HC Deb 19 December 1952 vol 509 cc1832-45

1.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

The power and attraction of the House is certainly the enormous range of subjects which it covers. We have already had this morning a matter of procedure covering the conduct of a trial in Equatorial Africa and a discussion ranging over a very deeply felt grievance affecting a great number of families, a discussion which certainly could by itself have continued for the whole of this Sitting. But this is the only opportunity that we have for raising many matters of interest and importance which otherwise would go unchallenged, and for a very few minutes this morning I should like to raise a subject of very great importance from the scientific point of view which would be likely otherwise to go by default.

There is not very far from Edinburgh a natural feature of the very greatest interest to the geologists of the whole world. In fact, they have on more than one occasion drawn attention to its importance. It is of especial interest to the geologists of our own country, all the more so since it affects more particularly the geology of the coal measures which are of such vital importance to the whole industrial future of the country. It has, of course, the additional advantage, this particular natural feature, of being extremely beautiful and situated at no great distance from one of our largest cities in Scotland.

This series of events began some 300 million years ago and to deal with that in a half hour means a very swift travelling time machine. The geological romance of the laying down of the coal measures, the successive forest growth, subsidence under the sea, and the laying down of the successive strata of the coal measures, continued in that area until strata of 3,500 feet were laid down—as high as Table Mountain. If one imagines an aeroplane 3,500 feet in the air, and a series of forests and mud deposition going on for millions and millions of years in succession, until the level was built up to the landing wheels of the aeroplane, one has some idea of the enormously long geological process which went on to lay down these strata at this point.

This cliff by a fortunate geological accident, has been tilted on its side so that the whole 3,500 feet of strata are not towering in the air but laid down where They can be walked across in a few minutes. This series of strata was later covered over with soil in the Ice Age, and then very thoughtfully gouged out by a little stream in the recent millennia since that time, until the whole series of strata lies exposed for the use of those interested in the geology of the coal measures and, in addition, a very beautiful little wooded glen has been created.

One would say, "Here is a thing we are very fortunate to have, and what is more, it has escaped all the risks and troubles of the Industrial Revolution. We have now safeguarded it by bringing great public bodies into existence such as the National Coal Board, and by covering it with a network of Acts passed by this House so that planning permission has to be sought for any interference with it. Now at least these things are safe."

It is almost incredible that, after surviving the worst horrors of the 19th Century, the best we could find to do with this in the 20th Century is to use it as an ash-heap. On this beautiful feature now, in this year, the axemen are at work cutting down trees and people are beginning to cover up the burn with spoil. A whole undertaking is being begun to bury this unique feature under five million to 10 million tons of spoil and waste—and, of all things, waste from a colliery.

One would have thought that if there were one body which would desire above all to preserve this section of the geological coal-bearing strata, it would have been the body interested in winning coal, yet this is the body which is about to destroy it. If there were one body above all which would have been anxious to preserve a beautiful natural feature of the County of Midlothian—a feature made famous by Sir Walter Scott amongst others—it would be the planning officers of the County Council of Midlothian. These are the two bodies under whose aegis this act of destruction is being carried out.

There is, of course, a conflict of right with right. I do not say that it is being done merely out of a desire to destroy a great scientific feature and to uglify the landscape outside Edinburgh. It is being done because coal is there and coal has to be won. A shaft has to be sunk to give access to that coal and the coal waste will no doubt be brought out after the shaft is sunk. But I cannot believe that this is the best solution that could be adopted. Nor, indeed, do the authorities believe this is the best solution which could be adopted. They agree that the Glen will not hold all the refuse which it is intended to take out. Further steps will have to be adopted later to deal with the enormous quantity of spoil which it is intended to extract from this colliery.

But, as a preliminary, the first thing to be done is the destruction of Bilston Glen and the burying of this unique cross-section of the limestone carboniferous strata which it represents. It is, of course, said that there is no alternative because this is a matter of great urgency. Yet it has been protested against by the geologists at conferences of the British Association in Birmingham, in Edinburgh, and in Belfast. It has been protested against by Professor A. V. Hill, a former colleague of ours in this House, whose scientific attainments everyone admires and respects, and whose public spirit is certainly above suspicion. They feel that the planning has slipped at this point and that planning permission was given before it was realised what was the scientific importance of this area which it was proposed to destroy.

