ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION LINES (BARR BEACON) (Hansard, 14 May 1964)

§ Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid (Walsall, South)

I think it only proper that I should preface my remarks by asking you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to express to Mr. Speaker my very real gratitude to him for having been good enough to select this subject which I wish to bring forward for debate, and particularly also, in the special circumstances of the case, that he was good enough to choose a day on which it was possible for me to attend. I flew over from America this morning, which is perhaps an indication of the importance which I personally attach to the matter.

I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power for his presence here tonight, because he is someone for whom in all his capacities here I have always had the deepest respect.

The object of this Motion is to invite the Minister of Power to reconsider his decision of 1st April—an appropriate day, some might think—to allow the Central Electricity Generating Board to install a double overhead line for some six miles across the urban district of Aldridge, and, in particular, to urge him to order the undergrounding of 2⅔ miles which, if it were not put underground, would upset the famous and historic beauty spot of the West Midland conurbation, namely, Barr Beacon.

This is no minor infringement of this beauty spot, because the size of the pylons which it is proposed to employ would in one case be no less than 136½ 766 ft. high at 400 yard intervals and in the case of the ether pylons they would vary in height from 158 ft. to 170 ft. and be at intervals of 400 to 600 yards. I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to say to me that there is already a pylon line going across this very tract of ground because, while admitting this, I would also remind him that the present pylons are really of a modest sort, such as we are familiar with, and are one-third of the height of the pylons proposed to be installed, and are sited so as not to spoil the view.

These monsters are no playthings. They are the very hallmark of the industrial civilisation that the people who live in the Black Country seek occasionally to escape by recourse to beauty spots, and among these Barr Beacon is outstanding.

I do not want to argue that the Central Electricity Generating Board is heedless of amenities. With my hon. Friend I was a member of the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries and we had the pleasure of hearing the evidence of Sir Christopher Hinton for many afternoons. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was on the Committee all the time, but Sir Christopher Hinton's personal interest and the attention that he paid to amenities were, I thought, very striking. I think hold us that he devoted as much as a quarter of his time to these particular problems, and this, of course, is something which a lesser man might have delegated.

I also want to make the point that I am not so obtuse as to think that amenity is purely visual. The engineering inspector of the Ministry made a very fair report. He said that where one objector argued that where there are visual amenities lines ought automatically to go underground regardless of cost, equally there would be others who would regard a cheap and reliable supply of electricity as an amenity in itself. In the latter case, such a person might rate the amenity value of cheap and plentiful electricity so high that he would demand it regardless of the loss of or damage to visual amenities. Clearly, this is a matter of judgment between two extremes, and it is the Minister's judgment in the matter which I am asking him to reconsider.

767 The facts are well known to my hon. Friend and I need not go into them at great length now. The Generating Board is seized of the necessity for improving the supply of electricity in the Birmingham area and for some years has been considering how to meet the growing needs of that area. It has come to the conclusion that the best way would be to run lines from the substation at Drakelow in Derbyshire to Bustleholm in Staffordshire. My constituents are not in any way disputing the need for a greater provision of electricity in future.

Application for planning permission was made by the Generating Board to the Staffordshire County Council on 17th February, 1962, and was approved by the clerk to that authority on 11th March, of the following year, in the following rather ambivalent terms: The Local Authority approves of the proposed development subject to the observation in paragraph 1. Paragraph 1 stated: Aldridge Urban District Council raise strong objections to the proposed work in this area". The subsequent facts are well known to my hon. Friend. The announcement that planning permission had been given for this overhead line raised a storm of protest in Aldridge and there were petitions by more than 3,000 residents. As a result, my right hon. Friend held a public inquiry on 12th and 13th September, and it is as a result of that inquiry that I have initiated the debate.

In parentheses, I should say that the Generating Board behaved perfectly correctly in advertising its intentions in the Press. This was not seized upon in this case because I think that people do not read that part of the Press, least of all the small print, with the attention which they should. It was not until the alertness of the Aldridge Council spotted the threat and made it known to the public that the protests poured in.

At the inquiry, the Minister made the case that of putting the cable underground so as not to spoil the area or, rather, desecrate Barr Beacon—the word used by the Minister himself—would add some £2,750,000 to the cost of the operation. Therefore, it is on a matter of £2,750,000 that I am addressing the 768 House tonight. It would not be reasonable to consider undergrounding the whole cable length of six miles, as was suggested by the Aldridge Council in the first instance.

