Lords Sitting of 20 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  LORD CLITHEROE
  The Right Honourable Ralph Assheton, having been created Baron Clitheroe, of Downham in the County Palatine of Lancaster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
  Several Lords—Took the Oath.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a.
CROSBY CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES
2.49 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when, in view of the statement made in this House on February 2, they will definitely be in a position to correct the disparity between the complete diplomatic immunities accorded in this country to the staffs of Soviet Russia and the satellite countries, on the one hand, and, on the other, the severely restricted immunities granted by those countries to British personnel.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): The noble Lord will have seen the text of the Bill which has now been introduced to enable Her Majesty's Government to apply the principle of reciprocity in regard to the personal immunities enjoyed by members of the staff of diplomatic missions in this country.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. My Question had, of course, been put down before the Bill was announced. I am very glad to hear that the disparity is in a fair way of being corrected.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, inasmuch as this Question is not generally concerned with diplomatic immunity but deals with the Soviet Union, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he does not consider that its timing is rather unfortunate and might do harm?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, this Bill has been "on the stocks" for some time and the noble Viscount is quite wrong in directing it in any particular direction. It is perfectly general in its terms and gives power to Her Majesty's Government to withhold or withdraw diplomatic immunity from representatives of those countries which do not extend adequate immunity to our representatives in those countries. It is perfectly general in its application.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I was making no complaint at all about the Answer of the noble Marquess, but was permitting myself to make the observation that the Question seemed ill-timed at this hopeful moment.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, with respect to the noble Viscount, I do not accept that suggestion in the least. The House has in the past expressed itself fairly strongly on this question of immunities, and especially in the past few weeks. Now, after some inevitable delay, due largely to the Election, the Bill has come forward, and I should have thought that noble Lords would welcome it rather than complain of the moment of its introduction.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, for myself I hope that Her Majesty's Government are keeping an open mind on the whole question of diplomatic immunities, which must be discussed from a wider point of view in the near future.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I have of course observed the Motion standing in the name of the noble and learned Earl on the Order Paper.

ARGENTINA AND THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
2.54 p.m.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Falkland Islands are designated as a new province of Argentina in a Bill passed by the Argentine Senate on 15th June, and whether the Government contemplate any action in regard to this matter.]
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, an Argentine Law was promulgated on August 25, 1954, which gave to certain parts of the Argentine Republic together with what were described as "the Antarctic sector and the Islands of the South Atlantic" the status of "National Territories." Her Majesty's Government protested against that Law at the time. The Bill to which the noble Lord refers raises such "National Territories" to the status of provinces. It has now become law. The Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islands Dependencies are not specifically designated in the new Law, but are implicitly included in one of these provinces under the heading of "the islands of the South Atlantic and the Argentine Antarctic Sector." A protest against the Law, so far as it purports to cover the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islands Dependencies, was delivered to the Argentine Government by Her Majesty's Ambassador on July 12.
LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his reply. I am glad that the impertinence has not altogether been disregarded.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, have Her Majesty's Government offered to submit the whole matter to the International Court, where questions of this sort ought to be decided, and is that offer still open?
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, one has to distinguish the two territories. We have never agreed that there was any possible controversy about our title to the Falkland Islands themselves. As regards the Falkland Islands Dependencies, we have submitted a case to the International Court at The Hague and have invited the Argentine and Chilean
910
Governments (who are not under any compulsion to submit to this jurisdiction) voluntarily to place themselves within the jurisdiction in order that this vexed matter may be decided. That offer is still open and neither of those two Governments has yet either accepted or rejected our invitation.

MALTA ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Malta Round Table Conference will be assisted by the addition of one or more authorities on constitutional law and practice sitting as members, and whether the Maltese representatives to be called into consultation will have the advice of any such authorities before submitting their views.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, a statement regarding membership of the Round Table Conference will be made as soon as consultations through the usual channels are completed. Her Majesty's Government assume that representatives of the political Parties in the Maltese Legislative Assembly to be called into consultation will make their own arrangements for obtaining any advice on constitutional law and practice that they may require.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether he can at least give an assurance that the possibility of similar claims arising from other Colonies in like case to Malta will be clearly placed before the Conference before they commit themselves to any recommendation, whether by constitutional advice or otherwise?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am sure that the Conference, which is obviously aware of all matters which might arise, will consider what the noble Lord has said.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
STROMNESS HARBOUR (GUARANTEE) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD) BILL
House in Committee on Recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): an Amendment (privilege) made. Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

COUNTY COURTS BILL
3.0 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is substantially the same as that which your Lordships' House considered and passed towards the end of the last Parliament, and I am confident, therefore, that your Lordships will not
912
wish me to repeat the general arguments for the Bill which I advanced on that occasion. But it may be convenient if I point out, quite briefly, the main points of the Bill. The principal object of the Bill is to increase the jurisdiction of the county courts in actions of contract and tort from £200 to £400 and to make corresponding increases in other jurisdictions. At the same time, the Bill strengthens the economic sanctions, which, by depriving a plaintiff of all or some of his costs, will encourage him to start proceedings in the county court rather than in the High Court, whenever it is possible for him so to do. In addition, in order to ensure that the county courts will be able to deal with the increase of work which is likely to result, the Bill increases the maximum authorised number of county court judges, and gives power to make rules to extend the jurisdiction of registrars. It also provides for an appeal on fact in cases, broadly speaking, coming between the old £200 and the new £400 limit of jurisdiction.
There is one other aspect of the Bill with which I ought to take up a few moments of your Lordships' time. I refer to the changes which it has undergone since it was considered by your Lordships' House in the last Parliament, both before its introduction in another place and during the course of its passage there. The first point is one which has, not very euphoniously, but conveniently, been called the "cushion." There has been introduced into the costs sanctions, which Clause 1 (2) of the Bill strengthens by an amendment to Section 47 of the County Courts Act, 1934, what has come to be known by the name I have just mentioned. Under the Bill as originally drafted, a plaintiff who started an action in the High Court which he could have started in the county court and who recovered less than £400 would have been entitled only to county court costs. The effect of the "cushion" now in the Bill is that this particular sanction, which deprives the plaintiff of High Court costs, will come into operation only if he recovers less than £300 in the High Court.
Your Lordships may remember that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and Lord Silkin were in favour of an Amendment moved by the noble and learned Earl with the very object of introducing a "cushion" in the costs sanctions. That Amendment was not accepted by the

