NATIONAL PARKS

HC Deb 30 March 1961 vol 637 cc1580-95

2.30 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman (Falmouth and Camborne)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing a short debate on the National Parks, because I was rather frustrated some weeks ago when the Second Motion on the Order Paper which was in my name was not reached. However, it is quoted in HANSARD for 22nd February, as follows: That this House while appreciating the progress made in the last eleven years in connection with National Parks, is of the opinion that time has shown the need for amendment of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, in a number of respects, particularly in regard to the financial arrangements for National Parks and the further strengthening of the Act against the forces which tend to destroy or impair them; and urges Her Majesty's Government to introduce amending legislation accordingly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 637.] The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, provided for the designation of a number of extensive areas of beautiful country in England and Wales as National Parks. That is not my personal definition. I poached it from somewhere, but I am not sure where.

The time has come for a realistic assessment of the position of the National Parks, particularly because in last night's debate on afforestation in the National Parks the rights of land owners were constantly emphasised. The question arose in my mind whether it is a matter of the nation versus the land owners. Are the open spaces of the National Parks the private preserves of the land owners, or are they part of our nation's heritage and therefore for the men who, in two world wars in my lifetime, have fought for Britain?

I remind the House that we are living in the second half of the twentieth century and not in the second half of the eighteenth or nineteenth century. I speak, not as an expert of any kind, but merely as an ordinary citizen. I cannot claim any detailed knowledge of the National Parks. I have visited most of them and I know Dartmoor fairly well. The film prepared by the West Region B.B.C. entitled "The Last Wilderness", which has been shown in the West Region, depicts Dartmoor in its stark simplicity and naturalness. Anyone who can appreciate a beautiful bit of countryside or mountain is bound to feel a thrill when he goes over Dartmoor.

I have been criticised in the House because I take too great an interest, as it is thought, in Dartmoor, but Dartmoor belongs to the nation. It is not the preserve of Members of Parliament who represent Devonshire. Anyone who knows anything about names will recognise that mine is a Devon name. My father's people lived in south-east Devon for centuries. My mother's people lived in Cornwall for centuries and I was born in Cornwall. But I have an affinity for Devon and Dartmoor, as is natural.

We in Cornwall have no National Park, but we have designated areas of outstanding natural beauty. Anyone who knows the cliffs of Cornwall, particularly those on our north coast and our moorlands, particularly Bodmin Moor, will appreciate that we love our coasts and moors and find great recreational spirit in them. Anyone who has not been on the north coast of Cornwall in a north-westerly gale in winter does not know what our cliffs can mean.

Furthermore, we have on our cliffs rather unusual flora. I am sorry to say that the depredations of agriculture, in some parts administered by the National Trust, have wiped out some of this outstanding and unusual flora. My wife and I saw an unusual plant on a part of our north coast thirty-five years ago. I have not told anyone where it is except someone at the Nature Conservancy. He was not in the least interested. Therefore, the secret will go down to the grave with my wife and I, because we feel that there is no real appreciation in the Government Departments of what our natural beauty and flora and fauna really mean to many people. I will not recapitulate the legislation and administration concerning the National Parks because that has been done before. There are two main points that I should like to stress—adequate finance, and amendment of the law where necessary.

