HC Deb 11 July 1957 vol 573 cc584-91

Lords Amendment: In line 26, at end insert new Clause E: In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the functions of the Generating Board or of any of the Area Boards (including any such general programme as is mentioned in subsection (4) of section seven of this Act, the Board in question, the Electricity Council and the Minister, having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest, shall each take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Renton

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

During the discussions in another place their Lordships showed themselves to have a passionate interest in beauty and physiography and especially flora and, of course, fauna. [Laughter] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen are laughing. There is no question of three guineas in this. The new Clause is a very valuable addition by their Lordships and I commend it to the House.

The Clause is fairly wide in its application. It states that not only when formulating proposals, but when considering proposals, the electricity boards, the Electricity Council and the Minister shall have regard to the various matters which are specified. Those matters cover a wide range of subjects—the preservation of natural beauty: … the conserving of flora, fauna and ecological or physiographical features of special interest … In regard to geological features, for example, that means that if there were known to be or thought to be a certain bed of interesting fossils and excavations had to be made, then those fossils could not be disturbed until the matter had been carefully considered. Also, buildings and other objects of architectural or historical interest have to be protected. I think it might be in order for me to point out that this is in line with a similar provision which was made in the Coal-Mining (Subsidence) Bill the other day. We are anxious to protect our irreplaceable national heritage. whether of ancient things or of beautiful ones.

Considering the way in which this very broad obligation is likely to work out in practice, I would point out that, first and foremost, the various electricity boards would have to bear these factors in mind when considering their duty under Clause 7 (4) to produce a general programme of development for consideration by the Minister. Then the Electricity Council and, in turn, the Minister would also have to bear these factors in mind when considering their general programme. But the obligation would apply to matters of a more particularised kind. For example, when proposals are being formulated for a new power station and an application is being made by the Generating Board to the Minister for consent, both the Board and the Minister will have to bear these proposals in mind.

I hope that the House will not think that this is imposing upon the Generating Board a big new obligation which is not already borne voluntarily by the Central Electricity Authority. I have been looking closely into these procedures lately, and I find that the Central Electricity Authority goes into these matters with very great care. I think it would be a matter of public assurance that these excellent practices should be recognised by Parliament and written into this Bill while we have the opportunity to do it. I feel that their Lordships have done a public service by drawing attention to these matters and giving us the opportunity to ensure that they become part of the law of the land.

Mr. C. R. Hobson

I am against the proposed new Clause. It is far too restrictive. I do not see any reason for its insertion. Indeed, we have already been told that it covers precisely what the electricity boards already do. It may appear from that that I put myself in a contradictory position when I say that I am against the inclusion of the Clause, but there is all the difference in the world between having a common-sense and practical approach to the problem—which I am sure those connected with the Generating Board have—and having this very closely drawn Clause inserted into an Act of Parliament.

What is meant by "fauna"? Can it be stated where we shall site atomic power stations without affecting some fauna, such as deer in Scotland, or rabbits? Does "fauna" cover badgers? It is all a question of definition. The whole thing is stupid. Provision has already been made for siting projected atomic power stations. The proposal to have one at Bradwell raised a flurry about whether or not a Georgian mansion was an ancient building. The same sort of thing will happen all over the country.

I do not see why the House, to please another place, should insert a Clause containing such categorical language when we have got on very well in the past without one. I have known the industry for many years and I have never heard of the building of a power station leading to the destruction of fauna and flora or to the pulling down of historic monuments. I cannot understand the readiness of any Government to have a Clause of this character, for I am sure it will be the subject of objections and a tremendous number of legal actions. After all, the British people have a certain tradition, and we are not likely readily to destroy any of our heritage. I do not think the Clause is necessary. I would on no account vote for it, because I think it is just plain stupid.

Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes)

I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson). If we add such a Clause to the Bill, we may look forward to lawyers' field days, because we shall be putting into the Bill many words with vague definitions. We are, in fact, calling upon the boards to carry out obligations which they have voluntarily accepted over a number of years. Unless we are to have a long interpretation Clause dealing with the points covered by the new Clause, I feel that we should do well not to accept it.

Mr. Palmer

Many of us understand and sympathise with the doubts concerning difficulties in the operation of the Clause which have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). Nevertheless, it cannot be doubted that on both sides in this House and in another place there has been a strong expression of feeling that when our power station programme is extended in the future—we are to have a tremendous extension—it is the business of all the authorities concerned, including the boards, to take account of amenity considerations. I believe that I speak for the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that, for that reason, we feel that the Clause should be given general support.

The difficulty seems to be on the aesthetic side. What is to be the standard of taste in these matters, and how is it to be determined? Will the electricity boards appoint flora and fauna officers?

Mr. C. R. Hobson

Why not?

Mr. Palmer

Unkind critics of the boards—I am sure without any warrant—have occasionally talked about a "bereavement officer," quite a mythical figure. If, in addition, there is to be a "flora and fauna officer," there would be scope for more jokes for the comedians on the music hall stage.

