HC Deb 21 January 1971 vol 809 cc1442-52

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

11.28 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Dormand

One of the most widely used phrases in the English language today is "the quality of life", which embraces many of the ingredients of good living, but it would be agreed that physical environment makes one of the most important contributions to that quality.

There can be no denying that society today is very concerned with physical environment. That is a good thing. Moreover, Governments have realised that concern and in the Labour Government's Industrial Development Act, 1966, Section 20 provides an opportunity for a determined Government to correct the mistakes of the past.

Some parts of the country have suffered much more than others. Six counties account for 65 per cent. of the whole of the dereliction in England, and my constituency of Easington is in one of those counties, Durham. The people who live in these areas are beginning to demand an improvement in their environment, and they are right to do so. The rest of the country owes a debt to the old industrial areas. George Bernard Shaw puts a truism in the mouth of one of his characters, You can get used to anything, so you have to be careful what you get used to". In my constituency, we do not intend to get used to living among dereliction. Insufficient is being done to speed up the reclamation of derelict land.

Let me make a number of quotations from the Hunt Report, Cmnd. 3998, which expressed deep concern about the situation. Paragraph 457 said: We consider that urgent remedial action is necessary". Paragraph 459 said: To date the progress in reclaiming dereliction has been disappointingly slow". The Hunt Committee reported in 1969, and there has been very little improvement since then.

I remind the Secretary of State of the words in the Queen's Speech: My Ministers will intensify the drive to remedy past damage to the countryside". In case the Government feel that we did not believe that promise, in Investment Incentives, Cmnd. 4516, it was stated: Wider use will be made of the existing powers under the Local Employment Acts for grants towards the cost of providing the basic infrastructure services and of clearing derelict land". We have had plenty of promises, but in the seven months that the Government have been in office no evidence of the intensification mentioned in the Queen's Speech.

The grant to local authorities in development areas is usually 85 per cent. of the net eligible costs. I should like the right hon. Gentleman's reassurance that the Government's frenetic cutting of public expenditure will not extend to this grant aid which, generous though it is, is evidently not sufficient.

On this aspect of the matter, I was deeply disturbed to read a report in the Observer of 10th January that programmes for the clearance of dereliction were being jeopardised by a Government directive to local authorities. I assume that the report was concerned with Circular 270 from the Department of the Environment, because this very day I have received a letter from the Clerk to Durham County Council on this very matter. The contents can only be described as a bombshell, and it is essential for me to quote from it. It says: A particular difficulty has arisen in County Durham in connection with our proposed expenditure on clearing and reclaiming derelict land … About four years ago the County Council, knowing that there was a limited time during which 85 per cent. grant would continue to run, offered to meet the balance of 15 per cent. in full in any case where County District Councils would push ahead with approved schemes designed to get rid of dereliction. This has led to a number of County District Councils appointing staff, planning ahead, buying sites and in many cases these arrangements are at present in mid-stream in the sense that while planning work has started, expenditure on the resultant scheme has not yet begun. This is also true in the ordinary course of events of a number of County Council schemes which they are carrying out themselves. To expedite this work to the utmost, the County Council set up a special interdepartmental team comprising planners, valuers and engineers with the result that its administrative arrangements are highly geared and we are moving into a period of commitment to expenditure at a high level. The expenditure on getting rid of dereliction has to be spread over a number of years, the first few of which were concerned with comparatively inexpensive but time-consuming preparation followed by a shorter period of very expensive physical work on the land. This is why the national formula —and this is an important part of the letter— based as it is on expenditure in the two years ended 31st March 1970 for determining the total amount of money we can spend in 1971–72 in County Durham on dereliction completely fails to meet our forward needs. Those last few words are of the utmost importance.

The sum involved in the Easington Rural District Council is no less than £230,000. Surely the Government are aware that with schemes of this nature a local authority just cannot break off in the middle of what is a most complex operation. I know, of course, that the Government will say that it is part of their philosophy of freeing the local authorities, but I should like to know how they would reconcile the results of such a doctrinaire policy with their promises on this important matter.