In referring to the National Land Fund, I wish to quote from some notes which were kindly prepared for me by the statistical department of our Library. They state: The story of the National Land Fund revenue is this. In 1946 Mr. Dalton described the Fund as 'a nest egg, set aside, which could be used to finance some of the operations necessary in order to give the public permanent access to the National Parks'. £50 million was set aside out of moneys received from the sale of surplus war stores and surplus receipts from Government trading activities. In July, 1954, the Committee on Public Accounts recommended to the Treasury that they should consider the desirability of legislation to return to the Exchequer some part of the large and growing balance of the Fund as being, in the Committee's view, a substantial amount of public money for which then was no foreseeable need. The comment of the National Parks Commission, in their Sixth Report, paragraph 27, was: 'We ourselves think that the use of moneys in the National Land Fund for National Park purposes would be in line with the original intention of the Fund, and would provide an earnest of the Government's positive interest in National Parks and a stimulus to all those who are concerned with them. We believe that if, for instance, it were made possible for a specified sum to be made available annually for a number of years ahead, Park Planning Authorities and ourselves would be enabled to make forward plans on projects which normally take a long time to mature and to initiate and promote a really effective National Parks programme'. Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop brought in the National Parks (Amendment) Bill on 30th January, 1959. In replying to that debate, the Minister of Housing and Local Government said: I know it was suggested in the early days of the National Parks idea that the National Land Fund might be used for National Parks. In fact, during these ten years, it never has been."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1959; Vol. 598, c. 1489.] It so happens that within the last week or two, there has been controversy on this very question of financing the National Parks. On 14th March, a leader in the Guardian read thus: The Land Fund is a useful device for enabling the Treasury to accept property (such as historic houses or land) and chattels (such as works of art) in payment of death duties, and to place them in safe hands. Its annual accounts, made public yesterday, show that 1959–60 was the quietest year it has had for some time; its total outgoings were £255,000 or so, of which just over half was paid to the Ministry of Works, to meet expenses of acquisition and management, and just under half for actual properties … In the three previous years, the Land Fund had spent more than £2.5 million, including such tremendous items as the works of art acquired from Chatsworth House (worth £1,025,000 …) Hardwick Hall and chattels (£360,000 between them) … It is an odd thing that the Land Fund began to be really active only when its original capital had been drastically cut down. Lord Dalton set it up with a capital of £50 million, ostensibly with the idea that it might be used among other things for sustaining the national parks, then still unborn. For reasons never explained, no arrangement was made in the National Parks Act for carrying out this purpose, and the national parks have suffered accordingly. The Times, in a leading article on 28th March, said: The presidential address to the annual council of the Ramblers' Association makes melancholy reading. In it Mr. Embleton chronicled the gradual disappointment of the hopes of great things which the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 inspired. Such steps as the designation of ten national parks is hardly negligible; nor is the complexity of the case-work… No discussion in this field can escape its subjective element. Moreover, as the last annual report of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government emphasises, in a conspicuously defensive passage, the public has little means of knowing the extent to which projects are stopped or abandoned at the outset as incompatible with the purposes of the National Parks Act. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the disappointment is largely justified. It goes on to say that the National Parks Commission shares no blame for that. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider carefully with the Minister those leading articles from two of our leading daily newspapers.

The Minister says that he is anxious to help, and I believe that he is. I think sometimes, however, that Conservative principles rather hamper him in his good intentions. Grants up to 75 per cent. are available, but conflicts arise between the Treasury and local authorities about how much each should bear. I say "the Treasury", because undoubtedly it is the Treasury which gives the money to the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

This is an inescapable dilemma. The more that is spent by the local authorities, the greater is the rate burden. The less that is spent out of the rates, the less is the Government grant. I am informed that on 21st February, the day before my Motion was to be debated in the House of Commons, the Finance Committee of the Devon County Council cut the estimate for the Dartmoor National Park Committee by £2,000. That meant a loss of £6,000 of Government grant. The result was that in the coming year, the Park Committee will have £8,000 less to spend than it would have had had the item of £2,000 not been struck out of its budget by the finance committee of the county council. Of that £8,000, £5,000 would have been allocated to save land from afforestation and £3,000 for combating disfigurements in the park. This is a perfect example of the failure of dual financial responsibility concerning the National Parks.

What it amounts to is that the development and preservation of the National Parks is dependent upon the finance committee of the county council concerned. I am not blaming the finance committees. Every one of us who has had anything to do with county council budgets, as I have done, will realise the great pressure which comes upon finance committees at this time of year, particularly when, as almost inevitably is the case, the rate has to be raised.