We also feel that the suggestion that this is only to be used for 10 or 15 years and that thereafter some other solution will be found is a very shadowy recompense for the immediate damage which is being done. We all know the danger of a process once started continuing on and on. People say, "The damage is done; it is a pity, but now we may as well go on with it. The necessary steps have been taken to start the movement of spoil waste there, and it would be very difficult to transfer it, or to adopt some other method of disposal."

But that cuts right across the arguments which are being used for alternative justification, namely, that this is only a temporary matter and that some small area is to be destroyed, but afterwards some alternative site will be found. It is not as if there were no other areas and sites which could be immediately used. There are sandpits and old mine shafts round about that area which certainly could be used in the early stages. The National Coal Board are only beginning to sink the shaft now and in the next two or three years all that will come out is what is called "sinking dirt." The great extraction will not begin until the coal begins to come out on a grand scale.

I should have thought it would be at least possible for the preliminary spoil, the sinking dirt, the rock through which one bores to get down to the main coal strata could be used to fill up some of the holes already made round about this area. Instead of that the first thing to be done is to use it for the destruction of this beautiful little Glen. It is said that the only alternative practicable site for any large quantity of spoil—because, of course, sandpits and coal shafts cannot be used for any large quantity—is the Hewan Bog, not far away. That is already a matter of difficulty because some of it is agricultural land and some provides the source of water for the Northesk Paper Mills. Even though some of it is agricultural land, part of it is bog—it is not called the Hewan Bog for nothing—and bog is one of the few parts of the world which is improved by spoil being heaped on it.

Furthermore, a great deal of work is being done nowadays in taking off topsoil and levelling up large areas by putting spoil of one kind or another on them, and then replacing the top-soil, to be used either for agriculture or forestry. Surely it is not beyond the power or the wit of man to think of some way of utilising the spoil in this manner. At some early date some such scheme will have to be used, even if it is proposed to fill up Bilston Glen from top to bottom there is not room for all that is going to come up—and so, why not adopt such a solution sooner rather than later?

It is said that it would cost £65,000 to build a roadway to the Hewan Bog. But it will cost £100,000 to fill up the Glen. It will cost £100,000 to destroy this natural beauty. Common sense would suggest that we should consider other possible means of using the spoil in a way which will not injure the face of Scotland before we make use of it in a way which will certainly do irreparable damage. It is said that if the Hewan Bog is used we shall interfere with the water supply to the Northesk Paper Mills. It might be necessary to carry out borings for a water supply, but in any case, at a later stage that problem will have to be faced. Why at a later stage? Is it not common sense that it should be faced now? Incidentally, the pouring of this waste into the Glen will go a long way to contaminating Bilston Burn which is perfectly pure water at the moment. It will destroy one beautiful little river and it is doubtful whether we shall succeed in saving the water supply from the other source.

This is a conflict of right with right. One of the difficulties of our modern industrial civilisation, especially in this small island, is that it is impossible to carry through all the developments needed in such a way as to preserve all the natural beauties of the island. But I cannot feel satisfied, and nor can those for whom I speak, that all the alternative ways of dealing with this matter have been explored or that Bilston Glen has been, not selected, but allowed, to be utilised as an ashpit, simply because it is a hole in the ground instead of an elevation. And at the end of it we shall still have to build a "bing" as we call it in Scotland, a heap of colliery waste.

That is not good enough. To prevent such things that is why we put through planning Acts and why we have endowed the Government of the day with powers. The Secretary of State has great powers. If he does not approve of what the planning officers are doing, he can alter it. He has powers to requisition land if necessary. I do not feel that all these powers have been fully explored. Again, I say that the use of this unique area for no better purpose than a tip, is a waste of rare natural resources and beauty which is quite inexcusable at the present time.

It is all very well to say that a geological record will be taken of this strata before they are buried. But the advance of science has not ended in 1952. There are many things in geology still to be discovered. There are many new facts to be obtained from the examination of coal-bearing strata which we do not know yet. The whole of the radio-active determination of the age of rocks is perfectly new. There are many other new matters for the future to examine in connection with rocks. We have not read all of the book of the rocks yet.

