COAL-MINING (SUBSIDENCE) BILL

HL Deb 29 June 1950 vol 167 cc1241-65

4.28 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenvsgor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Duty of National Coal Board to carry out repairs and make payments in respect of subsidence damage to dwelling-houses

1.—(1) The National Coal Board shall carry out such repairs and make such payments as are required under the following provisions of this Act, in respect of subsidence damage occurring on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, being subsidence damage occurring to or affecting any dwelling-house which al the time of the occurrence of the damage was a dwelling-house to which this Act applies.

(2) This Act applies to— (a) a hereditament which is used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a private dwelling and has a rateable value not exceeding thirty-two pounds; and and references in this Act to a dwelling-house to which this Act applies shall be construed as references to such a hereditament as is specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection and to such part of a hereditament as is specified in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of this subsection:

Provided that, if it appears to the Minister of Fuel and Power that, having regard to any changes in the valuation of hereditaments for rating purposes, the aforesaid figure of thirty-two pounds ought to be, altered, he may by order, made with the approval of the Treasury, amend this subsection by substituting for that figure such higher or lower figure as may be specified in the order.

(4) In the application of this section to Scotland— (d) any question arising under this section as to what would be the rateable value of any such part of a hereditament as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of this section if it were separately valued shall be determined by the assessor appointed to act for the purposes of the Lands Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1854, aid the Acts amending that Act in the county or burgh in which the said part is situated, and his decision shall be final.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven" and insert "June, nineteen hundred and forty-one." The noble Lord said: As the Bill is at present drawn it will cover only subsidence damage which can be proved to have occurred on or after January 1, 1947. This Amendment is set down to make the date coincide with that on which His Majesty's Government took over control of the mines during the war. During the war period a great deal of subsidence occurred which might have been avoidable in normal times. Every effort was made to get out as much coal as possible, and as quickly as possible, and there is no doubt that many of the usual precautions taken during the mining of coal were not taken. This Amendment covers this abnormal period; without it hundreds of small householders who have undoubtedly suffered grievous damage from the effect of subsidence will not be included in this Bill.

I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will not put forward the argument that, because the operations of the Coal Board commenced from January 1, 1947, which is the date in the Bill, therefore any cause of subsidence taking place previously should be set against the coal owners. The real position is that responsibility for subsidence which occurred before the Coal Board took over lies with the owners of mineral properties; and since the Act of 1937 the owners of mineral properties are the nation. In fact, I would say that the nation has been responsible for subsidence for the last thirteen years. It is also true that from 1941, the year mentioned in the Amendment, the State has been in operational control of the mines. We maintain that this date should be the one in this Bill. That will give a fair measure of justice to all those little people who have suffered very grievously due to the result of the working of the mines during the war years. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out ("January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven") and insert ("June, nineteen hundred and forty-one").—,(Lord Teynham.)

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR)

I hope that throughout the Committee stage of this Bill we shall all follow the fine example of clarity, accompanied by brevity, shown by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham. Before dealing with the noble Lord's Amendment, I think I should refer briefly to a question which he asked me when we were discussing this Bill on Second Reading. He asked about the number of acres of agricultural land which at present are waterlogged or derelict as a result of subsidence. I regret to inform the noble Lord that, after the fullest inquiries, the National Coal Board find that it is impossible to provide figures which could be regarded as being in any way reliable.

Regarding the noble Lord's Amendment, I think that my reference to this point on the Second Reading indicates that it is difficult for me to accept such an Amendment. On the Second Reading I put foremost the financial reason, which still remains a fairly formidable one. If we were to agree to this Amend- ment it would increase the burden not so much on the National Exchequer—because that burden is prescribed in the Bill and the Government have no intention of increasing the figure to be found in Clause 11—but it would fall almost entirely on the National Coal Board. We think that it would be very unfair to increase the financial burden on the National Coal Board at the present time. The noble Lord, if I may say so, adopted an attitude which those of us who have sat in the other House have adopted—trying to anticipate the arguments against the Amendments. As he said, however, January 1, 1947, was the vesting date for the National Coal Board, and we feel that we ought not to burden them with anything before that date. The other reason I would give is that after all this is the date recommended by the Turner Committee. They suggested January 1, 1947, and we know that it would be difficult to test the validity of claims before that date. It will not be easy to do so for the days immediately after January 1, 1947, but earlier than that it would be very difficult indeed. It is for those reasons that we feel unable to accept this Amendment

On Question, Amendment negatived

4.34 p.m.

LORD HAWKE moved, in the proviso to subsection (2) after "purposes" to insert: or to any changes in the incidence of damage by reason of changed methods of building or of working coal,".

