HL Deb 20 June 1950 vol 167 cc803-12

2.45 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)

My Lords, I am certain that few of your Lordships will doubt the necessity for this Bill. It may be criticised from various points of view, and for what it leaves undone, but I think it will be welcomed for what it does. The problem of subsidence has been the subject of discussion ever since I was a boy, and that is quite a time ago. It has caused much discomfort and uneasiness in the mining districts, and perhaps the miner and his family have suffered more than any other section of the population from this trouble. I think that by this time, however, we have seen enough of the situation in the mining areas, and heard enough stories of what subsidence has meant, to make it unnecessary for me to spend your Lordships' time in saying much on this point.

I spent over fifty years of my life just outside Wigan, and I question whether any district in the United Kingdom has shown the effects of mining in general, and mining subsidence in particular, more than the south side of Wigan. The whole landscape has changed since I was a boy. To-day, with the immense pit heaps rising like pyramids to the heavens, caused by the material brought out of the earth, and the great lakes, caused by subsidence, the Wigan district is becoming more and more like a miniature Lake District. There may be those who say it cannot be as attractive, but with the pit heaps and the great sheets of water—and, of course, the world-famous Wigan pier—Wigan is fast becoming a counter-attraction to the Lake District.

When the Bill was discussed in another place, Mr. Tom Brown, who succeeded me as Member of Parliament for that area, gave a number of instances of what could be done, and sometimes done very suddenly, by mining subsidence. I well remember as a boy going to work at a colliery in the neighbourhood and seeing a number of miners and their wives outside a long row of houses, all very disturbed because during the night there had been some movement of the earth. Returning home that very day, I saw that the two middle houses of this row of seventeen houses were almost completely wrecked. That gives some idea of how suddenly subsidence can affect houses.

It was in 1923 when the father of one of the noble Lords opposite signed the Order setting up a Commission to inquire into mining subsidence and its effects. I had the good fortune to have a personal friend on that Commission, and he and I discussed how to approach the matter. That Commission did not serve any very useful purpose, because although it made many recommendations not one has been passed into law. The Commission had a difficult task. The ownership of minerals was then in one set of hands and the working of them in a different set of hands, which made the problem difficult for any Government. In 1947, another good friend of mine, Mr. Theodore Turner, K.C., was made Chairman of a Committee of Inquiry that was set up. This Committee had a much easier task, in so far as by that time legislation had been put on the Statute Book placing the ownership of the minerals in the hands of those who were also responsible for working the mines. The Turner Committee made a large number of recommendations. I know that I shall hear, before this debate has gone very far, that the majority of those recommendations have been left out of this Bill. I agree. I had hoped that the provisions of the Bill would have had reference to many of the recommendations of the Turner Committee.

It may be helpful to your Lordships if I compare the terms of reference of the 1923 Commission with those of the 1947 Committee. I notice that they are different, and the difference is significant. The terms of reference of the 1923 Commission were as follows: To consider the operation of the law relating to the support of the surface of the land, and of buildings or works on or under the surface, by underlying or adjacent minerals; to inquire into the extent and gravity of the damage caused by subsidence owing to the extraction of minerals and the incidence of the resulting liability; and to report what steps should be taken, by legislation or otherwise, to remedy, equitably to all persons concerned, any defects or hardship that may be found to arise in existing conditions. The terms of reference of the Committee of 1947 were: To examine the law of support and the problem of damage caused by mining subsidence in the light of the nationalisation of coal and the coal mining industry and to make recommendations. The differences between those two sets of terms of reference are significant. I would say that the Turner Committee had a much easier task than the Commission of 1923.

This Bill confines itself to only one aspect of the problem, and the reason for that is financial and nothing more. Two aspects of the Bill which I feel sure will be criticised to-day, were also criticised in another place, and it would not surprise me if at a later stage Amendments were put down on these matters. It is not my intention—nor, I feel sure, is it the desire of your Lordships—to examine this Bill clause by clause. That we can do at a later stage if it is considered desirable. However, I want to emphasise that the decision to limit payments to damage done after January 1,1947, was taken only after long consultation and with due regard to the finance involved. It will be noticed in the Bill that we have shared the cost for the time being between the National Coal Board and the National Exchequer, the National Coal Board being made responsible for payment of compensation, half of which will be refunded from the National Exchequer over a period of years. I know that in discussions on previous mining Bills your Lordships have emphasised the need for the National Coal Board to pay their way. I agree with that, and so we must be careful how many burdens we place on the Board. The burden placed on the National Coal Board by this Bill is not a heavy one, and I think they may be able to arrange their affairs in such a way as to shoulder it. But had we carried out the recommendations of the Turner Committee the story would have been vastly different.

There is a limitation in the Bill with regard to the rateable value, of buildings to which the concession applies—again solely for financial reasons. The figure for England and Wales is £32, and for Scotland it is £52. Perhaps I ought to say a word on the difference between the figure of £52 for Scotland and the £32 for England and Wales. No one will be surprised that Scotland gets more than England and Wales—she usually does! The figure of £52 has been specified for Scotland in order to bring within the scope of the bill all "small dwelling-houses," including small dwellinghouses built by local authorities in Scottish mining areas, some of which have a rateable value of £52. The rateable values of small dwellinghouses in Scotland are generally higher than those in England and Wales: first, because in arriving at the ratable value of such properties in England and Wales there are statutory deductions from the Rating and Valuation Acts of 1925 and 1928 from the gross annual value, which may amount to as much as 40 per cent., whereas in Scotland the rateable value of small dwellinghouses is the same as the gross annual value. Secondly, Scottish rents include an element in respect of owners' rates (which do not exist in England and Wales) and the rents paid or (in the case of owner-occupied properties) assumed are normally taken as the rateable value. I trust that the non-Scottish members of your Lordships' House will be satisfied that the Scottish section is not being unduly generously treated, in view of the facts that I have stated. However, that matter may well be raised later in the debate.

There are one or two other matters in the Bill to which I should make brief reference. I notice that provision is made (this is rather an important point) for many of the householders, and especially owner-occupiers, where the cost of repairs would exceed the depreciation in the value of the property which has suffered the damage. In such circumstances the Board may make a cash payment equal to that depreciation in lieu of carrying out the repairs. This will relieve the Board from the obligation to rebuild old and dilapidated houses which in any case would be due for demolition in a few years, and will avoid the waste of building resources, both labour and materials, on properties which are really beyond repair. There is a provision in Clause 5 which caused much discussion in another place—namely, the date at which notice should be given. At the end of the discussion my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power gave an undertaking that he would consider inserting a later date in the Bill. I am not in a position to state what that later date will be, but I can state that the Minister has agreed that a later date will be moved, and can be discussed during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.

A further matter to which I should refer is a new clause, which I know will win the approval of your Lordships, dealing with the onus of proof as to the cause of damage. This new clause affirms that in any legal proceedings under the Act, in which there arises the question of whatever structural damage to a dwellinghouse or any part of a building comprising a dwellinghouse coming within the Act is subsidence damage, and it is shown by the owner or other persons concerned that the circumstances warrant the inference that the cause may be subsidence damage, the onus is on the Board to show that the damage is not subsidence damage.

The most ardent supporter of this Bill will not claim that it is anything more than a small Bill. However, it is a small Bill dealing with a most important matter, in the coal industry in particular. As I have already said, it will relieve hardship amongst those least able to bear it, many of whom are engaged in the coal industry. I need not tell your Lordships that this industry has served the country well in the years gone by, and I am sure that it is one which will continue to serve the interests of our island home. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

2.58 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, I have read this Bill carefully and fully appreciate what has been said by the noble Lord who has introduced it. However, I still fail to understand why His Majesty's Government have produced such an in- adequate Bill when they have had before them the excellent Report of the Turner Committee who, as your Lordships know, went into the case very thoroughly indeed. I suggest that the reason is not entirely financial, as I will endeavour to make clear to your Lordships in a few moments. In the first place, it is essential that we should bear in mind the real financial aspect of damage from subsidence. I think it is true to say that the total damage from subsidence in the country amounts to something like £3,000,000 per annum. Under this Bill some £500,000 is to be made available, as the noble Lord has said, half by the Treasury and the other half by the National Coal Board. This sum is just about equivalent to that lost by His Majesty's Government recently in their purchase and sale of rabbits.

