HL Deb 13 October 1969 vol 304 cc1288-303

6.7 p.m.

LORD GARNSWORTHY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, to secure further improvement of the countryside by the removal of disused colliery spoil heaps, they will give urgent consideration to the desirability of introducing legislation to exclude such spoil heaps which are being used to provide "fill" material for civil engineering projects and motorway construction from liability to rate levy. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the past the working of disused colliery spoil heaps—or for that matter, I think, possibly all industrial spoil heaps—has not, generally speaking, been rated. But a change has come about which has altered the position in a very serious way; seemingly because a useful purpose has been found for this waste material. I shall have more to say on that later in the course of my remarks.

I asked a Starred Question on July 17, and I have tabled this Unstarred Question to-day because the replies given seemed to me then, as they do now, to warrant further and fuller consideration, and because the problem is indeed an urgent one. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Kennet said: The Government have no power to absolve local authorities from their obligations to levy rates on spoil heaps from which material is being taken away … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col 467]:

He went on to say that if there was a case for a change, Legislation would be required.

I am asking to-day that urgent consideration be given to the desirability of introducing such legislation. On the earlier occasion, my noble friend also stated: the removal of what is in the tips and their use for some good purpose … is going to make only a very small impression on the problem, which is quite colossal …

If I may, I will return to that a little later.

My noble friend also referred to Government grants being available to local authorities who undertake (he reclamation of derelict areas, ranging, as he put it, from 85 per cent. to 50 per cent. I do not know what sums have been paid from national funds on this score, or what have been provided in current approved programmes—or, indeed, whether there is any figure for the expected ultimate cost of such programmes. If the figures are not easily available to-day perhaps it might be helpful if I indicated that I would ask the question on some future occasion.

I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield is to speak later. He has spent his life among peoples who have invested their lives in coal, and he brings to this matter experience and expertise which I cannot claim. My interest, if I may so put it, is in the pursuit of a socially desirable objective, and I doubt whether many, if any, would quarrel with it; for the problem of dereliction in Britain is a blot on our landscape, nothing short of a national disgrace. I am asking that what seems to me like common sense should be applied in support of this socially desirable objective, to help in what is the most effective way possible in usefully putting underground as much as we can of this particular form of dereliction.

Since July 17 the problem has received some well-merited publicity. There was a full-page article in the Sunday Times of July 20 entitled "The Ruin of Britain", by John Barr, the author of the Pelican book, Derelict Britain, which I think was published on July 31. There was also an article in the Daily Telegraph, under the heading "Taxing the tips", by John Bosworth on August 4. Some of your Lordships may have heard a talk on radio in the schools programme on September 29 which described how the "Wigan Alps" were being landscaped, were being turned from an eyesore to provide a range of amenities. I do not recall that in the talk the cost was mentioned, but it must have been a considerable figure.

I was interested, too, listening to the radio the other day, to hear references to the new Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning. Among his many responsibilities listed on that occasion was that of dealing with dereliction. In that I wish him every success. He is a very able man, for whom I have tremendous respect and admiration, and I hope that, among other achievements, he will improve the face of Britain by replacing dereliction with amenity. And I hope he will appreciate that: the derating of colliery spoil heaps where they are being used for "fill" material could make a very worthwhile contribution.

My Lords, the problem of dereliction is indeed a very large one. In England and Wales, I understand, there are some 112, 000 acres, and in Scotland another 15, 000 acres. So far as the coal tips are concerned, they amount, I think, to some 28, 000 acres; or, to put it another way, some 2, 000 million tons. My Question refers to the removal of "disused colliery spoil" heaps being used for civil engineering projects and motorway construction. I understand that for some years the National Coal Board have been disposing of some 5 million tons of burnt and unburnt shale a year for this particular purpose; and in the year 1968-69 those sales should rise to 7 million tons. There appear to be excellent prospects of increasing sales still higher, and the estimated figure at the moment, I believe, is some 12 million tons—if the cost of the shale can be kept at a competitive level.

