HL Deb 23 July 1957 vol 205 cc39-52

2.55 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 Mills.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Duty of National Coal Board in respect of subsidence damage

(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board may, instead of executing remedial works under the last foregoing subsection, elect— (a) to make a payment equal to the cost reasonably incurred by any other person in executing remedial works; or and, without prejudice to the next following subsection, the Board— (iii) where for any reason it is not in the public interest that the Board should themselves execute the remedial works, shall make the appropriate election under this subsection, and, in any other case where it is proposed to execute such merged works or redevelopment works as aforesaid or where the remedial works required are of a special character not suitable for execution by the Board, shall not unreasonably refuse any request to make the appropriate election under this subsection received from a person entitled to serve a damage notice in respect of the property:

LORD MILLS moved, in subsection (1) (b) to leave out "any such services as aforesaid" and insert "gas, electricity, water, heating, telephone". The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which has been put down to meet a point raised by the British Waterworks Association and the Water Companies Association. At present Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill covers pipes and wires within a building or structure that supply gas, electricity, water, heating and telephone services for use in that building or structure. Clause 1 (1) (b) covers pipes and wires outside buildings and structures that supply "any such services as aforesaid" and other comparable services.

Our intention is that Clause 1 (1) (b) should cover all service pipes and lines outside buildings and structures. It has been suggested, however, that the effect of the words "services as aforesaid" is to limit the paragraph to service pipes and lines supplying a service to a building or structure and so shut out, for example, a trunk water main running from a reservoir to a water works. I am moving this Amendment to remove any possible doubt. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, leave out ("any such services as aforesaid") and insert ("gas, electricity, water, heating, telephone").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS moved, in paragraph (iii) of subsection (3), to leave out "for any reason" and to insert: it is certified by the Minister, on an application made to him by any other person or of his own motion, that in his opinion

The noble Lord said: This Amendment can, I suggest to your Lordships, be considered with Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor's Amendment. Both Amendments are designed to meet a point which was raised both in the Standing Committee and on Report stage in another place. The Bill provides that normally the Board are free to choose between doing remedial works and paying the cost. But the Board have to make a cost-of-works payment (instead of doing remedial work) when the damaged property is a highway or when the execution of remedial works falls within a statutory duty imposed on a Government Department, local authority or statutory undertakers, or when, for any reason, it is not in the public interest that the Board should themselves execute the remedial works.

The last point has been included to cover a variety of cases. For example, it would cover the execution of remedial works on the property of a water undertaking access to which was limited for public health reasons. Or there might be reasons of national security why the National Coal Board's staff or workmen should not go on a particular property. Under the subsection as it stands, disputes about what is in the public interest would fall to be settled by the courts. There was a good deal of feeling in another place that this would give rise to unnecessary litigation and that it was better that the question of public interest should be settled simply by the Minister. The Government have considered this matter further in the light of the discussions in another place and have decided to meet the Opposition's point. The object of the Government's Amendment is therefore the same as that of Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor's Amendment, but slightly more tightly drafted. We hope that it will prove acceptable to your Lordships' House and that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, will not be pressed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 24, leave out ("for any reason") and insert ("it is certified by the Minister. on an application made to him by any other person or of his own motion, that in his opinion").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD, MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

It is now only necessary for me to thank the noble Lord the Minister for having accepted what I had in mind. I agree that his phrasing covers the matter more tightly than mine did. He, like his colleagues in another place, has shown great readiness to accept the various suggestions which we have made and to honour the various undertakings given, and we thank him.

LORD LAWSON

May I say that I, too, am very pleased that our Amendment has been practically accepted. I believe it is a good thing that the Minister should be the chief authority in this matter, but I feel that it should be underlined in your Lordships' House, and that the public should know, that an ancient wrong done to great masses of people during the last century or two of mining is now being righted and that people who suffer will have a remedy even though they have not the money to go to litigation. This Bill makes a very great and good change, and I wish to underline what I said on a previous occasion, that had it not been for national ownership of the mines this Bill would have been impossible. Undoubtedly when this Bill becomes an Act, it is going to lay a great deal of financial responsibility upon the National Coal Board which the mining industry has not had before. Some of us have always thought that the Coal industry generally was avoiding its obligations towards these people, and a great many innocent and sometimes poor people will benefit as a result of this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

3.3 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

There is just one point I wish to raise with the noble Lord the Minister. We are a little concerned about the position, in that the Bill provides for the possibility of remedial works or depreciation payments. We are more interested in remedial works, and we are afraid that the tendency may be towards the depreciation payments. We should like the noble Lord the Minister to give the House a brief explanatory statement of the paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of subsection (4). Perhaps he will try to make clear that it is not his intention that this should be a piece of legislation dealing mainly with depreciation payments but one dealing, as far as possible, with remedial works.

