the claimant and British Coal; he will not be able to give advice to the claimant or to British Coal.

Mr. Hayward

I accept that point, but I was saying that, in terms of strengthening the Bill, the arbitration right is the pinnacle of an overall pyramid of support given to individuals in those circumstances. I also asked in Committee—and I do not believe that the matter has been dealt with—why we should have free advice centres in this sector when we do not have them in relation to the Housing Defects Act 1984 or the right-to-buy legislation and other areas affecting large numbers of people. Advice centres are available in one form or another—why should they not cover this legislation as well as other legislation?

8.30 pm

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

Might it not be that people may require advice on the procedures leading to the very arbitration that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) says is worth while? Might they not want advice on whether to seek to make use of the arbitration procedure and some of the cases that they should put to arbitration?

Mr. Hayward

Yes, they could. However, as I said in Committee, since I have been a Member of Parliament—eight years—in the subsidence cases with which I have dealt under what is, compared with the Bill before us, totally inadequate legislation, advice has always been available to my constituents. If one follows the argument in terms of the legislation and the provision of advice centres, why should we not provide advice centres for every other piece of legislation that we pass in the House? We would have a myriad advice centres down every high street, replacing the current myriad building society outlets in every high street. We received clarification from the Minister in response to our debate on the subject in Committee. He said that he accepted the points that had been made and agreed with those of us who said that it was not necessary to have advice centres, but he made it clear that British Coal intended to provide a series of leaflets and videos available to people to whom individuals would naturally turn.

For those reasons, along with those already en-numerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), I believe that it is not necessary to accept the new clause.

Mr. Lofthouse

I am surprised about two issues. The first relates to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). I believe that he would think differently if he had had the opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I have had, to investigate in some depth the problems of subsidence and its administration in the Nottinghamshire district. In 1985 or 1986, members of the Select Committee on Energy and I went to Nottinghamshire, to Mansfield, to investigate the issues. We found that agents there were operating in a professional way—some of them were ex-Coal Board employees and some of them finished up in gaol. At that time, British Coal's total budget for subsidence, as shown in the annual report, was about £215 million. Some £200 million of that had been spent in Nottingham.

Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and I went to Nottingham, we had a chance to question the agents. Two of the agents, former Coal Board employees, did not leave British Coal on retirement or redundancy terms when they were in their middle fifties or sixties to take up consultancy posts, which seems to be the habit of some British Coal management these days. They left British Coal when they were young men. I asked them why. One of them said that he liked tennis and wanted more time to watch it. The other one was a bit more honest and said that he wanted to set up his own business because he saw that there was potential for it. He was right, because he and the other agents—I am not referring to the ones in gaol—finished up riding about in Rolls-Royces. There must have been a reasonable rake-off from the £200 million of the Coal Board's budget.

If any hon. Members should support the new clause, it should be those from Nottingham. Some of the people whose properties were, unfortunately, damaged had to rely on the agents and hope that they would receive the correct advice. However, the agents did not do too badly out of it. If the new clause were accepted, it would go a long way to cutting out many of the problems. If ever there was a need for advice centres anywhere, it is in Nottingham.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

Let us be clear on one point. Nobody is seeking to justify some of the outrageous activities that went on among agents under the old legislation. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) should look at the new clause, which my hon. Friends and I believe is unnecessary in the light of the Bill before us. It is in the context of the Bill that we now say that formal advice centres are not needed. We are not saying that advice is not necessary, but there are plenty of ways of providing it. However, we should set the matter in the context of the Bill, which protects our constituents.

Mr. Lofthouse

I would not for one moment suggest that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) would support the jiggery-pokery that went on in the early 1980s. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not feel that advice centres are necessary under the Bill. Perhaps the Department does not feel that they are necessary, but that was not always the case.