The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Wolverton regrets his inability to be here to-day. The Bill provides a rigid limit of £32 rating valuation for the in demnification of subsidence damage, but it leaves the Minister with a loophole should the general level of rating valuation change, perhaps with the general value of money and cost of building and so on. I seek to provide him with some slight further discretion intended to cover other possible eventualities. I think one can say that the principle of the Bill is based on the fact that the £32 limit will cover all small dwelling-houses, and it is also naturally based on the estimated damage with which we are acquainted today. Both these things may tend to change. In the first place, we may be entering upon different mining methods. I am not experienced technically in mining, and so I will mention only one possible event—the gasification of seams. I can imagine that if a seam was gasified the whole thing would eventually collapse, instead of it being possible to provide supporting pillars over portions of the seam. That might lead to a far greater amount of damage than exists today, and the Minister might feel that for those reasons he would desire a discretion to be able to pay damage to a type of dwelling not at present contemplated in the Bill.

Further, any of your Lordships who has lived in earthquake areas will know that nowadays people put up earthquake-proof dwellings. It may well be that in some of these mining areas it will be necessary to adopt a certain type of construction for houses even for the small and cheap ones. It may well follow that, owing to the increased cost of construction, there may be an increased rating valuation above the £32. In that case the whole spirit of the Bill would be set at nought, because the Bill contemplates that the owner of a small dwelling shall receive compensation if it is damaged. I wish to give the Minister discretion in the future to guard against this type of eventuality. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 16, after ("purposes") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hawke.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This is one of those Amendments which I well remember being dealt with in another place—an Amendment which does not convey its exact meaning, and the Minister has to await the explanation of the mover in order to know what it is the mover desires to insert in the Bill. I read and re-read this Amendment, and could not discover the purpose of it. I went through all the possible reasons in the hope that I might hit upon the one the mover would put forward, but I am afraid I failed. This proviso, I believe, will be acceptable to all noble Lords because it is a necessary proviso; but the primary reason for its insertion is that we know that at the moment revaluation of such hereditaments is in progress, and we know that the type of house it is intended to cover may vary in rateable value. It is that type of house we wanted to safeguard. If, as a result of revaluation the house now covered goes outside the limit, we want to enable the Minister to safeguard the type of house which was envisaged. So far as the methods of coal mining are concerned, and the building of houses, it was never anticipated—and I am sure the noble Lord will agree—to bring that type of consideration into this proviso. I agree that mining methods may vary and they may result in more subsidence. Knowing mining from the technical side, I think it is doubtful whether that is possible, except in the shallow mines, where the introduction of heavy machinery may cause more subsidence. In ordinary mining,.however, I do not think it is likely that any new methods would affect the damage. Therefore, I think the Minister has gone as far as he possibly can, and I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.

LORD HAWKE

I feel that the noble Lord has advanced several excellent reasons why the Amendment should be inserted, because if what he says is true it is unlikely that any charge eventually will fall on anybody, for he says that in fact it would be necessary for both to be affected. But I have no intention of pressing the matter to a Division. I would ask the noble Lord to request the Examiners to consider whether the fact that we on this side are asking for the Minister to have a little more power may not be rather significant—that there may be some good reasons why the Minister should have that power. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (3) (d) to leave out "and his decision shall be final." The noble Earl said: This Amendment affects the valuation system of hereditainents in certain particular cases. Normally on every valuation there is an appeal, with one exception, and that is tie cases in which property is valued together for normal rating purposes but will be required under Clause 1 (4) (d) to be valued separately for the purposes of this Bill. On the general proposition, whether it be a house or not, I think it desirable that in rating cases there should be some measure of appeal. So far as I can see, this is the only case in England or in Scotland in which there would not be an appeal in regard to the annual value. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 14, leave out ("and his decision shall be final").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

It is with some trepidation that I now enter into the Scottish aspect of this Bill. I myself have a good Scottish name; I think my Christian name and my surname should entitle me to speak for Scotland—Gordon Macdonald is a good Scottish name. I remember the late James Maxton dealing with my name in another place. He said he always liked my name because it combined two very fine Clans—the Clans of Gordon and Macdonald. "But," he added, "I will swear you have the vices of both those clans and none of the virtues of either."

LORD HAWKE

Would the noble Lord be guided by the Gordon or the Macdonald?

