COAL-MINING SUBSIDENCE BILL (Hansard, 25 June 1957)

HL Deb 25 June 1957 vol 205 cc108-21 108

§ 2.42 p.m.

§ Amendments reported (according to Order).

§ Clause 1 [Duty of National Coal Board in respect of subsidence damage]:

§ THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS)
My Lords, with your Lord ships' permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together. They are being introduced to meet last-minute representations made by the associations of water undertakings. They deal with the treatment of things like pipes and wires. Our intention under Clause 1 (1) (a) has been to include all structural damage occurring to buildings and structures; and following the 1950 Act our intention has been to include things like pipes and wires as being a part of the structure when they are installed in the building, or the structure for the purpose of supply gas, electricity and other services to the building. Then we have also sought to include, under Clause 1 (1) (b), all service pipes and lines that run between buildings. It appears that we have not entirely succeeded in carrying out these intentions—it would seem, for example, that a water main, while running through a junction box, which is a structure, or passing through a reservoir, which 109 is also a structure, would be excluded from the Bill. I am advised that the small drafting Amendments which I am now moving remedy this particular defect and make our intentions unmistakably clear. I trust that they will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("drain") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("situated in a building or structure which it serves").—(Lord Mills)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD MILLS
My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("descriptions") to ("that") in line 5.—(Lord Mills.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD MILLS
My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("being either works situated outside any building or structure or works in the nature of mains situated in a building or structure in which they neither begin r or end;")—(Lord Mills.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 4 [Powers of Board with respect to preventive works]

§ LORD MILLS
My Lords, this is another Amendment introduced to meet representations made at the last moment by the associations of water undertakings. Clause 4 as drafted provides that if anyone unreasonably refuses his consent to the execution of preventive works by the National Coal Board to minimise or eliminate subsidence damage, his claim may be lost or diminished if subsidence damage subsequently occurs. This is fair and reasonable. The purpose of the Amendment is simply to dot an "i" and cross a "t" by making it clear that if a statutory undertaker refuses consent in those cases where Parliament has decided under Clause 1 (3) that works ought to be undertaken not by the Coal Board but by the undertaker, no-one can say that this refusal was unreasonable. The water undertakings attach great importance to this Amendment, which clarifies our intentions, and I hope that the House will see its way to accepting it. I beg to move.

110

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 9, line 29, at end insert— ("(iii) the withholding by any person of consent to the execution of preventive works on any property by the Board shall not be deemed to be unreasonable in a case which, if those works were remedial works consequent upon subsidence damage to that property, would fall within paragraph (i), (ii) or (iii) of subsection (3) of section one of this Act.")—(Lord Mills.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 5

§ Special provisions with respect to damage affecting land drainage

§ 5.—(1) Subject to the two next following subsections, the Board shall, in any area in England and Wales outside the Doncaster Drainage Area within the meaning of the Doncaster Area Drainage Act, 1929, from time to time carry out such, if any, measures (in this section referred to as "remedial measures") for remedying, mitigating or preventing any deterioration in any land drainage system by reason of subsidence damage which has occurred or appears likely to occur. being a drainage system maintainable by a drainage authority, as may be agreed between the Board and the appropriate drainage authority, or. in default of such agreement. as may be determined in the manner provided by regulations under subsection (5) of this section. to be it all the circumstances reasonably required and not unjustifiable on economic grounds, and any such remedial measures shall be carried out in accordance with such arrangements as to the timing thereof as may be agreed or determined as aforesaid.

§ (2) Without prejudice to the next following subsection, the Board may elect, in respect of all or any of the remedial measures aforesaid, not to carry out those measures themselves but—

(a) to make to the appropriate drainage authority a payment equal to the cost reasonably incurred by that authority in carrying out those measures; or
(b) if that authority propose to merge the carrying out of those measures with the execution of other works, to make to the authority payments equal to any sums from time to time shown to have been expended by the authority in carrying out the merged operations up to such aggregate amount as may be agreed or determined as aforesaid to be equal to the expenditure which would have been incurred by the Board or by the authority, whichever would have been the less, in carrying out the remedial measures;

and the Board, in a case where the remedial measures fall to be carried out in connection with property comprised in a main river for the purnoses of Part II of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, shall make the appropriate election under this subsection and in any other case shall not unreasonably refuse any request to 111 make the appropriate election under this subsection received from the appropriate drainage authority:

§ Provided that the Board shall not be deemed to act unreasonably in refusing any such request received after the Board have begun to carry out the remedial measures.