The report of the Select Committee on Energy, which the House ordered to be printed on 17 July 1990 and which deals with mining subsidence, states, in paragraph 22—and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Minister for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) well remembers this: In its discussion paper of 1990 on dispute procedures, the Department of Energy raised the possibility of a Subsidence Advice Centre, staffed by chartered surveyors and solicitors with experience of subsidence damage, which would aim to provide advice to those who were dissatisfied with the way in which British Coal had dealt with their case."' Many other witnesses before the Committee supported the Department's views and, arising out of that evidence, paragraph 24 of the Committee's report states: Nevertheless, we support the Department of Energy's suggestion of an independent Subsidence Advice Centre on an experimental basis. My second surprise resulted from the fact that the Bill did not contain that provision when the Department had been suggesting it. If that is the case, what is the argument of the Minister and his colleagues against the new clause?

Some of the agents are still operating in Nottingham—fortunately, my district and those around it do not have that problem. The only way to put an end to that practice is through the new clause. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give serious consideration to it. The Select Committee believes that the new clause is necessary. and if anyone had had the privilege, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and I had, of listening to the witnesses and researching the matter in depth, I am sure that he would agree that there was a need for the new clause and advice centres.

Mr. Meale

I have been greatly saddened to hear some of the comments of Conservative Members. I had thought that we were all at one on the need to clear up this problem once and for all with this Bill. I was particularly surprised by what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said. He knows about the despair that subsidence has caused and is continuing to cause people in his area, and he should not have made light of it; that was beneath the belt. Thousands of properties in his constituency continue to be damaged by this problem and that damage is getting worse all the time.

All we are proposing is an advice centre. The new clause does not stipulate whether it should be a national centre or whether there should be one in every coalfield area or in every district council area that includes mines. We want only a place where people can get advice—although the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that a centre was not needed in his constituency. Perhaps he thinks that a citizens advice bureau is the answer, but a centre such as the one that we propose would still be useful because on cases in his constituency CABs could refer to such a centre, wherever it might be. That is the whole purpose of setting one up.

The centre is not to be a centre of excellence for lawyers, solicitors, architects and surveyors; it is to be a place to which people can go for proper advice. I have the highest regard for CABs and local authorities, but people should not go to them for advice on this matter because they are not experts on it. To refer cases to such bodies would be to repeat what has already gone wrong: self-proclaimed experts have set themselves up to give advice.

People should be given advice free of charge. This Bill provides the opportunity of giving them that advice for as little as £50, plus VAT, which is now running at 17.5 per cent. If a person is badly advised on making a claim, he may be involved in further expenses when pushing his claim to a successful conclusion. Cases which are not won or which go to arbitration may also involve additional costs, which shows that people need good advice from a centre of this sort.

8.45 pm

People ask where the money is to come from and whether the Secretary of State can afford it. Of course he can. The sum of £300 million has already been added to the price of coal that is produced in this country for the sole purpose of paying for subsidence damage claims. If the money had been set aside in a separate account accumulating interest, as it should have been, it would have provided hundreds of millions more pounds, thereby avoiding these difficulties. In some cases, the money has been used to close mines. If it can be used for that, it can certainly be used for the purpose that we propose.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) rightly mentioned coal mining agents. Unless we set up an advice centre to give advice to people suffering from the horrendous difficulties of subsidence, the problem with agents will continue. Nothing in the Bill would curb the activities of these agents —quite the reverse. We must take this opportunity to set up a centre that will give people good advice on the most important matter in their lives—their homes. If we do not, we shall push them further in the direction of the so-called experts, some of whom know little more than how to read a slide rule.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thought that I was treating the new clause in a lighthearted way, but I shall not withdraw the compliments that I paid him on what he said.

If a person pays a fee to a solicitor, he at least has some protection in law. That should give the hon. Gentleman pause for thought about his demands for free advice. What happens to the claimant if that free advice is found to be inadequate?

Mr. Meale

My constituency is full of solicitors who have advised thousands of people with their claims. It has cost those people on average more than £1,000 per household, and most of their claims have been turned down. Many solicitors have used the legal aid system, up to a maximum £1,500 or £2,000, depending on the case, to advise people wrongly. The result is that the legal aid system has been stripped of the money—a bad system.