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I should not like to differentiate. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was good enough to intimate to me that he was moving this Amendment and I thought it well to take advice. I am advised that the purpose of this Amendment is apparently to ensure that in Scotland, where a question arises under Clause 1 as to what would be the rateable value of such part of an agricultural hereditament as is mentioned in Clause 1 (2) (d) if it were separately valued, and the county or burgh assessor has given his decision in terms of Clause 1 (4) (d), an appeal should lie from his decision, presumably to the appropriate county or burgh valuation committee and thence to the valuation appeal court. I think that, in fact, the Amendment as framed would not achieve this. The only appeals which a valuation committee can hear are appeals in respect of an entry in the valuation roll—that is, in respect of a decision made by an assessor in the course of carrying out his functions under the Land Valuation (Scotland) Acts. The assessor's powers under Clause 1 (4) (d) are entirely distinct, however, from his functions under the Lands Valuation Acts, and even if the final words of the paragraph were deleted, no appeal could be taken from an assessor's decision under Clause 1 (4) (d) to a valuation committee, or to any other tribunal. The suggested Amend- ment would, therefore, make no alteration in the meaning of the clause, and for that reason I am unable to accept it.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should very much like to hear someone speak for Somerled, the mythical ancestor of the Clan Macdonald. I should have thought that this entry would have appeared in the valuation roll. I think it would appear in respect of a water rate in the valuation roll. I should have thought, too, that an appeal would have lain. However, I merely throw this point out and I do not intend to press it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Nature of obligations of National Coal Board

(3) If the reasonable cost of carrying out such reasonable repairs to the dwelling-house as are required in consequence of the subsidence damage thereto exceeds or would exceed the amount of the depreciation in the value of the dwelling-house caused by the damage, the National Coal Board may, in lieu of carrying out repairs or making any payment under the preceding provisions of this section, make a payment equal to the amount of the said depreciation.

LORD LLOYD moved, in subsection (3) after the second word "damage" to insert: and in the opinion of the local authority for the area in which the dwelling-house is situated such dwelling-house is not capable of being rendered fit for human habitation at a reasonable expense.

The noble Lord said: This clause deals with the obligation of the National Coal Board to repair houses damaged by subsidence, and subsection (3) provides a safeguard for the National Coal Board where in the case of a house—an old one perhaps, or one in a bad state of repair—damaged by subsidence the cost of the repairs would be greater than the actual value of the house. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable safeguard. Generally speaking, it would be unfair to the National Coal Board to have to spend much more money than the house was worth on repairing it—whether the damage was caused by subsidence or anything else. In so far as the Coal Board are safeguarded I am quite satisfied. Where the trouble arises is in the case of the ordinary owner of a house, who is not safeguarded in the same way. Noble Lords will probably know that under the Housing Act of 1936, Sections 9 and 10, the local authority can direct the owner of a house to carry out such repairs as will make it fit for habitation, unless they are satisfied that that is not possible at a reasonable expense. Therefore the situation might arise where a man had been paid compensation by the National Coal Board for damage to his house and the local authority then ordered him to carry out repairs which exceeded in cost the compensation paid by the National Coal Board. All this Amendment asks is that whatever is regarded as fair for the National Coal Board should also be fair for the ordinary private individual. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 35, after ("damage") insert the said new words.—(Lloyd Lloyd.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSCIOR

As your Lordships are aware this Bill is intended to provide for the structural repair of damage to dwelling-houses caused by subsidence, or for payment for this structural damage up to the lull amount of the damage which has been caused. The Bill provides in the Schedule that the value of the property shall be assessed on terms most favourable to the owner—that is to say, sale in the open market with vacant possession. I do not think it would be reasonable to say that the Board should be required to repair or pay for more damage than has been done.

Had this been a re-housing Bill I could have seen something in the Amendment, and I am net surprised, especially after my reference last week to slum clearance, that the noble Lord has raised the matter at a time like this, when there is a housing shortage and a house that is habitable should be kept habitable. I can well understand the argument but the position is that the present condition of the house is due not only to subsidence but, as the noble Lord hinted in his remarks, also to age. If it is subsidence plus something that accounts for the condition of the house, in our view it would be very unfair to make the National Coal Board responsible for the "plus," which may be due to age or some other consideration, in addition to the subsidence. It is from that aspect that it would be far better not to bring the local authority into this. Moreover, the noble Lord., Lord Teynham, during his remarks on Second Reading, reminded us, quite rightly, that many of these houses are already owned by local authorities and therefore, you would be making the local authority the judge in their own case. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD LLOYD

