§ 6A. Where any underground coal-mining operations proposed to be carried on after the commencement date can be regarded as a continuation of operations carried on before that date, nothing in section 44(1) (notices to property owners etc.) or section 45(1) of this Act (notices to local authorities) shall require the Corporation to give any notice with respect to those operations before the end of the period of one month beginning with that date.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.
10.17 pm§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have reached the end of the Bill's proceedings in this House, and I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee that examined it at an earlier stage. I thank them in particular for the constructive and co-operative way in which they examined the issues. The Bill started as a very considerable step forward, and some of the decisions of the Standing Committee have improved it. In its original form, it was a consolidating measure, bringing together two Acts of Parliament, and making a number of improvements. It also formalised claimants' rights to use their own contractors in a way that has been repeated this evening; allowed the reimbursement of all the reasonable costs incurred by claimants in pursuing a successful claim; clarified the very difficult issue of time limits in a way that is now clear and unambiguous; provided for households to be individually notified about British Coal's mining plans; provided a statutory basis for the informal resolution of disputes through an arbitration scheme; and placed British Coal's code of practice on a statutory basis. The Bill also imposes a duty on British Coal to safeguard property that is vacated while undergoing repair.
866 In Committee and again this evening, the Bill has been further improved. On the question of stop notices, an interim standard of repair has been laid down, and a maximum duration for stop notices has been declared. On the difficult issue of blight, a new clause requires British Coal to purchase property blighted by subsidence damage or its imminent likelihood where hardship would otherwise be experienced. As to the use of an own-contractor in undertaking repairs, there is clarification of, and an emphasis on, a claimant's right to use his own contractor, except in specified circumstances.
The independence of the arbitrator has been affirmed, and the Bill now includes provision for small businesses to recover consequential losses.
On Second Reading, I said that it was my intention to make a good Bill better. I believe that I have done that, with the assistance of the Committee and of the House.
§ Mr. BarronOn Second Reading, although we welcomed this well-overdue Bill, we identified serious weaknesses and omissions that we hoped to rectify during the legislation's progress through the House. In Committee, the Minister accepted many of the arguments that we put, and tonight the Government presented a substantial number of amendments that cover the issues raised by my hon. Friends in Committee.
We received an assurance from the Minister that British Coal will not be able to block a claimant's right to refer his case to arbitration. By removing that veto, the likelihood of referrals to the Lands Tribunal has been lessened. In view of the recent history of the Lands Tribunal in respect of subsidence claims, thousands of people will be breathing a sigh of relief that they will not have to travel that route in future.
We welcome that advance, together with the amendment relating to the independence of the arbitrator. Taken together, those changes go a long way to meeting our concerns about the scheme. The Bill has also been greatly improved by the clause dealing with blight and the amendment on consequential loss. Many small agricultural businesses that suffer consequential losses, in terms of future yield, will be pleased with that improvement and we hope to see that new provision operating to their advantage in the near future.
The rights of claimants to use their own contractors in carrying out repairs, and the introduction of criteria for stop notices and their revocation, have been strengthened. The latter issue was raised forcefully on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). His advocacy on behalf of his constituents has been most effective, not only in relation to the Bill, but during all his years as a Member of Parliament.
People in all areas affected by subsidence will welcome the Bill. It was thanks to the pressure consistently exerted by Labour, both locally and nationally, that the Bill saw the light of day. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) waves his hand at me. I have before me a letter that he wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) on 2 May 1989, in which he referred to the absence of any action in respect of subsidence damage, and said how awful it was that people had to pursue their claims through the Lands Tribunal, and risked substantial costs being awarded against them. He added: 867
To make matters worse, we have now had the Opposition spokesman for mining, Mr. Kevin Barron, in the Sherwood and Mansfield constituencies, claiming that they will put matters to rights when returned to power".That is absolutely right. They may be jumping in on our legislative programme today.The hon. Member for Sherwood smiles. He will smile, because I also have here a letter from one of his hon. Friends who spoke on Second Reading. Unfortunately, he was not with us today. He also wrote to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere on 27 April 1989—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who was it?"] I think that it was the hon. member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock). He wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, saying that he was enclosing
a copy of an article which appeared last week in the Mansfield local newspaper".At the end of the letter he said:I can only say that I fully endorse what Kevin Barron says and hope that you will treat the issue more seriously.I am pleased that the issue has been treated more seriously, after the years that Labour has been arguing here and elsewhere that the matter should be put to rights.The Bill leaves the House as a superior Bill to the one first introduced and that is substantially due to the improvements that we promoted in Committee. I hope that it will not be too long before the people whose lives have been so affected by coal mining subsidence will see the benefits of this legislation when it has left the other place.
