HL Deb 29 January 1975 vol 356 cc507-29

4.15 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I count myself as fortunate in being able to take part in this debate on derelict land. I am now doubly fortunate, because my BBC TV licence fee is going up by no more than £1. It is apt that this debate should take place in this House such a short time after the debate on world food, because there is a greater connection between the two than may be apparent at first sight. In the debate last week, we heard that all the work that has been done over the last ten years has made little or no impact on the problem of hunger. Probably, there are more hungry people in the world than there were ten years ago. Already today we have learned that even after all the admire able work done by Central Government, local authorities and others in trying to tackle this problem of derelict land in this country, the acreage today in England is actually larger than it was a few years ago. What is worse, reclamation costs are rising.

My Lords, I submit that we should now study less expensive methods to see whether or not it is possible to do much of the work without necessarily doing it in the ideal way. Of course, the problem of dealing with derelict land varies from area to area, but if it is tackled in a haphazard way it can lead, ail too easily, to undesirable speculation. Wherever anyone is willing and able to take part he should be encouraged, whether by his local authority or by Central Government. I hope that in his reply the noble Lord the Minister will spell this out, because I am sure it is not as well known as it ought to be; for instance, the aid available to individuals or firms who tackle the restoration of derelict land.

Although there are a number of very big areas which call for large-scale and expert planning, there are a large number of small areas which could be tackled locally if people only realised they would be encouraged should they undertake such work. May I say here that although we all like to ask for a bigger grant in whatever sphere we may be particularly interested in, I doubt whether any Government would be justified in paying 100 per cent. of the cost of this work, as I have heard mentioned this afternoon.

My Lords, my last point is this. I made this point in the debate three years ago and will make it again, because I think it is important. I will make it as briefly as I can and at far less length than I did three years ago. When we under-take land reclamation we should bear in mind the problem of amenity around villages and small towns which are frequently bare of trees. I have lived alongside a smoking pit heap, but only for one year, and I know how unpleasant it can be. If the bulk of that heap had been removed and a small undulation left, and if that undulation had been planted with trees it would have added enormously to the amenity of the village. It would have been a much more pleasant feature than just leaving a completely flat area, unless the place was wanted for housing or some particular development. Further, we must not forget agriculture. A great deal of this land cannot easily be returned to agriculture, but some of it probably can. Just because it is less valuable as agricultural land than for certain other purposes, we must not turn away from restoring as much land as we can to agricultural use.

When we come to planting trees on any small areas alongside industrial villages or towns, there is no need to aim for 100 per cent. success which is expensive. Providing we can get some clumps established with greenery alongside they will soon spread, and the uneven texture which results will, in the end, add to amenity in a way that a uniform crop of trees which is all too monotonous against an industrial background cannot do. Local pride was mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, and what I am advocating will contribute to local pride.

I am sorry that the Royal Forestry Society of England and Wales and the Royal Agricultural Society, who together decided a short time ago to reintroduce competitions for planting of this sort—that is, planting by local authorities or planting on derelict industrial sites—have not yet been able to include such classes in the schedule of their competitions. Since the counties of Wales form the area of the United Kingdom which are included in the competition this year, surely the noble Baroness, Lady White. opposite would agree with me that that is particularly sad. They were referred to three years ago in our debate and I hope that now they are referred to in this House again—and perhaps the Minister may echo this when he comes to reply—the two societies will move a little faster and introduce these competitions next year, if it is too late to do so this year.

4.22 p.m.

Lord ARWYN

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for this opportunity to discuss the reclamation of land. We are no longer in the Victorian era, no longer one of the wealthiest, most influential and important countries in the world, but we can still remain as one of the most respected countries, and earn even greater respect by becoming far more self-sufficient than we are now, or have been for a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has been quoted as saying: Britain could be one of the poorest countries in Europe by 1985 unless it stops acting as if it were still a wealthy country. If that is not a sobering truth, my Lords, I do not know what is.

The subject of today's debate is reclamation of land. The first essential is a comprehensive census of all waste land which could be developed not only for agriculture but also for horticultural purposes. The reclamation of land from our coasts, like the Maplin Sands, could in a few years be of far greater benefit to what may yet be our island fortress than providing for additional hordes of air traffic. There are coastal strips around Wales and other parts that can be won from the sea. I know that such things can be done, and there are many in your Lordships' House who would endorse what I am saying.