913
Government for the reason that we were afraid that it might prevent a number of actions from being brought in the county court, and the object of the Bill is to increase the number of actions brought there. Instead of a "cushion" I introduced a provision, which was accepted by your Lordships' House, which provided that where a High Court Judge was satisfied that the plaintiff bringing proceedings in the High Court had reasonable grounds for thinking that he would have recovered more than a county court could have awarded, the costs sanctions would not apply at all. It was strongly urged in another place and by the representatives of both branches of the profession that, despite this saving provision of mine, a "cushion" was needed in the interests both of the litigant and of his legal advisers, who in actions of tort, it was said, particularly claims arising from personal injuries caused by motor cars and from accidents in factories, would find it difficult to estimate with any accuracy the amount recoverable by the plaintiff. I hope your Lordships will agree that the margin of £100 now provided by Clause 1 (2) (a) is fully adequate to meet this difficulty.
I have no more reluctance than the next man about dying in the last ditch, but when I find that on this point the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, the Chairman of the Bar Council, the President of the Law Society, all the legal members who spoke in the House of Commons and The Times newspaper considered that the provision suggested by me was not sufficient, it did not need the somewhat emphatic language of the late Lord Protector Cromwell to persuade me that there was another point of view besides that which I had taken.
The only other point I would mention to your Lordships is that in Clause 5 there is power to transfer to the High Court any case where, in the course of the proceedings, it appears that the action is suitable for the High Court because the plaintiff might, and probably would, gain a greater amount of damages than that recoverable in the county court. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is in his place, and may I hope that this will do something to meet the point which he urged with such clarity and eloquence in various stages of the Bill in the last
914
Parliament. There is another small alteration with regard to probate proceedings, which makes the test the net value of the estate. The result of this will be that if there are considerable debts in an estate, or there is house properly with a big mortgage, that will not prevent the matter from being considered in the county court.
May I also refer your Lordships to the alteration in Clause 9 of the Bill which was made before its introduction into another place. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, thought I had not allowed a sufficient increase in the number of county court judges by increasing them from 65 to 75. With that easy assumption of the mantle of Elijah, which, if he will allow me to say so, suits the noble and learned Earl so well, he suggested at one stage of the Bill that I might be able to settle for an additional five judges, bringing the number up to eighty. He will see that the Bill now does so. I thank him for his consideration in the earlier stages.
My Lords, I hope that I have dealt with the Bill at sufficient length to indicate the points of change. Its original main function still remains, and that is that more cases should be brought in the county court, which we believe will give speedier determination of differences between Her Majesty's lieges and also allow that determination of their differences to take place at less expense. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.10 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I have no desire to travel again over the ground which we explored pretty fully before the Election when this Bill was introduced into this House. And, indeed, we all want to get on to the next subject of discussion, to be raised by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Derby. We are anxious to hear what he says about "subsidence" or "subsidence," and particularly to learn how he pronounces that word. I will therefore content myself by being very brief. I venture to suggest to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, however, that the proceedings on this Bill indicate a useful lesson for him which I hope he will learn. The lesson is this: how ready he should

915
be to accept Amendments when they are moved by the Opposition. I often wonder whether we, as an Opposition, are performing any, and if so precisely what, useful function in opposing at all. It is obvious that whatever reforms may be made in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said, inevitably there will always be a big majority for the Tory Party over the Opposition; but the correlative of that is that the Government must always be anxious to meet the Opposition on those occasions, if any, when the Opposition are being thoroughly reasonable. And any Amendments I move are always thoroughly reasonable.
What is the position? The first big question was whether we should have what we call a "cushion." I moved an Amendment that there ought to be a "cushion" of £300. I am not going to explain it all again, because that will take too long and it is too boring. What did the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor say? He smiled sweetly, beamed at me, as he always does, and said that he would consider it—which is a modest way of saying that he is not going to do it. And he did not do it. Then I asked him about the number of judges. I asked whether he was quite sure that he had enough—I think he had only seventy-five. I moved an Amendment to make the number eighty-five, and, knowing full well, having occupied the noble and learned Viscount's office, that the real difficulty would be the Treasury, because the Treasury is the real dictator of this country, I suggested that he had better try to compromise with the Treasury for eighty. Again he smiled sweetly; and did not accept my Amendment. Then my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch moved an Amendment of most cogent reason, but again he got nothing for his trouble. All those proceedings turned out to be abortive.
Then the General Election came and the Bill had to start its life all over again in another place. What happened when it came before the other place? The noble and learned Viscount heard the opinion of The Times and the President of the Law Society and then realised that what I had said had a great deal of sense behind it; and although he did not accept the precise language of my Amendments, he accepted the substance of the Amend-
916
ments which he had turned down in this House. When we come to the number of judges, what do we find? We find now that the number which the Lord Chancellor may appoint is 80—the very number for which I told him he had better settle. As for my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch, though he has not got by any means what he wanted or asked for, he has had a real and generous concession. As I said before, I congratulate the noble and learned Viscount on having seen the light. I regret that it required The Times newspaper and not the Leader of the Opposition in this House to tell him what the light was, and I sincerely hope that in future on all these Bills the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will go out of his way to meet the suggestions which the Opposition of this House may make to him.
3.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has some justification for claiming that his Amendments have proved in the long run to be successful. Possibly he was depreciating himself too far when he suggested that the ultimate victory was not his own but that of the President of the Law Society and of The Times, because it may well be that he will be able to say in future that what the Leader of the Opposition in this House says to-day, the President of the Law Society and The Times will follow by saying to-morrow. But I think he is entitled at any rate to the degree of self-congratulation which he permitted himself on this occasion.
I hope, however, that I shall not be thought presumptuous if I enter what might be described as a cautionary note about any further legislation of this character. This Bill, of course, is assured of a place on the Statute Book. It follows the recommendations of a Committee, and now that it has satisfied the requirements of the two branches of the profession I think it may be said to be non-controversial. But speaking for myself, I hope it is the last of the series of Acts enlarging the jurisdiction of the county courts which I shall see in my lifetime. It has gone a very long way since I first went to the Bar rather more than twenty years ago, and though, on the whole, it has justified itself, I think any further advance would be a step in the wrong direction. May I briefly indicate to my noble

917
and learned friend on the Woolsack and the House why I think that may be so?
The system of law in this country which has commanded the respect and admiration of a large portion of the civilised world has depended on a number of practical factors to a greater extent than is generally recognised. In the first place, I believe it has depended on the separation of the two branches of the profession. In the second place, it has depended on a Judiciary centred upon London, going out to the Provinces but with frequent opportunities of consulting together and with a close sense corporate unity. I do not believe that English jurisprudence would have reached its present state of perfection without both of these factors being operative. It cannot be doubted that the general extension of county court jurisdiction in practice has weakened both those factors in our jurisprudence. It would be utterly wrong that I should utter a word, a syllable, of criticism of the splendid body of judges we have in our county court judges, but the fact remains that they are spread out over the country, resident largely in their own areas, and they have not the same opportunity for consultation as High Court Judges have and they do not represent the same close corporate tradition as do the High Court Judges. Therefore they tend, to some extent, as I think they will be the first to recognise, to develop each in his own separate area different traditions of administration and a not altogether uniform system of justice.
One quite recognises that they have done justice and that their work has been recognised. The proof of the excellence of the justice they dispense is the long series of laws which we have passed extending their jurisdiction. But, speaking for myself, I think the process has gone far enough, and that any further development of county court jurisdiction would tend to weak en the separation of the two professions. I think it would tend to weaken the traditions of our Judiciary. I am not sure, despite the noble and learned Earl's advocacy of a larger number of judges, that there can be found in the legal profession very many more judges than we are providing at the moment without a diminution in the standard provided. I believe that there has of late proved to be a tendency on the part of the High Court and of those re-
918
sponsible for its jurisdiction to hand over their work to somebody else and call that expediting the business of the High Court. While giving every support to the legislation which is now before the House, I trust that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will seriously consider whether the process has not probably gone far enough.
I respectfully believe that cheap justice is not necessarily the best justice. The lowering of costs which undoubtedly follows the county court procedure does not always lead to the same certainty of result, and in the long run a judicial system is likely to be judged, not entirely by its cheapness or even by its expedition, but by the certainty and reliability of the results which it produces. Therefore, while there is no doubt that this measure will find its place upon the Statute Book, I hope it will be a long time before it is followed by any others in the same sense.
3.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of my noble and learned friend who leads the Opposition. Like him, I have sometimes wondered what was the purpose of the Opposition; but to-day it looks as if occasionally an Opposition does serve a useful purpose, even though it needs to be bolstered up 'by such outside bodies as The Times newspaper, the President of the Law Society and the President of the Bar Council. Nevertheless, this is a better Bill because of the efforts of the Opposition, and, as such, we on this side of the House welcome it; and I welcome in particular every one of the Amendments which has been incorporated in the new Bill.
There are only two things I want to say about it, and the first is on the number of judges. I know that my noble and learned friend was prepared to settle for 80; that was the best he could do, and it was a reasonable compromise. But I still wonder why it is necessary to limit oneself to a specific number of judges. Surely, the right number of judges is the number that eventually turns out to be necessary. This is, to a considerable extent, a leap in the dark, and one cannot calculate by a process of arithmetic the exact number of judges that will be necessary. Surely it would have been wiser to empower the Lord Chancellor