If it were the Vatican Library which was about to be buried, there would be a universal yell of protest from all over the world. If we were proposing to use the British Museum as an ash-pit, there would be a yell of protest from all over the world. But this is a library which it has taken millions of years to compile, and which is, as I say, not yet fully read. And it is proposed to tip five million tons of waste on it; and when we have done that to look round for a place in which to put another five million tons.

These seem to me to be matters which should well be brought before this House. For this is the only place where such things can be thrashed out and examined, and where we can at least ask the Government for a statement on the matter. I think that the Lord President of the Council ought properly to be brought into this. He is the great scientific Minister, the Minister who has responsibility for the main scientific improvements in this country. I do not believe the Departmental authorities, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, even the Secretary of State for Scotland, are the last word on this subject.

I appeal to Cæsar. I appeal to the Government as a whole. I appeal to those responsible for the scientific future of the country to look at this again; at any rate to make sure that the process is not allowed to roll on until we have first destroyed all this beauty and scientific information, and then look round for somewhere to deal with the spoil which is left. I think it is a matter worth much deeper consideration. For that reason I venture to bring it before the House.

1.28 p.m.

Mr. William Wells (Walsall)

I feel that I almost should crave the indulgence of the House for addressing it on what appears to be a Scottish matter. But in effect and truth this is not a Scottish matter at all. Bilston Glen happens to be situated in Scotland, but it is a matter not only of national but international interest to the world of learning and to the practice of science. This is indeed an astonishing act on the part of the National Coal Board, which, one would think, would be concerned with the beauties of the country; with the geology and science to be pursued at the present time, and with ensuring that there is an adequate supply of trained geologists in the future. It is astonishing that this body has taken the initiative in this proposed act of scientific vandalism.

As the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has rightly said, this is a conflict between right and right, and in what scale one weighs different values. One can perhaps understand the desire of hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite not to sanction the creation of another "bing." But the fact is that in this part of Scotland there are, unhappily, a number of these dumps of refuse, and a small extension will not be a very serious matter. As for the alternative place, the Hewan Bog, there again, in due time, consideration will have to be given and space will have to be taken to provide the mills with water in addition to that which they have already.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has rightly said that this is merely a makeshift. It is not intended—it could not be—to be a permanent solution of the disposal of the pit refuse that will be made. I appeal to the Government to intervene at this late stage to ensure both that this laboratory, as it is, shall not be destroyed and that it shall, on the contrary, be used for the present purpose of geology and for the training of future geologists.

1.31 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart)

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) deserve the thanks of the House and the country for drawing public attention to this matter. Undoubtedly an issue of high importance is involved. It is one about which Parliament should always show anxious concern.

The issue reduced to its simplest terms is this: how far can we, or should we, allow the march of industry, and especially the development of our mineral resources, to despoil the natural beauties and, it may be, the historic landmarks of our ancient and precious land? That industry must advance and more coal must be raised is for us now, and as far as we can see ahead, a matter of sheer necessity for our national life. That such development must, by its very nature, sometimes involve intrusions into and sacrifice of lovely rural scenes is something which we must, perhaps reluctantly, accept as inevitable in this small highly industrialised island.

How far can we let such intrusion go? What checks can we put upon it? What machinery can we evolve to ensure that the utmost care is exercised and that the most anxious consideration is given before a sacrifice is permitted? That is the question.

Mr. W. Wells

I am sorry to interrupt but, with great respect, that is not the question. This is not a matter of rural beauty or historic landmarks; it is a question of preventing the use of something that is actively required for the purpose of scientific learning.

Mr. Stewart

Let me add to my list a reference to scientific learning. I gladly add that that is one of the considerations. My submission in reply to the eloquent appeal by my right hon. and gallant Friend is that in this case the Government have exercised that kind of care. They have given close and anxious consideration to balancing the conflicting interests in this matter—my right hon. and gallant Friend put them as the conflicting rights—they have acted reluctantly but confidently in the only manner that was open to them in view of the stark facts with which they were presented.