Mr. Andy StewartHaving campaigned with other hon. Members for the need for new legislation to deal with the effects of subsidence due to coal mining, I believe that the Third Reading of such a Bill closes a chapter and heralds a new beginning for communities living in coal field areas.
The present methods adopted by British Coal as a result of the 1957 and 1975 legislation will soon pass into the history books. Also it is worth recording there for posterity my thanks, and that of my constituents, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for coal for bringing the Bill before Parliament and seeing it through its Committee stage, and shortly on to the statute book. Further appreciation should go to COALS and the united industry working party for their extensive work in the past three years.
The new legislation will end the long delays, endless disputes and sheer misery that claimants endured under the present procedures. They will no longer be at the mercy of British Coal. Indeed, for the first time claimants will be in the game with the same number of players as British Coal, which previously acted as referee and moved the goal posts when it was opportune to do so.
Once enacted, the legislation will be comprehensive, righting the injustices of the past. My enthusiasm for the new measure is shared by my constituents. Our acclaim for the Bill is because, from the beginning to the end, it encompasses every aspect of the consequences of mining. To start with, anyone whose property may be affected by mining must be informed by British Coal in advance of underground workings. Claimants will be clear that they have six years to initiate a claim after the appearance of damage, not after the ceasing of mine workings. Claimants 868 will be able to agree the use of their own contractors. Costs incurred in pursuing a dispute will be reimbursed if the claim is successful. The Government agree that consequential loss should be compensated. British Coal must purchase, or compensate for, property affected by blight. Last, but not least—and most important—is the right of claimants to unfettered arbitration.
The end result of the Bill will be a fair settlement of claims at nil or minimal cost to successful claimants. It will ensure fair practice and fair play. This legislation goes that extra yard, providing fairness, respectability, honesty and understanding for all involved with coal mining subsidence, while recognising the major role of the coal industry in our national and local economies.
§ Mr. BeithIt is a pity that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) felt it necessary to compliment himself so extensively because, judging with the much greater impartiality of someone who did not serve in Committee, I was going to say that it was a good Bill to start with and was significantly improved by the efforts of Opposition Members in Committee, of whom I was not one.
The effort that a number of hon. Members put into the Bill was well justified and shows on the face of the Bill. Many of our constituents will be in a better position to raise difficult issues that are the source of great anxiety to them, now that a better procedure is in place, and now that there is a better basis for proof, and what I hope will prove to be a proper arbitration system, which, if it does not emerge via negotiation, can be brought into being through the provisions of the Bill.
I am glad that the Bill was introduced. In principle, it was a good Bill from the start and it has been significantly improved by the efforts of those hon. Members who have devoted a considerable amount of time to it.
§ Mr. Gerald HowarthAs you know, Mr. Speaker, better than most, the public perception of the House is that it engages in a succession of gladiatorial contests, with printable insults hurled throughout our debates. We have dispelled part of that public perception this evening.
Although a great number of hon. Members are not here, all those who are here have participated in the campaign over many years to right the injustice caused to our constituents by coal mining subsidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) suggested, tonight marks almost the end of the battle—but not quite.
This is an excellent Bill which represents the culmination of years of debate, the distilled wisdom of the Waddilove committee and that of a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House. It was a little churlish of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to respond as he did. I pay tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who I know has campaigned vigorously, but especially I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, who throughout has adopted a thoroughly principled stance, as befits a Member of Parliament for his constituency.