Perhaps I am dense, or maybe it is that I have not explained it clearly, but I do not think the noble Lord has appreciated the point of my Amendment. I am not suggesting for one moment that the National Coal Board should be asked to pay one penny more than is laid down in the Bill. I am seeking merely to integrate two Bills. Suppose that the owner of the house has been paid in respect of the damage under this Bill. In the event of the compensation being less than what it costs to repair the house I am seeking to prevent the local authority from coming along afterwards and saying to this unfortunate man: "You have now got to make your house fit again." My noble friends and I felt that, if an Amendment of this kind were inserted into the Bill, it would mean that the local authority would come along, have a look at the house and say in advance: "We do not think that it would be worth while making any repair to this house. It is too far gone." Then the man would get the value of his house from the National Coal Board as laid down in the Bill. That is what we are asking.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

Is there not a risk that the Bill may be doing something which is unfair if this provision is not inserted? I do not think that the owner should get more from the Coal Board than the result of the damage, but suppose that the result of the damage is to make a house tumble down—I am assuming that the house, before it tumbled down through subsidence, was fit for human habitation and in a condition where the local authority would not have served a notice.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWARNYSGOR

Yes.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If it were not, and if it were a house in respect of which the local authority could serve a notice upon the owner, obviously the Coal Board would not be responsible because that has nothing, to do with subsidence. But if the Coal Board cause the house to collapse, and the whole of the damage has been done by them, even though the house is old (and we know that an old house may be perfectly all right in ordinary times but may practically tumble down when the supports are removed—though, of course, if it is a well-built house, it may stand up pretty well) it seems to me that there may be a halfway position. No notice can be served by the local authority on the house as it stands, but then the Coal Board cause it to tumble down. The Coal Board agree that they should pay a lump sum in respect of that damage, but suppose the local authority come along and say they propose to serve on the owner a notice to do something in respect of which they could not have served a notice but for the damage caused by the Coal Board. It may be that the cost of complying with that notice is more than the compensation paid by the Coal Board. In such a case the man is clearly out of pocket, and all because the Coal Board have put him in a situation in which the local authority can make an order upon him.

I think that the position ought to be one of indemnity. Perhaps the noble Lord will look at this before the next stage of the Bill. Let the clause stand as it is. In nine cases out of ten, or in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, that will be perfectly all right; a fair amount of compensation is paid. But, where a local authority have served a notice, if the owner is able to establish (because the onus must be on him) that the new situation is entirely due to the action of the National Coal Board, then I think the Coal Board ought to indemnify him against the extra cost to which he is put. I think there is no difference between us here in principle of what ought to happen, but an injustice may occur if some such indemnity is not included in the Bill. I do not think the noble Lord can answer me now, but I think he ought to look at it between now and Report stage.

LORD MACDONALD GWAENYSGOR

Needless to say, any suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will always be fully con- sidered by myself. He knows that. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord. Lord Lloyd, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, agree that it is not intended by this Amendment to place the additional cost on the National Coal Board. In case we may have misunderstood each other, let me say this. I am advised that the housing authority can say only that a house should be repaired or demolished. That is all they can do. They cannot force the owner to do uneconomical repairs. They are limited in their powers. I am quite prepared to look at this between now and the next stage, but let it be clearly understood that I say that without any undertaking of any kind as regards this Amendment. I am hoping that the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

This Amendment will be withdrawn now. So be it. If the local authority can order a landlord to do only something which is economical, and if the local authority and the National Coal Board take the same view of what is uneconomical, well and good. The case cannot arise.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

No.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

As things stand, what really happens is that the Coal Board say, "Primarily, my obligation is to give you the money to keep the house, or indeed to repair the house, for you. As it would be uneconomical to repair that house, I will give you a sum of compensation in lieu." If that is an ordinary finding of everybody as to what is uneconomical, then I am perfectly content.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Yes.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

But if the local authority can come along later and say: "I do not care what the National Coal Board said, I do not think it is uneconomical," then I think we all agree that the owner is put in a bad position. If the noble Lord will look at it so that once and for all we can be sure that it is established, or may be established, whether or not a thing is uneconomical, and that that decision as to whether or not it is uneconomical will be equally binding on the owner, the Coal Board and the local authority, then the case cannot arise.

LORD LLOYD

May I add one thing? I will not press my Amendment. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has put his finger right on the point. What we are trying to do is to co-ordinate the activities of the local authority and the National Coal Board, and say merely that before the National Coal Board decide on a case like this they should agree with the local authority as to whether repairs are economical. If that is done the danger cannot arise. I am glad that the noble Lord will look at the point, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Notice of subsidence damage and repairs to be given to National Coal Board

5.(1) The National Coal Board shall not he required to carry out any repairs or to make any payment under this Act in respect of any subsidence damage to any dwelling-house to which this Act applies or any such part of a building as is mentioned in subsection (1) of section three of this Act, unless the owner of the dwelling-house or part of the building or any other person who is liable to make good the subsidence damage in whole or in part has given notice in writing to the Board of the occurrence of the damage in such manner, within such time, and containing such particulars, as may be prescribed, and has given to the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the premises, so far as he was in a position to give such facilities.

