Contaminated Land (Hansard, 9 December 1992)

§ 3. Mr. Hardy:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to ensure that land that was contaminated and which has now been cleansed is brought into uses that provide economic or environmental advantage.

§ The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean)
The Government are keen to encourage all contaminated land to be brought into productive use and I am looking carefully at my proposals on section 143 registers to ensure that we deal with the conflicting concerns voiced by local authorities, developers, lenders, valuers, insurers and, indeed, Members of this House.

§ Mr. Hardy
Does the Minister appreciate that considerable areas of derelict and contaminated land in my constituency and elsewhere have been cleared and reclaimed at considerable cost to public funds? However, while the Government maintain the contaminated land register as it is and insist on including the reclaimed land on that register, there will be no economic advantage as a result of the investment that has been made. Does the Minister accept that the needs of the areas concerned are such that the Government should be pursuing policies of assurance and indemnification to allow some hope and advantage to be brought to those very necessitous districts?

§ Mr. Maclean
Because of that concern voiced by the hon. Gentleman and by many others, I made a special visit to the black country recently to see the problem on the ground, and that point of view was impressed on me in no uncertain terms. I therefore intend to look at other areas of the country where there may be similar worries about the potential blighting effect if the registers went ahead. It is important for me to talk to the insurers and lenders, because we would not be able to bring the contaminated land back into use without their support. My intention is to deal with land that is actively contaminated and needs to be cleaned up, and not to cause unnecessary blight.

§ Mr. Thomason
I welcome my hon. Friend's statement today that he is reconsidering the permanent nature of the contaminated land register. Does he agree that if encouragement is not given to the development of derelict and contaminated land in the inner cities, greater pressure will be created in the countryside and on green belt land? Does he agree that that pressure should be avoided wherever possible by inner-city developments?

§ Mr. Maclean
That is yet another consideration as to why we must get our proposals on contaminated land right. As Minister for the Environment and Countryside, I should find it wrong if we created unnecessary pressures on the countryside because developers, for whatever reasons, were frightened away from using potentially useful land in inner cities. That is a matter to which we shall give careful consideration.

§ Ms. Short
When shall we know the outcome of the review? It is the strong view of the Confederation of British Industry in the west midlands that the present system acts as a barrier to the treatment of contaminated land and, therefore, leads to pressure on the green belt and great swathes of dirty land being left behind. Do we not need a graded register, incentives to treat, and then a way of coming off the register so that the land will be brought into use? The present system is a barrier to treatment and reuse.

§ Mr. Maclean
There are incentives to treat, and a variety of schemes funded by Government and local government to bring land back into productive use. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has identified one of the flaws in existing legislation—that no 831 matter what work is done to clean land up and make it suitable for a purpose, it will nevertheless be completely unable to come off the register. We are addressing that matter.
As the economy comes out of recession, I do not want this problem lingering for much longer. We want to deal with the matter and settle the concerns as soon as possible in the new year.