Why should I, as a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, feel that this decision should be reconsidered? It is because it has a unique feature—Barr Beacon. To begin with, although it is not very high, it is still the highest hill between the Midlands of England and the Ural Mountains. It is surmounted by a clump of trees whose origins go back to the Druids. It is here that a beacon fire was lit to apprise the western counties of the arrival of the Armada.

I draw attention to the fact that on the top there is a little topographical observatory which bears this inscription: Erected in 1933 to perpetuate the memory of the men and women of Staffordshire and Warwickshire who gave their lives in the Great War of 1914–18 and in grateful remembrance of the late Lieut.-Colonel Wilkinson who presented Barr Beacon to the people for ever. When I go there I am always reminded of Housman's "Epitath on an Army of Mercenaries ". He wrote: Their shoulders held the sky suspended; They stood, and earth's foundations stay; What God abandoned, these defended, And saved the sum of things for pay. I think that when the men of Staffordshire and Warwickshire went to the Great War and, as we know, suffered almost unbearable losses, if there was a consolation to them in their agony it was the thought that their children would be able to live as free citizens of this country, and further that they might have the chance of enjoyment too by sometimes climbing Barr Beacon and knowing something of the land it had all been about. Something of this must have been in the mind of Colonel Wilkinson when he bought the land and presented it to the public in perpetuity as a war memorial.

The Minister, in what I hope he will forgive me for describing as rather an unfortunate phrase, has said that the Board agreed that Barr Beacon and views from it were not without merit, but did not think them outstanding. Macaulay's Jacobite "who pined by Arno" for his lovelier Tees would no doubt have learnt from the inspector that he was deficient in aesthetic appreciation. The extraordinary mixture of 769 views obtainable from Barr Beacon gives the true picture of the Midlands, that unique combination of industry and green pastureland, the view of which was dedicated, as I have said, as a memorial to the men of Staffordshire and Warwickshire and given to the people forever.

This could well be preserved if the Board accepted the expenditure of an additional £2¾ million, and this is the view—I know that my hon. Friend has not been up Barr Beacon although he accompanied me one day but it was far too dark to see—with its occasional glimpse of loveliness which the people of the West Midlands are to have desecrated and I repeat the word—because the Minister agrees with his inspector that, while not without merit, it is not outstanding.

Not long ago a friend of mine, James Lees-Milne, said on television: We still love England because of its beautiful buildings and its surviving fields and woods; but if all its towns are to be dominated by supermarkets and car parks, and its farmlands by caravan sites and pylons, then why should we love it any more?". Here we are, two reasonable men, discussing this matter late at night. I do not believe that my hon. Friend will tell me that he has changed his mind, but I cannot believe in my heart of hearts that these considerations which I have adduced are negligible, and when we think in these terms, the expenditure of £2¾ million which I have mentioned ought to be incurred.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton)

Not long ago I had the pleasure and privilege of accompanying my hon. Friend to Walsall, and I had the honour of addressing his constituents. The fact that on that evening his constituency was wrapped in fog was unfortunate because, quite apart from the factor of darkness, it precluded me from enjoying the views of and from Barr Beacon. Nevertheless, on that occasion I was warned by my hon. Friend and by a number of his constituents of the importance which they attached to the views and the amenities of Barr Beacon. Now the worst has happened, and I am arraigned by my hon. Friend to answer the charge of vandalism on the part of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

770 I accept what my hon. Friend told the House about how far and how fast he has come here tonight, and I hope that he will forgive me if I say that his attendance from far away is a good deal more willing than mine from much nearer at hand.

He has been very fair. He said that he hoped that I would not be raising as an argument the fact that there are already some very modest pylons there. It is not my intention to do anything of that kind. However, he used one key phrase in referring to these "monsters" being the hallmarks of an industrial civilisation. Not only is it fair to describe them as hallmarks; it is almost inevitable that we should accept them as the concomitants—the inevitable companions—of industrial civilisation, a civilisation which has speeded up the demand for electricity at quite an alarming pace.

I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for his fairness in saying that he accepted that the Central Electricity Generating Board was not heedless of amenities. He paid generous tribute to Sir Christopher Hinton, in acknowledging the Chairman's concern for this side of the Board's activities. But he dismissed rather lightly an argument about the cheapness of electricity, and I want to return to that point later on.

He made one point which, although not one that I want to make much out of, I should deal with. He said that at the hearing my right hon. Friend made a case. That is not so. The case made at the hearing was made by the C.E.G.B., and it is one over which and in which my right hon. Friend has no part or influence whatever, until a later stage, when he is asked to confirm or otherwise the opinion and the report of the inspector appointed to hear the case.