(2) The National Coal Board shall not be required to make any payment under this Act in respect of any repairs which have been carried out by any other person to any such dwelling-house or any such part of a building as aforesaid after the fist day of May, nineteen hundred and fifty, unless that person has given to the Board, not less than fourteen days before the repairs were commenced, notice in writing containing adequate particulars of the proposed repairs, and has given to the Board reasonable facilities to inspect the premises, so far as he was in a position to give such facilities:

5.0 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "time" to insert: not being less than three months after the occurrence of the damage,".

The noble Lord said: During the debate on this clause in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power indicated that in the regulations he proposed to provide a period of one month for interested parties to put forward their claims to the Coal Board. This Amendment has been set down to ensure that a period of not less than three months will he available in order to make a claim after the occurrence of damage. It is quite true that the Minister said that he would, in fact, discuss with the interested parties the extent of the regulations, and would provide, I think, for the receipt of late claims. I would point out that there is great objection to this proposed arrangement because any acceptance of such late claims would, clearly, be an act against which there could be no appeal by the claimants. I think this Amendment now has very much greater power than it might have had, as the Government in another place have put an Amendment into Clause 14 (1) of the Bill, the effect of which is that immediately upon giving a notice under this Act a claimant will he deemed to have elected to receive compensation under the Act instead of such compensation as he might have been entitled to under various deeds relating to his property. In many cases compensation under those deeds might be more advantageous to him.

The Committee are well aware that when land is bought or sold it is very necessary to examine most carefully the title deeds, and I think it is rarely that a period of less than six weeks is allowed for such investigation to take place. It may well be that in cases which may come up under this Bill a claimant may have to examine many deeds, perhaps many years old, which may give him a right to compensation, and it may be that the whereabouts of those deeds may not be known or is difficult to ascertain. We maintain that the period of one month is quite inadequate, and that a minimum period of three months is essential for a claimant to be able to state his claim adequately and to decide what he is going to do. I think he ought to have time to discuss whether the covenants relating to his property contained in his deeds are more beneficial to him, or whether he should opt for compensation under the Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 20, after ("time") insert ("not being less than three months after the occurrence of the damage").—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I think it will he agreed by all that it is necessary that the claimant should have ample time, but personally I hardly think he needs as long as three months for this purpose. It will be agreed that the earlier he reports the damage the sooner the damage will be tackled. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, spoke of a reference made by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. I can state now that the Minister has sent to the Associations of Local Authorities, the National Federation of Property Owners and the National Union of Mineworkers draft regulations which provide for a period of one month, with power to the Board or to the Minister to extend the period in any case in which it appears to them or him that there is a reasonable ground for the notice not being or not having been given within one month, or that the liabilities of the Board in respect of that damage have not been substantially increased by the notice not having been given within that time. He will review the draft regulations in the light of any observations which he may receive, and the regulations will, under Clause 15, be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament. We feel that the advantage of dealing with the matter by regulations is that if in practice the time prescribed is found to be too short or too long it can be altered without the passing of a further Act of Parliament. I think the noble Lord will find that in actual practice a month is adequate, and I hope he will not press his Amendment.

LORD TEYNHAM

I cannot say that I am very satisfied with the reply of the noble Lord. I am not quite clear on this point: If a claimant puts in his claim after one month, will he have the right of appeal?

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I think that if he puts his claim in after one month and satisfies the conditions I read out, it will not affect the question of appeal in any shape or form.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Might I put this point to the noble Lord? He said just now that ample time should be given. One month is not ample time; it is an absurdly short time. A person may well be away from his house at the beginning of the damage, which is sometimes very gradual and may not be immediately appreciated, nor may it be obvious that it is due to underground work. I say, with respect, that this time is extremely short.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I agree that one month is less than three months; there is no question about that. What I am saying, however, is that the provision made here—the formula sent out to the interested parties—shows a readiness to listen to observations and a readiness to accept something after the one month. I do not think we are confined to the one month in the strict sense that the noble Earl suggests.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I make a suggestion? I understand that the Minister's present proposal is a month, with power to extend it—not, I hope, to reduce it.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