919
to appoint judges by Order in Council, so that he would have to make a case for each one, but could do it without the necessity of legislation. This point is emphasised by the fact that there is provision in this Bill for increasing the jurisdiction of county courts from £400 to £500 by an Order in Council. I presume that the number of 80 has been settled on the basis of a jurisdiction up to £400. What happens if it is decided to increase the jurisdiction to £500 and there are not enough judges? It will mean that there will have to be legislation to appoint additional judges, although the increase in the jurisdiction can be carried out merely by an Order in Council. I should have thought it would be wiser to be able to do the two—to increase the jurisdiction and increase the number of judges—by Order in Council.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has raised, as he always does, a number of interesting points. Taking a small point first, I understand he doubts whether there are a sufficient number of people of quality available to become county court judges.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If the number were increased.
LORD SILKIN: Yes. That is bound to be a matter of opinion—and I concede at once that the noble and learned Viscount, from his point of view, has possibly as good opportunities of judging as, if not better than, I have. Nevertheless, I should have thought that it was largely a question of remuneration. As I have said on a number of occasions, the remuneration of county court judges is hopelessly inadequate. I believe that if they were paid a reasonable remuneration, having regard to their responsibilities, there would be no difficulty in getting judges of the right quality. I think that the general quality of the average barrister is high. It is an unfortunate profession, in that there are so many casualties before the young barristers can get on to their feet; in many cases they are compelled to leave the Bar and take other occupations because of the long time that elapses before they can make their livelihood at the Bar. But the quality is there, and I believe that if they could look forward in increasing numbers to county court
920
judgeships and to stipendiary magistracies at a reasonable remuneration, we should get more barristers remaining at the Bar, and we should certainly get the right kind of quality.
I would join issue with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on the question as to whether this should be the last extension of the jurisdiction of the county court. The case for this extension is largely the difference in the value of money: £400 to-day is the equivalent of £200 before the war. Little, if anything, has been done in reality to enlarge the jurisdiction, because when we talk of £2 to-day we are talking of what was £1 before the war. I see every advantage in increasing the jurisdiction. It is an immense benefit to people to have their court locally; and if this is coupled with legal aid, as I gather it is going to be, then the question of cost does not arise: people will be assisted in the county court, as in the High Court, and I hope that we shall get as good justice there and that the county courts will be able to build up a good tradition just as is done in the High Court. I should like to see county court cases reported more freely and regarded, not necessarily as precedents which are binding on other courts, but, at any rate, as cases to be quoted, so gradually building up a tradition of quasi-Case Law (if I may so call it) which can be quoted as between one county court and another. If that were possible, I believe it would go some way towards meeting the criticism of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
One thing we must do, and that is make the county courts work, because, by and large, they are the courts to which the vast majority of litigants have to go. We must make quite sure that they not only get justice, but believe they are getting justice, and that they get it in the environment and with all the dignity and proper majesty of the law. For that purpose, I think we must maintain the quality of the Bench; we must ensure that there is no unreasonable delay, and we must, so far as possible, make the records accessible to everybody, regardless of whether they can afford to pay the costs or not. I should like to say a word or two about delay, because it is the justification for making quite sure that we have an adequate supply of judges. Fortunately, I do not practise very strenuously to-day, but I have been

921
a practitioner, and I shudder when I calculate the number of days of my life that I have spent in the county courts waiting for cases to come on which never matured but which were adjourned for a month. I must have spent a considerable part of my life hanging around the county courts, and I have no doubt other noble Lords sitting here to-day have had the same experience. It is a shocking waste of time. That applies not only to barristers and solicitors, but to litigants and their witnesses, including doctors and all kinds of technical people. The aggregate amount of time wasted in the county court is really shocking. This is a matter which ought to be taken seriously, and in order to ensure that there is no unreasonable delay and, even more, waste of time, we ought not to be grudging about the number of judges, especially when we are increasing the jurisdiction.
One of the great advantages of the county court—there are many—is that you are given a fixed date and a fixed time when your case is supposed to come on. I should not like to talk in percentages, but my own experience, which goes back for some time now, is that it was a fifty-fifty chance whether your case came on at all on the day for which it was fixed. It was an even chance whether it came on, and there was less than an even chance whether it would be completed on the day. Quite often it would be part heard and you would have to come back some considerable time later when you had forgotten what the case was all about, and you had to refresh your memory again. So, even at this late stage, I would plead with the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack to make quite sure that we do not run these risks merely for the sake of restricting the number of judges to an inadequate figure. I would ask him once more, as I have on a number of occasions, to see what can be done to give the judges an adequate remuneration, so that we get the right quality of judge and enhance the traditions of justice which have existed in the county courts and which we want to maintain in view of the increased jurisdiction.
3.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I
922
want to say only a few words on the more general points that have been raised. The same answer really applies to the criticism of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, of my reluctance to accept the "cushion," and the most important point which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has raised. I felt that it was essential to have a procedure which would ensure that a considerable number of actions were brought in the county court. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham fairly said—and I make no comment about his argument at all—this is the result of two Committees which have made inquiries into two subjects: the service which the administration of justice is giving to the country, and the expense to which the people of the country are put. They came to the conclusion—and I agree with them—that a number of actions ought to be commenced in, the county court which, at the present time, are being commenced in the High Court.
I believe, broadly, despite the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to which I will come in a moment, that the Bill will have two results—one, a speedier determination of cases, and, secondly, that cases will be tried much more cheaply. I think there was a danger—we saw it a year or two ago—of delays in the disposal of cases in the High Court amounting to an injustice. I do not think we ought to contemplate with equanimity there being 2,000 cases to be tried with an average of nearly a year between setting down and trial. These are things we ought to deal with. The position is better to-day, and I was prepared, as I have shown by Amendments made to this Bill, to consider the matter in the light of that improvement. But I thought it was necessary to have more cases tried in the county court or else these intolerable delays would continue.
I thought that the difficulty that was raised about estimating how much damages could be recovered could be met by giving a discretion. As I said in my opening speech, the majority in the professions take a different view. I want this Bill to work. I want it especially to work when we introduce legal aid into the county courts. For that reason I have accepted the general view—and the noble and learned Earl knows that I am the last person in the world to mind having one of my Amendments slightly elongated