I am replying to this debate because the Secretary of State for Scotland is the planning authority in Scotland. This is a planning decision and my right hon. Friend takes full responsibility for what has been done. My right hon. and gallant Friend said that he was of the opinion that the planners had slipped up and that the decision was taken without full examination and full realisation of these important geological features. I ask him to believe that that is not so. Most prolonged, anxious, and meticulous examination has been given throughout.

Though I must not occupy too much time, I should like to mention one or two facts. The National Coal Board have undertaken a major development in this area at Burghlee Colliery, Loanhead, Midlothian. It is a matter of urgency, and the sinking of the new shaft began in 1952—that is this year. The new sinking is planned to produce over one million tons of coal yearly for between 80 and 100 years. During that period between 8 million and 12 million tons of waste will have to be raised from the pit and disposed of.

That was a stark fact that nobody could avoid. It is estimated that, with the pit in full production, about 500 tons of waste will be raised daily from the new shaft. In addition, at this time about 100 tons of waste is coming out of the new pit in the process of sinking it, and 100 tons is coming out of the old pit. Therefore, we are faced today with the immediate problem of disposing of 200 tons of waste.

I must inform my right hon. and gallant Friend that the National Coal Board are finding it increasingly embarrassing to discover a place for the refuse from the old pit, quite apart from the new one. The existing bing sites on the colliery have been filled to capacity and there is no room to extend them, because the colliery site is completely hemmed in on the north by Loanhead town and by Bilston and Killburn Glens on the other sides. The National Coal Board, therefore, had to look for a new site on which to dispose of this waste.

There were two obvious possibilities. One was that a new bing might be raised. That possibility was considered. Everybody agrees that the fewer extra bings in the world the better. Even the hon. Member for Walsall would agree with that. It was thought by everybody that to establish a great new bing, several hundred feet high and half a mile long, almost on the main road to Edinburgh, was unthinkable. Therefore, everybody turned that down.

The first and apparent alternative was Bilston Glen. The advantage of that was that it would not affect agriculture. The refuse dump would be concealed from view and would ultimately be covered with soil and might bear trees in future. But that solution called forth very strong representations to the Secretary of State from the Nature Conservancy, the British Association and other scientific bodies. I might inform my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Lord President of the Council was consulted in this mater through the agency of the Nature Conservancy. I can say now that while I do not think that the Nature Conservancy like the solution we have already arrived at, it is true to say that they agree that this was the only possible place available.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

This is not only a matter of the Nature Conservancy. I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells). I do not think that enough stress is being made of the scientific destruction which is being caused. I should like to know if the attention of the Lord President has been called to the scientific destruction that is taking place.

Mr. Stewart

I assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Nature Conservancy, with whom we have been in the closest consultation for two years, was thoroughly aware of this matter. Like the rest of us, they recognise that here is a geological feature of immense value from the student's point of view, but, taking all the facts into consideration, they did not think that any other solution was open to us.

In view of these objections—and I mention the consultations that have taken place—the Secretary of State intervened in the matter in 1950, two years ago, and other methods of disposing of the waste were immediately explored. In all these discussions we have had the closest and most friendly co-operation from the National Coal Board, which have been ready to do anything which was suggested to them and have been entirely sympathetic and understanding.

The first possibility put to them was whether or not they could stow this waste away in the ground in the pits, but when that was examined, it was found that the cost would be 5s. per ton against ls. per ton if it were taken to some open space. This would mean an additional cost of £200,000 a year, which would come to a total of £16 million during the life of the colliery. It is not, therefore, very surprising that the Coal Board felt that it was a cost which they could not really face.

Another alternative examined was the possibility of dumping on a portion of Bilston Glen so as not to affect the geological exposures there. I would say on this point that we are fully alive to the unique value of these geological features. I am told that there is nothing quite like them in any other part of the country, and, it may be, in any other part of the world, although I do not know about that. Everybody admits that these geological features are of the greatest possible interest to scientists, and all this, therefore, was borne in mind.