This is why we need an advice centre. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pointed out, it would be cost-effective. British Coal should not be involved in legal disputes all the time. This Bill will allow agents the same freedom that they have enjoyed before. It is no good the hon. Member for Nottingham, South saying, to use his unfortunate terminology, that we would be dropping local authority money down a huge pit. British Coal's job is to dig and sell coal, not to fight legal cases.

Some years ago, when British Coal had a different attitude to this problem, its estates department in Nottinghamshire employed about six people, with four secretaries. Today it employs more than 50 advisers, architects and surveyors, and many more outside consultants, with a whole department of secretarial support. And the cost of all that is being added to the cost of digging coal in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.

People should not be dragged by their ears by unscrupulous agents who would like clients to make claims because they know that ultimately they will recover their own costs. Frequently, agents whose cases have hit hurdles have returned to constituents asking for another £500 so as to put together several cases and return to the courts to fight one test case. That is all nonsense——

Mr. Hayward

By how many people would the new clause reduce the number of people working on this matter in the estates department; and how many people would be employed in the advice centres to which the hon. Gentleman refers?

Mr. Meale

First, if the right approach had been adopted, there might not have been any need for the Bill. Secondly, I think that the new clause would lead to a considerable reduction of problems in the coalfield. The issue is whether my constituents and those of other hon. Members are being correctly advised on whether they have a valid claim that should be pursued in the courts. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide a system of arbitration that will reduce the number of claims that otherwise would be decided by the courts. An advice centre would enable potential claimants to receive proper advice and thereby ensure that they were not dragged down paths leading to litigation to the benefit of surveyors, agents and, in many instances, solicitors. The Bill could produce a beano for solicitors and surveyors, and we must be careful to ensure that that is not the result of its being placed on the statute book.

Many people do not know what is going on. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that it will be easy under the proposed legislation for people clearly to understand what they should do. It has been said that they will have only to pop along to their local authority and pick up a leaflet that will tell them exactly how to proceed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, that is nonsense. When most ordinary people read our legislation, they consider it to be gobbledegook; they cannot understand it. The same can be said of the forms that they are asked to complete, whether they are handed them by local authority officials or by the staff of CABs.

People need advice and they should not be led into spending significant sums to obtain advice from solicitors or agents. We are legislating to overcome a problem that has had a considerable effect on people's lives in coal-mining areas. We must ensure that a system is put in place that enables them to receive honest and decent advice that will assist them in pursuing their rights. I am not saying that the Government should be prepared to hurl loads of money into a bottomless pit. Money is available, and in any event we are talking about a pittance when it is set against the global sum involved under the present system. We should not agree to the enactment of legislation without providing a system for people to obtain the advice that they deserve.

Mr. Illsley

I shall not detain the House long in supporting the new clause. I reiterate the argument of my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is clearly a need for an advice centre. We are introducing new legislation, but the average man in the street's understanding of it will be no greater than his knowledge of the legislation that preceded it. Under the old legislation, he had to seek advice before pursuing a claim. His position will be the same under the proposed legislation, for he will still have to seek advice. He will have to contend with time limits and other requirements.

Members who represent mining areas deal with case after case of mining subsidence in which people are in dispute with British Coal. Many of those people do not understand how to make a claim. It became clear that most of the members of the Committee that considered the Bill were unsure of the time-limit provisions. It is hoped, however, that the Bill will settle many of the complications. It is obvious that many of our constituents need clear and independent advice. At present, they have the options of an estate agent, a surveyor or a solicitor. These people are professionals and they charge professional fees. In other words, they are costly to the claimant or to British Coal.

It is unfortunate that not all the professionals have relevant qualifications. The average solicitor who practises in the high street will have no knowledge of mining subsidence. He will have even less knowledge of mining engineering. If claimants seek advice from some of the professionals, they will receive bad advice. Many solicitors will merely employ others and thereby add to the costs. Many advisers are unqualified. For want of a better term, they are cowboys. They saw a niche in the market, they filled it and they made a decent living.