One would think that this was a welcome contribution to the clearance of dereliction, perhaps not as large as one would like, but nevertheless a solid contribution; and, since it secures the burial of the eyesore, a pretty effective one. The point I wish to make, and indeed to stress, is that there is at the present time in the North-East road programme an opportunity which exists in this connection. I understand that the M.62/M.18 motorway project in Yorkshire itself will require some 20 million tons of "fill". If we miss this and similar chances, they will not recur.

I have mentioned that disposals of colliery waste tips have risen from 5 to 7 million tons, and are expected to rise to 12 million tons. But there is a development which threatens the position. I am given to understand that in the past, colliery shale has not been generally rated, except in Scotland, and there only by a very small amount; and, so far as the Midlands and Yorkshire are concerned, it seems that there has been no general acceptance of rating, probably, I venture to think, because the workings have been over comparitively short periods. That position has now changed in, if I may say so, a quite dramatic way. The decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Ryan v. Morgan in 1965 established, as it were, the principle of liability to rating. The decision last year of the Lands Tribunal, when they upheld an appeal against Smiles and Co. Ltd. brought home the full significance of that decision, not only in regard to rating for current workings but for "back" ratings. My noble friend Lord Blyton touched on this point in a supplementary question he put on July 17. He mentioned on that occasion a figure approaching £500, 000. I think that probably it lies somewhere between £300, 000 and the £500, 000 that he gave.

My Lords, if these eyesores are to be rated when they are being removed to provide "fill" material, then the cost of that material will certainly rise—and this is a very competitive market. If rates are added to the cost, there is grave danger that these tips will not be moved and usefully buried, but that they may become subjects for grant for re-contouring or re-landscaping. As the Daily Telegraph article of August 4 stated: If the rates come out of the realisation then the business becomes unattractive to the seller; if they are tacked on the price, the product becomes unattractive to the buyer. And if the contractors are called upon to pay back rates many will be forced to consider going out of business.

I should like now to touch on one of the main competitors to colliery waste for use as road "fill". This is material dug out of "borrow" pits—in layman's terms, huge excavations cut into the land nearby the particular project which is to be supplied—holes which, if left, are themselves an added dereliction. I have with me to-day a photograph showing what such dereliction looks like. I only wish that I had enough copies to send them to all your Lordships. I think you would appreciate that this is a form of dereliction that ought not to be permitted. I have heard it said that in one such case serious consideration has been given to filling such a hole with colliery shale. Who would bear the cost of that I certainly have No idea. As I understand it, these "borrow" pits do not pay rates. The position is, as the Daily Telegraph put it: Scarring the landscape below the ground is free, but reducing the ugliness above the line is chargeable. Furthermore, there seems some doubt whether "borrow" pits are checked by way of planning consent, and because "borrow" pits are conveniently placed to the site contractors are able to use unlicensed transport. And this is in competition with colliery waste, where one of the very big items of cost is transport, and it must be licensed transport.

My Lords, if I appear to be doing a little special pleading may I seek to justify it by quoting John Barr's article in the Sunday Times. He wrote: The ugliness, and the depression of whole areas, the dangers to life that our industrial wastelands bring—all these apart—in a crowded, land-short island, dereliction is simply plain bad economics. In this matter there is surely an overriding consideration: that we should do all we can to remove spoliation; to get rid of wasted acres and restore the land to its original condition, and particularly recognise the debt that we owe communities in the affected areas.

There is a particular question that I think might be asked on the subject of disused colliery spoil heaps: cannot the Coal Board itself carry the cost of rates? I gather that the sale of colliery waste produced to the Board in 1968-69 a revenue of about £600, 000. The cost to the Coal Board of maintaining tips is, I believe, running at some £4 million per annum, and that sum is at the present time a charge on the cost of coal which eventually has to be borne by the consumer. The sale of shale, and the increasing sale of shale, could ease the burden which the industry has to meet out of revenue. There is, too, an aspect which I think should be held to the Board's credit. The present uses of colliery waste are largely, if not entirely, the result of research undertaken and paid for by the Board.

