HC Deb 05 November 1987 vol 121 cc1168-74

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

10.15 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

It is appropriate that we should be discussing this subject on Guy Fawkes night in the House of Commons on a motion to adjourn the House. I hope that we are not tempting fate too much. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Dronfield fire was not started by gunpowder. However, the way in which it did start is something of a mystery. The speculation is that there was a surface fire that moved underground.

The fire was on a private industrial estate in Dronfield, Derbyshire which was built in the 1970s. It was established from a tip in an area where there had been industrial waste from an iron and steel works and former railway sidings. It started two years ago on the south-east embankment of the industrial estate at a firm called Cronite Alloys Ltd. The embankment is 40 to 45 ft high and the fire started to develop at the lower regions of the bank near the river below it. It moved over 100 yards in two years, gathering momentum and threatening buildings at Henry Toole Ltd, which has since had to move to Chesterfield, and at Butler Die-Casting Ltd., which owns the land on which Henry Toole was located. All the time it was gathering in ferocity and speed. If it had not been stopped it would have been heading for the major gas supply into Dronfield and parts of south Yorkshire.

The problem was fully discovered only in February this year when there was heavy snow, which meant that the problem areas could be seen. The fire has since been diverted by a firm called Waddingtons, which was next in line for the fire. It built a barrier and grouted the area. The fire has now turned and moved towards Armeg Ltd and Fusion Ltd.

A magistrates court in July determined that the district council should take action to put the fire out. The North-East Derbyshire district council does not own the land, but it has been taking action since then. It has attempted to deaden the fire by grouting. It is providing an inert protective barrier around the fire and excavating heated areas of the embankment and sealing them off.

One problem is that the temperatures are much higher than were estimated. The body of the embankment is 700 deg C above the level estimated. It is giving off greater steam and dust emissions than were imagined, which is producing problems for the workers and residents in the neighbouring area. The residents have this week been involved in problems created by the work being done there. That slowed up the process.

According to the initial court ruling, the process should have been finished by now, but it will not be completed until January. The work has been much more expensive than was envisaged initially because of the time involved and the amount of grouting that needs to be done. It was originally estimated that it would cost the district council £300,000 to put out the fire but on present estimates the work needed will cost £500,000.

How is that money to be found? At the moment, the work is being paid for by a small non-metropolitan district council whose total budget is only £4.8 million — a council which the Government would describe as prudent, because it operates within its budget and has never been subject to any penalty clauses. If the council takes action to recover the money from the firms concerned, as is its statutory duty under section 99 of the Public Health Act 1936, the firms will become bankrupt and jobs will be lost on the estate. If the council has to spend so much money without being able to recoup it, it will suffer grant penalty losses and will have to pay the interest charges on temporary loans. If that happens, an 8p increase will be required in respect of the district precept, which represents a 25 per cent. rate increase.

We have to add to those problems the fact that valuation losses will he suffered because of firms moving out and the fact that valuation and revenue losses will be incurred in my constituency if Renisham park pit is closed and in the district if Arkwright pit is closed. Early-day motion 231 opposes that move, but the development is being pushed hard by the coal board. If those pits close, the district council will be in serious difficulties.

The council is in the unenviable position of having debts relating to remedial work on land that it does not own when the general body of its ratepayers cannot benefit in any way from the expenditure. Representations have been made to the Department of the Environment but have led to no offer of financial help. We received a letter from the Under-Secretary which states: You will, I know, be disappointed that your campaign on behalf of the local authorities and the industrialists should not have secured Government assistance for them but you may be assured that the case you have made has been considered most carefully and sympathetically. We require more than tea and sympathy. We need financial assistance to handle our problems.

What measures could the Government and the House take to meet all or part of the costs involved? Several possibilities are open to us. First, section 1 of the Derelict Land Act 1982 could perhaps be used as the land concerned was used for tipping and now requires reclamation before it can be of any benefit to the area. It will need landscaping and tree planting. We shall need to improve the appearance of the estate for residents and for those using the main Sheffield to Chesterfield road. The embankment, which supports the industrial estate, is now subject to subsidence because of the burn beneath. The application of the Derelict Land Act would therefore seem appropriate. However, the Department of the Environment interprets the matter differently and does not see that as a possibility.

The second possibility would be to amend the Derelict Land Act. At the moment, the fact that the area is occupied or partly occupied means that the Act cannot apply.

The third possibility would be for the Department of Trade and Industry, through an amendment to legislation, to make available to councils funds that could later be recouped by those councils under the Public Health Act 1936. We do not want the issue partitioned between Government Departments so that we fall foul of that divide.

The fourth possibility would be to waive all grant losses and penalties, so that the sympathy described in the Minister's letter could be expressed in hard cash. The fifth possibility would be a special grant to the council because it cannot recover money from the firms involved. That could be done by means of a private Bill.