Many advisers have a clear interest in prolonging claims so that they can make as much money as possible out of them. In Committee I referred to a constituent who negotiated himself the greater part of a claim with British Coal. However, he also employed an estate agent. My constituent became frustrated in the course of pursuing his claim and accordingly arrived at a settlement with British Coal. He received X thousands of pounds in the sale of the property. When the agent was informed that his services were no longer required because the claim had been settled, the agent said that he would settle his fee on the basis of the settlement that he could have arrived at with British Coal and not on the actual settlement. If that is not a waste of public money and an example of money being thrown into a bottomless pit, I do not know what is.

As I have said, ordinary people have little experience of reading legislation and understanding it. Many of them have difficulties in completing forms and submitting claims to British Coal. Many people cannot afford independently to obtain advice from estate agents and surveyors.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that people in his constituency would not need advice on subsidence. He explained that mining in the area that he represents was discontinued a long time ago. The hon. Gentleman should know that I have dealt with and assisted old miners in the St. Paul's area of Bristol who have sought compensation. He might be surprised when he learns of the extent of the need for advice in north Somerset and the St. Paul's district of Bristol.

The hon. Member for Kingswood referred to the growth of housing advice centres. We already have housing advice centres. Advice on right-to-buy legislation will usually be obtained from a local authority that is dealing with the sale of property, so that that need for advice is filled. Solicitors who undertake conveyancing and have a specific knowledge of it can also deal with right-to-buy legislation. However, the average conveyancing solicitor will have no knowledge of mining subsidence.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) talked about solid fuel showrooms. They are funded by British Coal, and any advice they offer can hardly be regarded as independent or relevant. They exist only to sell solid fuel.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley)

Watch it. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has at least 10 O-levels. He has an 11 th perhaps in subsidence, but goodness knows how.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

Those who support the new clause say that they wish to ensure that people will be advised on how to go about making a claim. That is all very well, but the real work begins after that stage. That is why we are not enthusiastic about the clause. Technical advice will not be required initially. Subsequently, a surveyor will be needed to establish the size of the claim. The new clause will not redress half the grievances to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) have referred. Opposition Members are entirely missing the point in speaking in support of the clause.

Mr. Illsley

As I think someone said, if I have 10 O-levels, what am I doing in this place? Subsection (2) provides: The advice centres shall offer, free of charge, advice to all claimants in need of legal or technical advice on any matter relating to coal subsidence. The clause is not restricted to the making of a claim. New clause 2 covers legal and technical advice.

I was referring to the Select Committee report from which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) quoted. I shall quote two lines to which he did not refer: Such a Centre would not attempt mediation but would give expert advice to claimants on their rights and advise them on their best course of action … The Department stressed the need for the Centre to be 'quite independent of British Coal'. Time and again we have seen statements that any advice centre should be independent. The Select Committee went on to recommend that advice centres should be set up.

The advice centre could have available all the information on mining subsidence such as mining plans and records. In Standing Committee we debated the idea of a register. Perhaps the advice centres could build up such a register. There has been substantial debate on where the advice centre should be located. As South Yorkshire already has the South Yorkshire mining advisory service, which is funded by the local authorities, there is no reason why that should not become a national mining advisory centre for the rest of the country.

9 pm

Mr. Andy Stewart (Sherwood)

I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's latter comment. Can he tell the House what the advisory centre in South Yorkshire does? Does it take claims from claimants and process them through to completion, or does it just advise people to get a solicitor or a surveyor to take up the case?

Mr. Illsley

It does not advise them to get a solicitor to take up the case. It provides advice. That was a simplistic response to a simplistic question, "What does an advice centre do?" The advice centre gives advice to local authorities or to anyone else who needs advice about the geology and mining in the area.

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question properly. Does it take claims right through to completion? New clause 2 tells us that that is what the advice centre does.

Mr. Illsley

I do not think that the advice centre takes claims through to completion. New clause 2 states: The advice centres shall issue guidelines on the making of claims and shall offer legal and technical advice.

It does not say that an advice centre will take a claim from an individual and pursue it with British Coal, although there is no reason why the advice centre for which we are asking should not do that if it were given that responsibility.