923
when I have changed my mind. On the main point I thought it was necessary that there should be an alteration in the jurisdiction in the interests of cheapness and expedition, and by that I stand.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the increase in the number of judges to which I have agreed has been carefully considered taking into account a possible increase of jurisdiction to £500. I think we should be able to meet the situation which he fears. I think he and I are in the happy position of now being damnatores instead of laudatores temporis acti, because there is improvement, I am told, from the time that he and I remember. The delays were partly because of the Rent Acts cases, which he will remember used to take up a lot of time in the morning, making it difficult for the judge to estimate when he would reach his ordinary cases in the afternoon. There are not so many of these now, and I think the noble and learned Earl will agree with me that the office over which he presided, and which I have the honour to preside over now, has tried by administrative arrangements to improve the chances of judges' arranging their lists so as to avoid that waiting time which, I agree, used certainly to exist in the days twenty to thirty years ago which he and I remember very well.
Apart from that, on the general point which the noble and learned Earl raised, I want to express our gratitude to the Opposition for their suggestions. I do not think anyone who heard or read my speeches would have any doubt as to the view that I hold. But it is essential on matters of this kind which have no Party political content, and are an attempt by the House as a whole to fit legislation to the needs of those of the people whose convenience has to be served, that Governments should have an open mind as to suggestions that are made to them. This Government has shown an open mind. I am sure the result will merely be, as is usually the case when people have shown an open mind, that we shall be criticised by those who take one view because we did not adopt it early enough, and criticised by others who take a different view because we adopted it at any time at all. The real instinct for legislation in this country lies in the fact that we have always sought, and generally
924
succeeded, on matters of this kind to get not only our highest common factor of agreement, but something which will fit the working conditions of the people we as a legislative body try to serve. I think we have arrived at that result in this case, and without any reserve I express my gratitude to noble Lords on both sides of the House who have contributed to it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MINING SUBSIDENCE
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the effect of mining subsidence—on mature consideration, I have decided to adopt that pronunciation—on buildings in inhabited areas; and to move for Papers. This is not the first occasion on which I have addressed your Lordships' House, but it is the first time that I have had the temerity to initiate a debate. I ask for the indulgence which your Lordships invariably are generous enough to extend to inexperience.
This is not a Party question, it is a question of justice and of humanity; for what is happening to-day in the areas of England affected by subsidence due to mining is quite shocking. I do not attack the Coal Board. I have found their officials considerate and courteous; but the Board are bound by their statutory mandate. They must work and get the coal in Great Britain in such a way as to secure the efficient development of the coal-mining industry, and presumably in doing so they must do what the law permits: so much, no less and no more. It is the existing law which, as I shall submit, needs modification. In one sense, the problem is an old one. It has been before Parliament at least since the year 1923, when a Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence was appointed, though in the result no action was taken. Fresher in memory is the Turner Report, presented to Parliament in 1949 and reprinted in 1954. Doubtless many of your Lordships will be familiar with it. I shall have occasion, in the course of my speech, to quote from that Report and to say something about it in general terms.

925
A small Act, the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Act, was passed by Parliament in 1950, giving a statutory right to the owners of small houses with a rateable value of not more than £32 to have their houses repaired at the expense of the Coal Board when damage was done by subsidence. That was, however, a very inadequate measure, and its inadequacy was criticised at the time on the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House. It was something, but it eased the problem only for a particular section of the community; and it may even be that, when the new rating valuation comes into force next year many who are now enjoying the benefits, such as they are, of the Act of 1950 will do so no longer.
I have said that in the areas affected by the full impact of subsidence the results are appalling; and indeed they are. I do not think that any of your Lordships who does not live in a mining area would really believe what is happening unless for some reason he happened to go and see it. In a previous debate in this House, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, justly said that the average person in this country who lives outside these areas would hardly believe his eyes if he saw some of the effects of this subsidence on the homes of the people. In another place, not long ago, it was stated by the Minister of Fuel and Power, in reply to a Question that the number of houses damaged, according to the 1954 figures, was over 12,000. That would, I take it, be the equivalent of the results of a couple of major air raids, not with hydrogen bombs but with the kind of bomb that was used in the last war. I myself have seen whole streets in which no single house has been left undamaged.
There is a parish in Derbyshire in which we were advised that in a whole township there was no single house that could be regarded as secure. A church had to be abandoned and pulled down; the vicarage had to be abandoned and what was left of it had to be sold to the Coal Board. A Wesleyan chapel in the same area has had to be pulled down. The public library is strutted up with wooden supports and is partly unusable. A large secondary school in a similar state has more than once had to be closed as unsafe for a week at a time, and I am told that the events al decision is likely to be to abandon the whole building and build another school elsewhere, towards
926
which the sum of £50,000, offered by the Coal Board as the cost of restoring the existing school, would be only a first instalment of the eventual bill. In another area a local councillor has publicly stated that they had literally hundreds of bursts in their water and sewerage services. On one occasion, when the water taps were turned on gas came out: both the gas and water mains had been fractured by subsidence and somehow they had become mixed up. In a recent report the consulting engineer stated that 220,000 gallons of water were running to waste every day in the sewers. In the first area that I mentioned, that of Swadlincote, notoriously a bad area from this point of view, it is stated that the temporary repair of public buildings is costing the urban district council £7,000 a year as an addition to the rates.
I could go on, for I have much more evidence, but I must not weary your Lordships. A rather unusual case, not in Derbyshire but in another part of the country, which has been brought to my notice is that of a churchyard in which graves were disturbed, causing considerable distress to the relatives of the persons buried therein, with the result that the incumbent and the parochial church council are confronted by the possibility of difficult and costly litigation. There was a case some months ago, in my own diocese, in which a choirman was killed by a fall of stone from a church roof, and the relatives are understood to contemplate suing for damages. It is suggested by the parish that the cause was subsidence due to mining. The Coal Board maintained that the roof had been neglected and that there was no evidence that the Board were responsible. Which of these views is the right one I have no means of knowing; but litigation, if it results, will be costly.
I do not, however, wish to make special reference to churches, understanding, as I do, that the Churches' Main Committee, after a full consideration, have made representations in the appropriate quarter. As Bishop, I am much more concerned with the human tragedies resulting from the damage to people's houses. The chairman of the Urban District Council of Swadlincote, the area to which I have referred, said recently:
"Not only from an economic point of view, but from a human point of view, it is ghastly … I have seen houses where you can put

927
your hand through the wall and shake hands with people outside … I know people who have papered their houses three times in a year."
My Lords, it cannot be good for the morale of the miners themselves that they should be aware, as they inevitably are, that their work underground is damaging, or is liable to damage, their own houses on the surface. I would ask your Lordships to imagine the unhappiness caused in the home to the young and to the middle-aged—people in some cases who have sunk their lifetime's savings in purchasing a decent home and the buying of furniture—when they find that their cherished home has become utterly unsafe, or even when they are merely confronted by the dirt and the grime, and the insecurity, that subsidence causes. I have had my attention powerfully drawn by people locally to the nervous disorders caused to the women—mothers of families, and wives—who have to live in such circumstances. It can lead to the break-up of family life, as well as to serious ill-health. It is quite shocking.
There are some sentences which I feel I must quote from the Turner Report.
"We wish"—
wrote the members of the Committee which drew up the Report—
"to draw particular attention to the fact that a community in one of our coalfields can suffer not only physical but also serious moral and psychological effects from subsidence. It can and sometimes does happen that a centre of community life such as a vital municipal building or a church is damaged seriously, or possibly even irretrievably, by subsidence. In such a case it is easy to imagine, but difficult to measure in terms of financial compensation, the effect upon community life: and that effect may have more importance for the nation than the getting of many tons of coal."
The law in this matter is complicated. I shall not go into it in detail: I say simply that the situation to-day—the inheritance of two centuries of laissez faire—is in many areas desperate, and in all areas illogical and inequitable.
To put it briefly, there is plenty of evidence of present damage and an assurance of further damage. This problem affects, and will continue to affect, public and private undertakings, such as schools, hospitals, houses, health and sanitary services, and also agriculture, since good land can be rendered sterile. Some surface owners, such as the railways and canals, can, very rightly, acquire or keep
928
rights of support. Other surface owners who have that right may have it taken away from them unless the national interest can be proved. Others have no right to support, but a Common Law or contractual right to compensation. Others, including the owners of small houses below the rateable value fixed by the Mining Subsidence Act of 1950, have a statutory right to compensation. And there is an important residue who not only have no right to compensation but, in common with other ratepayers who are better placed in this respect, share the burden of the repair and replacement of various public buildings. The only real protection in the generality of cases, I am advised, is the possibility of restriction on mining by action under the planning law. The efficacy of that in the future has yet to be measured; so far it appears to have achieved little. Moreover, where the planning authority, in anticipation of future subsidence, makes the provision of fortified foundations a condition of planning consent to new buildings, the cost has to be carried by the surface owner. The Turner Committee rightly said that no tinkering with the law can meet the case and that drastic measures are required. And the Committee, again very rightly, commended the whole matter to the attention of those responsible for the grant or withholding of planning permission to work the coal.
This matter has already been raised in another place during the debate on the Address on the gracious Speech without, so far as is known, any word being elicited from Her Majesty's Government. There is, I believe, a rising tide of public opinion on this matter—indeed, I understand that a deputation from the areas affected has this very day been meeting the Ministers of Housing and Local Government and of Fuel and Power to urge Government action. If planning control is ineffective, the Government should seriously consider affording by new legislation full protection to the community in these areas. If, for economic reasons, that should prove practically impossible, then the least that should be done, and that without delay, is to implement the recommendations of the Turner Committee. The most important of these recommendations are, first, that certain key points, being properties which play so vital a part in the life of the community,

