DERELICT BUILDINGS AND SLAG HEAPS. (Hansard, 8 April 1936)

§ Mr. TINKER
I want to bring forward a question on which I did not get satisfaction when I raised it the other day. It refers to the position of localities which have in their areas derelict buildings, slag heaps, pit heaps, and low-lying land covered with water, which are eyesores to the community. I want to know what powers the Ministry of Health has to remove them. This matter is causing a great deal of controversy all over the country, particularly in Lancashire. A body calling itself the Lancashire Industrial Development Council has been formed. It is composed of gentlemen who are attempting to get some scheme into operation by which these derelict heaps can be dealt with. They have met the Minister of 2923 Health, and according to a document issued by this council they have not received much satisfaction. This document sets out the reasons why they want to bring forward this scheme. They say that it has been ascertained, for instance, that a local authority has no powers to deal with what is by no means uncommon in Lancashire—an old derelict mill on a main street, full of broken windows, falling to pieces visibly, hut from its situation, impossible to deal with as a danger to the public. The next paragraph says: Consideration has also been given to ways and means of securing improvements in road frontages, removal of pit banks and flashes, chemical waste heaps, smoke nuisances and similar local eyesores. The question which I put to the Minister of Health as a supplementary was as to the position of local authorities if they tackle this question and attempt, for instance, to put right low-lying land that is covered with water, or to remove these pit-heaps and slag-heaps and put the land into habitable order, or in a condition that will enable it to grow produce. Would that land afterwards belong to the owner of the property? Would he be able to come along and say, "You never had a right to do that; I would have dealt with it some time or other, but you have now improved it and put it right, and I am going to claim it back." What is the position of local authorities in that respect? Can they lay claim to the land if they improve it, and can they claim financial assistance from the Ministry of Health in so doing?
What is the real position of local authorities in this matter? If it is such that they cannot make these improvements, pressure will be brought on the Government to give further powers to local authorities. I was told by the Minister that another place was dealing with this by way of some Measure. I have looked it up, but it does not help me very much, and, further, it is not yet in operation, and I am anxious to know what can be done at the present time. Every hon. Member from an industrial area will bear witness to the truth of what I have said. Everyone sees the ravages of uncontrolled industrialism in past times, and wants to know what can be done to improve those localities. After all, it 2924 is our country. Where there is a blot on the landscape it ought to be removed. We want powers given to local authorities to put things in order, and I believe that local authorities are progressive enough to do so. I have been reading recently a book written by a man named Priestley called "English Journey."
Without wishing to advertise it I would advise hon. Members to read it, because it is a good book. He has been in many parts of the country and this is what he says of Lancashire: We went through to Bolton. Between Manchester and Bolton the ugliness is so complete that it is almost exhilarating. It challenges you to live there. That is probably the secret of the Lancashire working folk. They have accepted that challenge. They are on active service and so, like the front line troops, they make a lot of little jokes and sing comie songs. There used to be a grim Lancashire adage, 'Where there's muck there's money,' but now, when there is not much money, there is still a lot of muck. That is typical of many Lancashire industrial areas. The term "muck" is quite appropriate. All the money has gone, the residue is not pleasant. But it is our place, and a place we like, and it is to our interest to try to improve it and make it habitable if possible. If the localities are made attractive there will be a likelihood of getting works to come there, and it is the duty of the Government to give a lead to the localities in any action they may wish to take.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare)
I sympathise with the difficulty of the hon. Member who has raised this question, because it is rather a complicated one and it is almost impossible to explain the position by question and answer. I will do my best to state the position as I think it is. It will be easier if one divides the question into subheads. If the purpose of the local authority is to prevent danger from derelict buildings there are adequate powers under the Public Health Acts for that authority to deal with the matter. As the hon. Member has pointed out, those powers to deal with dangerous buildings are being extended under a Public Health Bill which was introduced in another place, and which in Clause 57 proposes to give power to local authori- 2925 ties to apply to magistrates for an order requiring the owner to repair or demolish a building which, owing to its ruinous or dilapidated condition, is a source of annoyance to neighbouring householders or is seriously detrimental to the amenities of the neighbourhood, and to clear the site, and the local authority will be given power to act in default should that order not be carried out.
The next point is that if it is the purpose of the local authority to abate a nuisance, again that authority has ample power under the various Public Health Acts. My hon. Friend has been very active in dealing with that aspect of these matters.
I have dealt with dangerous buildings and disfigurements. What the local authorities have no powers at present to do is to acquire sites for industrial purposes. Parliament has always been chary of giving powers to local authorities to put the ratepayers' money at risk in developing sites which would normally be developed by ordinary commercial undertakings. The hon. Member will appreciate the obvious reasons for the position that Parliament has always taken up. There are special exceptions, into which I need not go. The hon. Member will recall that there are certain special areas, notably South Shields, Tynemouth and Gateshead, in which, by way of experiment, schemes are going on, and those sites may ultimately be used for industrial purposes.
Lastly, the question arises, under what conditions a local authority can deal with ugly features, low-lying, waterlogged areas, and derelict slag heaps which do not naturally constitute an active nuisance. I think the position is that a local authority can seek to acquire such an area if it is within their statutory 2926 purpose. They can acquire a derelict area for housing; or, if it adjoins their area, they can, under a recent Act, include it in a large re-development area, or acquire it for allotment purposes or for the provision of a recreation ground.
The hon. Member has asked me what happens in respect of the ownership of land where a local authority have stepped in and made an improvement. The answer is, of course, that the local authority cannot step in and try to improve the land unless it is within their statutory powers to do so, and they certainly cannot do it without the consent of the owners. If land, but for these improvements, would have been practically valueless, the local authority would negotiate with the owner. Suppose it were for the purpose of providing a recreation ground in an area where there is no recreation ground. The local authority would say: "This land is valueless." In that case the local authority would take a long lease or acquire the freehold, and, having acquired the site, they would carry on under their statutory powers.

§ Mr. TINKER
If the owners were not prepared to sell at a nominal price, is there any power to force them?

§ Mr. SHAKESPEARE
Yes, there are compulsory powers of acquisition for certain statutory purposes, and the valuation would be fixed in the ordinary way. I think that covers the position of the local authorities. I hope I have done something to clarify the position for the hon. Member, who did quite rightly in raising this important matter.