These National Parks are for the whole nation. I suggest that they should be financed nationally. I believe that I am correct in saying that the Royal Parks in London, which are open to the public of the world, are financed by the Government. Although Westminster Borough, in which, I suppose, St. James's Park and Green Park lie, is probably one of the wealthiest local authorities, the Minister does not tell Westminster Borough Council that it must pay a share of the upkeep of these parks. They are National Parks. None of us objects to them being financed nationally. I do, however, suggest that this is a good precedent for financing the National Parks. I expect that the cost of the upkeep of St. James's Park alone would be sufficient to finance all the National Parks in the country. I must, however, make it clear that I do not want any cutting down of expenditure on the Royal Parks. The National Parks require considerably more money spent upon their upkeep and maintenance. The nation should provide it.

One of the problems in the National Parks is the collection of litter. I agree that the Minister has done everything he can to provide penalties for people who throw litter about. Public opinion has been roused to the menace of litter in the countryside, and in many places the local authorities are doing a fine job by providing waste paper baskets and the like.

The Northumberland National Park Committee has set a fine example by providing for a system of wardens. It is not a costly affair and I hope that the other National Park Committees will be able to emulate the Northumberland example. I am not asking the Parliamentary Secretary for a decision this afternoon. Obviously, these are big points of policy, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider carefully what I have said.

Under Section 11 of the Act, the park committees have wide discretion, but, frustrated as they are by lack of finance, what can they do? They cannot embark upon any great schemes of expansion for the Parks, because this would be too costly and might in turn result in an increase in the local rate. The local people would say, "Dartmoor belongs to the people of Devon, not to the nation. Why should we have to pay an extra rate to keep Dartmoor National Park going?" That is a very human outlook.

I should like to quote from some speeches which are referred to in the Tenth Report of the National Parks Commission for the year ended 30th September, 1959.

Lord Strang in opening the Bakewell Conference of park planning authorities on 28th May, 1959, said: Speaking in 1945, Lord Birkett said that he felt assured that when National Parks are established … the fairest places in these islands will be secure from all assault, arising either from accident or design. And I notice that, in a recent letter to The Times, a group of Members of Parliament have said that if a certain area in which they were particularly interested could be made into a National Park, this would serve to preserve it unspoiled for posterity. The present Minister of Housing and Local Government, replying to that debate, said that, however much trouble was taken over a Bill as it was going through Parliament, weaknesses large or small tended to come to light once it was in operation. There were some provisions of the 1949 National Parks Act that, he said, he would like to see amended. He went on to say: Before any fresh Government legislation is brought forward to amend the 1949 Act, I believe that the nation has got to think out more clearly than ever what exactly it wants to make of National Parks. Two years have passed since the Minister said that, and I really think that the time has come when we might expect him to do something in the way of introducing fresh legislation to amend the 1949 Act in the ways which are necessary. One of the ways, I suggest, is that all development in National Parks, including afforestation, should be brought under proper planning control.

On 14th July, 1952, the present Prime Minister, when he was Minister of Housing and Local Government, in a debate in this House said that in National Parks amenity and access should have prior claim. Last night we had a debate on afforestation in National Parks. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me for saying that I am very disappointed with his reply to the debate.

Every Government Department seems to be brushing off this decision on Economic Forestry, Ltd. to plant trees on High House Moor in Dartmoor National Park. I had an example of this brushing off from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture this morning. This time the Dartmoor National Park Committee is implacably opposed to that planting. The answer given is that this land was bought before the temporary agreement came into operation in January, but surely Economic Forestry, Ltd. ought to pay some regard to the feelings of the people of the country and not just stand pat on its property rights?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government last night referred to the fact that he himself was once interested in forestry. I would commend to him a book, "Profitable Forestry" by Lord Bolton, which he placed in the Library in 1956. I think he said—I have not checked it this morning—that really forestry should be profitable even without a Government subsidy, but last year the Forestry Commission paid out, I think, the sum of £1,379,000 in grants to private woodlands. There are special maintenance grants and special concessions under death duties for woodlands, and yet Economic Forestry, Ltd. seems to be buying, or proposing to buy, hundreds of thousands of acres of land some of which is in National Parks and to be financed to some extent out of rebates of taxation. I am afraid that I am not sufficient of an expert in that kind of practice to know just how it is done.

Then there is the question of Government Department's use of National Parks. I have put a series of Questions to Service Ministers, and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science recently, because I was informed that the National Parks Commission had not been consulted by the Atomic Energy Authority when it wanted to put some listening posts on Northern Dartmoor. In a reply which I got from the Parliamentary Secretary a couple of days ago he said that his Department had contacted the Dartmoor National Park Committee and then had told the National Parks Commission by telephone. Surely, a body of the standing of the National Parks Commission, set up by this House to administer the National Parks, ought to be treated in a better way than that by civil servants. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will pass on to his colleague what I am saying, because I am sure that this House will not tolerate these things being dealt with in this way.

I am bound to say that of all the replies I got from the Service Ministers I was most pleased with that from the Secretary of State for Air. He was extremely good, and I know that I owe a debt to that Department because some years ago it stopped the project which it had for putting a radar mast on Great Links Tor on Northern Dartmoor.

There is much more that I should like to say on this subject, because the National Parks and the countryside generally mean a lot to me. It is a great national heritage, and I hope that the Minister will rise to the occasion and say that he and his hon. and right hon. Friends will do what they can to make the National Parks a national responsibility. Let the Parks by all means carry on in a normal way, but let the finance for them be provided through the National Land Fund.

2.57 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Keighley)

I intervene only very briefly in this interesting debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) will not think I am speechless with rage with him. It is only that my voice is affected by a heavy cold. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member, and he does great service in bringing up for debate today this subject which is too rarely debated in this House; but I must say that there are many matters on which I disagree with him. I am fortunate in that my constituency is near the Yorkshire Dales National Park and in that the North Yorkshire Moors National Park is near my home. I know both National Parks well, and I value them.

I am inclined to think that the hon. Member does not pay enough attention to the interests and concerns of the people who live in and around the National Parks. I very much regret that he should suggest that the whole of the financial responsibility should rest upon the Government. It seems to me that the National Parks should reflect local interests as well as serve the national interest. It was never suggested when the National Parks were set up that they should be merely wildernesses.

Mr. Hayman

I quite agree with that, but some of the parks are wilderness, and I hope that no motor car will ever get into them.

Mr. Worsley

I am grateful to the hon. Member, but I thought he was rather suggesting that in one passage of his speech, but I am glad that I carry him with me in stating that these areas should be places where development of agriculture and forestry can take place and where people can work. They should not be fossilised and places for urban populations only to visit. That is my reason for hoping that my hon. Friend will not go any way towards meeting the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne in his suggestion that all finance should be national.

I want to see in the National Parks maximum access and maximum amenity, as was quoted from the words of the Prime Minister, but as well as that I want to see in them employment and vigorous local development. I do not want to see the sort of attitude that assumes that one comes up to a stone pillar and beyond that the ordinary development of the countryside is ended. I hope that my hon. Friend will not meet the hon. Member on this question of central finance. If he does so this will be the thin end of the wedge for a type of fossilising policy which I deprecate.

3.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir K. Joseph)

Enthusiasts in this House often act as public benefactors and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) is a real enthusiast for the subject he has raised today, but there is the trouble with enthusiasts that no answer can ever satisfy them, and I shall be surprised if what I have to say will leave the hon. Member entirely satisfied.

Before dealing with the detail of what the hon. Member said and in particular with National Parks, I should like to deny categorically one assertion that the hon. Member made. He said the Government as a whole had no real en- thusiasm for preserving the landscape beauty of this country. It is not often enough and generally enough and widely enough appreciated how much has been achieved in the way that the hon. Member would like.

Six per cent. of the total acreage of England and Wales is in the green belts. No one thinks that all green belts are a beautiful landscape but they are subject to a very tight development control. In addition to that, 5 per cent. of the acreage is in areas of outstanding national beauty and subject to the tightest form of development control. On top of that 9 per cent. of the acreage is in National Parks. This makes a total of nearly 20 per cent. of the acreage subject to the tightest form of development control, and this in a country throbbing with full employment and activity. I hope that the hon. Member and the public will realise that a great deal is being done to preserve as inviolate as is possible, with full life within the area, a large proportion of our national inheritance of beauty.

Mr. Hayman

I appreciate the good work that the Minister has done in the green belts.

Sir K. Joseph

I am grateful to the hon. Member.