Apart from what was said in the Queen's Speech about investment incentives, the Secretary of State in two Written Answers said: In addition to maintaining the existing high rates of grant, increasing funds will be made available for this purpose … I can see no reason for a change in the present arrangements …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 130.] Here we are, less than two months after those answers, having a fundamental change in the arrangements. I do not wish to dwell on this topic, important though it is, but I ask the Government to consider sympathetically making a special allocation to authorities such as Durham and Easington which find themselves in this serious plight. If the Government really mean business in the matter of dereliction, the previous arrangement whereby reclamation was separately financed is infinitely more effective.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary in another place was kind enough to write to me giving information on progress during the three years 1967–70. The number of schemes decreased from 48 to 25, the acreage involved decreased from 996 to 608, and the gross cost decreased from £1,444,723 to £1,144,701. That is a depressing picture given as recently as the end of September, 1970.

I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to an apparent discrepancy in the figures. In answer to my Question on 21st July, 1970, I was informed that for the three-year period 1967–70 the total grant paid was £1,199,579, being 85 per cent. of the cost. In the letter from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to which I have referred I was informed that for the same period the gross cost was £3,701,795. Even with my poor mathematical capacity, I can see that the first figure does not represent 85 per cent. of the second figure, even allowing for it being the gross cost. I press this because many right hon. and hon. Members are interested in this problem, and accurate statistics are essential.

Section 20 of the Act confers on the Department the power to acquire land compulsorily. So far it has not taken over a single acre. I realise that the burden of this falls upon the local authorities, but it shows a complete lack of urgency on the part of the Government that they have not taken any steps at all. The problem as a whole is frightening, in that the total derelict area for the whole of England is between 150,000 and 200,000 acres.

According to a most informative article in Barclays Bank Review of August, 1970, the position is deteriorating. Dereliction is expanding at the rate of 3,500 acres a year. When we see from the Department's figures that the average reclamation for the last three years is 800 acres a year, we can easily deduce the seriousness of the situation. That article estimates that even to maintain the status quo would cost £4½ million, and the Hunt Report states that in England alone the cost of clearing present dereliction will be £100 million. Those figures compare with £1#.2 million actually spent in the last three years. It is clear that we are hardly touching the fringe of this problem.

The figures I have used are those of schemes approved by the Department. I realise that local authorities are under no compulsion to notify the Department, but when one considers that the grant available is 85 per cent., one can reasonably assume that the global figures are accurate.

I believe that the crucial factor in trying to carry out what amounts to a national spring-clean is the degree of determination of both local authorities and the Government. The councils in the County of Durham and in my district of Easington are models of determination, and other local authorities, and, indeed, the Government, could learn a lot from them.

It is clear that something more needs to be done when a grant of 85 per cent. fails to deliver the goods. I am of the opinion that the Hunt Committee's recommendation that a derelict land reclamation agency should be set up is the most valuable and constructive suggestion of all. Such an agency could do at least three things. First, it could focus attention on the problem. That is very important. Indeed, I think that it is of fundamental importance. Secondly, it could provide valuable assistance where local authorities lack the experience and qualified technical staff to deal with dereliction. Thirdly, it could act as a prodder to other local authorities and to the Government.

Much clearance of dereliction is done on a voluntary basis—indeed, tribute must be paid to bodies like the Civic Trust, to school children, to youth club members, and so on—but it requires better organisation and a stimulus. For example, the Secretary of State for Education and Science could send out a circular to all local education authorities encouraging school children, youth club members, including members of community associations and the like, to increase their efforts. Perhaps the Minister could bring that suggestion to the notice of his right hon. Friend.

The Department for the Environment should, from time to time, publish booklets containing good examples of reclamation and send them to the local authorities with the Secretary of State's commendation.

The Government should involve the parish councils much more than they do. Nobody knows better than the parish councils what is required in their areas. Some parish councils are paying active old-age pensioners to undertake part-time work in reclamation; and, equally important, they are paying them to do maintenance work on land which has already been reclaimed. That is a splendid idea which the Government ought to encourage.

Other suggestions could be made for speeding up the clearance of dereliction, but I do not have time to develop them tonight.