No, not at all. There is no intention of doing that.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I ask that because the noble Lord said something about the time being too short or too long. He is also at present consulting a number of interested bodies as to what the period ought to be. Suppose my noble friend (I put no pressure upon him) decides that he will not press this Amendment to-day because we have not heard what the interested parties propose or what the Minister will do as a result of the observations he receives in reply. I think it fair to warn the noble Lord that his figure will have to go into the regulations and that, after hearing what all these property owners and the mineworkers think of it, if we consider that the Minister has been unreasonable and puts an unreasonably short notice into his regulations, he will run the risk of having those regulations prayed against and having to take them back. If a Prayer is moved in either House against the regulations because the time is thought to be unreasonable, it must not be said that we are in any way bound in that matter because this Amendment is not pressed to-day.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I would make only one further observation. There is a tendency amongst all of us, if there is a required length of time for giving notice, to wait until the end of that period. That would be disadvantageous in this case. That is why we think the shorter period is to be preferred. The tendency is to wait to the end before we give notice. A three months' delay can increase the damage. It is for that reason that we are not inclined to favour this extension.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think that is very reasonable. But the case put by my noble friend was this: Damage has happened to a man's house, but he is not sure whether he can get compensation out of the Coal Board under its statutory obligation or out of somebody else who is liable to him under contract or the title that he owns in his property. I know something about these things because I used to make a living out of them at one time. They are pretty complicated and lawyers take a long time to hunt out the deeds. Thinking aloud, I would not at all mind saying that if a man's property is damaged he ought to give notice about it in a reasonable time, and I should think a month is reasonable. But at the same time it may be reasonable that he should have more than a month to make up his mind as to whether he is going to pursue his claim against the Coal Board or against somebody else. It is worth thinking about.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

Yes, I agree.

LORD TEYNHAM

In view of what has been said by the noble Lord opposite, and by my noble friend Lord Swinton, I do not propose to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.10 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "May" and insert "October." The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the date by which persons must put forward their claims to the National Coal Board in respect of any repairs or decorations which have been carried out by them—that is, by the people owning the houses. We appreciate the intention of the clause, which is, of course, to prevent persons who are, possibly, dishonest and who may have carried out repairs and decorations as soon as the Bill was published, from making a claim for damage which they had had repaired and which was in no way due to subsidence. I think that is the point of the clause. I agree that it might be difficult for the Board to determine the validity or otherwise of the claim after repairs and decorations had been completed. Clearly there must bee a date by which notice must be given.

But I suggest that the date May I as set down in the Bill is unfair and does not give adequate time to persons affected. Is it really contended by His Majesty's Government that a person in humble circumstances should become aware of the contents of the Bill before it has become law? Surely they ought not to expect people to become acquainted with the contents of a Bill before it is passed through Parliament. That would be an extraordinary idea. This Amendment changes the date from May to October. I suggest that this short extension is necessary for people who may be claimants and that it would be unlikely to produce, any real difficulties for the Coal Board. It is nothing less than a measure of justice to the various people who may have claims arising under the Bill. I cannot understand why the date May I was inserted, for the Bill was published, I think, on April 5. It seems illogical to have in the Bill such a date as this which is neither the date of the introduction of the Bill nor the date upon which it may become an Act. I hope that His Majesty's Government will have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 28, leave out ("May") and insert ("October").—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has quite rightly appreciated the purpose of this clause. He used rather a strong term, "dishonest," in respect of possible claimants, but perhaps it was not too strong. We are aware that there may be some people in the country who, seeking to take advantage of what is provided in the Bill, will get something done to their houses at the earliest opportunity, have it covered up, and then make a claim against the National Coal Board at a time when it could not be ascertained what had been done and what was the cause of the alleged damage. I agree with the noble Lord in what he has said about the effect of this clause. It is certainly most desirable that people should be fully aware of the Bill and its contents in sufficient time, and may I say quite frankly that I think a big effort has been made to let people know of its contents. Press notices were issued on publication of the Bill on April 6, and immediately after the Second Reading debate in another place on April 25—which was immediately before the operative date, May 1. Special attention was called on each occasion to the importance of the date. Good publicity was given in fifty national and local newspapers and six technical journals. There were also two B.B.C. broadcasts.

There is evidence that the information has got around wonderfully well. As far back as May 23, no fewer than 487 notices under the subsection had been given and notices have been coming in to the Coal Board ever since. I tried to-day to ascertain the number received up to date. It is a substantial increase on the figure of 487, but I am unable to give the exact total. Under the subsection the Board have discretion to make payments, even if a claimant has not fully complied with the provisions. I agree that the date, May 1, should come out of the Bill and it will. A later date will be inserted. I hope that I shall not be pressed on this point today, because I should not like to say now what that date will be. It will be later than June 1, but we prefer to give the date at a later stage. At the moment there is a little uncertainty about it. I undertake that the date will be given in your Lordships' House.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am very glad that the noble Lord has said that. A big question of principle is raised here. I am sure that every effort is being made to publicise the contents of the Bill, but it is unheard of to say that some obligation shall be put upon people before an Act is passed. It is this measure which is the authority which gives a man a right to make his claim and it is also the authority which imposes upon the Board the duty of paying him. Whatever anyone may do, until the measure is an Act of Parliament there ought not to be an obligation on the persons affected. I think that, on principle, a date must be inserted here which is not earlier than the date of the passing of the Act, because there is no authority to give the notice or to do anything else until then. What date after the passing of the Act would be reasonable I do not know. I agree that as much publicity as possible has been given and the date which is substituted for May 1 by the Government might well be fairly soon after the passing of the Act: but that it should be after the passing of the Act I am certain.