My Lords, by the end of this century, only 25 years from now, our population has been estimated to be between 60 and 70 million, and the pressure on every acre of our land will become crucial. After the census which I propose, the reclamation programme can be divided into the following categories: first, removal and landscaping of waste tips; second, restoration of land consumed by quarrying and opencast mining; and, third, reclamation of marginal lands. Why have this meticulous census? The reason is that it is the only way to reveal sources which would not otherwise be considered. One small example which comes to mind is the tracks left derelict alongside some existing railways, as well as those closed down. Old embankments can yield luxuriant growth. Such a detailed census as I have proposed could discover areas within range of schools to grow their own produce, as many did in wartime.

My Lords, is it not becoming evident that to become a truly independent nation

we need to develop an intensive agricultural industry, using every possible acre and all the scientific aids to improve soil fertility which have been developed, especially in the last 25 years? I could quote from my own experience, as I have been concerned with such an organisation. Horticulture is an industry whose development has not progressed as well as it might. Here reclaimed land not suitable for intensive farming can be used. I can give one example. If the old high limestone quarries of the Pennines were landscaped and carpeted with soil and their worked out areas brought into production, they could provide ideal sites, surrounded by high walls, for horticultural development. Some are veritable suntraps where new techniques of plant propagation could lead to great benefits. Slate quarries could be used in the same way. There are very many such sites around the country which have been accepted for far too long as permanent industrial derelict areas.

While the methods of opencast mining of coal and ironstone have improved, there is a lot more to be done to integrate restoration as part of the operation, not as something separate; and also to remedy the mistakes of the past before present techniques were adopted. Where such restoration has been efficiently carried out it reveals the long-term value to agriculture, especially where the topsoil has been stripped by tractor-drawn scrapers before the power shovels operate. The difference is unbelievable to anybody who has had experience.

The reclamation of land can be a spasmodic patched-up exercise to suit local requirements, unless it is considered as a vital national necessity; and in order to do so it requires an assessment, by a meticulous survey of the whole country, to effect a census of our total resources for reclamation. The survey should be under the control of the Ministries of Agriculture and of the Environment, with access to the full resources of the Institute of Geological Sciences and any other professional body capable of assistance, including, of course, all the local authorities.

My Lords, it will have to come sooner or later, like the development of ocean minerals to which I referred last week, if we are to stand on our own feet. We cannot very much longer afford to buy huge quantities of food or oil. We need for the next ten years to concentrate more on our own means of survival rather than rely upon other countries. This is surely a matter for Government legislation and not one for the divided authorities of local government, good as they might be. Very much more could be said on the various aspects of the inevitable problem facing us. What we must do in the immediate future is to take early steps to make a factual assessment of all the land that we can reclaim, and then proceed to make that land productive. Priority must be given to growing the maximum quantity of food in order to sustain the quality of living. This is where local authority and specialised local knowledge can be invaluable.

My Lords, before I conclude may I draw your attention to the fact that agriculture is now rapidly becoming industrialised. The fight against nature is not so one-sided as it was a few years ago. Our agricultural colleges are doing splendid work and their links with progress in the scientific field have been truly remarkable in the last 20 years. This means an increase in productivity, and we are now entering an era where land which in the past would have been discarded as not sufficiently productive is now productive. We need more land and we must recover all that which is now lying waste. It must be a national effort, which is possible only after a national assessment.

4.31 p.m.

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, I am sure that we all have great sympathy with the request made by my noble friend Lord Arwyn that there ought to be a national assessment, but I understand that in fact such a survey is in progress. It is regrettable in some ways that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, should have been so fortunate in the ballot just now. If we could have had the results of this survey, and the Reports of the Stevens Committee and of the Verney Committee on Aggregates, we should have been in a rather more favourable position to discuss this matter. Nevertheless, those of us who are interested in derelict land welcome this opportunity, and are grateful to the noble Viscount for supplying it.