Perhaps the most famous words ever written about England were those of Shakespeare, when he wrote, This precious stone set in the silver sea", and, in the same passage, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England". If the Bard could return to England in 1971, what a shock he would get; what a change he would see.

We have a precious heritage, but one which, in parts, was ravaged by the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries and is being similarly ruined by the Industrial Revolution of our own time. Nothing less than the greatest determination on the part of the Government will put the matter right.

11.43 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) for raising this topic tonight. I want to reply personally to his Adjournment debate because I think that this is one of the most important subjects in terms of improving the environment.

I certainly wish to express my determination that the first decade of the new Department of the Environment will be the decade for the disappearance of dereliction. The clearance of derelict land is one of the most obvious ways in which we can improve the environment of those who suffer at present from very bad environmental conditions.

There is always a great deal of Press publicity—rightly so—whenever any important area of beauty being conserved is in danger from a development scheme. But to my mind there is insufficient publicity on the desperately important subject of converting areas which are not pleasant and beautiful at the moment but rather ugly owing to the results of the Industrial Revolution.

From the moment that I took on responsibility for the programme for clearing derelict land, I made it clear in every possible way that I would do everything to encourage local authorities to pursue more actively programmes of clearance. I have personally spoken to a number of the authorities concerned, and the Government have made it clear that they will certainly retain the level of grants which now exists. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman mentioned 85 per cent. as the figure. In reality, if we add to that what comes in from the rate support grant, it is a still higher figure. For example, in County Durham in reality the figure is 91 per cent. and not 85 per cent. and it can be as high as 95 per cent. of the total cost.

I have spoken to many of the authorities concerned, and it is my intention in the coming twelve months to visit the six worst counties from the point of view of dereliction in order to try to discuss with both county authorities and district authorities the problems involved, to ask them about the difficulties they are meeting, to ask for their comments and advice on the problems they have met in practice, and to try to persuade them to plan more ambitious programmes for the future and to have sensible long-term targets for the clearance of derelict land in their areas.

In this respect the hon. Gentleman suggested the idea of a national agency as mentioned in the Hunt Report. I do not intend to pursue that, because already my Department has collated a great deal of information and knowledge on this topic. My Department already has a regional organisation, and what I want to do is to see that that knowledge and experience in regional offices is used actively to provide information and advice, to see that every local authority is encouraged to fix a realistic target, and to pursue all means of removing the dereliction. The pooling of knowledge aspect, which is very important, will be organised effectively with the whole weight of the Department behind it.

In terms of the current figures, I am not sure why there was a disparity in the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman. It may be that the grants are given under different Acts, or there may be other reasons for it; but I shall give the total figures, which are very encouraging. The acceleration is already commencing, and I am pleased to give the House the current position. In this financial year local authorities in County Durham, for example, will be spending £600,000, compared with £437,000 last year. In Lancashire the figure will increase sixfold, from £50,000 to £300,000. In the West Riding of Yorkshire the figure will more than quadruple, from £75,000 to £325,000. In Derbyshire the figure is up from £48,000 to £260,000, and in Nottinghamshire it is up from £50,000 to £160,000.

In the County Borough of Stoke on Trent, which is the county borough with probably the worst problem of derelict land in the country, expenditure will have more than quadrupled this year, from £100,000 to £430,000. If Stoke continues at the rate of clearance that it will achieve this year, it will have cleared the whole of its derelict land within a decade, and this is the sort of target which I should like local authorities throughout the country to be setting.

The active encouragement that we are giving to this work will result in substantially better figures next year, and I am confident that next year expenditure on the clearance of derelict land will be more than treble the expenditure in the last financial year of the previous Government. There is an acceleration, and there is no reason why, if local authorities now concentrate and plan ahead, the derelict land that now scars the localities involved should not be removed within the decade.

I recognise the valid point made by the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for doing so, on the concern that has been expressed about the change in the system of loan sanctions for local authorities. I welcome this opportunity to make it abundantly clear that I shall see that the change in the system will in no way adversely affect the programme of clearing derelict land. The change in the arrangements for loan sanctions is a major step forward in the Government's general policy of reducing unnecessarily detailed Government ontrol over local authorities. I do not think there is any disagreement between the two sides of the House about the desirability of trying to give total freedom and discretion nearer to the ground and to have less dictation from Whitehall.