LORD TEYNHAM

Do I understand that the Government will at the Report stage put forward an Amendment in accordance with what Lord Macdonald has said?

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

That is correct.

LORD TEYNHAM

Then in view of the explanation given by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6:

Powers of National Coal Board in cases where further damage is likely

6.—(l) Where subsidence damage has occurred on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, to any dwelling-house to which this Act applies or any building comprising such a dwelling-house, and it appears to the National Coal Board that further subsidence damage may occur to that dwelling-house or building, they may give notice in writing to the owner of the dwelling-house or building to the following effect—

1. (a) if the notice relates to a dwelling-house, that the Board will not carry out any repairs to the dwelling-house while the notice is in force, other than works urgently required in consequence of the subsidence damage or works reasonably required for temporarily meeting the circumstances created by that damage, or make any payment in respect of repairs carried out to the dwelling-house while the notice is in force, other than such works as aforesaid;
2. (b) if the notice relates to any such building as aforesaid, that the Board will not make any payment in respect of repairs carried out thereto while the notice is in force, other than such works as aforesaid;

and the obligations of the Board under the preceding provisions of this Act shall be subject to the terms of the notice.

(2) It shall be the duty of the National Coal Board, as soon as permanent repairs to the dwelling-house or building can properly be carried out, to revoke any notice given by them under this section, and if, on the application of any person aggrieved by a failure of the Board to revoke the notice, a county court is satisfied that no further subsidence damage is likely to occur to the dwelling-house or building, the county court may by order revoke the notice.

5.17 p.m.

LORD LLOYD moved in subsection (1) after "appears" to insert "probable." The noble Lord said: I can deal briefly with the two Amendments which stand in my name, because I have had notice from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, that the Government agree to them both in principle. If I may, I will deal with them together because the first is consequential on the second. Their object briefly is this. As the Bill stands, if the National Coal Board think that there may at some indefinite date in future he a further subsidence after damage has already been caused by a subsidence, they may, in effect, do nothing but patchwork repairs to that house, note or less indefinitely. The object of the Amendments is to define the point which is involved a little more closely, and to say that unless it appears that there will be subsidence in the reasonably near future proper repairs shall be carried out. That is, I understand, in principle acceptable to the Government, though I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is quite happy about the wording. For the reason which I have given, I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 45, after ("appears") insert ("probable".—(Lord Lloyd.)

LORD MACDONALD or GWAENYSGOR

Tie noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, is quite right he and I have discussed this matter and the Government accept his Amendments in principle. It is felt, however, that it is desirable that there should be one or two small alterations in the wording. I think we might dispose of that point now rather than leave it for a later stage. As a matter of drafting, we think that the second Amendment, instead of reading as it now does on the Marshalled List, should read: within such period as would make it unreasonable that repairs other than the works hereinafter mentioned should he carried out to that dwelling-house or building. It would also be necessary to have a further consequential Amendment on page 6, line 1, to substitute "will" for "may." With these slight changes in the wording I am prepared to accept these Amendments.

LORD LLOYD

I am perfectly willing to accept the wording which the noble Lord has suggested; I think it is better than mine.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLOYD

I beg to move the following manuscript Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("will").—(Lord Lloyd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LLOYD

I beg to move the following Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 2, after ("building") insert ("within such period as would make it unreasonable that repairs other than the works hereinafter mentioned should be carried out to that dwelling-house or building,").—(Lord Lloyd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

This Amendment carries out an undertaking given in another place, well understood by noble Lords.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 22, leave out from ("and") to the end of line 26 and insert ("any person aggrieved by a failure of the Board to revoke the notice may apply to a county court and, if it appears to the county court in all the circumstances to be reasonable to do so, it may by order revoke the notice").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

5.21 p.m.