The hon. Member has done a real service to the National Parks in raising the subject today, because it is good from time to time to look at the position that we have reached in National Parks administration. Now, eleven years after the Act came into force, anyone reading the Annual Reports, and the eleventh Report came out only a few weeks ago, will realise how much work is done by the National Parks Commission and committees in effecting, judging and assessing and controlling development that occurs, or might occur but for their vigilant care, in the National Parks.

Members and staff of the Commission spend a great deal of their time on actual field work, and I am sure the House would wish to pay tribute to the thoroughness and skill they devote to their task. National Park authorities pay close heed to detail and do their best to ensure that such development as occurs is in harmony with the landscape.

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Worsley) that some development is bound to occur in the National Parks. It was never the intention that they should be turned into what he called fossilised areas and what I would call museums. Museums tend to be dead records of the past but National Parks are to some extent only beautiful because they are living and vital and they change as nature changes. That is why there must be employment in them and why people in and around them should continue to make full use of them.

There is tremendous criticism, however, when major development has to be allowed. Sometimes a decision has to be taken in the national interest to site something in a National Park when everyone wishes that it might be sited elsewhere but it cannot for technical or other reasons. But it would be wrong to allow our view of National Parks to be obscured by these cases however much publicity they achieve. Let us reflect on the credit side—the unspectacular daily achievements which are given no publicity. The efforts towards the enhancement and preservation of the Parks are much evidenced in the Report which I hope hon. Members will find time to read.

Some authorities already give guidance to developers in these matters by way of publications, and others intend to do so in future. Meticulous attention to details in siting, materials and colour is an important aspect of this development. It goes on all the time but many people are unaware of it because it is so unglamorous and unspectacular.

The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne quoted one thing with what I thought was exaggeration. This was the case of the research facilities required by the Atomic Energy Authority on Dartmoor for seismic tests in connection with the Geneva Conference on the banning of nuclear tests. One would think from listening to the hon. Member that we were dealing here with a major disruption of a National Park. In fact, as I think the hon. Member knows, what is at issue is about seven small temporary pits each one not much bigger than the Dispatch Box in this House. They are scattered over a length of two miles and are to be used for a very few hours and for very few weeks in each year. They contain delicate recording instruments and they will be manned only when the instruments are in use. They will be protected when they are not being manned.

They are certainly temporary facilities. They serve a great national purpose. They cannot be said to disrupt the natural beauty of the area. The local Park Committee has no objection to the proposal to place them there. Had the committee had any objection it would naturally have consulted the National Parks Commission, as is the normal drill. The Authority took steps to inform the Commission of what was proposed and my right hon. Friend has had no complaint from the Commission of any discourtesy to it. There cannot be a complete ban on all activity in National Parks, however suitable and however much those activities serve the national interest.

It has been said that the development control powers given to the authorities should include control over forestry. I hope that the hon. Member understands that my right hon. Friend believes that voluntary agreement should be given a fair trial. The Economic Forestry Group is not standing pat on its legal rights in the case of land acquired before the voluntary agreement. In the case of High House Moor it is in consultation, as is not required under the voluntary agreement, with the planning authority. The hon. Member is grossly exaggerating the planting proposals of the Economic Forestry Group as they might affect the National Parks. I hope that the public generally will be reassured by the pamphlet which is being produced by the Economic Forestry Group. Because of lack of time I have had to deal with this matter as it were in shorthand, but I am sure that hon. Members will understand my reference.

I turn now to the question of how the Government have played their part in the care of National Parks. I was glad that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne paid tribute to my right hon. Friend who takes his responsibilities in connection with the Parks extremely seriously. He has personally visited all but one of them and he has found it possible and right to support the Park planning authorities in nearly every one of the appeals to him.

Reference has been made to The Times and the Guardian and the speech by Mr. Embleton at the recent Ramblers' Conference. Perhaps these leaders in responsible papers derive some of their tone from earlier and more romantic conceptions of what National Parks should be. The Hobhouse Committee Report envisaged a much more high-powered body than we have today. It envisaged a Commission which would have power to spend money in acquiring land, which would promote many activities in the National Parks, and which would have a paid staff for the purpose.