The sixth possibility is the Bellwin scheme —something frequently mentioned in the House in recent days in connection with the storm damage in southern England. A circular from Lord Bellwin on 14 April 1983 shows that a wider interpretation of the word "damage" can be made. It states: It is to provide special financial assistance to local authorities who, as a consequence of emergency would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities. I think that under that definition funds could be made available to my council.

A further circular issued on 21 October concerned the recent storm damage. It said that, after an initial rate payment, 75 per cent. of the remaining costs of district councils would be met by the Department of the Environment from central funds, and the remaining 25 per cent. which would have to be paid by the district councils would not be subject to rate penalties. It may not be known generally that district councils, as distinct from county councils, cannot levy a penny rate initially, but only a rate of 0.15p in the pound.

There is a seventh possibility, which shows the lesson to be learned from Dronfield, and that is to provide funds that could be applied to wider areas. Would the Department of the Environment respond favourably to a Bill to set up a general disaster fund system so that central contingency funds are available for storm damage and other emergencies such as underground fires? I am referring not only to the fire in Dronfield, but to the coal seam that caught light at Oakthorpe colliery. Much of the burden of the costs there were carried by British Coal, although it had disclaimed responsibility. The fund could also be used for floods. A deputation from Strabane district council has visited the House today, and will visit it again tomorrow to tell us about its flooding problems.

The fund could cover the emergency that nearly occurred at Killamarsh, when there was an explosion at the chemical reclamation plant of Leigh Environmentals. That caused all sorts of problems in the area. The Minister is well aware of that case because in his previous office he had responsibility for small firms and he received a deputation from that company. Indeed, he wrote a sympathetic letter saying that an inquiry should be undertaken. Unfortunately, in his new position, he has now refused to set up that inquiry.

Such a general disaster fund would have all-party support in the House, especially after the storms suffered recently in the south of England. That has all-party support in Strabane, where, perhaps amazingly for this House, the representation from the district council is presented by a delegation made up of independent, Sinn Fein, Democratic Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour party and Official Unionist councillors. Perhaps a similar arrangement of Labour and Conservative councillors who are affected by the problems at Dronfield could be brought about.

I ask the Department of the Environment seriously to consider action and not just issue sympathy to my constituency, so that the avenues that I have mentioned, or some combination of those avenues, are used to prevent the district council from being placed in an embarrassing financial position.

10.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier)

I am grateful for the opportunity to assure the House that I am fully aware of the anxiety of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) about the underground fire at Callywhite lane industrial estate in Dronfield in his constituency. I am also aware of the concerns of the local authority—north-east Derbyshire district council—and the local industrialists at Callywhite lane.

I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing a deputation of those directly affected by the fire to meet me in July this year. It was helpful to hear, at first hand, about the problems at the industrial estate. I have also had the opportunity of watching a television report about the fire which was kindly loaned to me by the district council. As a result I feel that I know a great deal about the fire and the problems that it has caused.

I fully understand the financial implications of dealing with local emergencies such as this underground fire. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clear explanation of the difficulties involved. I can assure the House that the hon. Gentleman's requests for central Government financial assistance have been carefully considered.

It would be foolish of me to catalogue the events that have led to the position in which the local authority now finds itself as the hon. Gentleman has accurately dealt with that. However, it is important that I should emphasise that the industrial estate was privately developed and is privately owned.

It is also important that I stress that, although at first the fire progressed slowly and experts considered that the best action would be to monitor the fire to see that it burnt itself out, at that time the Health and Safety Executive advised that the responsibility for dealing with the fire lay with the occupiers of the land on which the fire started.

As the hon. Gentleman said, early this year there was clear evidence of the extent of the underground heating from vegetation coming into leaf on the embankment to the estate when there was snow on the ground nearby and from trees dying and falling. Some companies with properties on the estate beyond the extent of the fire undertook work to protect their premises. At their own expense, they inserted underground concrete screens to halt the progress of the fire, and I appreciate that.

Throughout, the North-East Derbyshire district council has taken the line that liability for the fire, and for any remedial action, rests with the landowners. The council's officers assured officials of my Department that the local authority would use its statutory powers to act against nuisance if and when necessary. It would then seek to recharge the owners for the costs of any action that they had taken. The recommendation in that report, and subsequent local discussions, resulted in the deputations to me in July to see if central Government funds could be made available to help deal with the underground fire.

In the meantime, two firms threatened by the underground fire complained to the local magistrates court. Their complaint was that the owners of the land on which the fire had started had defaulted on their legal obligation to put the fire out. That fact has not yet been mentioned. The complaint also cited two other firms on to whose land the fire had progressed, because they had failed to take major steps to contain the fire". The magistrates found that those complaints were justified. Their ruling confirmed the line taken by the district council that liability rests with the landowners. The magistrates concluded that statutory nuisance existed and, "considering the practical circumstances", ordered the district council to abate the nuisance within 16 weeks. Clearly, the magistrates were determined to ensure that the remedial action needed was put in hand immediately. The district council did that, and action is now in hand to put out the fire. My information is that, to a large degree, that action has been successful. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins with me in hoping that that is so.