My hon. Friend has spoken in very moving terms of the historical associations of this site, and of the fact that it was a memorial to the sufferings and agonies—as he put it—of men who died in a great war. I do not believe that this argument was adduced at the hearing, but I do not wish to rely upon that today: I content myself with saying that the argument which he has put forward is not lightly put on one side, and was not treated in any callous or unfeeling fashion.

771 My hon. Friend is already fully aware of the facts, and I do not wish to weary the House with a full statement of them. He has already referred to the fact that a letter from my Department, addressed to the Aldridge Urban District Council, dated 1st April, summed up the case both of the Board and the objectors to this proposal. The decision that my right hon. Friend reached, to confirm the report and view of the inspector, is one which cannot be reopened. My right hon. Friend, having made the decision, has no power to change it. I must make that quite clear. It would be valuable if I made the point, in passing, that all the necessary notices were published before the hearing, and that the hearing provided a very full opportunity for all those who objected to the scheme to be heard.

I accept that this is yet another case of people living near to beautiful countryside, which they value very greatly, objecting to its spoliation by the presence of these large towers.

It is always the case all over the country that those who live nearby feel that one of the most beautiful and valuable bits of England is about to be spoiled by such a scheme as this, but I do not accept from my hon. Friend—I cannot—that here we are arguing merely about £2¾ million because, unfortunately, for such an organisation as the Central Electricity Generating Board there is such a thing as precedent. What the Board concedes in one case it will be obliged to concede in others. It cannot possibly pick out one area for special privileged treatment. I accept, of course, that those who, like my hon. Friend, are concerned with a particular area look at that argument askance and without enthusiasm, but it is one of great concern for the Board and for electricity consumers.

The demand here is that both these lines, one of 400 kV and another of 275 kV should be put underground. As I told the House, I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with some of my hon. Friend's constituents when I visited Walsall. I took the opportunity to point out that the same people who object very strongly to the ruination of beautiful views also have very powerful views to express on the subject of high electricity bills. I think that the number 772 of occasions on which I have stood at this Box at this sort of hour answering Adjournment debates have been more or less equally divided between times when I have answered protests about high electricity bills and answering protests about spoiling beautiful views.

The proposals of the Generating Board on this occasion are for two lines of 400 kV and 275 kV across the Aldridge urban district which are necessary to reinforce supplies to Birmingham, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The towers will vary between 158 ft. and 170 ft. for the 400 kV line and slightly less for the 275 kV line. I absolutely accept that such structures cannot fail to have a very serious effect upon scenery, but I should make clear that the Staffordshire County Council, the planning authority concerned, did not object to this scheme. Hence, there was no public inquiry, but a hearing ordered by my right hon. Friend at the request of Aldridge Urban District Council.

I think I should go into the question of the costs because it is vital. If the difference between putting these lines overhead and putting heavily insulated cables underground was not so immense of course I would accept that the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend and others would be a great deal stronger than I am now prepared to admit. The distance of the lines through the whole area of the Aldridge urban district is about 4½ miles in all. The cost of putting both lines overhead throughout is £361,000. If both lines were put underground throughout—I accept that my hon. Friend did not ask for this—the cost would be something of the order of £6 million.

In this case the overhead line has been elongated and as far as possible planned by the Board to cause the minimum of damage to the amenities. But the cost of putting the cable underground would be more than £2,600,000 in excess of the cost of the overhead line. I have every sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend as, I am certain, have the Generating Board, for it is impossible to deny sympathy to and to withhold understanding from people who are desperately concerned to preserve the beauties of the countryside. On the other hand, we live in a society which is stepping up in a most dramatic and alarming way its demand for 773 electricity. That electricity has to be transported as cheaply as possible.

It is roughly true to say that for a heavy-duty 400 kV line it is 21 times as expensive to put the cable underground as to put a line overhead. I should remind my hon. Friend of a fact sometimes ignored: that even if the line is put underground, there is a necessity for certain not very attractive structures to be above ground which do nothing to improve the view. That would be regarded by all concerned as an extensive outrage to the beauty of the countryside.

774 I am deeply sorry that I am unable to offer more comfort to my hon. Friend and his constituents. As I have said, I have had the benefit of hearing their views at first hand, and I would not disagree with much that they have said, save only that it is as well that those of them who are users of electricity should remember the size of the bill which they would have to pay for what they are asking.