929
or a section of it, that the risk of interruption of their functions or of serious damage to their structure cannot be tolerated, should have an unqualified statutory right of support; secondly, that every surface interest, and not only some surface interests, should be compensated for subsidence damage.
The annual cost of these reforms, even if wholly met by the nationalised industry (and some may think it equitable that they should be met by Treasury grant), would, when you think of the figures in terms in which these matters have to be considered, be negligible. In 1949 the Turner Committee estimated the cost of their proposed reforms at £3 million per annum. Assuming, with the increase in prices since then, that the cost to-day would be £5 million a year, as it well may be, that would work out at something rather less than 6d. per ton of coal produced, which bears an insignificant relationship to the total retail price per ton. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to take this problem seriously and to take action upon it. It is not right that those who have the misfortune to live in areas which are being undermined should suffer the loss, danger and damage which is befalling them, and should do so without protection or proper redress. I most earnestly hope that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who I understand is to reply for the Government, may be able to give some reassurance and to announce at long last some effective Government policy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.57 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion very briefly. The facts are fairly well known in your Lordships' House to-day. We spent a number of days on them, when I had the honour of piloting through the 1950 Bill, and Lord Hawke and a few other noble Lords put many questions to me, all complaining about the inadequacy of the Bill. I took note of a couple of sentences from the speech male by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, speaking for the Conservative Party. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 167, col. 810]:
"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 cannot help feeling that it
930
would have been far better to wait a little longer and bring in a more comprehensive and adequate Bill."
We have waited five years, and now we hope to see that more comprehensive and broad Bill brought in by the critics of the previous Bill.
I am not going to cite many instances. As your Lordships know, I spent fifty years in the Wigan district. I do not suppose there is a district in the whole of the United Kingdom more adversely affected by subsidence—not subsidence—than the Wigan district. I have a note here from the people there. They have grave difficulty in securing those points referred to by the right reverend Prelate. They are anxious not to receive payment for subsidence later on, but to prevent it, and they prefer to pay. But the cost is getting very heavy. The county borough of Wigan has already paid £20,000 to the National Coal Board in respect of one seam under a reservoir. The payment of a further £20,000 is anticipated in respect of another seam. These key points are vitally important, but they are most costly to a township like Wigan.
As the right reverend Prelate said, we must not forget that these are mining families. They have run the risk of mining life already; they have paid their toll in life and limb, and now they see their homes tumbling about them. I myself saw it happen. I lived in a row of twelve houses. The whole twelve sank and there was a fractured water main which left the lower rooms flooded. It is not a very satisfying sight for a miller, after a day's work underground, to find his home flooded as a result of subsidence. That is happening, and one need not relate all the details. I would only refer to one other small place where I lived for a good part of my life—Ashton-in-Makerfield. Knowing that I was to speak the people there also sent me a few figures. In 1953–54, as a result of mining subsidence, their expenditure for sewers was £944; pumping cost £44, and sewage disposal works £996. Other figures were: water services, over £2,000; roads, nearly £200; housing repairs, £200; miscellaneous purposes, £644. That is a township of 20,000 people, mostly miners.
It is clear that something should be done. But what? There was the small Act of 1950, to which the right reverend

931
Prelate has referred, by which we tried to help those who we thought were in the greatest need. They have been substantially helped. The Coal Board have not been niggardly; in fact, they have been generous. I am not one of those who feel that this expenditure should be placed on the Exchequer alone. I feel that it is wise for the Coal Board to bear a share of the expenditure, because I think that to give the Board responsibility for mining coal without any responsibility for subsidence might make them less careful and less anxious to reduce, and, if possible eliminate, subsidence. I agree that it could be a costly business, and cost was the only reason for the inadequacy of the 1950 Act. It may be that to-day the cost will cause everyone to think twice.
I have had the good fortune to meet the deputation which saw the Minister of Housing and Local Government, and also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power to-day. They report that the results were satisfactory. I need go no further than to say that the Ministries wish all details and aspects of the problem to be examined to see what can be done. In the last sentence of the Press statement, however, there is a passage which troubles the deputation and myself. Having said that the Ministries will do all they can to implement the Turner Report and all its findings, the statement records that the Minister of Supply said he was prepared to give local authorities an assurance that, if no such comprehensive solution should prove practicable, the Government would be prepared to extend the scope of the forthcoming review of local government finance so as to bring within its terms of reference consideration of the burden falling on the rates in areas liable to specially serious mining subsidence. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Minister to disregard the individual householder, though I am not sure. I do not like the qualification "serious mining subsidence." I regard all mining subsidence as serious, and I fear that the insertion of the word "serious" may be intended to cover something which later may create difficulty. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to look at this problem fairly and squarely.
I believe that the recommendations of the Turner Report are good. The recom-
932
mendations regarding cost—one-third to be borne by the Coal Board and two-thirds by the Treasury—are very satisfactory. One may feel that the Coal Board are carrying very heavy expenditure, but I should not like them to be relieved of it altogether, for I am most anxious, first, that the Board should do all they can to prevent subsidence (and they can do a lot) and, secondly, that where subsidence takes place, they shall realise they have a responsibility. I am not sure that it would be wise to relieve the Board altogether of financial responsibility, as has been suggested. My view is that those miners who run the risks of mining life should not have to run the risk of subsidence of their homes.
4.5 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, in view of the two speeches to which the House has listened there is no need for me now to enlarge upon the vital nature of the damage being done through subsidence almost continuously, day after day. I have been asked to deal with the more narrow aspect of local authorities who have to cope with this situation. The Act of 1950 has done a certain amount to implement some of the recommendations of the Committee presided over by Mr. Turner, but an enormous number of problems and dangers are left and these entail very great expense on local authorities. On the narrower aspect of urban district councils, it is estimated that the areas of over 100 of these authorities are subject to mineral subsidence, and I have been given figures for 1953 showing that this has placed on these particular authorities a burden of approximately £100,000 in respect of sums that can be charged to revenue and £97,000 in respect of capital charges. These figures may sound very small, compared to the enormous figures which we are used to hearing quoted on various subjects in Parliament; but it constitutes almost a scandal that, in spite of the efforts that have been made, local authorities are still suffering very materially.
This is a question of real urgency and importance. The right reverend Prelate has enlarged upon the effect on the morale of the individual, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, has conveyed the sense of defeat which this problem must entail on those working underground. That is a very important aspect, in view of the vital