The Bill will provide a clearer and fairer framework for the hopefully speedier settlement of an injustice that causes enormous distress and heartache. My hon. Friend the 869 Minister and his predecessors, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), whose Parliamentary Private Secretary I was, worked hard to arrive at a solution that will deal with the injustice without imposing intolerable burdens on the coal industry, which continues to serve the nation in a relentlessly more efficient manner. The fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has been prepared to listen to amendments, not just from the Opposition but from his hon. Friends, has been warmly welcomed.
In two key areas—arbitration and blight—the Government have decided to rely on reserve powers. It is right that the Bill should contain what earlier I called the rule of the threat of law. I hope that British Coal will now demonstrate a commitment to making its voluntary codes of practice on arbitration and blight work. The corporation is still somewhat wobbly and will certainly have to change its stance if the public are to be sufficiently reassured.
In my constituency last October I finally secured British Coal's agreement to accept liability for some properties with a history of subsidence, but that acceptance needs to be followed up by speedy and sympathetic action. As employment in the industry continues to contract, so British Coal will increasingly require to win the good will of the areas in which it wishes to work. If it fails to implement the voluntary agreements, in the spirit and to the letter, there will be pressure to activate the statutory regulations that we have provided for in the Bill. I trust that that will be unnecessary, but the ball is firmly in British Coal's court.
§ Mr. LofthouseI, too, very much welcome the Bill. It was a good Bill when it was introduced and it has been improved in Committee. However, there is still a major fault that could easily be rectified, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board. I greatly welcome clause 32(3), which, in line 46, provides that
the Corporation may make such proposals as to the materials for and the method of construction of the property as appear to them to be desirable for minimising damage in the event of subsidence.I have always believed that if British Coal, the local authorities and the private developers had jointly considered providing rafts under properties where British Coal knew that it was going to mine, they would have saved themselves millions of pounds. Other organisations would also have been saved millions of pounds.Another worrying aspect is that, if a local mine is threatened with major expenditure due to subsidence, that mine's survival will also be endangered. We should consider prevention rather than compensation. Rather than refer merely to materials for construction, we should enable the Bill to confer on British Coal the right to agree with the builders or the local authorities that, if they expect subsidence, they will meet the costs of a raft. That would cost only £2,000 or £3,000 a dwelling but would save a great deal should subsidence occur. If the effect can be minimised when properties are erected, we should write that provision into the Bill.
§ Mr. HaywardThe Bill is important not only to areas where mining still occurs but to areas such as those that the Minister and I represent, where coal mining ceased many years ago but which still suffer the problems of coal-mining subsidence.
The Bill provides clarity for people who never expected to suffer from the problem of subsidence because coal mining had stopped so many years ago. It does not provide the certainty that they will gain from a claim, but it provides clarity in the form of the procedures by which to pursue a claim for subsidence and what is defined as subsidence. It provides clarity and a shift in the burden of proof. The burden is now on the Coal Board rather than on the applicant, which is especially important.
Finally, because of an amendment moved by Conservative members of the Committee, the Bill now provides the right for all people to pursue arbitration without British Coal objecting. It is a paramount right for all individuals to be able to pursue a claim to the end, even if they are opposed by British Coal.
For those reasons, I believe that we have a Bill of which we can all be proud, and I hope that it will move to another place.
§ Mr. MealeTo conclude this phase of the legislation, I should like to thank a number of hon. Members from all parties who have been involved in trying to introduce new legislation to sort out the horrific mess. I also pay tribute to the Minister and to his predecessor who started the whole process, ably and gallantly pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who has done a magnificent job at every stage in Committee and in the House.
We must also remember others who have battled and given advice, such as ex-Members of Parliament, some of whom until recently have actively given advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and me. Unfortunately, one—Lord Taylor of Mansfield—is no longer around, but we must pay tribute to him because he was never slow in coming forward to give advice to my hon. Friend, to me and to others.
We should also pay tribute to the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence—COALS—to the representative organisations of local authorities, to their officials and elected members from the all the authorities involved who have done a magnificent job in bringing the issue to the fore and in making progress towards a change on the statute book. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the united industries working party—which has been mentioned—which provided help.