LORD MILLS

I must confess that I understand the noble Lord's difficulty in following the intention of paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) of subsection (4), but in fact they cover quite a simple point. The Bill places on the National Coal Board a general obligation to do or pay for remedial works when property is damaged by mining subsidence. This is, broadly, the effect of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the clause, and their main purpose is to ensure that the repairs are done. But there will be some cases when remedial works would not be an appropriate remedy, and subsection (4) deals with these cases. Paragraph (a) of subsection (4), which follows the 1950 Act, needs little explanation: it deals with the case where remedial works would not give value for money. Paragraphs (b) and (c) deal with the case where a property is so badly damaged by mining subsidence that it is liable to be proceeded against under the Housing Acts by a local authority. Clearly, there is no point in doing remedial works to a house which has got to be demolished. The subsection provides that in these cases where the National Coal Board do not have to do remedial works, the owner of the property shall be fully compensated for the loss of value caused by the mining subsidence. I think it will be generally agreed that this is fair and reasonable.

It remains for me to explain the rather long passage in subsection (4) which refers back to paragraphs (b) and (c). This provides that if the Coal Board start to repair a property, and action is taken against them under the Housing Acts before the repairs are completed, then the Coal Board must ensure that the owner does not suffer and must pay him the full loss in value. This provision w ill enable the Coal Board to do repairs in suitable cases, but they must back their own judgement financially, and if their judgement should be at fault the owner of the property will not have to suffer.

I am sorry that these provisions are so complicated. The trouble is that we have to tie them up with the Housing Acts, but I think they are a fair and practical way of tackling a rather complicated problem which will become of increasing import ance as the slum clearance drive gets under way. There is one point I should like to emphasise. These provisions do not provide in any way for the National Coal Board to underwrite the cost of slum clearance. The provisions come into operation only if a property which was fit for habitation before the subsidence damage occurred is rendered unfit for habitation by that damage, and they provide only for the payment of compensation for the loss in value caused by the subsidence damage. Compensation for the property which remains after the subsidence damage and which the local authority may order to be demolished will be dealt with under the Housing Acts. I hope that I have managed to make the position clear and that the Committee will accept these provisions.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Notices to be given to or by Board]:

LORD MILLS

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the new Clause 6, "Special provisions as to ancient monuments, etc." Under Clause 2 (2) the National Coal Board have to say as soon as reasonably practicable whether they are going to discharge their obligations by making a payment instead of executing remedial works themselves. In the case of ancient monuments and historic buildings, the Board may not be able to make this decision until they know the views of the Minister of Works on the remedial works which are necessary. Accordingly, this Amendment provides that the Board must give their decision as soon as reasonably practicable having regard to the provisions of the new clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 47, after ("six") insert ("Special provisions as to ancient monuments, etc.").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Cause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Power of Board to recover expenditure in certain cases]

LORD MILLS moved, after subsection (4) to insert: (5) Where under subsection (1) of this section the Board have recovered any expenditure incurred by them under section one of this Act from a licensee of the Board, then, so far as that expenditure was incurred under subsections (2) to (5) of the said section one, the three last foregoing subsections shall have effect as if that expenditure had been incurred by the licensee and as if for any reference in those three subsections to the Board there were substituted a reference to the licensee: Provided that the licensee shall not be entitled to recover the amount of any payment made by him before he became a licensee of the Board.

The noble Lord said: I have put down this Amendment to meet a point raised by the Federation of Small Mines of Great Britain. There are still several hundred small coal mines which are operated by private enterprise, usually one- or two-man businesses, under licence from the National Coal Board. Subsidence caused by the operations of these licensees is covered by the Bill, and Clause 7 gives the Board the power to recover from the licensees' expenditure which they have to incur under the Bill because damage has been caused by the licensees' operations. Clause 7 also gives the Board a quite separate power to recover, in certain circumstances, payments which they themselves have made to be relieved of liability for subsidence damage. The Small Mines Federation have pointed out that similar payments have sometimes been made by small mine licensees, and they have asked that the licensees should be given a power of recovery similar to that enjoyed by the Board. This seemed to me a very fair proposal, and I have put down this Amendment to carry it into effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 12, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Mills)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

3.14 p.m.

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

Special provisions as to ancient monuments, etc.