Needless to say, I feel that one cannot have a debate on derelict land without reference to the Principality. No part of the country has had original beauty so much defaced as the Principality of Wales, not only by coalmining but also by slate quarrying and stone quarrying. I think it would be fair to say that nowhere has the matter been taken more seriously, certainly so far as coal waste is concerned. We of course were spurred to action by the appalling tragedy of Aberfan. For us the first criterion for treatment of derelict land must be public safety, the stability of the tip. Following that disaster the Welsh Office made it its business, as was its duty, to have examined the safety of all the disused tips in the Welsh coalfields, and much work had to be done on account of safety. Unfortunately, the general problem is of growing dimensions.

The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, quoted a figure for Wales of some 13,000 acres—I think he intended that to refer to coal spoil—as requiring treatment, but he was in error because that figure applies to one county alone, Mid Glamorgan.

Viscount RIDLEY

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I said that I had no up-to-date figures for Wales

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, unfortunately I am not in any position to give the total figure for the Principality, but if one recognises that one county—admittedly one of the most relevant counties for this purpose—has estimated that of its 16,000 acres of derelict land some 13,000 acres require, and would repay, treatment, then one has some idea of the proportions of the problem, more especially if one is aware that in the period since 1971 those concerned have been able to clear only 380 acres, and that in a county which has a good derelict land unit and which has considerable experience in the matter.

This is a question of partnership between the Government Departments and the local authorities because, with great respect to the small schemes—and I do not want in any way to suggest that they are not important in their own areas—the big matters are of far too great a size for any but local authorities or the Government to tackle. We have at the Welsh Office the Derelict Land Unit which has acquired considerable expertise in the treatment of land, both landscaping and revegetation or afforestation, and which is at the service of the Welsh authorities.

I should say that the opencast side of the National Coal Board's operations has been, on the whole, very good, partly because they have a much more specific obligation to reclaim land. They have acquired considerable expertise, as my noble friend Lord Arwyn suggested, in revegetation, treatment of top soil, and so forth. Unfortunately, as far as I can find out, the opencast side and the deep mine side hardly speak to one another, and therefore the experience and know-ledge of one is not fully transmitted to the other. I have had complaints from local authority colleagues in Wales that the aftercare, as it were, on the deep mine side has left a good deal to be desired.

The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, was I think mistaken when he suggested that there was no control over the old tips, because one of the encouraging things is that after all these years, last year, in 1974, a new General Development Order was promulgated which now gives the local authorities some control even over the old tipping areas. This is a great improvement, because up to now if tipping had ever taken place on a site the National Coal Board was free to go ahead entirely unhindered. Now they have to prepare schemes for the approval of the local authority for any fresh tipping, both on old sites and on new sites. I think that this is a step forward. Why it should have taken so long I fail to understand.

However, on the financial side the position seems to me to have been far less satisfactory. I understand that at the moment you can have a three-year programme approved by the Welsh Office for grants. Three years is a very short time for operations of this kind when one takes into account all the complexities, and it seems to me that local authorities would probably make better progress, and public money might be more advantageously spent, if one could have a longer rolling programme. Five years might be an appropriate time. Undoubtedly three years is too short. Local authorities cannot enter into schemes of the magnitude of which we are speaking this afternoon without having greater assurance that when they are ready the money will be forth-coming. I would suggest that for schemes of this kind something akin to the preparation pool for road construction would be suitable, so that you can have the assurance that if you bring schemes to a certain degree of preparation then you will be able, within the limits laid down, to go ahead and not waste the preparatory work which has been done.

Undoubtedly there has been a degree of hit-and-miss in the preparation and financing of these schemes. I was glad to learn that the Parliamentary Under-secretary of the Welsh Office responsible for these matters, Mr. Edward Rowlands, who has shown a considerable personal interest, has recently had discussions with the Welsh local authorities with a view to rationalising the relationship where grants are concerned. I hope very much that these discussions will prove successful. I hope also that far more attention will be paid by way of foresight where fresh dereliction is occurring, and is bound to occur, in the extractive industries, because I believe that if there were adequate discussion in advance between the planning and environmental authorities and the Coal Board, or the quarrying or slate mining interests, much could be done from the outset to mitigate the effects of increased pollution of landscape.