But representations have been made that the formula used in the circular might, in certain circumstances, have the undesirable side-effect of producing certain problems in connection with reclamation programmes, especially where those programmes show a fast acceleration compared with what has previously occurred. My Department does not want to put any impediment in the way of local authorities in priority areas carrying out expanding reclamation programmes. I have therefore instructed the Department to arrange to discuss the position with any local authority so affected, and a solution will be found to this problem.

A date for discussions with the Durham County Council has already been agreed and fixed, and in the discussion we shall see that there are no adverse effects from the circular in respect of the problem of derelict land. I can guarantee that the previous historic position in respect of derelict land clearance will not have any adverse effect. The faster that clearance programmes are allowed to proceed the more I shall be pleased.

In this respect I am anxious to see that the figures and statistics concerning derelict land are far more accurate than at present. If we take the total figures already published it is interesting to note that they show an increase due not to new industrial activity but due purely to further areas being regarded as derelict, those areas not having been scheduled before. I have a suspicion that if we went all over the country we should find that the figure was substantially higher than that published at present.

I am anxious to urge local authorities systematically to examine areas of land that can be taken as being derelict and to inform my Department as to the realistic total size of the problem. I am also anxious that the Department should be far more accurate in its information as to the derelict land that will be created by present industrial processes. If we are not careful we shall spend a lot of money in clearing up the present derelict land at the same time as new derelict land is being created by other industrial processes. That is why, in the collection of statistics, I have asked local authorities not only to give me figures and statistics in respect of the position of historically-created derelict land but am also suggesting to local authorities ways of improving this procedure by collecting information as to the likely creation of derelict land from existing industrial processes.

Where such processes are taking place I want to see that damage is kept to a minimum and that it is then swiftly removed and put right. In this sphere certain organisations have good records. The National Coal Board, where it has carried out opencast mining, has a good record, not only in putting right the damage that it has done but in many cases in substantialy improving an area as a result.

I should like to see that those who carry out industrial processes that of necessity have to create a phase of dereliction will be forced to put the matter right and, where possible, to put the land into an even better position than before. I am also anxious to see that in looking at further developments in planning those local authorities with derelict land—if they are going in for areas of economic expansion and areas of housing and industrial activities—should consider the possibility of using derelict land and, in the process, of improving it—

Mr. Mark Hughes (Durham)

Will the Minister make some comment on the problem of the compulsory purchase of derelict land under the present Act and its subsequent use for development of another sort? I believe that this is an impediment in County Durham.

Mr. Walker

If the authorities in County Durham would like to approach my Department and point out specific problems where compulsory purchase would be necessary, or would be of assistance, my Department will discuss those problems with them. Any Government would be rightly reluctant to see these compulsory purchase powers used unless for a very good reason, but if Durham or any other local authority has a problem in this respect that it would like to put to us, that problem will be carefully considered by the Department.

I am anxious to see that in our new activities and in our activities to tackle the past problem, we are active in this sphere. There is a tendency for Parliament—this applies to all Governments: I am not making a party point—to pass legislation which enables people to do things and then to sit back in the belief that everything will happen.

In regard to house improvement grants, I discovered that very good legislation had been passed by my predecessors, but that many people had no idea of the grants available and that many local authorities were not active in this area. I therefore contacted 50 towns and cities and asked them to pursue active publicity campaigns on this matter.

The same approach is needed towards derelict land. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will, as actively as possible, give the maximum encouragement to all local authorities to tackle this problem. With real enthusiasm and effort, and with the know-how which we are now acquiring as a nation in these problems, we could make a dramatic difference to areas of very bad environment over a decade.

There is sometimes a feeling of frustration that, when this problem is being tackled, within a few months the position is not greatly improved. But county boroughs like Stoke which have sensibly embarked on long-term targets and programmes can completely change their environment. Durham and areas like it have a nasty inheritance in this regard. I wanted to come here to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there will be no hesitation by my Department about helping such authorities in every possible way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Twelve o'clock.