If I may sum up briefly, my Lords, I put it in this way. Derating is surely cheaper than landscaping. Usefully burying waste is the best way of disposing of it. Using the waste avoids the creation of additional dereliction such as "borrow" pits may create. The more shale is used, the more chance there is that new and additional uses for it may be found. Because the motorway programmes are in hand there is great urgency to consider the matter. In conclusion, I suggest that perhaps there is a case for considering the derating, not only of disused colliery spoil heaps but of all spoil heaps being used for similar puposes to those I have mentioned. I believe that it might well be cheaper than grants for re-contouring and, in the long run, prove the best way of helping to remove these industrial excrescences. I hope that I may have a helpful answer from my noble friend who is to reply.

6.23 p.m.

LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for raising what has come to be regarded as a most important question, that of colliery spoil heaps. Judging from his Question, there is no doubt at all that he is most interested in the further improvement of the countryside by the removal of disused colliery spoil heaps. As my noble friend said, I have lived within sight of pit tips, as we call them, for the whole of my life. Only last week I was going through Sherwood Forest, on the edge of which there is situate a colliery. In the forest itself thousands and thousands of tons of this unsaleable rubbish have been deposited. If Robin Hood were to come back I do not know what he would say about such vandalism so far as Sherwood Forest is concerned.

In my view, recent happenings have brought the question of colliery spoil heaps greatly to the fore. This is not because they are new creations, because they have been there a very long time indeed. More people are talking about them to-day than ever before. I think there are two main reasons for this, about which I want to say one or two words to your Lordships. The first is the tragedy of Aberfan. I make no apology for mentioning Aberfan because I believe that it has impressed itself upon the minds not only of those living within the vicinity of the tips themselves, but of the people throughout the length and breadth of the land. The sad and tragic happening at Aberfan was different from the question posed by my noble friend. There the question was one of safety and of danger to life and limb and to the property of those whose homes are in the vicinity of these tips.

Recently, within this Session, there has been legislation to deal with the safety angle so far as these tips are concerned, and the removal of danger is now in legislative form. The regulations that are laid down impose greater duties upon those who are responsible for these spoil heaps, and reports have to be made to Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines to ensure that they are in a safe condition. I am sure that all your Lordships will certainly agree with that, and will echo this sentiment: may we never have another Aberfan!

The second reason why I think that the public is talking about these spoil heaps is because of the permanent closing of collieries. In some cases, the headgear is dismantled, the machinery is taken away and only the spoil heaps are left. I submit that the very presence of these things in the places where the pits were once situated, as my noble friend has said, focuses attention upon what I call the tidying up of dereliction caused by mining operations over many years.

I have no doubt in my mind that the artistic sense in our people is so developed that everyone is desirous of removing these ugly monstrosities. There will be no disagreement about removing those colliery spoil heaps which are unsafe and are regarded as a danger. But there are two kinds of tip or spoil heaps: those which are regarded as dangerous and those which are not—and some are not dangerous in the sense that Aberfan was. But, as the Question postulates, even those which are not dangerous spoil the countryside. They destroy amenity value, and attractiveness is forfeited where such spoil heaps exist.

That leads me to ask this question: is there a way of carrying out this tidying-up operation? I think there is. As my noble friend has demonstrated, the best way is to clear the heaps away and use the material for constructive purposes. This is now possible. At one time it was regarded as not being within the ambit of possibility. I remember many years ago being a member of a local authority where the argument was put forward: "Cannot this material which comes out of the pits and cannot be sold be used, for instance, for roadmaking?". In those days we were told that that was not a possibility; but now it is, and that is what is taking place.

For the sake of emphasising what my noble friend has said, I may have to cover a little ground to indicate the practical possibility of using this material from these spoil heaps. This is very recent history. By the middle '60s, which is not so very far away, the National Coal Board were disposing of about 5 million tons a year, as my noble friend has indicated. To begin with—and I think this is important because some spoil heaps fire and others do not—it was only burnt shale from these heaps that was a marketable commodity, but now I am informed that it has become possible to use unburnt or "black" shale, as it is sometimes referred to. Last year the National Coal Board, because of this discovery in the use of this material, were able to dispose of about 7 million tons. I do not think anybody would dispute that these sales are an extremely good thing. My information is that they have been achieved by cooperation with roadworks contractors, and that the building up of a good market reputation has been accomplished. I would emphasise a point to which my noble friend referred, that it is visualised that within two years sales could reach anything between 10 and 12 million tons per annum—and here comes the fly in the ointment, the little snag—provided that No impediment is put in the way which could possibly destroy the market for the disposing of this material from colliery spoil heaps. That is the purpose of my noble friend's Question, a purpose I heartily support.