§ LORD BURDEN moved in subsection (1) to leave out "being a drainage system maintained by a drainage authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. May I say at the outset that, with other Members of your Lordships' House. I happen to be one of the Vice-Presidents of the River Boards Association, and to that extent I suppose one could say one has an interest. I readily admit that in the revised Clause 5 Her Majesty's Government have gone a long way to meet the wishes of the River Boards Association. For that I would thank the noble Lord. Lord Mills. who no doubt played a very great part in the re-drafting of Clause 5. There are, however, just one or two minor points that I wish to raise; and I can assure your Lordships that in view of the importance of the debate which will shortly come on. I will detain you no longer than is absolutely necessary.

§ The point of this Amendment, which is linked with the last Amendment on the Order Paper, is to deal with the position of what are known as "white" areas. How those areas came to get that name I was rather curious to discover. I find that it arises from the fact that the areas covered by river boards and internal drainage boards are coloured on a map in the Ministry. These other parts which are the white areas are not coloured; hence this term "white areas". It has nothing to do with purity or anything of that kind, but is used because the areas concerned do not have a colour on the map.

§ The position is that the river boards and internal drainage boards have no authority whatever over these white areas. The Bill provides for compensation to the landowner, in the event of any subsidence, but there is nothing in the Bill, so far as the associations read it. to see that once the damage has been put right—which I take it will be a responsibility falling on the National Coal Board—the watercourse is maintained in good condition. It is a point that is of great importance to local authorities, 112 because it may happen that the sewage works have been damaged and repaired, but unless the watercourse which takes the surplus water or sewage is maintained in good order, the whole thing will be of no value. So far as I can see, there is no incentive on the particular landowner, except, it may be. his own interest or public spirit, to maintain his watercourse in good condition. In fact, he may think. "This is a little unfair on me," because of course, internal drainage board work is financed out of the rates, and the river boards precept on the authorities within their areas.

§ There is a lot more that I could say on this matter hut, quite briefly, that is the case for this Amendment. I would ask the noble Lord to consider that the Doncaster Act, which has worked so well in the interests of all concerned, has in it the word "maintain". I believe that it was contended in another place that one of the subsections in this Bill places upon the National Coal Board the responsibility of maintaining, but if the noble Lord, Lord Mills. will look at the clause he will see that that responsibility falls only within the area of a drainage board, and that these "white" areas are outside—or outwith. as they say in Scotland—the area of the drainage board.I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, leave out line 3.—(Lord Burden.)

§ LORD MILLS
My Lords. this Amendment. as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has indicated, can conveniently be considered with the noble Lord's Amendment to page 11, line 34 that is, number 9 in the Marshalled List. I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. Its effect would be to extend Clause 5, as the noble Lord has explained, to cover drainage systems not maintainable by a drainage authority. This would be contrary to the purpose of the clause, which is to provide for joint action by the National Coal Board and the drainage authority on the measures needed to deal with deterioration of important drainage systems for which a drainage authority is responsible, and to provide financial relief to the river boards and internal drainage boards in carrying out the responsibility already entrusted to them by Parliament. It would be inappropriate 113 to bring within the clause minor drainage works for which a drainage authority is not responsible. If one of these works suffers physical damage as a result of coal-mining subsidence, the owner or other person liable to make good that damage has a claim against the Coal Board under Clause 1, and I suggest to your Lordships that that is the proper way to deal with it.
Another reason why I do not like this Amendment is that it involves extending the field of activities of the drainage authorities and, together with Amendment No. 9, would give them new powers to undertake drainage works. There may well be a case for doing that—that is really outside my responsibility—but I do not think the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill is the right place to extend the scope of the drainage authorities in this way. Such an extension would require careful consideration and full consultation with organisations representing landowners, farmers, and others, as well as with the drainage associations, and it would then have to be dealt with in a Bill amending the general land drainage legislation. This does not mean, however, that Clause 5 will apply only to drainage systems which are at present maintained by a drainage authority. If a watercourse is of such importance as to make it desirable to apply Clause 5 to it, the river board concerned can take steps to have this watercourse declared a main river under the land drainage legislation. In these circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.

