§ 3.48 p.m.
§ Mr. John Cordle (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the speedy removal of slagheaps, and for connected purposes.
I believe that the Bill which I seek leave to introduce will receive consideration from hon. Members on both sides, because it is a matter of urgency and moment. When I tabled the Bill, last July, I do not think that anyone in the House or in the country could conceive the scale of the recent tragedy that would so poignantly underline the need for such a Bill. For far too long we have tolerated the ugliness, the squalor and the danger of man-made dereliction. We stand condemned by our failure in this matter.
For far too long we have stood supinely by while large pants of our "green and pleasant land" are transformed into areas that are anything but green and certainly not pleasant. It is profitless to apportion blame. The coal and steel and gravel companies, the many local authorities, Governments of all political persuasions, all must bear some responsibility. What, surely, we have to do now is to so organise ourselves nationally that a determined effort can be made and sustained over the next few years to eradicate these symptoms of past neglect.
The present situation is that local authorities have a general responsibility for treating derelict land and an Exchequer contribution in the form of a grant is available in certain areas and subject to certain conditions. Derelict land, for this purpose, is defined as land which has been so damaged by industrial or other development that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment. Examples include disused spoil and slag-heaps, worked-out mineral excavations, and abandoned industrial installations. However, land that is still in active use does not qualify—for example, a spoil heap on which tipping is taking place.
The size of the problem is immense. According to the surveys carried out by local land authorities for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, in England, at the end of last year, there were 91,000 acres of derelict land, of 467 which 54,000 acres justified treatment. In 1965, about 4,500 acres were reclaimed for landscape.
In Wales, the problem is relatively much worse—16,500 acres of derelict land, nearly 10,000 acres justifying treatment and only 330 acres treated in 1965. These figures exclude tips and excavations that are still in use, which would nearly double the figures. Thus, it would take over 30 years to deal with the problem in Wales and 12 years to deal with the problem in England. These, frankly, must be optimistic figures, because inevitably the most easily cleared derelictions are being dealt with first.
The new Local Government Bill provides for a national derelict land grant of 50 per cent. of approved expenditure with no geographical restriction or industrial criterion. It would be churlish to cavil at such an improvement, but I do not think that it meets the basic objection that many small local authorities, particularly in South Wales and the North of England, and possibly in Cornwall, just do not have the financial resources to meet even 10 or 15 per cent. of the cost, much less 50 per cent.
This problem has been with us for far too long, but this does have one benefit which makes the task of cleaning up the countryside much easier than would have been possible even 15 years ago. For example, the ironstone workings in the Midlands can now be reclaimed for farming because of improvements in modern machinery, while the pioneer work of the National Coal Board and the Civic Trust has enabled the transplating of mature trees up to 60 ft. high.
At Bickershaw, near Wigan, an old spoil heap has been turned into experimental plots for the establishment of grassland, and this has demonstrated that good grazing can be established on colliery shale at costs not very much greater than ordinary grassland conversion. Thus, technologically I believe that we are now well capable of dealing with spoil and slag heaps, disused quarries and workings, but this is useless unless there is the will, the administrative framework, and the money to carry out this transformation.
That there is a national will to tackle this problem urgently, there can be no 468 doubt. My Bill would deal with the two other essentials: the administrative framework and money. The present system of many local authorities, aided by Exchequer grants, is operating on too small and limited a scale to do anything but nibble at this problem. My Bill would propose the establishment of a National Land Improvement Agency whose sole task would be to turn our derelict and blighted countryside into safe areas that can be real amenities to their local communities. They would draw up an action programme which would be based on the survey of derelict land already being carried out.
Slag and spoil heaps, quarries, excavations and other man-made blots on the countryside would be listed in three categories. First, those that are an exising or potential danger to human or animal life. Secondly, those that are not dangerous, but affect the amenities of the district. Thirdly, those that are not dangerous and have little effect on the amenities of a district.
A 10-year programme would be drawn up concentrating as a crash priority on the first category, namely, those derelictions that are dangerous. The second category would also be dealt with, and the aim would be to have cleared both categories at the end of the 10 years.
The agency would work in close conjunction with local authorities, the National Coal Board, quarry owners, the Forestry Commission, the Civic Trust, and other relevant bodies. The agency would have to have powers of compulsory acquisition for certain circumstances, and it would certainly need a highly competent staff to investigate and supervise the work of reclamation.
It would also need money—quite a lot of money. The "Countryside in 1970" conference, last year, estimated the cost of clearing the 100,000 acres of dereliction at £50 million. This is about the cost in one year of abolishing prescription charges, or the cost of two new Type 81 frigates.
The benefits which would ensue would far, far outweigh this expenditure. In terms of human life alone the expenditure would be amply justified. There would be no more living in fear under the shadow of spoil heaps, no more sorry 469 tales of children being drowned in disused and unprotected gravel quarries.
In terms of comfort and amenity, the dividends from such an investment would be incalculable. New playing fields, grassy parks, fertile allotments, inland boating centres, could all be created from the present decay and desolation. I believe that it is no coincidence that the regional problems of unemployment, slums, and bad health are greatest in those areas where there is the greatest dereliction.
The recent tragedy in South Wales has moved the country to both unprecedented grief and generosity. The best tribute we can pay to those who lost their lives is to ensure that the money and administrative organisation is available and set up so that the next generation's contact with dereliction and spoil heaps will be confined to fading newsreels and history books. It is in this spirit that I hope hon. Members will grant me leave to submit my Bill to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cordle, Mr. Robert Cooke, Mr. Body, Mr. J. H. Osborn, Mr. Gibson-Watt, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr Gresham Cooke, Sir E. Bullus, Mr. Baker, Mr. Loveys, and Mr. Farr.