If we were to go into various parts of the British coalfields, particularly the North-East (from where my noble friend Lord Blyton comes) the North-West, and the West Midlands, we should see that an impact has been made on derelict land. I admit that there is a lot more of this material left, but what has been removed from the heaps even up to now has made an obvious difference to the countryside. What attracts me about this matter is that no public funds are involved. It is a useful improvement in amenities, and in fact what has already been accomplished, in the form of landscaping as I have outlined, has been done at a saving to public funds.

May I mention one single case from Durham. A pit in Washington closed down, leaving behind it a big spoil heap. My noble friend Lord Blyton will know much more about this than I do. I understand that in the main the whole spoil heap was removed for motorway construction, for housing sites and so on. By doing so the first point that strikes us is that first-class land was released for development. In addition, had this colliery spoil heap not been removed the new town of Washington could have applied for a grant from public funds, which could have been anything up to 85 per cent., as my noble friend has indicated. It was estimated that the landscaping of this particular colliery heap in the new 'town authority of Washington would have cost £250, 000.

We have many motorway projects in the county of Yorkshire, and it could well be that from some of these tips or heaps shale to the extent of 20 million tons could be removed and used for this constructive purpose. May I say that if they do not have enough in Yorkshire, we in the counties of Nottingham and Derbyshire should be very pleased to supply them with some, because we have millions and millions of tons.

I now turn just for a few moments to the question of the impediment which could bring to a halt this very useful business of improving our countryside. The impediment, as my noble friend has indicated, is that the valuation officers have been pressing for rates respecting the sale of material from these spoil heaps. My information is that in the North-East, where activity in this field has been greatest, at present there are 50 cases in dispute, involving quite a large sum of money. No doubt these cases are sub judice, and it would be imprudent on my part to make any observations upon them at all. Therefore, I say only this—and this is my main concern—that it would be a pity if the opportunity of removing these spoil heaps is lost, and the improvement of the countryside in these areas where these heaps exist goes by the board. It could well be that, unless this Government give urgent consideration to the desirability of introducing legislation to exclude such spoil heaps from liability to the payment of rates the opportunity for doing something important in this field will be lost and perhaps gone for ever.

May I briefly mention a few of the repercussions which could follow if rates have to be paid for the removal of this material? First of all, if these heaps are not removed they will have to be landscaped and the cost will fall on public funds. Secondly, the nation will lose the difference between second-class land created by landscaping, and first-class land which could be freed by complete removal of this material. Thirdly, motorway constructors and other civil engineering contractors may turn to more expensive material, and that would put up the cost of construction of projected motorways.

May I put this question on colliery rating to my noble friend who is to reply? This subject has intrigued me for a long time. Am I right in assuming that colliery rating takes two forms? First, there is the plant—the headgear, the screening plant, the washery, the winding engine houses and every other item which comes under the term "plant". Is that rated separately from output? Because, as I understand it, colliery rating is double edged: the plant is assessed and then there is an assessment on output. I can understand that, because the plant may be within the area of one local authority, while some of the output two miles away may be in the area of another authority. I know that this matter is rather complicated and tricky, but I should like to have some information about it. The important question which I should like to ask is this: is the assessment made on the colliery's global output or on the saleable output? If the assessment is made on the global output, then rates will already have been paid on the material which constitutes the spoil heaps.

There are precedents for not levying rates. I recall the Local Government Act 1929, which absolved agriculture from the payment of rates. Under that legislation all industrial hereditaments were relieved of 75 per cent. of the rates. Agriculture is still derated and I believe that industrial hereditaments are derated to the extent of 50 per cent. Those are the observations which I wanted to make.