§ LORD BURDEN
My Lords, in view of what has been said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill I am obviously not in a position to press the Amendment. With the permission of the House, I will just comment for a moment or two on what the noble Lord has said. I agree that, under the Land Drainage Act, a river board can take over a watercourse of that kind, but that would place heavy financial responsibilities upon the river hoard in question, because the board would afterwards have to maintain it. Already, to my own knowledge, many urban authorities are watching very carefully the increased precepts which come from the river board in connection with work in rural areas. However, I have made the protest. With due respect, I feel that it would have been in the 114 national interest for this small extension—and I agree that it is an extension—of powers to be conceded to the river boards. But in view of the attitude of the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD BURDEN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and not unjustifiable on economic grounds". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed just to clear up what I think is rather an ambiguity in this clause. When the Bill was in another place the words used were: reasonably required and economically justified. but as a result of discussion it was decided to turn this part into a double negative and to substitute the words: not unjustifiable on economic grounds. It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference, but no doubt the Minister has reasons for it. To me, it appears to be a new principle to import into legislation. There is nothing of this kind in the Doncaster Act, and the Doncaster Act has worked very well. Who is going to determine the meaning of that phrase? Has it to go to the courts, or to arbitration, or what? I think that this Amendment would remove an ambiguity, and so I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 8, leave out ("and not unjustifiable on economic grounds").—{Lord Burden.)

§ LORD MILLS
My Lords, I will do my best to satisfy the noble Lord on this point—not by agreeing to the Amendment but by explaining to him the reason for the inclusion of these words. The National Coal Board's obligation under Clause 5 as it stands is to carry out remedial measures to drainage systems which are agreed or determined to be "reasonably required and not unjustifiable on economic grounds." To omit the words "and not unjustifiable on economic grounds" would run counter to one of the basic principles of the Bill: that the Coal Board's liability to carry out or pay for remedial works should be limited to works which are economically justified. The principle appears, for example, in Clause 1 (4), which permits the Board to make a depreciation payment when the reduction in the value of 115 a property caused by subsidence damage is less than the cost of remedial works; and it appears in the present provision in Clause 5.
As the noble Lord has said, we had originally provided in Clause 5 that the remedial measures would have to be "reasonably required and economically justified." But we were able to amend the. Bill in another place to change the economic criteria to "not unjustifiable on economic grounds." This is a slightly less stringent criterion, and it makes it clear that the economic factor is only one of the factors to be taken into account when a decision is taken on the remedial measures to be undertaken under the clause. In another place, the right honourable Member for Blyth, Mr. Robens, described this change as "leaning over backwards" to meet the views expressed on this point. I am sure it would be wrong to go further and omit the economic criterion altogether. That could lead to wasteful expenditure—for example, if the cost of remedial measures to a drainage system were vastly greater than the value of the land which would suffer from flooding if the measures were not carried out. In such a case it would probably be sensible to let the flooding take place; this would not involve hardship to the owners of the flooded land for they could then claim against the Board under Clause 1.
But while I cannot agree to omit the economic criterion altogether, I can say that disputes between the Coal Board and a drainage authority about what is justifiable on economic grounds will have to be determined in accordance with regulations which are to be made jointly by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself. It is our intention to prescribe in these regulations that if either party to the dispute so wishes, the dispute may be referred to the two Ministers for settlement. I can assure the House that in dealing with such disputes we shall not interpret economic in a narrow sense but will take a broad view of what is economic in the national interest. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this Amendment but I suggest that the assurances I have given go a long way to meet the noble Lord and I trust he will not press the matter further.

116

§ LORD BURDEN
My Lords, having regard to the sympathetic approach to the problem of what the Amendment was designed to achieve, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 3.6 p.m.