".—(1). This section shall apply in relation to any subsidence damage where the damaged property is—

  1. (a) Specified in the Schedule to the Ancient Monuments Protection Act. 1882, or for the time being specified in a list published under section twelve of the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913; or
  2. (b) notified to the Board by the Minister of Works as an ancient monument within the 46 meaning of the Ancient Monuments Acts, 1913 to 1953, for the time being under the care of that Minister; or
  3. (c) a building notified to the Board by the Minister of Works as being in that Minister's opinion of outstanding historic or achitectural interest.

(2) If and so far as, having regard to the nature and extent of the subsidence damage, it is practicable and in the public interest so to restore the damaged property to a condition comparable to its condition at the date immediately before the subsidence damage occurred as to maintain the historic, architectural, architectural, or other special interest attaching thereto at that date, then, for the purposes of remedial works to that property, that property shall not be deemed to be reasonably fit for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act unless it has been so restored.

(3) Any dispute arising under the last foregoing subsection as to whether or how far it is practicable or in the public interest to restore any property as mentioned in that subsection shall be determined by the Minister of Works."

The noble Lord said: I have put down this new clause to fulfil an undertaking given by my honourable and learned friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place. He promised that we would make it abundantly plain that when a building fulfils a purpose as an ancient monument, as well as a functional purpose, the Coal Board, when repairing subsidence damage, will have to do it in a way which takes account of the building's function as an ancient monument. In fact, we have gone beyond the Parliamentary Secretary's undertaking. Ancient monuments, as legally defined, are buildings which are no longer lived in. There are, however, some buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest which are not legally ancient monuments but which ought to be repaired with the same care as ancient monuments. In this clause, therefore, we cover not only ancient monuments but also buildings notified to the Coal Board by the Minister of Works as being, in his opinion, of outstanding historic or architectural interest. I understand that the Minister of Works will, when this can properly and conveniently be done, take the advice of his Historic Buildings Councils about the notification of buildings under this provision.

The Coal Board's obligation under the Bill in cases where they repair subsidence damage to an ancient monument or to an historic building will be to restore it to its condition immediately before the damage Ito the extent that this is practicable and in the public interest. Any dispute about what is practicable and in the public interest will be settled by the Minister of Works, whose Department have much expertise and experience in dealing with ancient monuments and who are particularly well qualified to deal with these issues.

I am grateful to the Opposition for having drawn attention to the need to make the Bill more precise in relation to ancient monuments, and I hope that the new clause will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.

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

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

I rise merely to welcome this Amendment. We have not many such monuments in the mining areas—our forefathers were much too wise to put them there but there are a few, and we do want to preserve those few. Therefore, we welcome the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Special provisions as to certain Tenants]:

LORD MILLS

With your Lordships' permission, I think that this Amendment can conveniently be considered with the two following Amendments, Nos. 8 and 9. Clause 9 gives tenants who have carried out improvements at their own expense a right to claim under the Bill if such an improvement is damaged by mining subsidence and if the tenant would have been entitled under certain Acts to compensation for the improvement from his landlord if the tenancy had come to an end at the time the damage occurred. A tenant who makes a claim under this provision must, so that the Coal Board will know that he is properly entitled to make the claim, either obtain the agreement of his landlord to his making of the claim or start proceedings under the appropriate Act to establish-that he would have been entitled to compensation for the improvement from his landlord if the tenancy had fallen in at the time the damage occurred. The person with whom the tenant has these dealings is, in fact, his immediate landlord and not the ultimate owner of the property as such, but the clause as it now stands refers to the ultimate owner. These three Amendments put this right. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 21, leave out ("the owner") and insert ("his landlord").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 43, leave out ("the owner and that person") and insert ("that person and his landlord").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 17, line 47, leave out ("the owner or that person") and insert ("that person or his landlord").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 [Special provisions with respect to ecclesiastical property, settlements, etc.]:

LORD MILLS

I think that, with your Lordships' permission, this Amendment can conveniently be considered with the next one. I have put down these two Amendments to fulfil an undertaking given in another place by my right honourable friend the Paymaster General that we would consider amending Clause 11 so as to provide that, where someone is killed by subsidence damage, people who were partly maintained by the deceased, as well as those who were wholly or mainly maintained, would have a claim under the clause. We have now decided that this is possible and I have put down these Amendments to give effect to this change. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 38, leave out from ("pay") to the end of line 7 on page 20 and insert ("the like damages, recoverable in the like manner and within the like time, as would have been payable if—

  1. (i) the death had been attributable to the negligence of the Board; and
  2. (ii) the persons by or on behalf of whom an action could have been brought against the Board for damages in respect of the death if it had been so attributable included any person who at the time of the death was, or but for the injury would have been, wholly or partly maintained by the deceased; and
  3. (iii) where the death resulted from an injury caused in England or Wales, the 49 damages were claimed under the Fatal Accidents Acts. 1846 to 1908.")—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 26, leave out lines 26 to 29.—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Interpretation, etc.]:

LORD MILLS

This Amendment makes a drafting change in the definition of "structure" in the interpretation clause. I am advised that not merely might the inclusion of the words "on the surface of any land" operate to exclude such things as roads and railway lines, when running through a tunnel, but that, further, their inclusion might cast a doubt upon whether or not the word "structure" included other things constructed under or into the ground as, for example, a brick or concrete lined well or borehole. I am advised that the Amendment removes those doubts. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 10, leave out from ("works") to ("providing") in line 11.—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

First Schedule [Provisions as to dwelling-houses rendered uninhabitable]

LORD MILLS

With your Lordships' permission, this Amendment may conveniently be considered with the following four Amendments. They are all drafting Amendments. The First Schedule provides that when a house is rendered uninhabitable by subsidence damage, the Coal Board must either provide or pay for alternative accommodation for the residents. There may be some cases when the damage is so bad that the residents will have to move out at once and find alternative accommodation for themselves until they can notify the Coal Board of the damage and the Board can provide alternative accommodation themselves, if that is how they are going to discharge their obligations. In these cases, it is our intention, provided that notice has been served on the Board within the prescribed time and that the house really has been made uninhabitable, that the Board should pay the extra expenses which the residents have to incur until the Board themselves provide alternative accommodation.

I am advised that, as the Schedule now stands, though this intention is pretty clearly implied, there is an element of doubt as to the Board's responsibility in such case, and I do not think it would be fair, either to the Board or the people who may be rendered homeless by subsidence damage, to leave any doubt on this point. So I have put down these Amendments to clear up any possible doubt. I beg to move the first Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 24, leave out ("as they may elect either").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 36, after ("dispossession") insert ("during which such alternative living accommodation as aforesaid is not made available").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 43, after ("dispossession") insert ("during which such alternative living accommodation as aforesaid is not made available").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 47, leave out from ("as") to end of line and insert ("aforesaid").—(Lord Mills).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 19, at end insert— ("(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule, and without prejudice to their liability under the two foregoing sub-paragraphs in respect of any part of the period of dispossession falling before the making of their election, the Board may elect which of the courses open to them under the said sub-paragraphs they will for the time being adopt in any particular case.")—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR had given notice of his intention to move, in paragraph 5, to leave out sub-paragraph (3). The noble Lord said: The Amendments which we have just disposed of and the two Amendments which follow mine will do what I want to do by my Amendment, but until I have heard what the noble Lord has to say in moving Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, I would reserve the right to put down an Amendment on Report stage. At the moment I am happy not to move my Amendment.

LORD MILLS moved, in paragraph 5 (3), to leave out from "expenditure" to "is" and to insert "incurred by him by way of rent and rates". The noble Lord said: I think that this Amendment and the next one might, with your Lordships' permission be considered together. I have put down these Amendments to fulfil an undertaking given in another place by my right honourable friend the Paymaster General. Paragraph 5 (3) of the First Schedule at present empowers the National Coal Board, when they fulfil their obligations under the Schedule by providing alternative accommodation themselves, to recover as rent for the alternative accommodation, the savings, if any, which the people concerned are making on rent, rates and household expenses on the damaged house. There was a good deal of feeling in another place that, in order to make these recoveries, the Coal Board would have to pry into the household affairs of the homeless people; and the Paymaster General promised to see whether we could amend the provision so as to limit the Coal Board's power of recovery to the saving on rent and rates.

I have put down these Amendments to give effect to this undertaking but they also go a little further. They limit the amount which the Coal Board can recover to the saving in rent and rates on the damaged house. There may, however, be cases when the people concerned are obliged to spend more on household expenses because the accommodation is in some ways less convenient than their damaged home. The Amendments provide that in these cases the saving on rent and rates which the Board can recover will be reduced by any extra household expenses which the people concerned can show they have had to incur. I think this is fair to the residents of the damaged house, and it will avoid prying by the Board in order to make their recovery: it will be left to the individual to decide whether to disclose details of his household expenses in order to secure a reduction in the amount which the Board can recover. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 44, leave out from ("expenditure") to ("is") in line 45 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MILLS

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 47, at end insert ("reduced by any amount by which that resident shows that the aggregate expenditure reasonably incurred by him by way of food, living accommodation (other than rent or rates). heating, light and other household expenses is greater than it would have been in the circumstances aforesaid").—(Lord Mills.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.