Mr. Meale

An organisation called COALS—the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence—has just produced a report which shows that 33,500 people in the area have properties which may have been damaged by subsidence. In Standing Committee, the Minister said that thousands of claims which were disallowed because of the six-year rule for mining having ceased under those properties could now be reviewed. That is a legal and technical point. Many people in the area in which COALS operates need advice on that. Such advice is not freely available or necessarily understood by solicitors in the area. It takes an expert who understands the legislation to give such advice.

Mr. Illsley

My hon. Friend makes his own point. I conclude by repeating that we need an advice centre. We have one in South Yorkshire, and we do not have the same problems that exist in north Nottinghamshire where agents have been taking money fraudulently. That goes some way towards showing that the advice centre in South Yorkshire has removed that problem and that South Yorkshire is better equipped than north Nottinghamshire to deal with such claims.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

One of the main objections from Conservative Members to an advice centre seems to be the objection to the free provision of advice, instead of advice purchased from solicitors and others who are assumed to be expert, in that legal action could be taken if that advice turned out to be wrong. I do not agree. A great deal of advice that is freely available is not immune from legal action and is often found to be of considerable value. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), there is a citizens advice bureau, an unemployed workers' centre and a law centre that all provide advice and, if pressed, might have to deal with some aspects of coal mining subsidence. However, this is not within these bodies' areas of expertise.

There are also plenty of solicitors and many agents who take up coal mining cases. At my surgeries in Chesterfield, which is at the centre of a wide area, people are much less likely to complain about the citizens advice bureaux or the centres for unemployed workers, or the law centres, than about solicitors. They wonder whether they should complain against agents, or against agents together with the corporation, acting under some kind of sweetheart agreement that must be broken through. This new clause would make provision for invaluable advice.

Hon. Members asked where the advice centres would be located. We were told that advice might not be available in the Bristol area if a centre was established in Wales. Presumably the constituents of my hon. Friend the member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) would be provided for, as there are massive subsidence problems in their area. That does not seem to me to be any argument against this proposal. So far as the people of Bristol are concerned, presumably the problem of the lack of immediate discussions as the basis of advice could be overcome.

Many people fill in forms stating in detail the problems that they experience. Such people receive information and advice on the basis of the details provided, and sometimes outworkers are available to deal with specific problems. In many areas, detailed forms are submitted with a view to obtaining various types of information, and securing various types of expertise. Approaches are made in this way to the local government ombudsman and the local land registry. Why should not an advice centre operate on the same basis? A physical presence is not the only possibility.

I shall conclude by repeating a point that I made in an earlier intervention: that advice centres would have a valuable role to play in connection with the arbitration procedure for which this legislation provides. The creation of an arbitration procedure is an important advance, but we need to know more about when it will be triggered. People pushing for its use need expert advice. They need to know whether they are likely to benefit by going down that road, rather than by accepting some other procedure.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

I want to tell the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that we already have advice centres, but they are not nearly good enough. I refer to the surgeries that Members of Parliament hold on Saturday mornings. Members are not qualified as surveyors, architects and solicitors. They must call for expert advice. For years, I have had a bellyful of dealing at my Saturday surgeries with mining subsidence problems. They hold everything else up. An elderly lady may have a problem that she thinks is as high as a mountain, but, for me, dealing with it may involve merely a telephone call. But mining subsidence problems get in the way even of those cases. We are seriously considering asking the Government to tell the corporation in no uncertain terms that there must be provision for proper advice surgeries.

There has been mention, especially by Opposition Members, of the crooks. I know plenty of them. I am not talking only about solicitors or agents, but about board officials, too. They have gone down the line—and good luck to them. That is where they should be, for what they have done to our constituents.

When someone goes to his Member of Parliament's surgery with a subsidence problem, it is because the agent has given his advice, and the board has said, "We reject this claim out of hand." The constituent therefore tells his Member of Parliament, "You are my last resort." What do I do? I send the case to the Under-Secretary of State—and he sends it back to the board. It is a vicious circle.