We tried to see whether it was possible to use only part of this ground, leaving the largest possible area of the geological features, but, owing to difficulties through subsidence and drainage, none of these sites could be used. Moreover, none of them, either singly or together, would have met the needs of the National Coal Board for more than a few years, and they would have been very costly to operate. It also became apparent that these geological interests extended over nearly the whole length of the Bilston Glen, and none of these sites would be acceptable to the Nature Conservancy.

The only other possible site was what is called the Hewan Bog. This is a piece of low-lying pasture land situated at the foot of a declivity by the River Esk. It happens to be a famous beauty spot, but, because it is low-lying, its use would have avoided creating a prominent bing rising above the level of the surrounding countryside. This part of the Esk Valley is, as I said, a well-known beauty spot, and there would doubtless have been very strong public protests against turning it into a refuse dump, or an ash-pit, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said. Moreover, in order to use it, the Coal Board would have had to construct an aerial ropeway at a cost of £45,000. They would be unable to start work until they got possession of the land, and it would then have taken two years to get into operation.

I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to accept from me the statement that on this matter time is crucial. The owner is unwilling to sell and the County Council are unwilling to give planning permission. To overcome these difficulties would have involved at least two public inquiries, and the time taken, including that for the provision of a rope-way which the Coal Board would have had to provide, would have involved a delay of anything between two and three years. Meanwhile, this refuse is pouring out of both pits, and it was therefore impossible for the Coal Board—and we agree with them—to wait all that time.

The Coal Board, while preferring the Bilston Glen site, said they would be quite prepared to use the Hewan Bog site if they could obtain possession without delay, but, as I have said, that was not possible. In the circumstances, after discussing the matter fully with the Scottish Committee of the Nature Conservancy and with the Scottish Division of the National Coal Board, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to the conclusion in March, 1952, that, as the immediate sinking of the new pit was imperative, and as a start had already been delayed for more than six months by these negotiations, the Coal Board must be allowed to use the Bilston Glen, which could be made available for dumping within nine months. This conclusion was reached with much reluctance, but there did not then, and there does not now, seem to be any other solution which would not gravely compromise the national coal production.

In agreeing to allow the Coal Board to use the Bilston Glen, the Secretary of State endeavoured to secure that the damage to geological interests should be reduced to the minimum. The National Coal Board agreed, after discussion, to restrict their operations in the Glen for the present to a limited area which was defined and to a period of occupation, which was also defined. At the end of that period, if a suitable site has become available, the Coal Board will move to that site, notwithstanding the heavy capital expenditure that they will have incurred in Bilston Glen.

Discussions are already in progress with the various interests concerned in the Hewan Bog to see whether that site can be made available. Her Majesty's Geological Survey have also been asked to arrange for a full scientific record of the geological strata in the limited area covered by the Coal Board's operation. This compromise solution was discussed by the Scottish Committee of the Nature Conservancy before a final decision was reached, and the Committee appeared to be satisfied that the Secretary of State had done as much as was possible to preserve and safeguard scientific interests.

Since then, there have been further representations from the British Association, and very powerful letters carrying names of highly esteemed scientists in the country. Approaches have been made to the Prime Minister, and all this we have borne in mind, with very much respect for the views of these gentlemen. The matter has already been mentioned by my right hon. and gallant Friend in the House more than once, but I am afraid it is no more possible now than it was in March last to get immediate possession of the Hewan Bog, and the need for a dumping site is even more urgent today than it was before, because sinking has already been in progress for six months.

The Coal Board have already begun to construct in the Bilston Glen a culvert which will be completed in a few months at a cost of £50,000. Even if negotiations for the Hewan Bog proved successful, and the site could be brought into operation in the next two or three years, it would hardly be possible to compel the Coal Board to vacate the Bilston Glen before they had made full use of the portion that has already been allotted to them, unless someone was prepared to compensate them for the large capital expenditure incurred upon it.

For these reasons, and with very great reluctance and sorrow, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has thought it right to give permission for this particular section of this Glen to be used for the limited period of 10 to 15 years, undertaking to inquire urgently into the possibilities of getting the use of this nearby bog. That is the best we can do in the circumstances. The stark fact is that we need this vast increase in coal production, and the necessity for a dumping place is forced upon us. It was impossible to deny these facts, and, with reluctance but with confidence, we consider that the decision made was unavoidable.