Not so long ago I went to a stone quarry in the county of Clwyd—as it now is—where already they are planting trees for screening, although they will not be needed for another twenty years or so. They are taking these steps in advance because they have worked out their scheme of quarrying and their timetable and have said that twenty years from now they will need those trees in order to screen operations which would otherwise be an eyesore. This seemed to me to be an admirable way of dealing with these matters. I very much hope that we could have this kind of forward-looking attitude towards the increase in derelict land from the public authorities on the one hand and those responsible for the extractive industries on the other.

Several noble Lords have mentioned the question of the rate of grant. Eighty five per cent. sounds a great deal, but when one considers the cost of some of these schemes, it is clear that for some of the smaller authorities even to find the other 15 per cent. represents a considerable burden. There are certain circumstances where for special purposes I believe it might well be in the public interest to make some extra money available. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, himself who raised the point as to whether those who caused the dereliction should contribute towards the cost of removing it.

There is, of course, the ironstone industry levy and the obligation on the National Coal Board so far as open cast work is concerned; those are two examples where those who cause the dereliction are obliged to contribute. It seems to me that it might well be so that even some token contribution towards the cost of repair might make those concerned a little more conscious of their obligations to the public and might make them more willing to look ahead in the way that I have suggested. I admit that I have not myself studied this matter in detail, but I hope very much that those concerned will examine it carefully.

There is no doubt that in many circumstances the reclamation of derelict land can be of great public value, not merely on amenity grounds (I am thinking particularly of the Welsh valleys) but in providing sites for housing, new industry and schools in areas where it is very difficult to find suitable land. I do not think that we are going to solve all the problems this afternoon because we have to await the further knowledge which we hope will come from the various Committees studying this question. Nevertheless, we shall have indicated that we regard this as a matter of great importance in trying to give encouragement to those who are concerned with it.

4.42 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, I am especially glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady White, in this debate because it just so happens that on the third day of the last Election I found myself in that Tory marginal seat of Ebbw Vale where, needless to say, I was not campaigning but inspecting derelict land. I should like to add my tribute to the work of the Welsh Reclamation Unit, particularly on what they have just managed to do at Cwmdare. Like other noble Lords, I should like to commiserate with my noble friend Lord Ridley at having been so lucky but too early with his debate. In any case, it is a useful debate, but it would be even more useful if we were conducting it with the results of the new extended survey before us, and, possibly, with the fruits of one of the several relevant Committees also available. But perhaps those of us who are interested can have another go at arranging another debate when all this material is available in due course.

I would also hasten to agree with my noble friend, and with the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, that, while considering other secondary matters, we must keep our eye on the prime objective of maintaining and, if possible, increasing real progress in the worst areas; keep the clearance of the worst dereliction and the worst affected areas moving briskly ahead so that so far as possible this decade sees the end of the baleful effect of dereliction in those areas. They are, as the noble Lord said, a blot on the landscape of any civilised country and a bar to the growth of any civic pride in the place where people live when they reside near this kind of dereliction.

Although the programme completed in the year ending 31st December 1972 continued to show substantial increases in the acreages cleared in the Northern, North-Western, Yorkshire and East Midland areas (these are the worst affected in England), the overall acreage of schemes approved for grants in 1972–3, the next year, showed another increase, but that for 1973–4 has showed a decrease. If this check in the programme was a deliberate economy, I suggest that it was a false one which should be corrected with all despatch. The areas which I have just mentioned are the ones which, as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said, already have more than their fair share of degraded environment, economic depression and unemployment. Small programmes like this (and this is a small programme in relation to the national economy as a whole) really must be kept going, if not increased, to safeguard these vulnerable areas from suffering any more unsightliness and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, added, to help kindle and sustain a sense of civic pride which is so necessary for their regeneration.

In these debates there is always discussion about the classification and definition of derelict land. I have no objection to that course so long as it does not distract the attention of those who have to get on with the job of clearing the worst of it and clearing it quickly. Three definitions are bandied about. First there are unsightly areas which look derelict but are, in fact, still in use for tipping. There are the massive china clay tips in Cornwall which, it seems to me, can never be cleared because the people working china clay can never say they have reached the bottom of the deposit on which they are working. There is the continuing scandal of the Durham beaches which poses an almost intractable problem, not one which is solved simply by putting up the cost of extraction. There are innumerable sand and gravel workings which always have a derelict look about them even when they are being worked. In all these cases we must continue to try to improve the working programmes, and the new order regarding working colliery tips, which the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned, is very much to be welcomed. Like her, I am still left wondering why it took so long, although I can assure her that I did my best as Minister to try to have it speeded up so that we can look to progressive restoration while work is going on to deal with this kind of dereliction. As she said, the ironstone restoration fund is a good example of what can be done. I hope that the Stevens Committee will be able to suggest some other remedies in other spheres of mineral working where they are appropriate.