§ LORD BURDEN had given notice of an Amendment in subsection (2) (b). to leave out all words from the second "equal" to the end of the paragraph, and to insert instead: the amount which it is agreed between the Board and the appropriate drainage authority or, in default of agreement, determined as aforesaid it would have been reasonably necessary to have incurred to carry out the remedial measures; The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe that this matter has been looked at and that an Amendment in substitution for this one would be acceptable to the Government. With the permission of the House, therefore, I will not move this Amendment, but I beg to move the following Amendment in its place. I think that it makes the position quite clear.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 25. leave out from ("be") to ("in") in line 27, and insert ("reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to the expenditure which would have been incurred respectively by the Board or by the authority").—(Lord Burden.)

§ LORD MILLS
My Lords, this Amendment which is in substitution for Amendment No. 7 on the Marshalled List, is entirely acceptable to the Government.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD BURDEN moved, after subsection (4) to insert: (5) (a) In any case where the remedial measures carried out under this section comprise the execution of any permanent work the Board shall make an annual payment to the appropriate drainage authority of an amount agreed between the Board and the authority or in default of agreement determined as aforesaid equal to—

(i) if the permanent work consists of the construction of a new bank or watercourse, the cost reasonably incurred by the authority in maintaining the bank during the previous year;
(ii) if the permanent work consists of the alteration widening or improvement of a watercourse or a bank, so much of the cost of maintaining the watercourse or bank in the previous year as is reasonably attributable to such alteration widening or improvement;
(iii) if the permanent work consists of the provision of a new appliance, the cost reasonably incurred in operating and maintaining the appliance in the previous year;
(iv) if the permanent work consists of an alteration or extension of an appliance, so much of the cost of operating and main-wining the appliance in the previous year as is reasonably attributable to such alteration or extension.

For the purposes of this paragraph "appliance" means a pumping station, pipe, weir, dam, water stop or other appliance or structure for regulating or controlling the flow of water or for retaining water. (b) In calculating the cost or additional cost of maintaining a permanent work a drainage authority shall be entitled to take into account a reasonable proportion of their overhead expenses. (c) The liability of the Board under this subsection may by agreement with the appropriate drainage authority be discharged by a lump sum payment agreed between the Board and the authority or, in default of agreement. determined as aforesaid to represent the capital cost of the liability.

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this is a very long Amendment I think I can confine what I have to say upon it to a few words. It all centres upon the problem of maintenance. I am not so hopeful of the Government's accepting this Amendment, but may we have a definite assurance that the official interpretation of the subsection is that it doe; cover maintenance. That is the essential point, and an assurance on it would enable me to withdraw the Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 8, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Burden.)

§ LORD MILLS
My Lords, the noble Lord asked me for an assurance in regard to Amendment No. 8. May I have your Lordships' permission to give that assurance?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)
My Lords, I can give the noble Lord no permission, but I am sure that all noble Lords would be glad if he would deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burden.

§ LORD MILLS
My Lords, I am afraid that I have to appear churlish by again refusing the noble Lord's Amendment. I considered carefully whether it would be possible to accept this Amendment in principle and make changes in detail, but I came to the conclusion that it was not 118 possible to legislate in advance for all the complicated circumstances which might arise in practice. I understand, however, that the noble Lord's main concern is whether Clause 5 requires the Coal Board to pay the extra expenses of maintaining drainage works which are needed to deal with the effects of subsidence damage. I think I can give the noble Lord complete reassurance on that point.
The Board's obligation under Clause 5 is to carry out such measures for…remedying, mitigating or preventing any deterioration in any land drainage system… as are in all the circumstances reasonably required and not unjustifiable on economic grounds. I am advised that the mere erection of a pumping station, for example, would not by itself remedy, mitigate or prevent anything. It would also be necessary to operate and maintain the pumps, and their operation and maintenance are included in the Coal Board's obligations under this clause. In addition, I am advised that Clause 5 (3) clearly envisages that the Board will be involved in recurring expenditure on maintenance. I am glad to be able to give this assurance, which I think meets the noble Lord's main point.

