REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS' EXPENSES (Hansard, 17 August 1991)

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we will take Lords amendment No. 7.

§ Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)
May I ask the Minister to explain the amendment to us, as I should like to develop my argument on it'?

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory)
By all means.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the amendment is uncontroversial, but I shall certainly explain the thinking behind it. As the hon. Gentleman, who was on the Standing Committee, knows, the Bill that left the House provided that a claimant could recover only those costs incurred in the three years before the making of a claim. We have reflected further on that and we believe that, at least in respect of records of condition, three years may be considered inadequate.
I said during earlier stages of our proceedings on the Bill that, because the standard of repair required in the Bill is to be to the claimant's reasonable satisfaction, rather than taking the property back to pre-damage condition, an accurate record of the pre-damage condition is certainly not essential. Nevertheless, we always recognised that a prudent householder may well commission such a survey of the pre-damaged property when he receives a section 46 notice and we now realise that, because of a possible delay in the damage occurring, under the three-year rule, such a householder may be unable to recover the costs.
The amendment would therefore increase the period to four years. There has to be a time limit because, beyond a certain point, a record of condition will become too out of date to be useful in the resolution of a claim. I think that the proposal of four years strikes the right balance. Perhaps anticipating the hon. Gentleman's remarks, we have gone rather further, by enabling the Secretary of State, under Lords amendment No. 7, to extend the time 455 period if it proves necessary. That period can be extended if, in the light of experience, further time is deemed necessary.

§ Mr. Rowlands
The amendment deals with the reimbursement of successful claimants' costs. Since the Bill left the House, I have corresponded with the Minister about a clutch of cases, one of them very closely concerned with the issue of costs. Before we let the Bill go, I want to take the opportunity to reveal to the House the nature and character of British Coal's treatment of people in our community. This clause deals with successful claimants' costs and the preceding clause deals with the avoidance of other claims and the possibility of previous cases being wrapped up and dealt with under the Bill.
The basis of much of our agreement on the Bill was that British Coal would act in a positive spirit. On the basis of the correspondence, I have to tell the Minister that the leopard has not changed its spots. The way in which the issues that I presented to him in the correspondence between us—particularly concerning one costs application, which I hope will be successful—have been dealt with by British Coal show that that is not the case. I refer to the case of three constituents of mine living at 49, 50 and 51, High street, Trelewis, which has been the subject of a considerable amount of correspondence between us. The aim of my constituents and their solicitors was to transfer the case and to bring it within the procedures of the Bill. The spirit in which the Minister replied to so many of the debates was that British Coal would be in tune with the Bill and would be willing to anticipate its implementation.
The solicitors' letter states that any financial decision will have to wait for the final Act, and that British Coal would be likely to be sensitive to my constituents' circumstances and allow them to proceed under the Act.
We therefore wrote to British Coal, suggesting that the cases proceed under the new Act, when it comes into force, and not under common law because they involve a mixture of current and past damage to the properties.
Under clause 37, which precedes the provisions with which we are dealing, despite having brought other claims for damages against the British Coal Corporation, a person may serve a notice under the new legislation and can elect which notice of claim he will then proceed with. However, British Coal has said that it will allow our clients to discontinue their common law action and to proceed with an action under the new legislation if they pay all British Coal's costs to the incurred date.
We are considering provisions relating to the reimbursement of successful claimants' costs. I very much hope that my constituents will be successful claimants. We have conducted our debates in Committee and throughout the Bill's passage in the hope that British Coal would act in a new spirit, but everything that has happened between the Bill leaving the House and its final moments here and now has demonstrated that British Coal's mean spirit 456 remains. No doubt it is down to the solicitors, but I have written to both the chairman of British Coal and to the Minister.
Before we agree to this Lords amendment about the reimbursement of successful claimants' costs, I must bring this appalling case to the Minister's attention. We are talking about three householders—and anybody who knows Trelewis knows that we are talking not about wealthy surburban citizens, but about the terrace communities of our areas which are suffering enormous problems with subsidence, some of which is historic while some is more recent. British Coal is saying to the Minister, to me and to my constituents that it will demand the full payment of its costs before we can even transfer the cases to the spirit and procedures of the new legislation. If nothing else, I hope that the debate will persuade the Minister to stamp on the feet of the chairman of British Coal or at least say to him, "For goodness sake, behave properly to people", such as those whom I represent in Trelewis. I hope that he does so.

§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)
I am most disturbed by what my hon. Friend has said because I referred to him —I know that he brought this to the attention of the Committee—the case of one of my constituents who had a case against the coal board. Under the existing legislation—I am going back about 20 years—the coal board said that it would defer consideration of any submission until the subsidence had finished its geological course. As a result, my constituent waited, but when he later submitted another claim, he was told by British Coal that he was out of time. Since then, we have taken the case up again with British Coal, which has involved lengthy correspondence. My hon. Friend then drew the case to the attention of the Committee, as a result of which we took up the case with British Coal again which, as I understood it, was to act in a new spirit. As my hon. Friend said, if British Coal does not fulfil that obligation, many people in the south Wales valleys—I am not talking about Mansfield, Yorkshire or Nottingham—will continue to suffer from the extensive subsidence that has come to light since coal mining in the area finished. They will not be able to pursue claims in the courts against British Coal because it is using legislative devices to put these people outside the law. It is up to the Minister to ensure that British Coal acts not only within the law but within the spirit of the law, because that is important.

§ Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
I know of the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). However, I do not have the details with me, so I cannot comment knowledgeably on it now. I will look at it again to ensure that British Coal is acting in a way that anticipates this Bill becoming an Act of Parliament. Nothing that he said makes a case against the Lords amendment, so I hope that the House will agree to it.