In fact, the Act passed by Parliament in 1949, under a Labour Government, reflected a much more modified version of the National Parks than was envisaged by the Hobhouse Committee. The National Parks Commission is, in fact, under the 1949 Act largely advisory. Only the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman are paid. The Commission has no power to acquire land, and the National Parks are, in fact, managed by local planning authorities with no Exchequer assistance for administrative expenses.

As has been made plain, there are 75 per cent. Exchequer grants—from the taxpayer—in respect of certain activities under the Act, such as car parks, hostels, tree planting, wardens' services over access land, and clearance of derelict sites. My right hon. Friend and his predecessors have not since the days of the credit squeeze failed to approve a single eligible scheme which has been put forward for grant purposes.

It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the local ratepayers have to find £1 for every £3 found by the taxpayers. But if the local ratepayers are in a poor area, they get rate deficiency grants to help them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley stressed, if there is any local pride surely the local ratepayers should be only too glad to pay something towards the inheritance which they above all citizens in this country can enjoy. I am sure that the local ratepayers will not grudge the £1 that draws £3 from the taxpayers.

There is no truth in the hon. Member's suggestion that the Treasury is difficult in meeting expenditure under the Act. My right hon. Friend has gladly agreed to the extension of wardens' ser- vices in certain Parks, and again with 75 per cent. Exchequer aid. Activities in the Parks promoted by voluntary bodies, and Park centres, of which the Hobhouse Committee speaks, are not unthinkable under the present system, given bigger initiative by the authorities.

The hon. Gentleman spoke of access. A good deal more access to open country has been provided under the Act, particularly in the Peak District, in agreement with land owners; and, in other parts of the country, land owners are coming more and more to accept the National Parks idea of access.

People talk of the Parks being held up through lack of Exchequer aid. It is true that aid in administrative expenditure would help authorities to employ more staff and do more things—I do not deny it—but, beyond that, the suggestions are vague. Others have suggested that there should be more public conveniences and more litter bins. The hon. Gentleman says that under the present arrangements one of the northern Parks is going in for what he admires in the way of litter bins collections and information centres, which are in any case now to be financed out of the increased funds made available for the purpose and are already to some extent practicable.

What my right hon. Friend would welcome is examples of projects which are frustrated by lack of grant now. Also, it is, felt that more use might be made of existing grants at the moment. Estimates of expenditure are already increasing considerably, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that most of the money that the taxpayers will find towards the extra expenditure will go to a few Park authorities which have had the initiative and vigour to think up schemes and put to good purpose the taxpayers' money which is available.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the National Land Fund. Surely it is now generally agreed that direct Parliamentary grant and not discretionary payments from some other fund is the right way to finance public schemes. The hon. Gentleman suggested—there have been very wide suggestions to this effect—that there should be amending legislation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the conference at Bakewell. At that conference my right hon. Friend said that he was studying suggestions made for amendment and that he was not opposed to the idea of amending legislation. My right hon. Friend has promised to look at all the proposals made to him, and at present he is seeking more information from Park authorities and the National Parks Commission to help in this review.

My right hon. Friend is extremely keen about improving conditions for the public in the National Parks. There is absolutely no complacency about this. As pointed out in my right hon. Friend's last Annual Report, the public have little means of knowing the extent to which projects are stopped, abandoned or discarded at the outset as incompatible with the purposes of the National Parks Act.

This unseen work is going on all the time. There is a feeling in some quarters that there is not as much to show after eleven years of the National Parks Act as some would wish, that the conception should be a more positive one to catch the imagination of the public and that the way to achieve it is for the Government to spend more money on the Parks. I hope I have shown that this is not altogether true and that there is very much more that can be done by the individual Parks committees which would now receive Exchequer aid. I think it may well be that the time has come to extend the legislative framework in some ways, and although we are at present looking at this, and although more expenditure might help in some ways, it cannot be the only answer. Vigilance, effective administration and an imaginative approach must also play a very important part.

I think that the whole House must be indebted to the hon. Member for having raised this important subject today.