I am a bit disappointed because, in Committee, one Conservative Member supported the idea of advice centres, but he has been burned off and is not present in the Chamber today. However, after the next general election he will probably be able to find a job as a legal adviser at one of the centres that will be set up if the Government do not. He can be assured of a job when he loses his seat at the next election because he knows all the problems, and spoke about them in Committee. He went along with us then, but other Conservative Members have let the side down. They let down the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) in Committee—and again today, because they stopped him supporting us this afternoon.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) comes into the Chamber from time to time, in the same way that he attended the Committee from time to time. It galled me when I read in a Derbyshire paper that the hon. Member for Amber Valley was going to do it all. He said to himself, "I shall get on the Committee for a start, and then I'll show them." He did not show them, because he did not damn well attend the Committee. He was hardly ever there. When he was there, all he did was to snipe at the Opposition's proposals for changing or adding to the Bill.

Mr. Andy Stewart

rose——

Mr. Haynes

Just a minute—I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman will ask a question if I say he can, because Mr. Deputy Speaker gave me the Floor.

Constituents come to my surgery who are totally illiterate. They cannot help that—they were born like it. [Laughter.] What a lot they are, on the Conservative Benches. I am talking about a serious problem and all that Conservative Members can do is laugh—a serious problem about someone who might be illiterate and who owns a property that has been damaged by coal mining, and who needs advice. Conservative Members think that is a big joke. That is the Tories, through and through.

Mr. Stewart

rose——

Mr. Haynes

No, I will not give way now. The hon. Gentleman has flipping well upset me, so he can sit down.

Mr. Stewart

I would not want to upset the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes

The hon. Gentleman will not be able to do so after the next general election, because I shall have retired. Nor will he be able to get a job in one of the advice centres that we will set up after we have won the next general election.

The important point is that constituents who have that problem need proper advice. For years, they have been kicked from pillar to post, and all the fiddling has been going on.

Mr. Stewart

We agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes

The hon. Gentleman may agree, but he does not understand the seriousness of the situation. He wants to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and he needs to talk to me. We have had real problems in my constituencies. It has been a nightmare. I have had a bellyful. I have had enough and I do not want any more.

We want a Bill that will sort the problem out so that it does not go on for ever and a day. The advice centre is one of the steps that should be taken to deal with this problem.

Mr. Stewart

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes

He ain't half pressurising me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I might as well give him one tick.

9.15 pm

Mr. Stewart

I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for outlining what is a fact—my constituency is half a mile down the road from the hon. Gentleman's and, like him, I have hundreds of people coming to ask me for advice. At the moment, if there were advice centres—disregarding this improved Bill—what could they achieve? What could they advise our constituents? Very little, because there has been no way to resolve disputes unless one went to the Lands Tribunal, and we both know how expensive that was. Under the new Bill we shall have arbitration.

Mr. Haynes

The hon. Gentleman is talking a load of rubbish, just as he did in Committee. We have not got the Bill yet and we do not know how it will work.

Mr. Stewart

We soon will have.

Mr. Haynes

I am on my feet. Shut him up, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Stewart

Answer the question.

Mr. Haynes

Well, I ask you. I am trying to answer the question and he is yawping at me from his seat. I thought that you would have told him about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall have to tell him. I want the hon. Gentleman to be quiet and to listen.

The Bill is not law yet.

Mr. Stewart

It will be soon.

Mr. Haynes

Yes, but it will be kicked around a bit down yonder, and it will be changed down yonder, I can assure the hon. Gentleman about that. They have already set themselves up down there and they know what has been going on here and in Committee. So they will do their job. The Bill is riot law and when it becomes law we do not know how it will work out. We are guessing in the dark.

We know what experiences we have had in the past—right up to the present time—and it is a serious situation. We are trying to put that problem right and so we need proper advice to individuals in our constituencies—all constituencies where there is mining subsidence.

People can be fobbed off by anyone. They have been fobbed off in the past by the board because it did not want to pay out any money for compensation and repairs. It has been a rough ride and I am looking forward to the problem being sorted out once and for ever.