Under the public health Acts, local authorities have powers to take action to abate statutory nuisance and to recharge the landowners for the costs they incur in so doing. The authorities also have a duty to their ratepayers to seek to recover the costs of abating statutory nuisance. In this case, the district council has assured me that it will take whatever action is necessary to recover its costs. Clearly any such action by the district council could involve further litigation.

Mr. Barnes

Will the Minister estimate how long he believes that the litigation might take? The district council will be in an awkward position. It will act as the banker during the period before moneys can be recovered.

Mr. Trippier

The hon. Gentleman will recall that at the meeting in the Department of the Environment I asked why steps had not already been taken against the landowners. That would have considerably cut the time. If litigation could arise, it is rather difficult for me to comment further on that aspect of the case.

From the history of events and the facts that I have provided, I am sure that the House will understand that it would not be appropriate to make central Government financial assistance available to help fund the remedial works necessary to put out the fire. Nevertheless, as I promised the hon. Gentleman when he brought his deputation to see me, I have investigated the possibility of using derelict land grant to help in meeting the costs of remedial works. He raised that matter again today.

I have advised the hon. Member that the engineering works, which are now well under way, are not eligible for derelict land grant. Quite simply, the land is still occupied and, therefore, cannot be regarded as derelict. Even if the land were derelict, it would not be open to the district council to apply for derelict land grant, because the land in question is in private ownership.

As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, the district council has not yet taken any steps to recover the costs incurred in the remedial work so far completed. It would, therefore, be premature to judge what the outcome of its attempts to recover its costs might be.

On the various questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised for my attention, of course it may be possible for the Government, through the Department of the Environment to bring forward to the House a change in the policy on derelict land grant. I ask the hon. Gentleman how long that would take. Is it necessary to change the criterion by which we use the derelict land grant? That brings into account much wider policies than we are considering tonight.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)

That elaborate bureaucratic explanation was brilliantly drafted by the Under-Secretary of State's officials. A natural disaster has occurred. It is exactly comparable to the storm damage. The Government were able to move rapidly in that connection. To say that a fire on private property is not a matter of public concern — the magistrates took a contrary view — misses the point. Either the local ratepayers will have to pay an 8p increase—10 per cent. of their total budget—or, if possible, recover the money from the firm. Otherwise, jobs may be lost. In the light of that, surely the Minister could move with lightning speed if he wished to do so.

Mr. Trippier

The right hon. Gentleman must accept that it is perhaps a little strange that the district council has not taken action against the landowners. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has heard his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East say that, in certain cases, a number of companies might be adversely affected financially if a case was brought against them. I am not qualified to comment on that. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman is also not qualified to comment on it. In some cases those companies are subsidiaries of larger companies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting for one moment that action should still not be taken by the district council against the landowners when that is the law? The right hon. Gentleman must accept that the district council does not appear to have taken much action in this regard. Under the law it is open to the district council to use legislation against the landowners, but thus far it has taken very little, if any, action.

Mr. Barnes

If the action is taken to recover moneys the consequence—based on the information available about the standing of the firms, particularly firms such as Butler (Die Casting) Ltd., which freely admits its difficult financial situation—is that the firms go bankrupt. Thus the workers lose their jobs and the district council is unable to recover the money. The Minister is encouraging people to respond in such a manner, thus, the creation of industrial dereliction within the area. Therefore, another problem is created regarding how things might be built up in the future. It might be that moneys begin to be available at some later stage so that someone else can operate in the area. We should like to ensure that those jobs are saved now and that, in the meantime, the district council is not placed in the extremely embarrassing position of not having adequate resources without putting the rates up by a considerable amount.

Mr. Trippier

The logical conclusion to what the hon. Gentleman has said is that he is suggesting—I am sure that this is not his intention—that the district councils placed in such a position in the future, whatever may have happened to the land on which businesses are working, should not go to great lengths to recover the costs from those people who are operating in those industrial areas. I am sure that he would agree that that is complete nonsense.

I would like to be a little more comforted by the action that the district council has been prepared to take against the landowners. Indeed, I implied that when the hon. Gentleman brought his deputation to see me. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is quite a difference on the site in question between those who are operating their businesses and those who own the land—I accept, not in all cases. However, I have said that there are some sizeable companies involved, yet there seems to have been little attempt by the district council to recover the costs.

The North-East Derbyshire district council has made representations to the Department of the Environment that the unrecovered expenditure incurred by the council in putting out the fire should be excluded from the definition of total expenditure for 1987–88. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take into account the points made to me by the deputation that the hon. Gentleman brought to me and the points that he has made tonight and will announce his decision in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.