933
national importance of the development of coal extraction. One point which has emerged—and it has been almost generally accepted—is that, with the modern conditions under which coal is extracted, subsidence is more rapid and ultimately greater. No doubt it is necessary to make use of the most modern methods of coal extraction, for it is essential that this country should produce as much coal as possible; but surely there comes a point when planning authorities must intervene to see that unnecessary and avoidable damage is not done. The coal industry is, after all, a nationalised industry, and though the onus for service and responsibility has been removed from those who, in the old days, owned the coal below, some responsibility rests on Her Majesty's Government.
I should like to make an allusion to a particular conference which was welcomed by the Minister for Housing and Local Government last year. At the instance of the urban district councils, the Minister received a large deputation representing the Urban District Councils' Association and the Associations of Municipal Corporations and Rural District Councils. On that occasion, the Minister, with his usual courtesy and consideration, dealt as well as he could with matters which were raised, and I want to refer especially to something he said towards the end of his remarks.
After reviewing some of the evidence which had been placed before him—evidence that he had asked for and welcomed—Mr. Macmillan referred to the suggestion that the economic position of the country had improved. He also declared himself grateful for the information which had been afforded by members of the conference, and he went on to say (and I would commend this to the notice of your Lordships and of my noble friend who is to reply on behalf of the Government) that he appreciated the argument that the liabilities created by modern methods of mining should not fall, as they do at the present time, on the communities of the mining areas concerned. He made reference to the possibilities of taking steps, after examination of the evidence submitted to him, with a view to devising measures of relief. Since then the present Minister of Housing and Local Government has visited Derbyshire and has been given the opportunity of seeing the actual results
934
of these mineral subsidences to which the right reverend Prelate has referred. He professed himself to be amazed, and gave indication of realising, perhaps more than he had done before his visit, the vital necessity of doing something more.
I do not wish to delay the House in this matter. Such a strong case has already been made from the point of view of the humanities that there is very little for me to add, except to say that there is this other side—the side that affects local administrations. I trust acid hope that my noble friend Lord Munster will be able to give us some assurance that further consideration will be given to this matter and, in particular, to the possibility of some further extension of the Act of 1950. We hope that the Government will not only give these questions their attention, but that they will also extend to those concerned their active co-operation.
4.14 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWELL: My Lords, I shall occupy only two or three minutes of your Lordships' time, but I would ask to be allowed to say a word or two in support of my colleague and neighbour, the Lord Bishop of Derby. I venture to think that he has done a public service to the whole Midland region and to the whole mining community in drawing your Lordships' attention once again so forcefully to the facts that he has brought forward. As Bishop of another mining area adjoining his own, I feel that I cannot keep silence. I want to underline his plea and to offer my small corroboration of the evidence which he has put before your Lordships. In Nottinghamshire we, too, know quite a lot about coal. If your Lordships should be fortunate enough in the coming winter to secure a few hundredweights of coal to burn in your grates it will probably come either from my friend's diocese or from mine.
As I say, we know a great deal about coal. We know, also, something about the damage that can be caused by mining operations; we know something of the injury to human health and happiness and the general welfare of the community which may ensue. I will not bring forward another lot of facts. The sort of evidence which my right reverend friend has put before the House could, no doubt, be paralleled from any of the mining areas. The actual damage in Nottingham-

935
shire is, so far, apparently, not so acute as it appears to be in some parts of Derbyshire. But one never knows. We live precarious lives in these areas. As many of your Lordships who drive around on the roads on your lawful occasions are aware, you are continually encountering notices which say: "Danger. Road in danger of subsidence." You go bravely on but you never know when you are going to be involved in the sort of fate which overtook Korah, Dathan and Abiram—though perhaps for rather different reasons. We never know when a whole series of homes—the homes of a whole village community, perhaps—may be wrecked by undermining operations. The resultant instability and loss and injury in sheer human terms is something that the whole nation must take more seriously if it requires a section of our people to be engaged in mining operations.
I should like to corroborate what my friend said about the attitude of the officials of the National Coal Board. In a debate which is going on in another place this very afternoon about the coal industry I fancy that there will not be many bouquets for the National Coal Board. But it is only right and fair that, if anyone has anything nice which he can say about the National Coal Board, he should say it. So I want to utter a word of thanks and to say how grateful we are for the courtesy and the generosity of the National Coal Board through its officials, as it has been shown in relation to damage or danger to our churches. They give us the longest possible notice when operations are contemplated beneath a church. They lend us the advice of their engineers and other skilled experts. Then there are architects who specialise in the extraordinarily delicate and elaborate operations which are necessary in order that a church can be floated on a raft and supported on steel splints for a term of years. When this is done properly it quietly settles down without any cracking or damage at all. The National Coal Board interpret their financial obligations generously in paying for operations of that kind. I am glad to be able to offer them this little bouquet to-day.
But while the Church is grateful to them for the way our church buildings
936
are treated, what we are primarily concerned with—and what we ought to be primarily concerned with—is men and women. We must not allow our gratitude for treatment which we receive for our buildings to make us any less vigilant or any less jealous for the rights of private citizens and individuals against an all-devouring bureaucracy. One of our most beautiful village churches is at the moment undergoing one of me supporting operations to which I have referred (an operation which will, I hope, secure it permanently) by the help and at the expense of the National Coal Board. Some fifty yards from the church there is the manor house or hall which is similarly endangered and the owner of which, to the best of my knowledge, receives no redress and no compensation whatever. There is an extraordinary inequality in the operation of the law in these matters, as the Lord Bishop of Derby has pointed out.
All I want to say is that I hope Her Majesty's Government and all concerned will interpret these facts and their obligations in view of them in human terms. When people's homes are being undermined their whole attitude to life is being undermined. We all know that there is nothing so demoralising to the soldier at the front as anxiety about his home in the background. It just is not right that a section of our industrial population should be exposed to the worry and anxiety which is involved as the result of these unexpected happenings and the perpetual fear of damage and the like. Many of them are without adequate redress. I notice that public men and leader writers are now fond of talking about "the economy" when they mean the life and work of the nation. I venture to think that these abstract nouns are extremely dangerous tools for administrators. No problem is rightly stated unless it is stated in terms of its actual effect on men and women. If the national interest requires that coal should be got wherever it is, at all costs, regardless of other considerations, then it surely must be a national responsibility, where-ever it is practicable, to ensure against the resulting damage and make it good when it occurs.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to put in a word on behalf of the agricultural community. Though I am