Then there are disused areas—and the noble Lord, Lord Arwyn, mentioned some of them, like British Rail's—where there is a perfectly clear responsibility for the areas to be better managed. What is needed is some stronger inducement or enforcement to ensure that it happens. I am glad that this is a subject of further extended survey and I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will be able to tell us when we can expect it. However, having said all that there remains the hard core of dereliction. This is unused and unusable land with no clear responsibility on anybody other than the local authority to clear it up. It is on that that we must concentrate our minds.

Equally, my Lords, there is always discussion about the best agents for reclamation and, without any disparagement at all of the Welsh unit, which is a national body and which I think does a fine job of work, I agree with my noble friend Lord Ridley that no convincing case has so far been made out for taking this work out of the hands of the local government teams which have now been doing it effectively for several years. Rather, I believe that the range of advice and financial support that is offered should be increased. I felt it my duty, when I was at the Department of the Environment and had responsibility for this programme, to do whatever I could through the Department's regional offices to help the new local authorities which were taking office in 1972 to keep their teams in being and to offer firm prospects of continuing programmes and employment, not only for individuals but for the complete teams.

I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, confirm that these teams are substantially intact and have been taken over by the new local authorities, which are continuing to employ them. I like to think that this has been achieved without any serious "hiccup", but we shall not be able to tell whether that is the case until we see the new survey. I was also glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, that a fruitful partnership has been developed between the new metropolitan districts, the metropolitan counties and the non-metropolitan counties which are all dealing with the same problem. I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White, that it is not a three-year but a five-year rolling programme that we need to have moving steadily ahead, and that it is that programme which should attract the grant.

Only in this way can the work be carried forward as it must be through all the checks and frustrations of land acquisition from unknown owners, working out difficult access agreements, dealing with unforeseen combustion and drainage problems and, worst of all, overcoming the vicissitudes of local and central government finance and all its ups and downs. We also need this central government support for a long-term programme in order to sustain a small programme of this type when Big Brother services, such as education, are being squeezed. My own view, thinking of the agents for this work, is that the local authority teams which we already have can tackle the job if they are properly supported. The Department's regional offices and the central group for reclamation provide sufficient expertise, and they are in a position to commission more specialist advice or research if it is needed.

However, we are still left with another intractable problem, which has not been mentioned so far, and I should like to spend a moment or two upon it. I refer to the problem of finding a positive use for all this waste material, which otherwise has to be spread around by bull-dozers and then planted or brought back into productive use as best it can be. This is an intractable and tantalising problem which still cries out for solution. It arises from the fact that we are still having to permit quarrying in such precious places as the Mendips in Somerset, the Peak District in Derbyshire, and Charnwood in Leicestershire, for nothing more special than aggregates to make roadfill, while at the same time we have lying about all over country, and causing a frightful mess upon the landscape, materials which could serve not only for the very ordinary and mundane business of building roads but for many more exacting purposes in the construction industry. We have had mention of alternative tendering for the use of roadfill which was extensively, and for the first time, used in M.62. It would be nice if the Minister could tell us whether it is still being used extensively.

The Building Research Station has ascertained the roles in construction that all these different waste materials—pulverised fuel ash, shale, colliery tip and so on—can play. I believe that late or soon—and I suspect that it will be soon—we shall be obliged to withhold precious land from such profligate use as roadfill and turn instead to waste materials, not only for building roads but for building of every kind. Before we can do that, however, a complex problem of transport economics must be solved; that is, the question of how to get the material to the place where it is needed. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell the House that the Verney Committee, which I set up at what seems a very long time ago, will be able to give us the answers to that problem.

4.58 p.m.

