§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 30, line 17, after 'person', insert 'independent of the Corporation'.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 25.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryWe accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that the arbitrator should be independent. It was always our intention that he should be. The Institute of Arbitrators takes suitable pride in its professional integrity and independence. To remove any doubt, I accept in full the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
§ Mr. BarronI thank the Minister. I have spent the past few weeks wondering how he would take away the words "independent of the corporation", he being somewhat doubtful of them in Committee.
§ Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)The amendment underlines the independent nature of the arbitration that the Bill provides and which will be available when the scheme is approved. At what stage will there be access to the independent arbitrator? What will be the position of those who are currently undecided whether to go ahead under the present procedure, which is not the one approved by the Minister and which, as he mentioned in his opening remarks, involves the Institute of Arbitrators? There are those who will be undecided whether to go ahead with that procedure or to wait, as I would advise, for the amended procedure, which also includes placing the onus of proof on the coal board to show that the damage did not result from mining. There was considerable discussion on the matter in Committee where a great deal of valuable work was done. Can the Minister make it clear that nobody who is waiting for him to approve the scheme will find that they have passed a time limit merely by waiting until the scheme is fully in place before they pay their money and go ahead with arbitration?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI confirm to the hon. Gentleman that they need not wait, because the scheme has been running on a voluntary basis since the beginning of January this year. It was brought forward by British Coal after consultation with us; therefore, to all intents and purposes, the scheme is up and running. We shall be reviewing with British Coal the operation of the scheme later this year to see whether it is satisfactory and whether it can be extended in any way.
The Bill allows, if necessary, the Secretary of State to put into regulations the exact details. We intend to do that only if the scheme is unsatisfactory or if British Coal or its successors backtrack in any way from the scheme as outlined. However, I confirm that early indications are good and that British Coal has agreed to remove any doubt about people's rights to go to arbitration.
Some doubts have been expressed about the wording in the existing guidance leaflet and the notes attaching to the arbitration scheme. They will be altered and amended where necessary to make clear that people have the right to go to that arbitration scheme in appropriate cases.
§ Mr. BeithI am grateful to the Minister. If someone were to take the Minister's advice and go ahead now using the existing scheme before the Bill is enacted, where would they stand in relation to the onus of proof?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryThey would not be disadvantaged in any way. British Coal will carry over existing cases 864 which are presently in train and treat them as though the new Bill were an Act of Parliament so that those claimants will not see the join.
§ Mr. Gerald HowarthCan my hon. Friend confirm that, when he says that people will have the right to arbitration, it will be a unilateral right under the existing scheme proposed by British Coal, and that British Coal will not have to give approval for that person to go to arbitration? That is an important point which we discussed in Committee.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI was able to give that assurance in Committee and I am happy to repeat it. If some case, due to its complexity or technical nature, is more appropriately dealt with by the Lands Tribunal that will be a decision for the arbitrator and not for British coal.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Is it an intervention or a speech?
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is a Report stage. Hon. Member should make their speeches and then the Minister should wind up and respond to them. It is not really a question and answer debate as is appropriate in Committee.
§ Mr. MealeI am grateful to the Minister for the various assurances he gave in Committee. I am also grateful to him for repeating and expanding on a few of them in his reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Will he confirm in the context of the present debate the guarantee that he gave in Committee concerning cases that had been disqualified under the old six-year rule? Under the new arbitration procedure, will the people involved be able to have their cases reviewed?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI can confirm that some difficult disputes have not been settled to the satisfaction of the claimants. It is appropriate that these should be dealt with under the new arbitration scheme, and British Coal has indicated that if they are brought forward, they may be settled in that way.
§ Mr. HaynesSuppose an individual—it could be a person from any constituency—has a problem of this sort, and he goes through the procedure that the Minister is introducing. What will happen at the end of the period of six years? Is the Minister saying that the new rule is in operation now? Under the new system, the burden of proof will be on the corporation, whereas, previously, it was on the individual. Will the corporation now have a duty to prove beyond doubt that damage was not done by the mining industry? Has the new six-year rule now come into operation?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryThe Bill clears up the present ambiguity—the conflict between the two existing Acts. It lays down very clearly how the six-year rule will operate. If there are disputes or difficulties about interpretation, or about matters of fact, they can be referred to arbitration. The solution will not be at the unilateral say-so of the British Coal corporation.
§ Amendment agreed to.