937
bound to say that the terms of the Motion did not indicate that the right reverend Prelate would be likely to deal with the fanning community, I noticed that in his opening remarks he spoke of agriculture, and I should like to point out that in many areas subsidence is a serious problem for the farming community. I would re-echo what the last speaker said. Many owners of land, including owners of manor houses, have suffered considerably from what I prefer to call subsidence—my own early training would suggest to me that the syllable is long rather than short. Speaking as one who lives in the area of the Forest of Dean, of which I have been a verderer for forty-eight years, I have noticed the considerable amount of subsidence that has gone on all over the coalfield in the Forest of Dean, to the serious detriment of both landowners and farmers. In the past I myself owned a farmhouse a third of which disappeared below the surface, and it had eventually to be demolished. I had to erect a new farmhouse at no small expense, so I have a fellow feeling with my ecclesiastical colleagues, if I may so call them, in this matter of damage suffered by the landowning fraternity.
I should like to re-echo everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, as applied to the agricultural community. The remedy he has forecast is the remedy I myself would entirely endorse. I am sure that this is a matter which can no longer be overlooked, and I hope that the Minister will have something reassuring to say from the Government standpoint, not only in regard to the urban residents but also in regard to the agricultural community in coalmining areas.
4.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, as one who has lived with this problem all his life, I feel I should say a word to support the case which has been put by the right reverend Prelates and by my two noble friends. This problem ought not to be such a difficult problem to-day as it was in the old days. For one reason, in the old days it was often difficult to fix the responsibility for subsidence. Some of the royalty owners and landowners protected themselves against compensation in the event of subsidence, though I know that in South Wales many colliery companies have been most generous in carry-
938
ing out repairs and in compensating those who have suffered. But no one was compensated unless he had a legal right to compensation. Only a small proportion of house-owners in areas liable to subsidence had these rights and it was difficult for them to get compensation.
I ought to say at once that it is impossible to think that we can deal with this problem of mining subsidence. I do not know whether your Lordships realise how immense is the amount of coal which has been extracted from the earth of this little island during the last 100 years, and coal was extracted long before 1850. Some time ago I took the trouble to work out the total of coal extracted during the last 100 years, not on a rough basis, but on the statistics provided in the statistical journal of the National Coal Board. The figure is between 20,000 and 21,000 million tons of coal. When we consider that enormous figure, it is amazing that the amount of subsidence has not been greater than it is. In the old clays we tried to avoid subsidence by very strict packing; but to-day, with modern methods of mining, I um afraid we shall suffer from subsidence even more than we suffered in the old days.
I am not going to add anything to what has been said by the right reverend Prelates the Lord Bishop of Derby and the Lord Bishop of Southwell and by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, but I would mention that among the sufferers are some of the most industrious and thrifty of the mining population, men who in the early days joined a building club in order to purchase their own houses. Twenty or thirty miners would collect together, build their houses at a cost of £300 to £400, contributing the cost by deductions from their pay. Then, after ten or fifteen years, they would find the buildings becoming cracked because of subsidence. It is a cynical reflection on conditions in the coalfields that in subsidence areas miners were sometimes employed to work under their own houses, so that their work was responsible for the damaging of their own homes. I have seen that happen in my own village—I have lived in one of these houses myself. And there was no redress.
To-day we can place the responsibility upon the Government. Royalties are no longer paid to landowners. The Gov-

939
ernment control the royalties and the National Coal Board is a national organisation, so we ought to look to the Government to assist those who suffer from the effects of subsidence. It is impossible to avoid it, because we cannot do without coal. We are faced with a difficult situation at the present time. I gave a figure some time ago that if we had to import 50 million tons of coal—that is, less than 25 per cent. of what we are producing in this country at the present time—it would cost at the present price something like £300 million. That is an impossible situation. Yet the very persons who have to live in these areas have for generations had to put up with inconvenience. There has been some alleviation as a result of the Act of 1950, but it is still not right for others to suffer.
I would impress upon the noble Earl who is to reply that this problem is an urgent one and brooks no delay. If to deal with it more generously than is being done at the present is going to cost £1 million—I had a figure given me this morning that the cost to the Coal Board (I think it was the latest figure they could give), was something like £600,000 a year, but it might be more—that cost works out per ton at something like 1½d. And if the figure is £2 million, it works out at about 2½d. a ton. I know that all these items mount up and that the price of coal has gone up a good deal. But, for all that, I would ask the noble Earl to make representation to the Ministers responsible and to the Government to make a comprehensive review of the Turner Report and see to it that legislation is introduced so that there will be no more suffering by anyone as a result of the extraction of this valuable mineral from the earth.
4.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I am glad that the right reverend Prelate has put down a Motion—
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, could something be done about the infernal noise that keeps interrupting some of the most interesting speeches? We on this side of the House just cannot hear what is being said because of these helicopters.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It is difficult, I agree, and I will certainly convey what the noble Lord has said to the noble Marquess the Leader of the House. As I was saying, I am glad that the right reverend Prelate has put down a Motion on the general subject of subsidence, for it gives me a chance of explaining fully to the House the views that Her Majesty's Government hold on this question. I do not think any noble Lord in any part of the House would complain of the manner in which the right reverend Prelate introduced his Motion. The matter is of the first importance, and from what he said it is obvious that, while he feels deeply on the subject, he is not unaware of the urgent need to increase the output of coal. The right reverend Prelate was supported by one of his brother Bishops and by other noble Lords who have immense knowledge of the coal industry in the past, and a good deal of knowledge of how the industry works to-day. I should not for a moment deny that heavy damage is caused in coal mining areas, and it is no good in any way trying to blink the seriousness of the position. I hope that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe will forgive me if I do not deal specifically with the farming community, or with the owners of land or houses, but rather with the subject as a whole.
I think it is true to say, as was said by the right reverend Prelate, that anyone who has been connected with the law of subsidence will know that it is a complicated and technical subject; and although I was dealing with it almost daily in this House some seventeen years ago, in conjunction, I believe, with the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, I readily admit that I had to refresh my memory upon a number of points of substance. I feel that the best course I can adopt today is to remind the House of the position since the earliest days when coal began to be mined in this country. I do so because it has a direct bearing upon the obligations which the Coal Board have assumed under the Act of Parliament which nationalised the coal industry.
Originally, the surface and the minerals were in precisely the same ownership, and the surface then had a complete right of support. There was something to be said at that time for the landlord who owned a vast estate and great mineral possessions. When the coal began to be

941
worked the owner of both the surface and the minerals would enter into a lease with a company why undertook to work the coal. The lease laid down conditions, such as leaving pillars of support, payment of compensation for damage done and so on. There are, in addition, I understand, many other leases of ancient date which retained no right of support for the surface and no right of compensation for any damage done. The fact that no reservations were made in the lease was no doubt taken into account at the time when they were Settling the original royalties to be paid. It is worth remembering that any land which had lost the right of support through that method thereby suffered a considerable reduction in its value, and generally could be bought at a far lower price. Then there is a third case of more recent history where the interference with surface rights has been by Statute. The Coal Act, 1938, enabled all coal, known or unknown, to be severed from the surface, but compensation was payable for any damage caused by working the coal.
Those are the general leases which were in operation at the time that the industry was nationalised in 1947. But, on nationalisation, the Coal Board inherited all the rights and obligations which, as I have pointed out, may in many cases have been of old and ancient origin. It is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said, somewhat easier to deal with the problem to-day, in that there is one owner of the coal. It must be remembered, however, that the Coal Board are working the coal on leases to which they succeeded when the industry was taken over in 1947. The right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords who have spoken to-day will be aware that the Coal Board are now forced to work areas which, for some good reason, had been left unworked in the old days when the industry was in private hands. For instance, there was a case which came to my notice of the old workings of a pit which had been fully worked out, but where it was necessary to move somewhere else in the old pit in order to extract the coal which, for some good reason, had been left in the old days. After all, as I think was also said by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, coal is in short supply, and it is the one essential raw material upon which every industry in this country must rely. It
942
should not be thought that I am critical of the Coal Board, any more than the right reverend Prelate was. Nevertheless, I think they are, and must always be, far more impersonal than the original owner of the coal who would, if possible, have had a sentimental feeling towards his own property and any buildings which had been erected thereon.
I should like to revert to the year 1927, when the Royal Commission which was appointed in 1923 to examine the whole question of subsidence reported. In their Report they stated that they saw no reason to amend the law except in respect of owner-occupiers of existing small dwelling-houses. Some twenty years later, a Committee was appointed, under the chairmanship of Mr. Theodore Turner, and its terms of reference 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."
Anybody who reads those terms of reference will realise at once that they undoubtedly encouraged the Committee to take a completely different view of the problem from that which had been taken by the Royal Commission some twenty years before, and they possibly saw an opportunity, which had never occurred previously, of placing upon the new Coal Board the liability to pay compensation for all damage which may be caused by letting down of the surface. At the same time, the Turner Committee, as it came to be called, suggested that there should be a key-point principle. The idea was that the Committee would seek to apply a wide measure of planning over the whole country, instead of the existing law in relation to support.
Now we come to 1950, when the Labour Government passed an Act which, as I think was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, made no attempt—indeed, it was not intended to—to implement any portion of the Turner Committee's Report. All it did was to deal with the special problem of small houses to which attention had been drawn by the Royal Commission some twenty-three years before. That Act gave a right of compensation to the owners of all houses of a rateable value in England of not more than £32, the right being given both to existing and to