In conclusion, may I say that, for the reasons which my noble friend has outlined, I hope the Government will consider the suggestion outlined in his Question. I know that there are complications, but I hope it will be possible for them to look favourably upon my noble friend's suggestion. By so doing, they will assist in the work of removal of these colliery spoil heaps. If that work can go on unhindered and if every facility is given, then we shall reach a stage, which I think we all want, of beautifying the countryside and making it more attractive.

6.46 p.m.

LORD BLYTON

My Lords, I do not intend to keep the House very long at this late hour, but because I come from the county of Durham which has had more pits closed than anywhere else in the country I thought I should say a word on this issue. When a colliery closes and a twilight village is left, these h[...]deous pit heaps still face us and spoil the whole area. In the Government's development plan for my area to meet the unemployment problem, the clearance of pit heaps plays a prominent part. But if by this rate upon the heaps, we make it uncompetitive to lift this material for filling-in roads, then at some time in the future it will fall on the Exchequer or the local rates to clear them in conformity with the Government's regional plan to combat unemployment in the North-East. In the last few years I have seen pit heaps cleared to make marshalling yards for the railways and for pinning new roads, and, as a result, land is being reclaimed for other uses such as agriculture and building.

I ask myself the simple question: why do we now penalise the shifting of these heaps, to let posterity pay in the future? To me this is a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy. We know contractors in Durham who are in financial difficulties because this rate was fixed and made retrospective. I believe the Minister said at that time that he would consider their position. I cannot tell whether he has or not, but I can tell the Government Front Bench that as part of planning I saw a large pit heap taken away eight years ago from the colliery at which I worked for 32 years, and it was buried in the roads of new housing estates. That was a godsend to us, because from my window at home I had never been able to see the landscape beyond the pit heap.

If we make this work uneconomic as we are doing, we shall most certainly be inflicting an injury on our mining people. I want to be quite frank with the Ministry. In these twilight villages of my own county, now that the pits have gone every encouragement ought to be given to shifting these heaps away, so that the people left in the villages who are getting on in years, may at least see something other than the hideous heaps which have been left behind. Let us try to make their amenities a little better.

In the years that are gone we paid for putting that stuff down. We paid rates on it, because one had to pay rates on anything that was in gainful occupation. Now that the pit heap has burned itself out, now that it can be crushed for roads and made suitable for pinning, I plead with the Government not to make posterity pay for it. For the little bit of rate that is put on it and which makes it uneconomic, it is not worth it. For heaven's sake take it off! Let us "get shot" of the stuff as fast as we can, and make these villages which have been left derelict happier and brighter places to look at.

6.50 p.m.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet and I have between us listened to the speeches which have been made this evening, and as he has been called away upon urgent business I am going to reply for him. I would say at the outset that we think the speeches have been of an extremely high standard; and we all know the tremendous interest which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has always taken in this matter, and how often he has raised it with us. I shall not be able to reply in very great detail to the more technical aspects of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, as I am sure they will understand—indeed, one or two of the points I have not completely understood—but I will do my best.

I should like to say at the very beginning that the Government are in sympathy with the spirit in which these points have been made. We understand it and are very much in sympathy with it.

I must say, however (which, in a way, may be disappointing), that it is not yet possible to give the result of the Government's consideration as to whether there is a case for introducing legislation to exempt from liability to rates spoil heaps which are being worked to provide "fill" for civil engineering works—and I know that this is the basis of the noble Lord's case. As the House was informed in July, the deputation which came to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry was asked by him for more detailed information. Some further information was supplied within a week or so, but it was found not to give sufficient evidence of the economics of shale extraction for the case to be properly considered, and he was obliged to ask for more evidence. This has now been supplied, but we received it only a fortnight ago and there has not yet been time for the Ministry and the other Departments concerned to consider it fully. I very much hope that this consideration will not take much longer, and that we shall be able to end the uncertainty in the minds of those who are deeply concerned with the question.

According to the Question, the purpose of exemption would be to secure further improvement of the countryside by the removal of disused colliery spoil heaps. But one of the assumptions behind this idea must be that the removal of spoil from heaps for the purpose of providing "fill" material for civil engineering works secures this improvement by the removal of the heaps. If this were true, it would obviously be very attractive to the Government to secure the removal of unsightly spoil heaps by encouraging it as a means of gainful enterprise, rather than to pay heavy contributions towards a reclamation programme.