I do not suggest that in these days of financial stringency it would be possible or even right to deal with the whole burden of subsidence, but I do not think it is generally realised that if the limit of £32 rateable value for claims was swept away the increased cost would amount only to less than 10 per cent. of the £500,000 which is the figure appearing in the Bill. If such a small sum is involved, surely it would have been fairer to compensate owners of all classes of dwellinghouses, instead of only those of a rateable value not exceeding £32. With this limit of rateable value I feel sure that all kinds of court cases will arise, such as whether a part of a house is used as a shop or otherwise. Of course, it will be a wonderful thing for the legal profession.

I am still not at all clear why the rateable value was fixed at £32. The noble Lord said that it was solely for financial reasons. I would remind your Lordships, however, that in the Report of the Royal Commission in 1927, when, of course, money had a far greater value than it has to-day, the annual value was to be fixed at £40. There is no attempt in this Bill to do anything for shops or for any commercial or agricultural property, and no protection is given to factories. But it does apply to municipal houses. I do not know whether His Majesty's Government have put forward this Bill as an interim measure. The Minister in another place indicated that one reason for not bringing in a more complete Bill was that it would take a long time to draft and would be very complicated. That may well be; but may not the real reason be that His Majesty's Government are anxious to bring in something quickly from which they may receive support for themselves in the near future? Or is it perhaps gratitude for past services?

I should like to ask the noble Lord why it has been deemed necessary to include municipal houses. It will mean that probably half the total amount of money involved in this Bill will not be for the benefit of the small people but for the benefit of local authorities. If it is a question of money, surely it would have been far better to have cut out the local authorities and increase or sweep away the limit of rateable value on the house owner, and perhaps even give some assistance to small shopkeepers and others who have suffered and are suffering grievously from subsidence. Can it be that the inclusion of municipal houses may have something to do with the Government's target for housing, and is at the expense of many other claims in the mining communities themselves?

The problem of subsidence is, of course, a very complicated one, and I would say that it is not primarily a financial one. It really is the question of reconciling two conflicting interests—the interests of those concerned with getting the coal, and those concerned with the use of the surface above the coal. I am very surprised to see that the Minister of Town and Country Planning has not been brought into this Bill. I should have thought that he would have been. Surely, it is the duty of the Minister of Town and Country Planning to synchronise the operations of the Coal Board, in mining coal, and the erection of buildings, and so on, on the surface. I had also hoped that it would have been possible to include in this Bill in some small way agricultural land which has suffered grievously from subsidence. I do not think it is generally realised that there are many acres of good agricultural land which are at present waterlogged or derelict as a result of subsidence. I hope it will be possible, in the interests of the community as a whole, to deal with this matter at an early stage. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he can give the number of acres of agricultural land which are now in this condition, due to subsidence. I realise, of course, that it may be somewhat difficult for 1dm to give the answer to-day, but perhaps he will be able to mike the information available at a later date.

We support this Bill, as far as it goes, but we regret that it does not go further and give more broad justice to the mining community as a whole. I suggest that all this Bill is going to do is to provide for one small section of the mining community—and not necessarily those suffering the greatest hardship—and compensate local authorities at the expense of others. I cannot help feeling that it would hive been far better to wait a little longer and bring in a more comprehensive and adequate Bill.

3.5 p.m.