LORD HAWKE moved, after Clause 8, to insert the following new clause:

Provisions as to existing tenancies

". The tenant of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies who is occupying such dwelling-house under or by virtue of a tenancy agreement made before the passing of this Act shall not without the consent in writing of the owner thereof make any change in the use thereof or of part thereof or any structural alterations thereto tie effect of which would be that after such change of use or structural alteration such dwelling-house would no longer be a dwelling-house to which this Act applies, and every lease or tenancy of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies entered into before the passing of this Act shall be deemed for all purposes to be subject to a covenant on the pat of the tenant not without such consent to make such change of use or structural alteration."

The noble Lord said: By reason of the £32 rateable value limit in the Bill the owner of a house is put at some hazard. Against whomsoever he may have had a claim before, he now has a claim against the National Coal Board if his house continues to be rated at £32 or less. He might have let his house to a tenant with or without such covenants as would prevent the tenant making such alterations in his premises as to attract a valuation of more than £32. If the tenant by chance is legally able to do such things to the house as will attract such a valuation and the house subsequently suffers subsidence, so far as I can see it means that the owner has been deprived of his opportunity of obtaining compensation from the National Coal Board. For that reason I propose to insert this new clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hawke.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I can well understand the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, but I would emphasise that none of the present rights of a landlord is affected in any way by this Bill. Whatever they are, he continues to enjoy them. A house of a rateable value which does not exceed £32 in England and Wales and £52 in Scotland is covered by the Bill. Whatever the contract between landlord and tenant on the question of structural alterations which affect the valuation of the building, if a tenant decides to build a garage or greenhouse and thereby the valuation exceeds £32, the landlord ceases to be covered by the Bill. The relationship of landlord and tenant is something outside this Bill. The landlord may consider that because of the passing of legislation something might happen to endanger his interests, and he may approach his tenant and tell him that, since the Bill had been passed, if he were to add to the building the house might go outside the limit and the landlord would be unable to make a claim. The landlord is free to do that. But to introduce something in the Bill which would enable landlords to deal with their tenants in a manner different from that laid down in their contract would be misplaced. The Bill does not affect the rights of the landlord in any shape or form. If he wants a tenant to look at his contract again, very well; but I could not possibly accept an Amendment to cover the case put forward by the noble Lord.

LORD HAWKE

I take it that the noble Lord's reason for refusing the Amendment is purely that he thinks the relationship between landlord and tenant should not find its place in the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill. He agrees that there is a hazard which is not covered. I see the force of his arguments, and in the circumstances I must clearly take expert advice on what is the correct procedure. Therefore, I do not propose to press this clause at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

LORD O'HAGAN moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause:

Contributions towards expenses of claim

". The National Coal Board may make such payments as may be prescribed by way of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by any person in substantiating a claim under this Act."

The noble Lord said: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, would agree that this Amendment is strictly germane to the Bill. It is obvious that in making a claim an individual will be put to considerable expense. No doubt he will have to employ a surveyor and obtain advice on the extent, nature and maybe costs of the damage. There may also be expense involved in employing a solicitor to go into the legal question of titles. Your Lordships will remember that the War Damage Commission agreed to pay surveyors' and architects' fees where a payment of cost of works was made, and the Central Land Board also made contributions towards surveyor's fees where a surveyor's certificate of the valuation was required in making a claim under Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I think I am right in saying that these are precedents for the suggestion made in the clause which I have the honour of moving. I think it would be agreed that this is a reasonable thing to ask. The National Coal Board should be prepared to meet these expenses under the regulations that would have to be made by the Minister in carrying out the suggestion in this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 14 insert the said new clause.—(Lord O'Hagan.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I am sympathetic to this Amendment, but I would point out that all expenses likely to be incurred are covered in the Bill in its present form. The noble Lord has been good enough to put his Amendment down in permissive terms, which makes it much easier for me to accept it; but in accepting it I must emphasise its permissive character. The Minister would be under no obligation to make such payments and I may say that at the moment he has no intention of making regulations. I am prepared to accept the Amendment with one or two small drafting alterations which I should like to read to the noble Lord. The Amendment as altered would read: The National Coal Board may make such payments as may be prescribed by way of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by any person for the purpose of securing the carrying-out of their obligations by the Board. It is an alteration of only one or two words, and the meaning is the same. On that understanding, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

LORD O'HAGAN

I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my original Amendment and to move it in its revised form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved—

Insert the following new clause—

Contributions towards expenses of claim

(". The National Coal Board may make such payments as may be prescribed by way of reimbursement of the expenses incurred by any person for the purpose of securing the carrying out of their obligations by the Board.")—(Lord O'Hagan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule [Determination of amount of depreciation and recipients of payments]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

The two Amendments to the Schedule are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 23, leave out ("or").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 13 line 23, after ("(2)") insert ("or subsection (4)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

House resumed.