943
future houses. I might add here that if, after the passing of the Rating and Valuation Bill which is now before your Lordships' House, the assessment of these houses should be increased, my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power has power, under the Act of 1950, to make an order increasing the limits of rateable value for these houses.
From what I have said, the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords will see that, besides this new Act of 1950, the Coal Board have succeeded to all leases which were in operation at the time the industry was transferred to them. From there, I should like to refer back again to the Turner Committee's Report, as there has recently been a good deal of pressure to implement some, or all, of their recommendations. As I read that Report, the Committee did not recommend any measures which would put an end to damage from mining subsidence. With the present state of technical knowledge, that could be brought about only by not working coal under any buildings or built-up areas. I have been advised that if the recommendations of this Committee in relation to the present law of support had any effect at all, they would tend to make it easier for the Coal Board to work the coal.
Many of the protests against the existing law have taken no account of that fact, and they are concerned primarily about damage caused generally and not about the liability to pay compensation. If the Coal Board to-day were to agree to the proposal that no coal should be worked under inhabited areas, it is estimated that they would have to sacrifice something like 80 million tons of coal a year. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said, that is an impossible position to put the Coal Board in to-day. I am aware, and so is my right honourable friend, that the built-up areas are suffering most from damage from subsidence, and in nearly every case it is in the areas of the new coalfields where coal can be most economically worked. The great majority of these new coalfields are in the immediate vicinity of villages and large towns, where a good deal of damage might result from letting down the surface. But I think the whole House, and especially the right reverend Prelate, will agree with me that it would be utterly impracticable
944
to-day, or indeed for many years to come, to allow the output of coal to be reduced in any way whatever.
I will not enter into any great detail concerning the difference of opinions in the Reports of the Royal Commission and the Turner Committee, but they differed in many important points. There is, however, one fundamental point in this Report to which I must draw the attention of the House. At present, many surface interests have a right of support which has been retained when the surrounding minerals were sold, or it has been purchased since the minerals were originally disposed of. The Turner Committee, except in the case of key-points, recommended that all these rights of support should be swept away and that no payment should be made to the surface owner for the rights that they would lose, except where those rights had been obtained by purchase in recent years. I do not know how the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords feel on that point, but it seems to me that it would surely not be right to take away by legislative action all rights of support which had been paid for over the years and, in some cases, held for generations.
It is true that in the Turner Committee's Report something was to be substituted for this radical change in the law. It was to be brought about by the establishment of key-points, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned in the course of his speech, which would give support to works and buildings which play a vital part in the life of the community. All disputed cases were to be determined by a special tribunal. I think the right reverend Prelate, from what he said in his observations, is of the opinion that the Government should implement at any rate this part of the recommendations in the Report. But as I have endeavoured to point out, these proposals for a major and fundamental change relating to support, and in particular for drastic interference with the rights of surface owners, cannot be lightly accepted by any Government. Indeed, the Minister of Fuel and Power in the Labour Government explained that legislation could not be contemplated at that time, and certainly the present economic position does not enhance the prospects for further legislation now. However, my right honourable friend is prepared to have the whole

945
problem re-examined. A comprehensive review will take place, but I regret that I cannot hold out any hope to-day of immediate legislation. Naturally, I shall communicate to toy right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power the views which have been expressed with such force by the right reverend Prelate and others who are associated with him.
I would turn from that to reply to one or two questions which have been addressed to me this afternoon. The first one was by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who asked me a question about the meeting which took place this morning between the Minister of Housing and Local Government and representatives of local authorities. A statement was issued after the meeting which I think I had better read in full to the House. It says:
"The Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Duncan Sandys, who was accompanied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, Mr. Joynson-Hicks, expressed strong sympathy with the position of those local authorities who had to meet a heavy bill for damage to their services as a result of subsidence. He referred to the recent announcement by the Minister of Fuel and Power that he was at present examining afresh the whole of this problem in consultation with the National Coal Board. He noted that the representations made by the deputation had been essentially directed to asking that the recommendations of the Turner Report should be put into effect. Clearly, if any such comprehensive solution were adopted, the difficulties of local authorities would be met together with those of other owners who were suffering from the effects of subsidence. However, my right honourable friend was prepared to give the local authorities an assurance that if no such comprehensive solution should prove practicable, the Government would be prepared to extend the scope of the forthcoming review of local government finance so as to bring within its terms of reference consideration of the burden falling on the rate of areas liable to especially serious mining subsidence."
It was the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who asked me whether the second part of that statement which I have just read dealt with private interests. The answer is, No, it deals entirely with local authority interests and, naturally enough, if a comprehensive solution is arrived at, that will deal with all interests wherever they may be and whatever they may be; but the final portion of that statement deals entirely with the interests of local authorities, and no one else.
946
I have endeavoured to give the House a full account of the Government's views on a difficult and technical subject. I hope that I shall satisfy the right reverend Prelate if I say to him once again that we are re-examining the whole of this problem and if I assure him that the views which he has so forcefully expressed to the House to-day will be conveyed to my right honourable friend.
4.53 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DERBY: My Lords, I should like to thank very warmly all those who have taken part in the debate and to express my gratitude for the sympathetic way in which the Motion that I brought forward has been received. I should like to thank also the noble Earl who has replied for the Government, but I do not find myself able to record any satisfaction at the terms of his reply. As I listened to him, I feared that an elaborate and very interesting history of the past was being substituted for any resolute determination to bring in necessary reforms for the future. That is, of course, a natural line for a Government to take if it has no real part in the cause of reform in a particular matter.
I trust that, when the comprehensive review of the whole subject which has been promised takes place—and I am grateful for that; any reasonable man recognises the need for a careful examination of the whole subject before a definite policy is formulated or undertaken—the Government will do something, and will do something in terms of justice and not simply in terms of economics. My belief is that in a generation or two, when perhaps great cities will have been so undermined as to be destroyed, historians, looking back, will regard the argument that economic necessity prevented reform at the present time as being parallel to the argument used in earlier generations to justify child labour in the mines, at the time when Lord Shaftesbury was pressing his reform.. There are considerations which ought to overrule economics in the interests of humanity and justice. I hope the Government, when the time comes to formulate a policy, will approach it in that spirit. I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said, especially his promise of consideration of the matter, and in accordance with the convenient precedent normally operative in this

947
House, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CHESHUNT URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
STOCK EXCHANGE CLERKS' PENSION FUND BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
GERMAN POTASH SYNDICATE LOAN BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

KENT WATER BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before five o'clock.