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, for initiating this interesting debate about a continuing problem which is of both environmental and economic importance. As the noble Viscount has said, your Lordships' House last discussed this matter some three year ago. From the interest which has been displayed, it is clear that this opportunity of taking stock and of discussing what lies ahead has been generally welcomed. I share in the commiserations to the noble Viscount about the early timing of the debate. I may say that I myself would very much welcome another debate on the same matter a little later when we have some more information, but I hope that I shall be able to give noble Lords some indication of the results of the new survey later in my speech.

The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has ably outlined the progress which has been achieved in this area. While much has been done and many difficulties have been overcome, it is undeniable that we have a very great deal to do finally to eradicate this considerable problem. The noble Lord put his finger on a number of the outstanding matters and of course he speaks with the benefit of considerable experience. He is the Chairman of Northumberland County Council, one of the areas with a particularly large and difficult problem, a problem which the county council have been tackling with initiative and understanding.

My Lords, derelict land is environmentally offensive, and its existence militates against the economic and social recovery of the areas in which it is allowed to persist. It makes no sense in this densely populated country to allow land to continue in an unsightly and unusable state. No one who has spoken today has argued against the desirability of putting derelict land to some form of beneficial use. But the limiting factor, as always, must be the resources which can be devoted to the task, and there are many other conflicting claims to the use of both central and local resources.

During the last year, as your Lordships have been told, local authorities have, at the request of the Secretary of State for the Environment, been carrying out a new and extended survey of derelict and despoiled land. The fact that the full results of that survey are not yet available has not prevented us from having a useful discussion about the problem. The survey results are not yet available mainly because local authorities have found the task, coupled with their many other pre occupations, a very demanding one. The delay also reflects the thoroughness with which many authorities have been tackling the job, and their reluctance to put forward incomplete or unreliable information. It will therefore be some months yet before the Department of the Environment is able to publish figures summarising the complete results of the survey. However, I can provide your Lordships' House with some estimates of the results and this I will gladly do.

First, the total figure for England of derelict land considered to justify treatment, as at 1st April 1974, will show a substantial increase over the corresponding total for 1971, shown by the last full survey. I should perhaps make clear that derelict land is land which has been so damaged by industrial and other development as to be incapable of beneficial use without treatment and which, in the local authority view, requires and justifies treatment of some kind. The total of such land shown by the new survey looks like being in excess of 80,000 acres, an increase of more than 25 per cent., compared with the previous total of over 64,000 acres. This increase has, of course, come about in spite of the fact that substantial acreages are continuing to be reclaimed. Local authorities were asked, as part of the survey, to account for any increases of this kind. I am afraid that the detailed analysis cannot be given until the computer has digested the material, but it is clear from inspection of the returns that the main reason for this increase is the fresh evaluation which local authorities have been making. In effect, local authorities have been setting their sights higher than before in what is, inevitably, to some extent a subjective exercise. This increase in the totals is, of course, not a new phenomenon.

Under the old surveys it sometimes happened that figures for particular authorities increased from one year to the next, or did not decrease as much as might have been expected from reclamation performance. This was often due to colliery and other industrial closures which resulted in land being counted as derelict for the first time, since it was not counted while the land was in operational use. This may have also been a factor in the current increased level. However, for the most part local authorities are identifying, and are assessing as justifying treatment, land which their predecessors did not consider to warrant inclusion in that category.

I think some of the rather gloomy notes struck in the debate by some noble Lords are not really justified. The fact is that the acreage is increasing, but it is increasing because sights are being set higher, and in my view that is no bad thing—

Baroness WHITE

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I merely wish to ask whether he could possibly give the figure for Wales as well as that for England?

Lord MELCHETT

My Lords, I will, if I may, come to that matter in a moment—I am afraid that the answer is "No", but I will mention it in a moment or two.

The fact that land in operational use was excluded from the categories of derelict land or land justifying treatment, has been criticised in the past, It was said that this gave rise to a significant under-estimation of the scale of the future problem. So the new survey has gathered for the first time information about areas affected by mineral working and waste tipping. These results are still being processed, and I am afraid that the Department is not yet in a position to provide any detailed analysis of the situation. But an estimate has been made of the total of the two categories which are potential additions to the total I have already given of 80,000 acres. These categories relate to two separate types of land: first, to land where working has ceased and, although planning permission was granted subject to conditions requiring after-treatment of the land, for various reasons, restoration is unlikely; second, land that is in current use for mineral working, but where there are no conditions requiring restoration. These categories together, it is estimated, will approach a total of 40,000 acres. So the eventual problem facing local authorities in England may be of the order of 120,000 acres.