§ LORD BURDEN
My Lords, in view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 15):

§ LORD MILLS
I beg to move that the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill be read a third time. In doing so, I should like to say how much impressed I have been, in following the debates on the Bill, to hear Members of your Lordships' House and of another place with much Parliamentary experience say that they have never known a better atmosphere than that in which this Bill has been handled, I certainly could not have wished to have had a pleasanter task in my first Session with your Lordships than to pilot this measure through your Lordships' House. The Bill is to me, however, not just a pleasant and valuable Parliamentary experience; it is also a really constructive measure which I should think any Minister would be pleased to foster.
119 I believe that it provides a real basis for dealing with the problem of coal-mining subsidence and for alleviating the hardships which that inevitably causes. I was particularly pleased during the Second Reading of the debate to hear the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, who has so much experience of these matters, say that although the debate would not get a lot of publicity, there were thousands in the mining areas who would welcome the Bill warmly. The noble Lord was certainly right about publicity, and I know that he will prove to be equally right about the reception which this measure will have in the areas which suffer from mining subsidence.
The Bill is now, I suggest, a better Bill than when it was first introduced. This result is due to the hard work and the spirit of co-operation and give-and-take with which both Houses and all Parties have tackled it. Much is due also to the many outside organisations who have been consulted and who have given us helpful suggestions and constructive criticisms. We have not been able to meet every point which has been raised in Parliament or by the outside organisations, but their work has left many marks on the Bill. As this Bill nears the end of its Parliamentary passage, I should like to thank all those who have helped us with it.

§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 3^a.—(Lord Mills.)

§ LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR
My Lords, because I see that there is a list of sixteen names of noble Lords who intend to take part in the later debate, my remarks will be few, but they will be sincere. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mills, on this Bill. It is one of the best Bills that has been brought before Parliament for a long time. I have seen many Bills pass through your Lordships' House but I have seen few passed with greater pleasure than this Bill. I do not think it is the final word on mining subsidence: I think the noble Lord will agree that experience will show the need for further legislation; but for the moment I would say that he has introduced a very good Bill. The noble Lord will yet have the task of introducing other legislative proposals, but none, I think, which will give more satisfaction to those affected—the thousands of mining families who have 120 lived for generations in the mining areas and the hundreds of local authorities. I welcome the Bill.

§ LORD LAWSON
My Lords. I know that there is a Motion which your Lordships are anxious to debate, but I think it would be wrong to let this Bill go through without underlining what my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor has said. This is the end of an ancient wrong, under which thousands of people, and also those who have built up companies, have suffered. It is righting a wrong to what has been a silent throng by making it impossible in future for mining subsidence to inflict the same hardship on the people in the mining areas. Many of the seams that have been worked by hand and undermined the earth and the property above are now worked by opencast. Opencast mining can go something like 200 feet down. In my own district the old-time shallow seams have been worked by bulldozers and I am hopeful that this method will not affect the seams underneath.
I think it should be made clear that, while this could not be settled in the two centuries that have gone by, a great wrong was done to multitudes of people. Only those who were wealthy, the companies, which sometimes combined together, could get this wrong righted; the great mass of the unheard-of people had to suffer their houses being undermined. with the loss of furniture and everything else without any repayment for what they suffered. Now this is to be done. But it is laying a great burden on the National Coal Board. I hope that when the National Coal Board issue their financial statement for the year it will show how much this will cost the Board. It should be understood that this is adding a new financial responsibility on to the Coal Board. But it is worth while to do the right thing to humble people who have in the past suffered to a great extent.

§ 3.21 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT HALL
My Lords, associated with the mining community as I am. I cannot allow the Third Reading of this Bill to proceed without saying a word or two. We are indeed grateful to the Government for bringing in this Bill. It is a good Bill, and involves legislation which should have existed for a long time past. I put one question to the Minister, and that is the reason for 121 my rising now. I mentioned the fact that subsidence really cannot be cured but that we can reduce its effect upon the surface by doing what is done in Germany and what was done in the coalfields of this country up to about twenty years ago. I hope that the Minister and the Coal Board will consider putting into operation a little of the old system which did so much good. If they had these tight-packed waists, the expenditure for the damage caused by subsidence would not be so great, many of these ugly pit tips would be prevented, and everyone would be satisfied.

§ On Question, Bill read 3^a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.