There are such difficulties, but the real problem is to determine what we really

mean by the natural beauty of the countryside. It so happened that my memory from reading Macaulay's History of England took me to Volume I. Macaulay is not a much quoted historian these days. He is a Whig historian, but none the worse for that, if I may say so as a good Socialist. I remembered words which I found in page 280, where he says: Under the benignant influence of peace and liberty, science has flourished, and has been applied to practical purposes on a scale never before known. The consequence is that a change to which the history of the old world furnishes no parallel has taken place in our country. Could the England of 1685"— and Macaulay was writing in the early years of the nineteenth century— be, by some magical process, set before our eyes, we should not know one landscape in a hundred or one building in ten thousand. The country gentleman would not recognise his own fields. The inhabitant of the town would not recognise his own street. Everything has been changed, but the great features of nature, and a few massive and durable works of human art. We might find out Snowdon and Windermere, the Chedder Cliffs and Beachy Head. We might find out here and there a Norman minster or a castle which witnessed the wars of the Roses. But, with such rare exceptions, everything would be strange to us. That is my difficulty when noble Lords and others talk about the natural beauties of the countryside. I am all in favour of protecting beauty on every occasion, but my difficulty is to define natural beauty.

Mr. C. R. Hobson

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Would it be competent for me to submit a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Gordon Touche)

Mr. Speaker would have to select it.

Mr. Hobson

That means that it would be impossible for any hon. Member who objects to this Amendment to move a manuscript Amendment?

Mr. Renton

I understand that the Lords Amendments were ordered to be printed on 6th June. They were available, if I remember correctly, before we reassembled following the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Hobson

That may be so, but I submit that it is irrelevant. It is quite competent during the Committee stage of a Bill to submit manuscript Amendments, subject to the discretion of the Chairman of the Committee, and I see no reason why the procedure in this House should be any different in this respect, particularly in view of the fact that these Amendments come from another place. Hon. Members have a lot of other things to do and if notice has not been taken of this it only means that hon. Members have had their minds devoted to day-to-day problems. I personally am not prepared to ponder night after night upon foolish Amendments of this character and I should like to know whether it be possible to move a manuscript Amendment to delete the most objectionable features of this Clause.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It would be possible to move an Amendment, but I cannot select it.

Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr)

I feel it necessary to support the Minister in this matter. We are all agreed that we have the loveliest country in the world, especially in good weather. We also have some of the noblest and most distinguished buildings and some perfect gems of rural architecture in our English villages. I am not referring so much to Scottish villages. A few years ago this lovely countryside was disfigured by ribbon development. Fortunately, owing to the quick and successful action of the then Conservative Government, this horror was largely stopped.

Now we are being subjected to a new menace. Pylons of strange design, and erections of a Heath Robinson character, are going up all over the countryside, destroying the skyline—

Mr, C. R. Hobson

The hon. Member is making a case for removing the Clause.

Sir T. Moore

—destroying the vista and practically everything which gives happiness and satisfaction to the eye. On this occasion I think that their Lordships have shown a sensitiveness to beauty and to those natural features mentioned in the Clause. We should welcome this Amendment. I, for one, am glad to support it.

5.15 p.m

Mr. Renton

If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I should like to reassure those hon. Members who have expressed anxiety about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said that this proposed Clause might result in a lawyers' paradise. I hope that I can assure him that is not so. All that requires to be done by the various parties concerned, the Electricity Council, the boards and the Minister, is to take into account these various things and to consider them having regard to … the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural or historic interest … It is not every sparrow which has to be protected. It is not every stone. It is when these features are of special interest that they have to be taken into account. There is no question of this becoming an overriding factor which will decide every case. I hope that my attempt at clarification will allay the anxiety of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. C. R. Hobson). He made the point that this Amendment is unnecessary because what the Clause proposes is already being done. It is already being done by the Central Electricity Authority, but we must remember that a new public authority is being created, the Generating Board.

The Electricity Council is being set up with new responsibilities and I think it right that while we are making this general change in the structure of the industry we should remind those accountable for the future administration of the industry and the making of these decisions of their responsibilities. It is right to bear in mind the public anxiety which has been expressed, although it has sometimes been misplaced. I think that we should write these responsibilities into this Bill.

The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) expressed the hope—if I may put it this way, paraphrasing the words of the hon. Gentleman—that there would not be a "flora and fauna officer"—

Mr. C. R. Hobson

There is plenty of time yet; there are plenty of seats vacant in the Empire.

Mr. Renton

—and that there would not be an "ancient buildings officer". Judging front the experience of the Central Electricity Authority, I am sure that the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman may be set at rest. Consultation already takes place with the Nature Conservancy where anything affecting flora and fauna is concerned, and with the National Parks Commission where areas designated as being of special beauty are concerned.

Mr. Palmer

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not wish to take too seriously what I said. The point I was anxious to make was the difficulty of defining these things. They depend so much on standards of taste, and so on. That was the point I was making; I was not serious in the other part of my speech.

Mr. Renton

I am obliged to the hon. Member and will not make heavy weather of it, but it is right to point out that there are already procedures for consultations on these matters. The Ministry of Works comes into this as well and, as has been stated by my noble Friend in another place, very eminent architects are consulted by the Central Electricity Authority, also.

May I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) for his support? I hope that now the House might feel disposed to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Mr. Mawby

I wonder whether my hon. and learned Friend could convince me that if, in fact, this Clause were not complied with there is an authority which can make certain that it is complied with?

Mr. Renton

That comes back to a very great extent to the responsibility of the Minister in this matter. He is obliged to take these matters into account when exercising his powers and duties under the Act. There is no question of an appeal of any kind except to the Minister, but I think that one must realise that this has got to be regarded in the light of the various procedures under this Measure and previous statutes. If one regards it in the light of those procedures, one finds that the whole thing is channelled upwards to the Minister and he is responsible to Parliament That is the sanction which underlies the working of this Clause.

Question put and agreed to.