LORD LAWSON

My Lords, I welcome this measure this afternoon as one who has, like my noble friend who introduced the Bill, seen something of the results of subsidence, and one who has felt that deep wrong has been done to many people, most of them men of a thrifty nature who had to work and necessarily live in the area. I recognise that there are abundant criticisms, such as the noble Lord has mentioned, which could be made about the shortcomings of this Bill. But to one who has for long watched this problem, the fact that it is now to be legally recognised that from a certain date and under certain conditions people—comparatively poor men—will be able to get compensation, is a great step forward. To one who has watched that problem and known the families affected, I must say that the great benefits the Bill bestows far outweigh its disadvantages.

The subject of subsidence was dealt with in another place, and I was very pleased indeed to read of a hint that probably we were on the verge of discovering some method of dealing fairly effectively with it. If that were possible, it would be difficult to imagine a greater benefit which could be bestowed upon certain coal areas in this country. I think it is possible that something can be done in that direction. Methods of working have a good deal to do with the matter. Sometimes it is the rotation in which seams are worked. I have known of a seam worked in a higher level which had a bad effect upon the seam we were working below. Methods of working by partial extractions of a seam under an old hand-picked working used to have a bad effect upon seams which were near the surface, and affected subsidence. It may be that seam-working by machines, whereby the seam is worked with something like greater regularity, will have some effect upon this question of subsidence.

Whether that is so or not, the fact that from this date—and I too am sorry that the date is fixed so that there cannot be consideration of cases which I have known in years gone by—people coming within the £32 limit will receive something is not a small matter to those who have been putting their little savings into the building of houses. The average person in this country who lives outside these heavy industrial areas would hardly believe his eyes if he saw some of the effects of this subsidence upon the homes of people. If I may dare to quote what I said in my maiden speech, I pointed out then that industry, and particularly heavy industry, is a world within a world, a world of its own. It would be a striking experience for many people to see what damage can be done by the undermining of the surface and the undermining of the homes of the people. I am sure that people outside these areas, as well as those inside them—the nation generally—will be very pleased to learn that, within limited financial conditions, we have by this Bill begun to right a great wrong. I can only hope that, as we develop the broader and more regular system of working that is possible since royalties went and the mines were nationalised, there may one day be even more generous consideration of this problem, so that there are fewer limitations.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, that there is a danger that there may be a multiplicity of cases going to the courts as the result of the limitations, but I believe that there will be a better chance of justice for these people who have been dumb and helpless in the face of this problem in the years gone by. Many years ago I was living in an area in which the company were responsible for dealing with the effects of subsidence. There came a day when the company bought the whole of the land, and inserted in the agreement a prohibitive clause against any compensation for damage to a house caused by subsidence. In such cases as that, the poorer classes of people have gone on for long years without any hope of compensation. It may be, of course, that many such cases will be ruled out now by the date limitation. We regret this limitation, and the various other limitations, but it is a great blessing for many people in this country that the Government have introduced this Bill.

3.12 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, there is not much for me to do except to thank noble Lords for the warm welcome which they have extended to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, referred to some surprise he had, but I certainly had three surprises from the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. In the first place he compared the £40 mentioned in the Commission's Report with the £32 mentioned in the Bill. I think the noble Lord must have overlooked the fact that the £40 was the annual value, whereas the £32 is the rateable value. I am informed that the £32 is advantageous against the £40. The second surprise was that the noble Lord should suspect that this Bill was designed to catch votes for the Labour Party in the mining areas. Every mining area in this country so far has returned a Labour Member, and if this Bill did have any such effect as the noble Lord suggested, that effect could be only to increase the Labour majority in those areas. The third surprise was that the noble Lord should suggest that ownership of houses could be considered when deciding the terms of a Bill of this kind. Local authorities are not the only owners of houses, apart from individuals; some of the big insurance companies also own houses. I do not think it is desirable to consider ownership in deciding who is to secure the benefits of a Bill of this kind. However, I am grateful for the warm welcome which has been given by your Lordships to this Bill.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.