However, the greater part of the land currently being worked for minerals—the best estimate yet available is about three-quarters—is subject to conditions requiring suitable after-treatment of the land so that it may be restored to agriculture or some other appropriate after use. The onus as far as this three-quarters is concerned will fall upon the operator or owner, and not upon a local authority. The local authority will only be involved in securing compliance with the conditions, if need be. So only approximately a quarter of all land currently being worked for minerals has had to be included in the figure of 120,000 acres. This figure, as I said, represents the possible size of the eventual problem to be tackled by local authorities in England.

I can tell the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that the full English survey results should be available in two to three months. I will certainly stress, and I am sure the Department will stress, when the survey results are published, that there is a continuing success story in spite of the very much higher acreages which the survey looks like disclosing. So far as Scotland and Wales are concerned, I am afraid that the results are not ready. I understand that the survey will show substantial increases compared with the amounts mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I am also sorry that I cannot say when these figures will be available, but I understand it will be after the English results become available. I can say there is likely to be an announcement soon on the position in Scotland and Wales.

My Lords, the restoration of mineral working, and planning conditions to that end, has been one of the aspects of minerals planning control that has been under examination by a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Stevens, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has mentioned. This Committee is expected to report soon to the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales. I am not in a position to anticipate the content of that Report. However, I think it is an open secret that the Committee have received a great deal of evidence about the restoration of mineral workings and have themselves studied the problem very carefully on the ground. The Government are convinced that it is of paramount importance to ensure, so far as is reasonable, that planning control effectively prevents the creation of fresh dereliction. While the work which local authorities are doing can make inroads into inherited dereliction, the attainment of the highest rate of net gain depends on cutting out dereliction at source. I can assure my noble friend Lady White and the rest of your Lordships that the recommendations of the Stevens Committee will be very carefully studied with that end in mind.

The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has already provided your Lordships' House with a deal of information about reclamation progress and I do not wish to burden your Lordships with too many more statistics than I have already. However, between 1969 and 1972 the rate of reclamation in England more than doubled over previous years, to well over 5,000 acres a year. The figures for 1973 and the first quarter of 1974 were collected as part of the new survey and, once again, the full details are not yet available. However, estimates from the returns are that during the period of 15 months some 6,400 acres were restored, that is broadly at the same annual rate of 5,300 acres which obtained during 1972. I acknowledge that during the last year or so there has been some loss of momentum and no one will have to look too far to see the reasons for this—first, the impact of local government reorganisation which has made many other demands on local government members and officers; secondly, the economic climate has necessarily meant that resources could not be committed to this work to the degree which everyone would like to see.

My Lords, I was asked a number of questions by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and I should like to try to deal with them briefly now. He was good enough to give me advance notice of some of these matters which he wished to raise and I am grateful for that. He asked for an assurance that the level of the grants payable would not be reduced. I can give him that assurance. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment said in another place last month that the situation is being kept under review. I can, however, say today that this definitely does not mean that there is any intention to revise the rates in a downward direction. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Rhodes will be pleased to hear that.

The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, referred to the amount of derelict land in Cornwall. He will be pleased to know that the figure of 16,000 acres of derelict land which he quoted has been reduced in the 1974 survey, largely, I understand, as a result of a general reappraisal carried out by the new local authorities. The new figure is about 12,000 acres, but although this still leaves Cornwall with more derelict land than any other English county, the important point to note is that only a small part of this—about 2,500 acres—is considered to justify treatment by the local authorities.

The noble Viscount suggested that the nationalised industries should charge only a nominal sum for land sold for reclamation. This is, I think, not an entirely new suggestion, but it raises a number of very real difficulties. We will certainly look into the matter again, but I would remind noble Lords that grants paid to local authorities do take into account the costs of acquiring the land. The noble Viscount also referred to the fact that rates are levied if derelict land is used commercially. This too is a matter which has been considered. Any changes in the rating system on the lines suggested would require primary legislation which would need to be considered in the light of the findings of the Layfield Committee of Inquiry into local government finance. Perhaps this is a matter which the noble Viscount would wish to pursue within that Committee.