Wherever the advice centre might be—I could not care less, as long as it does the job that we want it to do on behalf of the constituents who have this problem—it is only one step towards sorting out the problem.

Thank you, Mr.Deputy Speaker. I have enjoyed my contribution to the debate.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

We had a similar debate in Standing Committee, although I do not think that we had quite the intervention from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)——

Mr. Haynes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a contribution to this Bill, not an intervention. I did not intervene on any hon. Member—I got up to make a contribution to the Bill in the hope that the Minister was listening and would take on board what I and my colleagues suggested.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

It was an intervention in the debate, but not in someone else's speech. However, there were plenty of other occasions in Committee when the hon. Gentleman told us about his constituents. This evening we learned that some people are born illiterate. That was a new aspect.

The hon. Member for Ashfield mentioned a serious issue—many people find it difficult to understand legislation, however well drafted. The call for advice centres misses the point. We should not assist people to negotiate a complex chain of events; instead we should simplify the legislative process. A claimant would not then need to read and digest an Act to make a successful claim, any more than a pensioner needs to understand the Finance Acts to make a successful claim for his pension.

I agree that the legislation that we inherited is entirely inconsistent and complex. We are dealing with two separate Acts of Parliament. It is a matter of regret that the 1975 Act was not used as an opportunity to clear up some of the ambiguities and inconsistencies between that legislation and the 1957 Act. We are consolidating the legislation and simplifying the process.

When one considers the chain of events for a householder making a claim, one sees how much easier things will be if the Bill is passed. The householder will be notified individually that his property may be damaged by subsidence. At the same time he will receive a copy of my Department's leaflet tellling him how to go about making a claim. If subsequently he notices damage to his property, he will know that it may have been caused by subsidence because he has been notified, and he will therefore make a claim to British Coal.

Unlike the present position, with two separate Acts of Parliament and two separate claims which can be made, in future there will be only one Act and only one claim form. In response, British Coal will have to say whether it accepts the claim and, if so, what remedial action it proposes to take. If there is a dispute due to rejection of the claim, or a dispute about the nature of the remedial action, the householder can refer the matter to arbitration. British Coal will send all claimants the details of the new scheme so that householders will be aware that this option is open to them and that it will cost only £50, which will be repayable in the event of a successful claim.

If the householder decides that he has a dispute with British Coal, all that he needs to do is to submit the form to the institute, outlining the nature of the dispute. That does not have to be in technical language; specialist advice will not be needed. The arbitrator may call for specialist and technical advice and may visit the property in question, or he may sit with one or two independent technical assessors. He may even commission an independent examination of the subject matter of the dispute. British Coal, not the householder, will bear the costs involved. At no point in the process will the claimant necessarily need any technical or specialist advice.

Mr. Meale

Does the Minister not agree that when a constituent seeks advice he does so about the single most important matter in his life—his home, which represents an enormous financial outlay, and on which his whole future depends? If, therefore, a householder believes that his house has suffered damage, he or she will obtain advice to supplement the application for compensation. That will cost money. Unless advice centres are established, householders may be pushed down the same path as they now go down, with solicitors who do not know the circumstances of the case handling the matter, with surveyors trying to get money out of householders and pushing them towards making a claim, and with agents who are in it only for the money. The purpose of advice centres is to avoid those pitfalls.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

I am still not clear what the role of the advice centres would be. It does not seem to me sensible to spend money on technically trained people advising claimants that they should fill in a claim form, or to pay for lawyers to advise people that their dispute should be referred to the Institute of Arbitrators scheme. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) referred to agents and to the fact that in the past they enriched themselves by feeding off the cash compensation that was paid out. I have heard about that problem. Compensation was not tied to the necessary repairs to a property, but that system has now ended and it is not reproduced in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Clause 36 also provides that, if a householder needed to employ specialist advisors such as structural engineers, any expenses reasonably incurred could be reimbursed to the claimant. I emphasise that only expenses that have been reasonably incurred can be reimbursed, so unnecessary fees and expenses claimed by an agent would not be reimbursable.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo

I think that it would be helpful if the Minister were to set the issue in its proper context because most of the Opposition's criticism today has been as though we were dealing with the old set-up. Under the old system, the claimant had to prove that the damage to his home was the result of subsidence and the Coal Board could simply say that it was not. Now the boot is on the other foot. That is a fundamental difference. British Coal must prove that the damage is not caused by subsidence. The burden is not on the poor claimant, which caused most of the problem. It has all been changed, and if the system is accepted that is surely a better context for the debate.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

My hon. Friend emphasises eloquently the point that I was trying to make earlier. We know that at present we have an unsatisfactory system. There are ambiguities and gaps in the legislation and there are inconsistencies between the two Acts, so it is hardly surprising that people are confused. The thrust of the Bill is to improve, to clarify and to simplify so as to obviate the need for specialist and technical advice.

Mr. Meale

The problem with the reply that the Minister gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is that the law is such that all the thousands of people are still represented by agents. Perhaps I can help the Minister. To get us out of this hole, in which agents are handling thousands of cases, could the Minister say that local authorities in coal-mining areas could set up agencies to act on behalf of the thousands of residents and thus deal with the problem at one stroke?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory

Those thousands of agents may find that their expenses are not reimbursable under the provisions of clause 36. However, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, yes, of course, if local authorities feel the need to provide additional services, not only are they free to do so, but British Coal has assured me that it will provide assistance and information to them. Under clause 45, the corporation is obliged to inform local authorities of its mining plans. British Coal has also confirmed to me that it will make available to local authorities and to others their new internal manual of procedure, which is sometimes called one of the Brown Books and which will be prepared in the light of the new legislation. That document has not been available before.

British Coal has also offered to make available such things as its new internal training video, which may be of interest to local authority staff and it has offered to provide additional information and literature on an ad hoc basis. Against the background of increased information and simplified procedure, I see little justification for the significant expense of advice centres along the lines envisaged in the new clause.

I must also observe that the provision in the new clause that the advice centres should be funded by the Government is wholly inappropriate. In line with the "polluter pays" principle, it would be for the industry to meet any such additional costs, if they were justified. In this case, the costs are not justified and I invite the House to reject the new clause.

9.30 pm

Mr. Barron

It may have been necessary to change the wording of the provision so that a proposal that was rejected in Committee could be debated at a later stage. I understand that the Minister has had some problems about advice centres, especially as his predecessor, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), left him with a Department of Energy that felt that we should have advice centres to deal with coal mining subsidence.

Conservative Members have shifted ground in their argument in Committee and here tonight about whether to have one or more advice centres. The House has to decide whether we should have advice centres. One view is that people do not need advice. Those who hold that view have a lot of faith in British Coal and how the new system will work. The system has yet to be put in place and cannot be put in place until the Bill has been debated in the other place.

There may be some adherence to the protection of the entrepreneurs who have set up business in north Nottinghamshire and in Derbyshire to deal with mining subsidence. If people could go to a comprehensive advice centre and could receive advice that dealt with more than the nuts and bolts of the Bill, the entrepreneurs would lose trade.

I do not want to anticipate a later debate, but I must point out to the Minister that later amendments refer to the omission of people's right to go to the Lands Tribunal. In Committee, we were howled down by Conservative Members because we tabled amendments to remove the tribunal from such cases on the basis of its costliness and ineffectiveness in dealing with problems. We were told by Conservative Members that people should have a fundamental right to go to the Lands Tribunal if they felt that it was necessary, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill. If that is the case, people could go to an advice centre without their incomes being preyed on when they were seeking advice.

People may go further than the comprehensive arbitration under the Bill. They may want to get advice in relation to further legal matters, but the advice about

which Conservative Members spoke in Committee may not be available. I hope that, although the Minister does not want to consider our proposal now, the other place will consider it. People should be able to get advice to ensure that, when they pursue a claim against British Coal, they have sound advice which is not expensive and which puts them on the right road towards getting compensation for damage.

In view of our debate, and because I hope that the other place will consider our proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.