However, I must say to the Minister—as he would expect me to—that in such cases one sometimes experiences a little cloud of disappointment. I am disappointed especially about the issue of information, which I believe should be made available to everyone if real justice is to be achieved. I should have liked advice centres and a register of damage to properties included in the Bill. I hope that the other place will agree on that.
The Bill has been a magnificent effort by everyone involved and especially those who are suffering damage to their homes throughout the coalfield areas. Their pressure, 871 persistence and search for justice will, I hope and believe, one day lead to a subsidence back to a better time for them.
§ Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)A fair amount of pressure has been lifted from——
§ Mr. HaywardRaising the flag.
§ Mr. HaynesNo, I am not raising the flag.
A fair amount of pressure concerned with mining subsidence has been lifted from the shoulders of hon. Members. The Bill is a step in the right direction. I want to pay the Minister a compliment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take it steady."] In answer to my hon. Friends, I must say that the Minister has had a real education about mining. He has made it his business to get about the mining areas——
§ Mr. BarronDown the pits.
§ Mr. HaynesYes. Who would have thought that the Minister would wear a mining helmet, knee pads and pit boots, and go into the pithead bath afterwards? Some of us did it for many years. We have real experience. We have also experienced the fact that the Minister has got to know about the industry and its problems. I hope that he will continue in that way until the next election when we shall be sitting on the Government Benches. We shall have a different Minister with responsibility for mining, but at the moment I am complimenting the present Minister for his work, especially on the Bill. He has listened to what we said in Committee and he has proved beyond all doubt that many of our points that were rejected in Committee are now accepted because they have been included today.
However, I am a little disappointed about the advice centres. I said a little earlier that it may happen that in the other place ——
§ Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Gedling)Where you are going.
§ Mr. HaynesShut up. The advice centres may be accepted in the other place.
I want to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I remember his predecessor, Dennis Concannon, all those years back when pressure was being put on the Government to do something about the problem. Before him was our noble Friend Lord Taylor, who passed on last week. I have been to the other place and listened to some of his contributions on the mining industry, especially about mining subsidence, and about how people suffered in his day. He left this place in 1966 to go down yonder. The problem has been going on for a long while. At long last, something has happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Tory Government."] We have a Bill. We have been working together in the interests of our constituents. It is all right for hon. Members to bawl 872 from a sedentary position, trying to make a stupid political point. We have worked together in Committee to change the Bill and we have been successful.
I said earlier that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) was denied an opportunity today. In Committee, he agreed with many of our points. The Government kept him out of the Chamber today because he was going to agree with us on the advice centres. I am convinced that when the Bill comes back from the other place, it will contain a clause on advice centres. I want to know from the Minister what he intends to do about it. I hope that he will leave it there. If he does not, after the next election, we shall put it in. We shall put some other things in, too. Our constituents have suffered long enough.
I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). He is an ex-miner, like one or two of us. He is not a farmer. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has got his way about his potato field. If it sinks in the middle he will get compensation. This Government have poured money in the farmers' pockets and here we go again. We are damned well agreeing with it again.
If a farmer suffers because of mining subsidence, he is entitled to compensation or to have things put right. There is no doubt about that. That is fair. The Bill has become fair but it needs to be a bit fairer. I come back again to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley. He has a wonderful football team in his mining constituency. We play them twice a season. We kick them all over the pitch. The pitch goes up and down all over the place. It is a terrible pitch. I do not know whether the club has claimed for mining subsidence damage, but it ought to—it ought to make a claim and go to arbitration now that the Government are allowing people to do that.
There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has used his mining experience at the Dispatch Box, but he has also had some good advice. He knows what I am talking about. The Minister has had all his advice free. My hon. Friend has had to pay for his, but he has had first-class advice. That is why he has been able to stand at the Dispatch Box on Report and Third Reading and to do a first-class job in Committee.
We have all done our bit in this Bill, including hon. Members who served on the Committee such as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I remember some of the speeches that he made. The Tory Members did not like them at all, but they were good speeches. I am looking at my watch, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we won many of the arguments and we shall go on to win more. The important thing is that to achieve what we have in this Bill, never mind that the Tories are in control here at Westminster. We have worked together and made the Bill the way it is—and given the opportunity, we shall change it again.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.