The alternative tendering arrangements to which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred are still being operated by the Department. Efforts to increase the use of waste for roadfill are continuing, and it has so far been possible to use the revised tendering procedures on five occasions. We are continuing to watch the position closely. As noble Lords will know, not only is the cost of moving bulk material over substantial distances a limiting factor; but the movement of material over public roads can give rise to environmental problems.

The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, raised two points in relation to the National Coal Board. The first was about opencast coal workings. Restoration of opencast working is obligatory by virtue of conditions imposed by the Secretary of State for Energy when authorising the working under the Opencast Coal Act of 1958. So far as pit heaps are concerned, all new heaps require planning permission, as my noble friend Lady White said. Heaps in use in 1947 can continue in use, but the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order now enables local authorities to require the Board to make schemes for the after treatment of future tipping.

The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, made two other points about which I should like to comment. It is unfortunately true that some reclaimed lands are left unused after reclamation; for example, when reclaimed farmland is found to be unfarmable. The noble Earl will know that it is a prerequisite of payment of grant that a proper end use of land is in prospect. The noble Earl also referred to the need for consultation with local people. Of course, local authorities carry out reclamation schemes; and they should be in the best position to know or to discover the wishes of local people. Many local authorities have carried out excellent consultation schemes about reclamation projects.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, mentioned the importance of tree planting on derelict land. Where derelict land is put to open space or amenity use, or, in some circumstances, where the use is housing, commerce and industry, the importance of tree planting in conformity with suitable landscaping is well recognised; but it is essential to have regard to what the site will properly support. I believe that the local authorities understand this and know where they can seek advice. I have great personal sympathy with any scheme to encourage tree planting so long as proper care is taken of the trees when they are planted. I will look into the particular scheme which the noble Lord mentioned and write to him about it. The noble Lord also mentioned the importance of restoration of derelict land to agricultural use. Derelict land is restored to agricultural use whenever this is appropriate on planning grounds. I think the noble Lord may have said that grants for the restoration of derelict land were payable to individuals. This is not the case. Grants are only payable to local authorities but the local authorities can do work on other people's land with the agreement of those having an interest in that land.

My noble friend Lady White and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned the length of time the rolling programmes should be made out for. This is a Welsh matter; because in England we already ask for a six-year rolling programme although that does not entail any advance commitment to grant; but I will draw my noble friend's suggestion to the attention of the Welsh Office.

My Lords, what of the future? It will be necessary for local authorities and Central Government in close consultation to review the situation in the light of the full results of the new survey. We will have to consider what part of available resources can be devoted to the task, and frame programmes suited to local and regional needs. I am sure that in doing this the many constructive suggestions made during the course of this short debate will be taken into account. Of course, I am not in a position to say that all suggestions made will be acted upon, but I can say that they will be carefully considered; and I would particularly mention those points made by my noble friends Lord Rhodes and Lord Arwyn.

My Lords, to sum up, the Government's objectives are to pursue the twin aims of dealing with inherited dereliction as fast as economic circumstances allow and to work to prevent the creation of fresh dereliction wherever this is practical. Much of the responsbility for securing this necessarily rests with local authorities. They must prepare and execute schemes, monitor progress, and implement effective planning control. In exercising their responsibility they can be assured of continuing support from this Government.

5.15 p.m.

Viscount RIDLEY

My Lords, I understand that in these two and a half hour debates we are entitled to count injury time spent on the BBC ; and, even having done this, we have still taken only just over two hours; so the House will be grateful to us for our brevity. I should like to thank very sincerely all who spoke in the debate. It has been an extremely useful one. I hope that everybody who has heard it—or who will read it—will think it not inopportune, despite the absence of the Prince of Denmark in the shape of these figures. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett (to whom I am grateful for his kind offer of help in many ways), whether those who are interested and involved in this House and elsewhere could have as much notice as possible of when the survey figures will be available—not necessarily so as to debate it again but that we can immediately take notice of them. The message that will go out from this debate is that the acreage figures—and I apologise if I got them wrong at the beginning of the debate; it was not entirely my fault—are increasing. This is something that we all know has been explained; but I think it underlines the necessity and importance of this subject. With the leave of the House, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.