The shale contractor contributes to the removal and reclamation of derelict spoil heaps, and the Government hope that this readily exploitable source of "fill" material for road-making and other civil engineering projects will be used wherever possible, and particularly in preference to the digging of borrow pits. Our information is that local authorities, with the full backing of the Ministry's regional offices, take into account the value of some, anyhow, of these heaps in drawing up their reclamation programmes. Where, for instance, road works are imminent—and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to roads—near a heap containing suitable "fill" material, the form and timing of the reclamation scheme may be geared to the requirements of shale extraction.

But it is an exaggeration to assume or suggest that this is likely to be of great significance in the clearance of the vast acreage of derelict tips despoiling the countryside. I am afraid I must say that the House should not be left under any delusion that any foreseeable contribution to derelict land reclamation from shale extraction for civil engineering works is going to be more than infinitesimal beside that which the Government agree is necessary and are encouraging by the system of grants. Moreover, all the Ministry's experience shows that the presence of theoretically valuable material in a heap as often delays reclamation as it accelerates it. This is because the owner's hope that some local engineering enterprise may one day turn a lump of waste into a gold mine is often sufficient to paralyse outside initiative towards reclamation.

I was very much struck by the description by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, of the landscape which was improved by the removal of a heap. I am afraid I cannot claim that the Government were responsible for that at any stage, but we very much accept the spirit in which he made his speech, and I shall draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Kennet to that sort of problem and hope that it will be dealt with in the way Lord Blyton wishes. I did not entirely understand the question of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about global or saleable output. I think the answer is that shale heaps are assessed on saleable output and the assessment is based broadly on royalties, but if I have not entirely understood him I will write to him, if I may.

The most important question which we must deal with is about financial assistance and the particular question of exemption from rates. There are two interests which are concerned with exploiting the use of shale from colliery tips, the National Coal Board and the contractors. The National Coal Board obtain royalties from the contractors, and out of these, of course, they have to meet expenses which they have to incur as a result of the extraction; but the remainder is profit to them. The con- tractors have to pay the royalties and their other expenses (including rates at present) in extracting the shale and marketing it, and, of course, they hops that the sale proceeds will leave something over for profit. Presumably, therefore, there is a balance between the Coal Board's profit on royalties and the contractor's profit on exploiting the tips, if other things remain equal. One way of altering that balance, if the contractors are finding that exploitation is no longer worth while, is to assist them, either by subsidy or by relief from rates or taxes. Another way would be for the National Coal Board, if they can without losing all their profit or making a loss, to reduce the royalty they charge.

LORD GARNSWORTHY

My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me to interrupt her, will she, before she develops this point, give an indication that in fact the margin the Coal Board receive is sufficiently large to enable them to do what she is suggesting? I am very sorry to put the point, but I should not like it to be assumed that this is manageable. She is being so very precise that I am extremely sorry to be a little difficult.

BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE

My Lords, the noble Lord is never difficult—no one would ever think that. I entirely take his point. I cannot, naturally, answer it in detail at the moment, but I take the point and I will bring it to the attention of my noble friend. Apart from the immediate effects that the step suggested would have on the market equilibrium, it would probably have a secondary effect on the rates assessment, which, broadly speaking, is based on the royalty. I am not in a position at this moment to say that this is the appropriate solution, because the figures submitted are still under consideration. I have not looked at them myself; nor has my noble friend as yet, but I suspect that at present the scales may be weighted a little too much in the Coal Board's favour.

I am not pre-judging the issue, and I hope that my noble friend will not think that the Government have prejudged it. But it is only fair to emphasise that a real case, and a strong case, has to be made before exemption from rates can be considered. I think that all those who are closely concerned in this subject know that. I very much hope that it will not be long before the Government can say whether they think that the case made is strong enough. I am bound to say that I think that the excellent speeches we have had to-night, the obvious care and concern that noble Lords have displayed in this issue, will go a long way towards helping the Government to make their decision quickly.