§ Amendments made:
No. 4, in page 7, line 13, after 'where', insert 'application for the grant is or was made, or'.
No. 5, in page 7, line 21, after 'where', insert 'application for the grant is or was made, or'.— [Mr Giles Shaw.]
§ Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
10.37 am§ Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton)I shall be brief, but I must justify my presence somehow. I have had to exercise 532 enormous restraint as I was not privy to the exercise that Conservative Members were determined to engage in, quite justifiably, today.
It has often been said that some Bills are modest measures. Indeed, this is a modest measure, without pretensions, but we consider its intentions are good and that is why the official Opposition will give the Bill their unqualified support on Third Reading. The Government may feel that it is unfair that, even when they are anxious to make more money available to rid our countryside of the scars and wounds caused by either industrial plunder or sheer neglect, they get little credit for their best endeavours. To some extent, that has been their own fault.
The Bill widens the scope for grants to the public and private sectors. In that way, initiatives to clean up our countryside or urban landscape are not left solely to the public sector. Conservative Members have shown an ungenerous and carping attitude that is not shared by Labour Members.
The Government are at fault if they assert that this year total grants of about £45 million will be increased but are unable to say by how much. References to these matters being contained within the £70 million grant for urban renewal projects serve only to confuse. I should not like to use the word "deceive". Many people will be exceedingly angry if what looks like a modest increase in money available turns out to be moonshine. Allowing for inflation, £45 million must be £50 million this year If reclamation is to be positively encouraged in both public and private sectors, a modest increase of about 20 per cent. to £60 million is the minimum that should be contemplated.
I noted that, in Committee, the Minister gave an assurance that the figure of £40 million would be increased. I have watched the situation closely and can tell him that the Opposition substantially support the 13ill because it is seen as an additional weapon to the armoury available to central and local government and to private owners to help clean up centuries of dereliction.
The Bill has been well served by those who have taken a special interest in these matters, not least the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen). I wish to pay a justified tribute not only to his knowledge, but to his continued interest in ensuring that the problems that he knows so much about are put right.
The hon. Gentleman rightly argues that it is a crime to plunder the green belt and other green field sites on the edge of urban areas, while allowing sites within urban areas to stagnate, to pollute and appal the eye and the senses. Whether 60,000 acres of good agricultural land are lost every year, or a more modest 30,000 acres, we cannot and need not suffer that loss. The Bill will help to highlight our responsibilities to this and future generations. However, we shall delude no one if we set our aspirations too high. The challenge is enormous, daunting and depressing. We need not only to flatten the pit heaps, to beautify the spoil and to fill in the holes but to face up to our responsibility and to ensure that we do not bury today matter that may poison our children tomorrow.
More than once I have raised the worry that, despite cuts in the inspectorate and the Secretary of State's determination to shed staff wherever possible, Ministers must remember their duty to police the dumping of toxic waste and other poisonous matter so vigorously that all those who seek to avoid the controls will be not only discouraged, but stopped. The problems are deadly 533 serious, with cowboy operators and often ignorant developers who do not ask too many questions when reclaiming derelict land.
The dangers that I have alluded to are all man-made and are almost beyond the powers of Ministers. There are villains, unscrupulous operators and careless or uncaring individuals. In addition, there is the sheer size of the task. However, I warmly commend the thoughtful and sympathetic approach that the Minister and the Secretary of State have displayed. I accept that the Secretary of State wishes to contribute to this vexed and, I fear, never-ending problem. The best way of doing that is to use the vehicle fashioned by the Bill to fight for more resources and to ensure that both private and public sectors use the measure for all their worth.
On behalf of the official Opposition, I am happy to speed the Bill on to the statute book.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed.