Lords Sitting of 22 November 1945

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
.Prayers
The Earl Cawdor—Took the Oath.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, with respect to the first Order on the Paper, the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill, the Second Reading of which is to be moved by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, it has been represented to me that some noble Lords would like to give more detailed consideration to the matter than they think they have had the opportunity to do. Of course, it is far from my desire to deprive them of any adequate opportunity of doing so. Therefore, perhaps I might suggest that after the Second Reading there should be a sufficient interval before the Committee stage to enable the study to be undertaken which some noble Lords would like to have the opportunity of making.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for what he has said, because I think there is a feeling in some quarters that more time should be available for consideration of this matter. This Bill did not reach the House till Monday and here is the Second Reading on Thursday. It will be a great help if a longer interval is given between Second Reading and the Committee stage. There will be some noble Lords who have not had sufficient time to study the Bill and to speak on Second Reading, and, therefore, perhaps we might have a slightly more extended debate on the Motion to move the Bill into Committee. That is a matter to which I think we might give further consideration. As I have stated, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he said.

STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL.
Order for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As has already been said, this is a highly complicated and technical Bill. The only thing that I think can be said about it is that it is not controversial. At least, in the other place there were no Divisions. But I think I might usefully occupy your Lordships' time for a few minutes if I try to explain the principles of the Bill, and the reasons for its introduction.
Those of us in the Coalition Government who had anything to do with the schemes for reconstruction came to the conclusion that we must see that the Parliamentary machine was capable of dealing with the mass of reconstruction proposals that were likely to come before it. I think the true friend of Parliamentary proceedings is not the man who thinks they ought to remain absolutely unchanged, but the man who thinks we must move with the times, so long as essential Parliamentary control is in all respects preserved. The first intimation given to the public by the Coalition Government was in the White Paper on the National Water Policy published in April, 1944, where it was stated, on page 8:
"In connexion with water undertakings the normal method for such a review has been in the past the familiar 'Provisional Order' procedure. The question whether some modified system might be devised is a matter which is closely bound up with the procedure of Parliament and has to be considered in a context wider than that of water legislation. For that reason, it would be out of place to embody any detailed proposals in the present Paper."
It is quite obvious, if I may use an analogy, that if the State, instead of being content merely to act as referee and to blow the whistle when the player gets offside, wishes to come down into the arena and take part in the game, the State must see to it that it is sufficiently nimble-footed to take its part in the game with the other players. For that reason, we have to see whether our procedure is sufficiently up to date.
Accordingly, in the month of June, 1944, Mr. Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister, explained his intentions. Your Lordships will forgive me for reading what he said, because I think the

1151
description he gave of what we propose to do is as clear and as concise as any I have been able to find. After talking about water rights, and then saying that the proposal was to relate, not only to water rights, but also td other reconstruction legislation, he said:
"For these Orders the procedure by way of Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, with its numerous stages, is unduly cumbrous in view of the urgency of the reconstruction period. On the other hand, if the Orders were merely laid before Parliament subject to annulment by a Resolution moved by a Member, there would be no room for the entertainment of objections from private interests affected, objections which would often be based on evidence of a technical character. Accordingly the Government have under consideration a proposal upon which they will wish in due course to take the sense of Parliament, for a fresh system of Parliamentary review of Orders combining certain features of each of the present systems ….
"Orders made subject to such new procedure would, after any local inquiry or other preliminary proceeding required by the relevant Statute, be laid before both Houses of Parliament for a stated period, during which objection could be taken thereto either by negative Resolution moved by a Member of the House or by petition. It would not, however, be open to petitioners, as it is on a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, to petition against the main purpose of the Order. If any petitions were duly presented, the Order would stand referred to a Select Committee, which would normally be a joint committee of both Houses; the petitioners would be entitled to appear and he heard upon the particular matters raised by their petitions, and the committee would have power to amend the Order. The Order would thus normally be disposed of either within the original period for which it is laid or, if opposed in detail by private interests, after one Parliamentary stage. In two exceptional cases further proceedings would be required; namely: (1) If the Government found it necessary to ask Parliament to reconsider Amendments made by the Joint Committee on the Order, and (2) where for special reasons it was desired that an Order should be considered by separate Committees of the Houses. In these cases the situation would have to be met by the introduction of a Bill to which the Order would be scheduled, but the passage of such a Bill could be accelerated by the elimination of all except essential stages …"
And then he adds:
"These proposals have not yet been worked out in full but it is intended to put a detailed scheme before Parliament as soon as possible. The Government contemplate that the new system should in due course replace the present system of Provisional Order Confirmation Bills."
Before that answer was given, of course, a good deal of work had been
1152
done on this matter, and the real credit for this Bill—I think those associated with me in the last Government would all agree—should go to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who gave unsparingly of his time to work out the details of the Bill. On March 28, 1945, the Bill was presented to the House of Commons.
Now may I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment the various ways in which Ministerial Orders can come before the Houses of Parliament. In the first place, there is sometimes a mere provision that the Order of the Minister be made. Parliament has no check at all, no control. That, I suppose, is done simply so that Parliament may be informed of what the Minister has done. Then there is the procedure whereby the Minister makes an Order, and in order that it may become law it requires an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. In your Lordships' House that is known as a Special Order and you, unlike another place, have special Standing Orders dealing with what are called Special Orders. We do not intend to touch that or interfere with it in any way. Then, more commonly in modern legislation, you get the requirement not of an affirmative Resolution but of a negative Resolution. The Minister makes an Order and the Order stands unless within a specified time either House opposes it. That, equally, we do not propose to touch by this legislation.
But there is a fourth method, and that is by the Provisional Order procedure. The Provisional Order machinery was started, I think, almost exactly 100 years ago; and if I may just trace through, in the broadest outline, the steps of Provisional Order procedure, they are as follows. In the first place, a local inquiry is held. That is very valuable and very useful because it enables people to know all the facts and hear the arguments, but of course that is not any sort of Parliamentary control. When the local inquiry has been held, if the Minister is minded to go on with the Order he introduces a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill and schedules the particular Order to that Bill. Now that Bill is technically a Public Bill but, by long tradition in both Houses, it is very exceptional for such a Bill to be debated on Second Reading in either House. What happens is that either House sends it to a Committee upstairs, and on the Committee upstairs

1153
there takes place what is really a Second Reading debate. The promoter of the Bill has, in the technical phrase, to "prove his preamble," and the Committee, if they are satisfied that the preamble has been proved, then, and only then, go on to consider the various clause points. So that Committee is really dealing with the objections to the main purposes of the Bill as well as Amendments to the clauses.
If I may reveal a secret of the Bar, may I tell you that in my young days I often used to be instructed to go before these Committees on clause points. You received your brief before you knew whether the preamble was going to be proved or not. It used to be very satisfactory, after you had been briefed, to find the preamble was not proved, so that you never had to do anything for your money!
As soon as the Provisional Order passes another place in that way it can come to your Lordships, it goes upstairs in the same way, and you have the third forensic proceeding, where you have maps, blackboards and all the rest, with expert witnesses and counsel. So you have first of all the preliminary inquiry, then the proceedings upstairs in another place, then the proceedings upstairs in the Lords, and then, if you get over all those hurdles, the Provisional Order becomes law. But not unnaturally it takes a good deal of time and costs a good deal of money. The average time for an opposed Order is eight months, but I have known Orders take very much longer than that to get through.
Compare that with its forensic procedure, on the one hand, with the Special Order procedure. In the Special Order procedure there are no forensic proceedings at all. The Order comes before each House, each House has to pass an affirmative Resolution and you have, as is natural on the floor of the House, a Second Reading debate. In a Second Reading debate, you cannot, of course, go into all the details, as you can in forensic proceedings. It is often the case that these Provisional Orders can be disposed of on Second Reading. For instance, under the Town and Country Planning Act there is power to make Provisional Orders with regard to the siting of some of the London railways. Suppose a question arose as to whether Charing Cross Station or Cannon Street Station were to be moved
1154
somewhere else; that is a matter on which almost every Member of each House would have strong views, and we should none of us be satisfied to have that matter determined for us by a Committee upstairs. We should want to express our own views and then for it to go to a Committee upstairs to settle the clause points, to see that individual interests were properly protected. What we propose to do under this procedure is to try to combine the good features of both the Special Orders and the Provisional Orders.
In the first place, let me say to what Orders the procedure provided for in this Bill applies, or will apply if it becomes an Act. It applies to Orders made under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1945, the Water Act, 1945, and the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945. It will apply to future Acts if the Acts include a power to make Orders and provide that such Orders shall be subject to special Parliamentary procedure. With regard to previous Statutes, the provisions of this Bill can be applied if each House passes the necessary affirmative Resolution.
In the Bill as introduced in the Coalition Government, there was a five-year period. The Bill provided that it was not to be applied to past Acts of Parliament until five years had elapsed. But knowing that your Lordships do not like the five-year period, I hope we shall receive some credit for having omitted that provision, and, in consequence, so long as your Lordships pass the necessary affirmative Resolution—because you have complete Parliamentary control—the Bill can be applied to existing Acts of Parliament.
What is to be done under the machinery which the Bill contemplates? First of all, you have got to have your local inquiry; that is to say, to see that the requirements of what is called the Empowering Statute are satisfied. If there is no requirement in the Empowering Statute, then the provisions of the First Schedule apply. If your Lordships will look at that, you will see there is adequate protection there. When those preliminaries have been carried out, the Minister has to certify that the necessary steps have been taken. After that has been done, the Order has to lie on the Table for a period of fourteen days, during which

1155
petitions against the Order can be presented. At the end of that period, the petitions are referred to the Chairmen, that is to say the Lord Chairman in our House and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the Commons, who then have to perform this task; they have to differentiate between those petitions which are petitions of general objection and those which are petitions for amendment. That is a distinction between what we used to call a Second Reading point and a Committee point—between one which negatives the main purpose of the Bill and one which is an amendment.
Then they report under which category the petitions fall. Petitions of amendment go to the Committee upstairs. We propose a Joint Committee of both Houses which will effect a very considerable saving of time. Petitions of general objection will normally be disposed of on the floor of the House, but either House will have the power to say: "We do not think we know quite enough about this Order to make up our minds whether we shall allow it or not. That being so, albeit that the petition is a petition of general objection, we shall send it to the Joint Committee in order that the Committee may discuss it and that we may have the advantage of their report after the forensic procedure has taken place."
That is, roughly speaking, the scheme of the Bill. I am afraid this is very technical. It may happen, of course, that the Joint Committee may amend the Bill. If the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment, the Order, as amended, then becomes effective. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, he can cause the Order to be submitted to Parliament for further consideration by means of a Bill, which will be treated as a Bill which has passed through the Committee stage in both Houses, so that either House, on the Report or Third Reading stage, will be able to decide whether they prefer the view of the Joint Committee or that of the Minister. There may be occasions (with which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships at this stage), where a Bill has to start in the first House again and go through its Second Reading in order that it may be sent to the Committee. Another advantage is this. Under this Bill we shall be able to take advantage of the whole time that Parliament is sitting. As your Lordships know,
1156
under the Provisional Order procedure, Bills must be submitted before Whitsunday and unless that is done the rest of the year is not available.
There are four points on which we claim the Bill merits consideration. First of all, the removal of the delay caused by the season of the year; secondly, the division by trusted officers of the House (the Lord Chairman here and the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place) into the two categories, petitions of general objection and petitions for amendment; thirdly, the disposal of the petition of general objection on the floor of the House; and finally (one of the greatest advantages of all), we shall have the machinery of a Joint Committee of both Houses instead of having a Committee first of all of the Commons and then possibly of the Lords, involving considerable extra delay and expense.
That is the broad outline of what I readily agree is a very complicated measure. Its passage through the Commons was, on the whole, friendly and favourable. Certain Amendments were suggested there which were accepted. At no stage of its career in the Commons did this Bill have to go through any Division. I commend this Bill to your Lordships as an experiment—it frankly is that—which, in the opinion of those who have given a great deal of time and thought to it and who have considerable knowledge of the subject, is well worth trying. I beg to move that this Bill be cow read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, without going into the merits of the Bill, may I ask two questions? Does this Bill abolish the Court of Referees in the House of Commons and will an Unopposed Bill Committee have Provisional Orders before it at all? I rather gather it will not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not claim to have any particular knowledge of this matter, but I do not think that the Court of Referees is abolished. With regard to the second question asked by the noble Lord, I think the answer is No.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DERELICT AGRICULTURAL LAND.
4.28 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH rose to call attention to the large acreage of good agricultural land lying derelict on redundant aerodromes and to ask His Majesty's Government how they propose to deal with these sites; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion that stands in my name, and the question which accompanies it, are not only designed to satisfy my personal curiosity but to enable me, in an authoritative way, to answer the almost innumerable queries that I receive on this point. The public, I think, are somewhat perplexed about this matter and their perplexity has not been much diminished by answers given in another place. There are several aspects of this question which might well he considered; indeed I think I might roam from the atomic bomb to the great inconvenience, and sometimes the loss, which the public are suffering by having to avoid those main roads they have used all their lives to go into their homes and to carry their goods to their businesses and by having to go round longer distances by by-roads. But the point to which, as far as I am concerned, I wish to stick mainly concerns the agricultural side of the matter.
As your Lordships are only too well aware, this is not a very large island and the amount of agricultural land in it is strictly limited. Prior to the war, for a good many years there was a continual encroachment on that agricultural land. I have some figures here, taken from the Committee on Utilization of Rural Areas, which I think are extraordinary and somewhat perturbing. During the last twelve years there were lost for building and general construction 572,000 acres, for sports grounds 129,000 acres, for aerodromes 64,000 acres, for the War Office 18,000 acres, and for other purposes 10,000 acres. That makes a total of 794,000 acres, or an average of 66,200 a year. That is to say, this country had lost, prior to the war, over 100 square miles of agricultural land every year.
1158
That is a somewhat disturbing fact in itself. With the coming of the war, that process has been enormously accelerated Aerodromes, battle-schools, camps, ranges for artillery and small arms, hutments and gun-sites have all taken their share. How much the whole amount may he I do not know, but I know that in one county alone, Norfolk, it amounts to over 40,000 acres.
Of these sources of depredation, aerodromes have been very considerably the greatest, and that not only on account of their size, but also because, for some reason, they seem always to be put on the best land. Why that should be so I cannot say. I have made a point of asking my old friends and my new acquaintances in the Air Force, and I have never yet had an answer. Some of them have been so indiscreet as to say that there is no reason for it at all. It is certain that where the Air Force have agreed to take heath land and light land of various kinds they have got on remarkably well, and I believe those aerodromes to be a good deal more popular with the Air Force than those built on heavier and better land. I do not know how many aerodromes there are now in the country; I have heard many figures, but I do not know how accurate they are. It is quite certain, however, that they amount to an enormous area. Germany used to say that we were one enormous aircraft carrier, and that was not, perhaps, very much of an exaggeration. We know to what splendid use those aerodromes were put. But for our airmen and our aerodromes we should not have won the war, and your Lordships would not now be sitting in this House.
But, although we find it sometimes difficult to believe it, the war has in fact been won and is over. We arc told that, although the war has been won, the war against famine is very far from being won. We are told repeatedly by the Government that there never was such a need for food production as there is to-day. The Ministry of Agriculture are continually emphasizing that fact. We have even been told to go slow with bread; and, as another example, the little playing fields which belong to our village schools, and which are really vital to the youth of this country, must, we are told, he retained for food production at present. For my sins—which I fear I must conclude must have been very heavy—

1159
I am, and have been for six years, a member of a war agricultural executive committee. Our main job has been, and I presume is now, to maintain the maximum supply of food. During the war that was an easy task. The farmers cooperated splendidly and effected a wonderful result, mainly through their sense of patriotism. When you went to a farmer and asked him to take over and plough a, piece of land which it would be unremunerative to plough, and said to him "If you take this over and plough it, you will be saving the lives of our sailors in the Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine, who are bringing food over here," invariably he would reply, "Of course I will do so." He took it and made the best of it, though he nearly always lost money on it. It is not so easy now when you ask a farmer to do this. You tell him that never was there such a demand for food, that food was never so short, and production of it was never so much needed. If he is a polite man, he will say to you "Oh, yeah. Well, I find that a little difficult to believe when within two miles of my farm there are 600 acres of the best land in the parish producing absolutely nothing, and to which nothing is being done."
I am afraid that there is an impression, which is increasing, that the War Department have taken as their motto "What we have we hold, and we hold it for holding's sake." I know that to be untrue, and it should be categorically denied. At the same time, when we see these large numbers of men, and perhaps still more when we see these large numbers of women, in uniform, and apparently doing nothing, and when we see all these acres lying idle, and when we see all these requisitioned houses standing empty, at a time when there is a need for houses everywhere, and when we see large quantities of vehicles, of agricultural implements, and of stores of all kinds standing idle, we cannot be surprised if that impression exists and is increasing.
I well appreciate that there are many difficulties. There is the difficulty of the runways, first of all. An enormous number of acres is immobilized by runways, and what is going to be done with them I do not know, though I should very much like to know. I have heard it said that they are going to be covered over with earth, and that an endeavour will be made
1160
to grow either grass or crops on them. I hope that that information is incorrect, because I do not think that that would be a great success. I know also that the top soil has been removed over large areas, and that means that a great deal of work will have to be done to restore it, and it may well be that use in other directions will be made of the aerodromes. At the same time, I would point out that there are factors on the other side. All these aerodromes have water laid on; they all have electricity; they all have huts and houses, some of which would be suitable for the housing of live stock and others of which, with very little adaptation, would be suitable for farm workers; and they are at least adequately roaded. I feel that there must be very large areas that are fit for cultivation and which could be readily taken over.
It may be that the noble Earl who is to reply will tell me that much has been done. I hope that that is so, but in an answer given in another place it was stated that 29 aerodromes out of these many hundreds had been derequisitioned for agriculture. That is not very encouraging. It was also stated that 78 had been used for storage purposes for other Government Departments thought that that was very cold comfort indeed. I submit that if one hangar in each aerodrome was utilized for the storage of surplus supplies belonging to other Departments, it would be ample even for the surplus supplies which the Civil Service can manage to collect.
There is one matter which has caused me considerable perturbation. On November 14 the question was asked in another place whether aerodromes would be offered first to previous tenants. The answer was No, and it was said that the practice was to offer them for public tender for agricultural purposes. I find that very difficult to believe, because, if so, it is surely a monstrous injustice. We take away a farm which was very probably an "A" farm, because "A" farmers, like the Air Force, have a great liking for the best land. Very likely the farm had become an "A" farm chiefly through the efforts of the farmer. His land was taken away from him just at the moment when farming, for the first time in twenty years, was becoming a fairly profitable undertaking, and was taken away from him for national purposes. He had no choice in the matter,

1161
but he accepted the decision readily for the sake of the nation. What harm has this man done? What wrong has he committed that his land should be taken away from him and given out to public tender? If that answer is correct, I say emphatically that this is a monstrous injustice. I find it so difficult to believe that I hope the noble Earl, when he replies, will be able to give a categorical denial.
Finally, I venture to say that the public require, and should get, a full and complete answer upon these matters. I think that they deserve to know what the Government have done, what they intend to do, and when they intend to do it. After all, the war in Europe for which these aerodromes were, I presume, set up, has been over for five months. I venture to suggest that it is time that common sense once again took a hand and that these vast areas of fertile land were used to produce the food which we know to be so urgently needed. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.42 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I would like to say a few words in support of the Motion. I wish particularly to draw your Lordships' attention to the financial implications of the matter, because I believe that the financial implications of this question are probably impeding Government action. When the Requisitioned Land (War Works) Bill was before your Lordships' House in the Committee stage, I moved an Amendment—needless to say quite unsuccessfully—in order to draw attention to this state of affairs. As your Lordships well know, under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, the measure of compensation for damage done during the period of requisition, in the case of agricultural land, and indeed in the case of other land, is limited to the value of the land. However, it is satisfactory to know that under Section 52, subsection (1), of the Requisitioned Land (War Works) Act, 1945, the Minister has a discretion—and let me underline the word "discretion"—in the public interest to make a payment of compensation in excess of the maximum amount of compensation that is recoverable under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. Now no serious difficulty is likely to arise in the case of buildings as distinct from land, for the simple reason that it will seldom happen
1162
that the cost of restoring a building is greater than the valuation of the building. But in the case of land very serious difficulties are likely to arise, especially in the case of agricultural land which has been requisitioned by the Air Force and used for the purpose of an aerodrome.
Let me explain, or attempt to explain, my meaning by the aid of a simple illustration. Suppose 200 acres of land are worth £20 an acre. Then the total value is £4,000. Now suppose that land is requisitioned for the purpose of an aerodrome. At the end of the period of requisition it may cost the landowner £20,000 to rehabilitate that land and restore it to cultivation. The landowner is entitled to recover £4,000 under the provisions of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. For the balance of £16,000—that is the difference between £4,000 and £20,000—the landowner is entirely in the hands of the Minister, under Section 52, subsection (1), of the Requisitioned Land (War Works) Act, 1945. The Minister need not exercise his discretion at all. On the other hand, the Minister may exercise his discretion and grant the landowner any sum up to a total of £20,000 by way of compensation. If it be not improper for me to do so, I would respectfully ask His Majesty's Government what machinery have they devised to exercise their functions and duties under the Requisitioned Land (War Works) Act, 1945? Have they appointed engineers, surveyors and valuers, to get into touch with landowners and personally to inspect the land and agree compensation with the landowners? Are the Government going to remove the buildings and the concrete runways from aerodromes or are landowners, in some cases, going to be compelled to make their own arrangements to do that themselves?
Further, has the Minister addressed his mind to the question of whether he is going to exercise his discretion in this or that case and make any award of compensation in excess of the maximum amount payable under the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939? I think I know what the answer to that question may be: "Sufficient unto the day." At the present time, owing to doubt and uncertainty, landowners are in a state of financial fluidity, not to say embarrassment. Although I am not a landowner, I am permanently in that state myself, but I am not suggesting that

1163
anyone else should follow my example. Now let us suppose, for instance, that land is mortgaged, and mortgage interest is still running. The landowners may well find themselves in serious difficulty to find revenue to meet the mortgage interest until such time as the land is brought back into cultivation and is producing revenue—I will not say making a profit because no one to-day must in any circumstances make a profit! Finally, in the public interest, I would submit that agricultural land should be brought back into cultivation as soon as possible. I ask what machinery designed to achieve that admirable object have His Majesty's Government devised or are they about to devise? How do they propose to exercise their functions under the Requisitioned Land (War Works) Act, 1945?
4.48 p.m.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to add one or two words to what has already been said in support of the Motion which my noble friend Lord Cranworth has moved, because I was for a period of years in the unfortunate position of very frequently having to agree that certain farms should be given up for the purposes of an aerodrome. The guiding principle of the Government and of the War Cabinet during the war was one with which I do not suppose anybody ever disagreed. It was that every acre of land must be put to the best use possible for winning the war. It was for that reason that so many of our acres were taken from agriculture and placed under the control of the Air Ministry for furthering air operations. I wish only to suggest to the Government that the operational need for those aerodromes then was for aircraft to fly against the enemy, while now the operational need of that land is the production of food for this country and the other countries of Europe. That is all I wish to say to remind the Government that it was once the policy to use the land to serve the greatest need and the purpose for which it was best suited. To my mind to-day these aerodromes should as and when it is possible—and the sooner the better—be put back into the hands of the farmers of this country.
4.50 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, coming as I do from quite a different part of the country I can reinforce all that my
1164
noble friend Lord Cranworth has said in urging this Motion. I happen to know a farmer who, with his son, invested the whole of his savings in a farm which, owing to his very wide experience in drainage, he brought to a very high state of fertility. When the war came, as my noble friend said, the best of his land was utilized for an aerodrome and the ancillary buildings. The other land was disregarded, probably for reasons of camouflage. Now he is in this position to-day. He will either get his land back, if it can be restored, or he will not. It will either be sold to somebody else and he will be compensated, or it will be permanently retained. Now what is his position? He, who has put the whole of his savings into agriculture and has improved the nation's resources by his knowledge and experience, who has given up without protest some of the best of his land for purposes of winning the war, will receive a totally inadequate sum for the land he has lost and he will find absolutely no market for the rest of his land. He will be left with only a small amount of land and that not his best land. This, which is a Scottish example, deserves a little attention from His Majesty's Government because the farm is situated in my own county in which is one-fifth of the arable land of Scotland. The illustration is so apt to what my noble friend said—and he comes from a different part of the country—that I thought I would call attention to it.
4.52 P.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBFRY: My Lords, I wonder if I might intervene for one moment before the noble Earl opposite replies, to say that about two years ago I brought up a similar Motion which was supported by my noble friend Lord Cranworth, as regards the compensation received. As I remember it, what we were told by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon, who replied, was that we were to be given compensation and could have the land if the local agricultural committee—perhaps my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will bear me out—said that that land was suitable or necessary for the cultivation of food in this country. I think that that, roughly speaking, was the undertaking we were given. I asked the question particularly because I was interested in certain fields.
This question of land being taken away and given to the highest

1165
bidder is nothing new on the part of a Government. It happened in the last war. I remember that just after the last war my father was very ill and I was reading out to him some things in the paper. I read out to him a statement that a certain farm which belonged to him had been put up for auction. He revived very considerably and said he had never had any knowledge of it at all. He discovered that it had been put up for sale. It was his own land on which an aerodrome had been built; the rest of the farm was arable land. This was put up by the Government at the time to sell to the highest bidder. I was always grateful for the Government doing that because the doctor had practically given up hope of my father, and this restored him and added ten years to his life. He wrote a letter to The Times with considerable effect, with the result that the Government had not only to withdraw his farm from sale but also to alter their method of disposing of other people's land.
4.55 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I think we first of all owe a debt of gratitude to the mover of this Motion for having brought up a question which has obviously agitated a good many people in this country. It is very understandable, I think, when people go past airfields arid see land not being used, particularly where aerodromes are apparently no longer in use, that questions should be asked and criticism voiced. I should like to reassure the noble Lord that in the first place the Government are very well aware of the state of things and that they have been and are taking energetic measures to deal with this land which is now not being cultivated. I am very grateful to the Duke of Norfolk who has stressed the point that during the war the one principle of the Government was to take land which would, best serve the purposes of the Air Force. In other words, we had to give land, wherever it was, to the needs of the Royal Air Force and the American Air Forces to use as they decided was best. As a result, land all over England was taken for aerodromes, sometimes the best agricultural land, particularly in the South of England, in East Anglia and in
1166
parts of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. I submit that that is something which is past, and I doubt if anyone will question the wisdom or necessity for having given that land towards fighting the Germans, which ultimately helped to their defeat and our victory.
I do not think that that is the question; what is troubling the noble Lord and other people is the question of food. What I take to be the underlying point of his Motion, is that, at this time, when we are urging people to grow food and produce all they can, and when the need of food in Europe and in this country is vital, that obviously it seems an anomaly that land anywhere, even on airfields, is not in use; land which should apparently be cultivated. That really is the question that the Government is being asked to-day. I think I can deal with it and I hope to the satisfaction of the noble Lord. In the first place, however, I should like to deal with two points raised in the debate. The first point is the question of land which has been requisitioned from private owners and which will eventually be derequisitioned. There is no intention, when that land is derequisitioned, for it to be taken away and sold to other people. It will specifically go back and revert to the original owner. However, in the meantime there may be a question of leasing or loaning that land until the aerodromes have been derequisitioned.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Without the option of the landowner? Can anybody take it?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Perhaps I have not made the point clear. The land, when derequisitioned, will automatically be given back to the landowner who owned it at the time of requisition, but during the period when it is still under requisition by the Government, it would be almost impossible—if you visualize an airfield with great runways and hangars, and with the previous farm boundaries demolished—to make the land available to the previous occupiers for farming under purely temporary arrangements. It seems more practicable to place the land at the disposal of the county war agricultural executive committees so that they can make arrangements for its agricultural use in the national interest.
LORD CRANWORTH: It was the occupier and not the owner in whom I was principally interested.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Yes, in the case of the occupier, it will go back to him, but, in the meantime, until it is derequisitioned, it will be let out by tender to different people through the agricultural committees.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but could I ask whether he means the agricultural committee, as a committee, will cultivate the whole of the aerodrome areas, or are going to divide it up, and, if so, how are they going to let it if they do not know how long they can offer a lease because requisition may come to an end quicker than they think?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: That is a very difficult problem and will, of course, vary according to circumstances. I think I can make it clearer during the course of the debate when I describe the plan in regard to the land on aerodromes. To pass from that rather contentious point for the moment, I should like to point out the fact that the Air Ministry has been, during the war, co-operating closely with the war agricultural executive committees. In fact, this co-operation has been so beneficial that, at this moment, 40,000 acres of land on airfields have actually been let either for grazing or hay cutting, that is, one-sixth of the total area of land not covered by tarmac, concrete or buildings which is owned or requisitioned by the Air Ministry. I think that is a good start. In addition to this, parts of airfields have been used for growing vegetables and for various horticultural cultivations. I went to an exhibition recently where they showed the produce of different stations, and I was tremendously impressed by its quality. It had been grown by the actual airfield staffs on the different bits of outlying land.
LORD BARNBY: Would the noble Earl say whether the one-sixth referred to the total acreage requisitioned, or the acreage uncovered and remaining capable of cultivation?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: One-sixth of the acreage owned or requisitioned, but not covered by concrete, buildings, or tarmac; not one-sixth of the total land. As your Lordships will
1168
appreciate, changing from a war-time lay-out—which was necessitated in the war—to peace-time needs cannot be don; overnight. A plan cannot be made in a week or a month, or probably two or three months, but the Government are now carrying out a review to determine the best means of meeting post-war requirements for airfields—service, civilian, or industrial—and I should like to add that this review will take full account of all the interests affected, including agriculture, of course, and will have regard to the size and character of post-war Defence Services and civil aviation plans.
At the moment, therefore, I am not in a position to make any statement on the long-term use of airfields, but, in the meantime, the number of airfields required for flying has been very much reduced. At present, there are one hundred airfields surplus to requirements, and with regard to these the Government are making arrangements so that they shall be used to the best possible advantage by a system of "dual user." In this respect, I would stress the point that not only is there an urgent demand for food, but there is, unfortunately, an urgent demand for storage and accommodation. The question has been studied, and it is considered that these buildings on aerodromes can be of immense use to troops, so that hotels, houses and schools, requisitioned during the war, can he freed and the troops occupying them placed instead in these aerodrome buildings. They can also be used for storage so that factories that have been requisitioned can be released. These buildings will now be used, largely, by the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, the War Office and the Ministry of Works, or else used as living quarters for prisoners-of-war engaged in agriculture or work of national importance. At the same time, in order that this land shall be used to the very best advantage, it will be placed, apart from the buildings, at the disposal of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. He is now engaged in arranging for the maximum possible use of such land. Normally, it will be farmed by the war agricultural executive committees, but, in suitable cases, the land will be let out to neighbouring farmers who may, in many cases, also be the former occupiers.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Will not a former occupier have any priority at all? Is the farmer who has been dispossessed of his land to have no priority in the matter of its return?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is a temporary measure until the laud is derequisitioned.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: By which time the farmer may be dead.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I will make a note of that point. This land, as I said before, will be loaned for at least one, and perhaps two years. Airfields which will definitely not be required for flying purposes will be made available for farming without any restrictions whatsoever. As far as possible they will be derequisitioned as soon as the temporary occupation of their buildings or hangars is ended, or even sooner if circumstances allow.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: There are two separate things—the land and the buildings. Are we to understand that the land is, in no circumstances, to be given back, even if not needed, because the buildings may be used for storage by Government departments?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: It is a very complicated issue, because an airfield is divided into runways, buildings and land; and it is thought to be simpler in most cases to use a system of loaning the whole out until derequisitioned and then various portions will be given back to the same owners as owned it before. In some cases, however, it is hoped that it will be possible to derequisition the land even though the buildings may still be occupied. Now, on a number of airfields with concrete runways—a point which was raised by the noble Lord—some arable farming will be allowed, as well as grazing and hay cutting, even though these airfields may be required again for flying purposes. Obviously, the question of these concrete runways is one of extreme difficulty. They are immensely big and powerful, and would take a tremendous amout of labour to break up. The question is under consideration, but it would seem advisable, as far as possible, that civilian or Service aviation should make use of the airfields with concrete runways, although we do not yet know how far that will be possible in all cases.
LORD BARNBY: What steps have been taken to secure investigation by research departments and others to see if any hitherto unthought-of way can be devised for breaking up the runways and assisting in the restoration of the land to agricultural purposes? If modern methods have not been devised to do this, it would seem that this is a pressing matter for research.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I will take notice of that question, which I cannot answer offhand. The noble Lord will understand that that problem has been receiving very earnest attention. I should also like to point out that the plans I have mentioned have only recently been completed, and, therefore, some airfields have not yet found tenants. This explains why you may, perhaps, pass what appear to be redundant, abandoned or derelict airfields, on which land is uncultivated. The reason is the R.A.F. has moved out and that new arrangements have not yet been made for the land to be farmed.
Now the "dual user" system—using the buildings for stores and the land for cultivation—will be extended, and it is hoped to have a further 100 airfields, as well as the original 100, used in this way. That, again, will bring more land of one kind or another into cultivation. However, apart from these airfields which are temporarily surplus to requirements, there are a number of airfields which, for various reasons, are obviously unsuitable for future flying at all, and on which, incidentally, the storage buildings are either unsatisfactory or will not be used. Of these airfields, already seventy have been released by the Royal Air Force and the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and these are available for unrestricted agricultural use. All remaining airfields are in use for flying or are earmarked for use of some kind in the very near future.
Now the noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised the question of compensation. No previous notice was given to me of the subject, but I will convey the point to my right honourable friend. If the noble Lord likes to put down a Motion later on, no doubt we will do our best to answer it. In conclusion, I hope I have been able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, at least, that the matter has been the subject of investigation and of very

1171
earnest attention by His Majesy's Government, and that it is being very energetically tackled in an effort to solve the problem.
LORD MESTON: May I just ask the noble Earl one question before the noble Lord replies to the debate? Who is actually going to be responsible for removing these big buildings and concrete runways? Are the Government going to do anything, or are they going to leave it to the landowners to get labour to do it?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: All I can say is that that matter is receiving attention. I will bring the point to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture.
5.12 p.m.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Earl for his most courteous reply to me, but I fear I shall not be able to answer the numerous inquiries that I get on this subject in the the way that I should wish. And I must say this: I think the noble Earl's reply to the question about the position of the turned-out occupier is most unsatisfactory. I will repeat that, to my mind, it is a monstrous injustice that a man who has had his land and his livelihood taken away in the interests of the nation for six years of war, should not have the first opportunity of utilizing that land when it is given back. I think it is quite incomprehensible, and I say to the noble Earl and to your Lordships that I hope I may have an opportunity of raising this question again at a later date. With your Lordships' permission, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT IN SCOTLAND.
5.13 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD had the following notice on the Paper: To call attention to the operation of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943; to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the provisions of Section 9 (3) of the Act are being complied with; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have not hesitated to put down the Motion standing in my name, because this is a
1172
matter of national importance which I am sure you will agree should, at this stage, be brought before your Lordships' House. I should like to say that I hope this will not be made a matter of politics. We all agree as to the need for developing electric power in the Highlands. I know I am not well qualified to do justice to this very important subject, but as my home happens to be in Perthshire I was called upon to raise it. I may perhaps be allowed to say that neither my family nor myself are in any way interested in the Tummel-Garry development.
Several people have said to me: "You are flogging a dead horse." I want to make it quite clear that it is the future of the whole hydro-electric development in Scotland that is now in question. As to Tummel-Garry, I was well aware, when I postponed my Motion at the request of my noble friend Lord Westwood, that the date for annulment was past. This has been a test case, however, and it is the future development in which we are interested. It is admitted to be a test case.
My noble friend Lord Airlie, when giving evidence at the inquiry, made a remark which caused a great deal of comment. He said: "We have reached a parting of the ways." When the Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board said that we had reached a parting of the ways, it seemed to me that this was obviously a suitable opportunity to consider how the operation of the Act was proceeding. Lord Airlie will perhaps tell us what exactly he meant by that phrase and in what way his path leads him. I want to examine whether the intention of Parliament and the intention of the Act are in fact being carried out. The lines of development were laid down in Parliament, as were the safeguards. I would refer first of all to the powers of the Board, and I would remind your Lordships that the Board was based on the findings of the Cooper Committee. That Committee made it quite clear that a new public service corporation for the North of Scotland was to be brought into being, and it was done in the formation of the Hydro-Electric Board. Section 2 of the Act which followed made it very clear that the Board were responsible for initiating and developing hydroelectricity in the High- lands. You might ask, why is there any doubt as to who is responsible or who is

1173
the power in control? Now a Government inquiry, as your Lordships know, was held in Edinburgh, and that inquiry raised the question of the powers conferred on the Electricity Commissioners by the Act, and they left the question undecided. I am therefore asking His Majesty's Government to define the position. The intention of Parliament, I think, was quite undoubted: that the Board were to be the body in control.
Now I would refer to the Report of the Committee. In paragraph 25 it says:
"Parliament has conferred wide powers upon the Electricity Commissioners in the Act and it -is well that the extent of these powers should be realized."
Paragraph 26 says that no appeal is open to the Board against the veto of the Electricity Commissioners. Therefore by the power of veto the Electricity Commissioners can control the whole development policy of the Board. In paragraph 28 the inquirer discussed whether the Electricity Commissioners were acting ultra vires and he said his Committee was not competent to decide that point. Paragraph 29 says "If then, as we must assume, the Electricity Commissioners were acting within their competence …" I emphasize the words "as we must assume." In paragraph 30 he reaches the conclusion (and I would ask your Lordships to pay attention to this) that the Hydro-Electric Board were constrained to carry out the wishes of the Electricity Commissioners and that the conclusion cannot be avoided that the Board had little option but to follow the course so plainly indicated to them. On that assumption—which he says his Committee is not competent to decide—he formed the basis of the opinion on which he decided this case.
I therefore feel that your lordships may agree with me that it is important that we should know what the position is. Definite lines were laid down by Parliament—I will not repeat them because you know them so well—for public utility users in the Highlands of Scotland. The House certainly understood, and Parliament understood, that there was a priority. The Secretary of State used the words "when all the Highland consumers' demands have been met there will remain a considerable balance. That balance, by the terms of this Bill, will go to the Central Electricity
1174
Board." He was very clear as to what the order of development was. The Cooper Committee said the first priority was to electrical-chemical and electrical-metallurgical industries. I say in passing that it has been a mystery to some of us why the Caledonian scheme was not proceeded with. That would have brought work to the Highlands; but for some reason we have heard little of it since. That was the first priority of the Cooper Committee. One can only suppose it did not suit the Electricity Commissioners.
At the inquiry Sir John Kennedy said that the first consideration before the Commissioners was the need of the Central Electricity Board for power. In paragraph 85 of their Report the Cooper Committee emphasized that the schemes would be in the loneliest and most inaccessible parts of the British Isles, yet the Board have selected the most frequented and the most accessible part (or one of them) of the British Isles. It was not the Board that selected it; I think the Electricity Commissioners selected the site. My noble friend Lord Airlie may tell me that I am talking nonsense and that the Board were responsible for the selection of this site. My point is that Sir John Kennedy, the Electricity Commissioner, giving evidence at a Government inquiry, emphasized the fact that the Electricity Commissioners had insisted upon this site. That is a precedent for what is going to happen if this power of veto is going to be, shall I say, abused. Any scheme which the Board put forward can he turned down and the Electricity Commissioners can make it quite impossible for the Board to carry out the duties laid upon them and understood by Parliament. Assurances have been given as to the protection of amenities, careful explanations have been given in the House by my noble friend Lord Alness and by the Secretary of State in another place. If the Electricity Commissioners, by their power of veto, are going to refuse any scheme, all those assurances and all the time of your Lordships' House will have been wasted. Perhaps I can sum up the first part of my Motion in this way. The Electricity Commissioners can alter all the priorities laid down; they can constrain the Board to adopt any scheme by their power of veto. That is the conclusion arrived at by the inquirers. I think that the position

1175
should be defined by the Government because we want to know where we are.
I now come to the second part of my Motion. I am leaving the amenities question entirely to my noble friend Lord Haddington, who is very much better able to deal with it than I am. I am only going to give you what I have come across in Perthshire in my dealings with the Board and to tell you how it affects Section 9 (3) of the Act. I would just remind your Lordships of the assurance—it has been quoted thousands of times—given by the Secretary of State when he promised the strongest possible Amenity Committee and said that every reasonable recommendation they made would be strongly enforced and backed by the Scottish Office. To enable the Scottish Office to enforce any recommendation of the Amenity Committee it seems to me they should know what the recommendations are. Section 9 (3) deals with that. If they are going to bring the weight of their support to bear, it is obviously important that they should know of it at the earliest date. Section 9 says that before and during the preparation of the scheme the Amenity Committee should be consulted. That means at the very earliest date, does it not? Take the Tummel-Garry scheme as an instance. If the Amenity Committee thought they should avoid the lower reaches of the Tummel and had recommended accordingly, if this procedure had been adopted the Secretary of State might have brought his influence to bear and said "Keep off this part of the scheme."
That is the object of Section 9 (3). It goes on to say that the Amenity Committee may make recommendations to the Board
"who shall transmit copies of every such recommendation to the Secretary of State and the Electricity Commissioners, together with an intimation whether or not they are prepared to accept it."
It is very clear that the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office should know those recommendations. The Perthshire County Council asked the Scottish Office for the report of the Amenity Committee, and on January 16 the Scottish Office replied that Scheme No. 2 had been transmitted to the Electricity Commissioners for approval—it had evidently gone past the preparation stage—but that the reports of the Amenity and Fisheries Committees had not yet been transmitted to the Secretary
1176
of State. When at last the report of the Amenity Committee was published, in April, it was dated October 12. From October 12 to January 16 the Scottish Office were in the dark as to what the Amenity Committee's report was. Is the intention of Section 9 (3) of the Act being carried out? I think that it would be fair to put this question to the noble Lord, Lord Westwood.
Last week, before the debate in another place, which always produces something new, there was a list of schemes published in the Scotsman. Speaking from memory, there were six shortly to be made public and about fifteen others. Was the Amenity Committee consulted before the preparation of all these schemes, as laid down in the Act? I think it is a fair question. I expect we shall be told that it was, and no one would be more delighted than myself to hear that the authorities have turned over a new leaf. If Section 9 (3) of the Act is not complied with by the Board, the hope of preserving beautiful scenery by the use of the powers of the Scottish Office is null and void.
The noble Earl, Lord Airlie, with his great civility, came to us and told us that he had 102 schemes. That gave us a shock, and we said "Why put Tummel-Garry as No. 2 if you have 102 schemes?" We took a very reasonable view, however, and we said, "If you will, after further consideration, come back and tell us that there is no alternative, we will consider withdrawing our objection; but until we can be assured that there is no alternative, we can do nothing but object." The noble Earl has since said that other alternatives have been considered, but that they are not in his view possible. He will not misunderstand me when I say that, though I would never for a moment doubt what he tells me, I am not sure that it is of great importance, because Sir John Kennedy, representing the Electricity Commissioners, said at the inquiry that no alternative schemes had been seriously considered. It will be seen why I am asking the Government to define the position, because, if the Electricity Commissioners are in control, they have told us that their object is power for the Central Electricity Board, and no alternative that does not comply with that will pass this power of veto.
The Perthshire County Council afterwards asked the Board for the Amenity

1177
Committee's report, and the Board quite rightly refused it, but they said at the same time that it was not the intention to make it public, As your Lordships know, the matter was pressed in Parliament, and at last the Secretary of State said that owing to public interest he proposed to make the report of the Amenity Committee public. I would call attention, however, to the date. He said that it would be published immediately the period for the laying of objections was over. That is an astounding statement; the recommendations of the Amenity Committee are not to be made public until it is too late to lay objections. I wonder why. I hope that my noble friend Lord Westwood will back me up when I say that not only local authorities but the public as a whole have the right to know the Amenity Committee's recommendations. The Amenity Committee exists for the protection of the public, to try to preserve where possible the beauty of the scenery, and the public have a right to know what it recommends.
I should like, even at this late hour, to appeal to the Government and to ask them whether in the public interest they cannot still reconsider Scheme No. 2. Further, I would ask them to define for us what are the powers of the Electricity Commissioners, and to say whether an English body is to take over from our Scottish Board, who know the position, all responsibility for the development. I hope to see the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and his Board throw off the undue control of the Electricity Commissioners, and I am sure that Scotland will then be safe in his hands. As many other noble Lords wish to speak, I shall say no more. I beg to move.
5.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion of my noble friend Lord Kinnaird. I do so as representing two bodies in Scotland which are intimately concerned with the protection of the scenery—namely, the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland and the National Trust for Scotland. Apart from that, my interest is simply this, that I am a Scotsman, and, like thousands of others in Scotland and elsewhere, I do not wish to see our greatest heritage—our glorious mountains, rivers, and lochs—irretrievably ruined if it is humanly possible to avoid it.
1178
Perhaps your Lordships are already aware that in Scotland there is a very large body of opinion, drawn from all classes of the community, which is gravely perturbed at the activities of the Hydro-Electric Board. It is easy enough to raise the popular cry of "Electricity for the Highlands" and to say that all opposition comes from vested interests or from sentimental æsthetes. But that is far from the truth, because surely everybody to-day will agree that the needs of the people must come first. The public interest must override all other matters if the public interest is strong enough. Few, I think, will quarrel with that proposition. And it is quite evident that the Highlands need electricity. The Tribunal which sat at the inquiry in Edinburgh were satisfied that there is a shortage of electricity in Scotland. Very well, let us accept the view that the Highlands need electricity and that only by the medium of water power can it be most economically supplied. I want to ask the noble Earl, the Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board, whether his Board have seriously considered any other scheme. Has every avenue been explored by which the waters of Scotland can supply the rural districts and glens of the Highlands with their electricity without the vast upheaval which schemes such as the Tummel-Garry scheme entail? Are all these vast constructional works necessary for the object in view. Has every other way been tried?
Scotland, you know, is not a large Country. Its physical features are small compared with those of Continental countries. You cannot compare their conditions. A dam 6oft. high with a power house in the middle which might be inconspicuous in a Scandinavian, Canadian or Swiss landscape, could not fail to be, to say the least, a. grave eyesore when planted down in the middle of such a district as Pitlochry. I ask again, has every avenue been explored? Have the Board ever given consideration to smaller Or more moderate schemes which highly qualified engineers could tell your Lordships, as they have told me, have proved themselves over a number of years to be economical; schemes which can compare favourably with the larger schemes, and, what is more important from our point of view, can be carried out with a minimum of destruction to the scenery? Such schemes could perfectly well supply the

1179
rural districts and glens of Scotland with all the electricity needed for present and future requirements with an ample margin for any light industries that might be brought there later on. Surely this was the object of the Act of 1943—to bring electricity to the rural districts.
My noble friend Lord Kinnaird has spoken of the priorities. It has been distinctly reiterated over and over again, it was brought out at the sittings of the tribunal in Edinburgh, it was brought out in the debate on the annulment in another place last week by an honourable Member, that the principle of priority laid down by the Secretary of State was that the supply should first go to the Highland consumers, then to large power users in the Highlands, and only when these demands had been met were supplies to be exported to the grid. There is a definite priority order laid down by the Secretary of State. Let us be quite clear about it—it is consumer first, industry second, and the grid third. And what do we see in the Tummel-Garry scheme? We see the order exactly reversed; the grid first and the rest nowhere. We know now—the Board make no bones about it, they are perfectly frank—that the immediate purpose of the Turnmel-Garry scheme is to export current to the Central Electricity Board, the grid. There is the somewhat indefinite promise that one day the glens and the remote districts of Scotland may get this electricity. Rather a remote possibility I think, but I hope they do get it. But what an obscure and roundabout way the Board have of providing it.
Whenever this point is brought up, they always give you the same answer. They say: "The Board must pay their way. Only by an economical scheme can you pay for the uneconomical schemes. The Board have got to balance their budget over a period of years." But many of us think this: If the Board have got to balance their budget at the expense of our glorious Scottish scenery that is far too high a price to pay. We feel that they should look around and find other means of balancing their budget. We think that it is acting upon a wrong principle for the Board to go down to a particular district and say: "Here we come to put into operation an economical scheme. You have assets which we
1180
require for that scheme. Come on, you have got to hand them over." That is what it amounts to. Many of your Lordships may be acquainted with this lovely district which is so shortly to be handed over to the tender mercies of the Hydro-Electric Board. If you are not, I trust you will believe me when I say that it is just one of the most beautiful districts in the whole of Scotland. And its chief features will disappear, or at least there is no question that they will suffer very grave disfigurement. Even the Tribunal in Edinburgh was quite emphatic about that. Listen to what they say in their Report:
"… the flow of water in the upper Garry above Struan would be substantially diminished and in dry spells supplies will be little more than a rocky memory."
That is what is said of a place of pilgrimage for thousands before the war. The Report goes on:
"The falls of Bruar will also be very seriously diminished, and we do not consider that the Board's proposal to divert into the Bruar a small daily quantity during the tourist season would be of any value."
Think of it, the Bruar, that glorious river immortalized by our national poet. We had hoped that it was immortal. But no: we see that it is mortal after all. The lovely Bruar is to go too. It will be reduced to a mere trickle, and in summer there will be nothing but a dried-up bed of stones to remind us of its former glory.
The Falls of Tummel—here is a much more serious matter even than the ones I have mentioned—were considered of such beauty that they were acquired by the National Trust of Scotland. They were gifted to the Trust by a public-spirited benefactor by conveyance, and the conveyance expressly provided that this property should be held for the benefit of the nation in perpetuity, that is for all time. Look what has happened. The Falls of Tummel have gone too. There are six other properties of the National Trust which may be affected by the Board's operations as they come within the areas of their future development schemes. Very, very many of us in Scotland are asking ourselves this question to-day—and I should very much appreciate it if my noble friend the Chairman of the Board or the noble Lord opposite who will speak for the Government will answer it. What security

1181
is there in the future for any properties held by the nation, if they are going to be treated as we have seen the Falls of Tummel treated under this scheme? What security is there? The Board have never given any indication as to how their future schemes may affect the properties of the Trust, although they have been asked by the Council of the Trust for in formation on this point. Why this secrecy? Why cannot they let us know, even if it is to be the worst? In short, what the National Trust wants to know is where it stands to-day. It feels it has got a right to make a very vigorous protest. It is the duty of its members and of the Scottish nation to make a very vigorous protest.
The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has dealt fully with the Amenity Committee and I do not propose to weary your Lordships further on that score, but it is a most important point because we want to know whether, in all these future schemes the Board are proposing to carry out, the scenery will have a chance of protection. If the Amenity Committee's recommendations are going to be treated as we have seen them treated in the whole of this scheme, if this Committee is to be a mere cypher, why was it ever set up? Let us have a definite explanation it we can. Just what is its future status and its function to be? If it is not to have any at all, for goodness' sake let it be done away with.
My last point is this. It concerns the whole principle of the Board's activities, although it does not actually refer to the Tummel-Garry scheme. The Board have expressed this view, in answer to a letter from the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland on another scheme, the Fannich scheme, that most of the potential electric power in Scotland depends for its development upon a diversion of water power from one watershed to another. This is surely a very serious matter. Do people quite realize how completely the Scottish landscape is going to be altered in the future—and alas, it cannot be for the better, it must be for the worse? We all know the scars all over the countryside which these dried-up water courses will leave. In any case, I often wonder how these schemes with the diversions of water which they are to entail, will fit in with the requirements of local authorities for water. Scotland has just as great a need of water as of
1182
electricity. The rural districts are crying out for water. Would it not have been far better if some comprehensive scheme had been drawn up to start with for the whole of the Highlands in which the requirements of local authorities for water and electricity could have been correlated?
Looking to the future, schemes which entail diversion of water from one watershed to another are dangerous and improvident, arid if the Board are allowed a loose rein to proceed with these schemes in the manner they propose to do, Scotland, far from gaining any benefit from the Hydro-Electric Development Board will only gain a lot of trouble from them. That is why there is so much trouble in Scotland, because the Board with the Electricity Commissioners behind them appear to be the planning authorities for the Highlands and there seems nothing to stop them going ahead and altering the face of the landscape just to suit their own purpose of producing electricity. As the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has said, the Tummel-Garry scheme has passed into law but there are many more schemes of development ahead, and some assurance from the noble Lord opposite that our Scottish scenery and the properties of the nation will receive more respect in future than they have done in the past will be very welcome in this House today. Changes there must be; changes there should be. We all know that, but there are good ways and bad ways of achieving those changes. Let us never forget this final point, that if we allow these changes to be made in any but the very best ways possible, we shall be failing in our duty to posterity. I beg to support the Motion.
5.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I am sure we have all listened to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, with interest and also with sympathy because there is no one here who does not know of Perthshire as one of the most beautiful counties and of Pitlochry as one of the beauty spots of Perthshire. Like the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, I am a Lowlander but we admire our country just as the Highlanders do the beauty of their country, and we also should have qualms if anyone were to try to destroy the beauty of the country in the Lowlands. After hearing these two speeches, I think it might not

1183
be a bad thing if I told your Lordships in a few words something about this hydro-electric scheme and how it originated. It originated—the Bill was passed in 1943—in the fertile brain of Mr. Tom Johnston, who was then Secretary of State for Scotland. He thought of this scheme and discussed it with several people. He came to the conclusion that it was a great idea. He had at that time inaugurated a Committee of ex-Secretaries of State for Scotland and he put the facts and the proposals in front of them. Incidentally, I am sorry that the present Secretary of State, Mr. Westwood, has abolished that Committee, because I think that in matters referring solely to Scotland it was of great use. Its continuance would not have conflicted with anyone. The Committee proved of great assistance to Mr. Johnston.
Mr. Johnston then got a Committee formed under the present. Lord Cooper and no one will deny that he has one of the most able and active brains of anyone in Scotland. He put forward the report of the hydroelectric scheme and that became a Bill. It is the only Scottish Bill I should think, in my life time, that has ever been passed by both Houses of Parliament without a single Division. It was a Bill that appealed to everybody in Scotland whatever their politics happened to be. It was passed, as I say, with the assent of both Houses and had the confidence of the country in Scotland that it would be a great thing for the returned out-of-works—as there will be out-of-work people in Scotland—and would facilitate getting further factories in the Highlands, and give work to the people engaged on these schemes. Naturally, there was a desire that the amenities should be kept as far as possible. Mr. Johnston was very much tackled on this by various bodies, on one of which was my noble friend Lord Haddington, and he formed an Amenity Committee, which was a very strong one. I think everybody will agree with that. Mr. Johnston gave his word that full weight would be given to what those on the Committee said. The same was done in regard to the Fishery Board.
I appeal to your Lordships, and to everybody who has had a Government appointment: nobody in charge of any Department would delegate his power to a committee. I should not think it right to
1184
expect him to do so. When the Pitlochry scheme was considered, there was a majority of only three to two against the scheme on amenity grounds. It could not have been a nearer thing, and it was only the opinion of one man out of five that carried the day on the Amenity Committee. Some people would have said that this majority was not sufficient to take over-much notice of, but Mr. Johnston went further, and said, "I have promised to give full weight to the Amenity Committee, and I am going to give full weight to it." He is a man with whom I have worked for the last five or six years, and a man, I think everybody will agree, of the utmost probity. I have always found that his word is his bond. We have often disagreed because, politically, we are on opposite sides. I will not agree for a moment that the Amenity Committee, as was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, was flouted by the Secretary of State. So much consideration was given to it that he appointed a committee consisting of Mr. John Cameron, an eminent K.C. in Scotland, Mr. Robert Price Walker, an ex-town council official, and Major Lindsay, who is a Convener of East Lothian, all people of high reputation and great ability. He asked them to go into the whole question from A to Z. They went into the question, and they were unanimous—no question of there being a majority of two to one—that what the Amenity Committee had said was not sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the scheme.
With regard to fisheries, I am no fisherman, I am ashamed to say. I am one of the few in my country who do not fish. Mr. Johnston's chief relaxation in life is fishing, so he would, naturally, pay great attention to the Fisheries Committee. The Fisheries Committee opposed, as I understand it, this scheme, but the Committee headed by Mr. Cameron went into that also and made a report from which I will quote:
"It is not possible to predict or assess with any degree of certainty the extent of damage to fishing interests which may follow the operations of a hydro-electric undertaking. This is well illustrated by the fact that in 1942, by which time the adverse effect of the Grampian company's operations in the Loch Garry area might well have been expected to show themselves, the spawning season in the Upper Garry was exceptionally good."
In the light of the evidence given, the Tribunal found that the extent of the

1185
damage was a subject of much divergence of opinion. It was established that then was some loss to spawning beds, but that, conversely, the regulation of the flow of water might result in a higher average of fish reaching the spawning beds.
"On full consideration, it does not appear to us that the damage which may be done to fisheries would, in any event, be so great as to operate as a bar to the development of the resources of the Tummel and Garry for the generation of electricity."
That was the experts' finding on the Fisheries Board, and it is said that experts, on both sides, can never agree as to what is going to help fishing, or otherwise.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The Fishery Committee was unanimous.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I think I said that at the start; if not, I implied it. I would like to make one personal explanation. After Mr. Johnston had called on this Committee, and on Mr. Cameron's, to make this report, the Government changed; I was in office and Mr. Johnston was not. The Report was made to me. I read it, not once, but again and again, and I locked it away. I came to the conclusion—I can assure your Lordships that I was not frightened to give a decision—that, as we were in the throes of a General Election, it was not the moment to produce this Report, which would not have benefited any Party. There was no electoral value in the Report, but it was, obviously, one which would have caused grave diversions of opinion and discussion. It seemed to me proper that I should wait. If I remained Secretary of State for Scotland I could give an opinion on it, and, if not, it would be left to my successor, who happens to be Mr. Joseph Westwood. It is only fair and honest, not only to Mr. Westwood but also to myself, for me to say that, if I had had to make a decision, I should have made that come to by Mr. Westwood. I need not have told you that, but, if I had not, you might have thought I was running away from my responsibility. On the weight of that evidence, I do not think there is any question whatever that the Committee were right.
Having said that, I would like to come to the Hydro-Electric Board itself. I do not think I can speak with any such enthusiasm of that Board. What happened was this. We had, as I told you, a Bill passed, for the first time in our history,
1186
without any difference of opinion from any side. It was one of the things Scotland was going to do for Scotland, and it went there from the other House and this House with acclamation. Within a few months, the Hydro-Electric Board had managed to sow dissension and discord in the whole of Scotland. I do not know whether they have a Public Relations Officer, but if they have, I should sack him, and, if they have not, I should get one. I do not think anything could have been more mismanaged than this. One hundred and two schemes were brought up by the Hydro-Electric Board. We were told that electricity was for the benefit of the Highlands. I do not agree with my noble friend that they should not have gone on with their scheme and made debts, as I understood him to say, because the whole idea was that the scheme should be paid for; in time it would be a paying proposition. They had a credit of £30,000,000 and a time limit of over ten years. The Secretary of State does not put the schemes in their order of priority; the order of priority is arranged by the Hydro-Electric Board. We are told, in the words of Mr. Tom Johnston, and everybody else's words, too, that the real business is to give electricity to the Highlands and islands of Scotland as soon as possible, but that it must be a paying proposition. What happens is this. The Hydro-Electric Board are governed—they may say "No" but they are governed—by the General Electricity Board, because the General Electricity Board, as I understand it, has the power of veto.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Do you mean the Electricity Commissioners or the Central Electricity Board, or both?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The Electricity Commissioners have the power of veto, and if you have the power of veto you also have the power of ordering things, because if there are 102 schemes and you veto 101 of them, obviously the only one you want is the one they have. We feel, and feel strongly, in Scotland, that the Hydro-Electric Board is far more under the thumb of London than it should be. I think I am expressing the feelings of all the people who are in favour of the Board working and who feel as I do with regard to the amenities. We have no liking for government from London. Noble Lords sitting on the Government Bench there, when they

1187
bring in their schemes of nationalization which I saw were emphasized in another place, will find that members of all Parties representing Scottish constituencies in another place will combine in making things very unpleasant if the nationalization schemes for Scotland have got to be run from Whitehall. I know that, and probably those noble Lords know it, too.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: There is not much doubt about that.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The same thing applies in the case of this Hydro-Electric Board. We have got to get away from control by the Electricity Commissioners. This is a matter that, in my opinion, has been extremely badly handled. The Electricity Commissioners said: "This is easy money; let us grab it." And, of course, it is easy money. If they had first of all gone into one or two schemes that did not pay but which did bring electricity to the homes of Highlanders and the people in the Western Isles, they would gradually have got the country accustomed to hydro-electricity workings. Instead of that they throw a spanner into the whole thing and cause disruption in Scotland—which, believe me, is not a difficult thing to do, although we did think we were at one. They caused disruption and dismay. I am afraid Lord Airlie will deny this and I am sorry I shall not be able to stay and hear it all, because I have to return to Scotland. I feel strongly, however, that the lay-out of the whole programme was badly done and badly arranged.
Before I sit down I want to put a question and I should like to ask the Leader of the House to answer it, if I may. I want him to reply later on. I know perfectly well that the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, cannot reply. This, I think, is a matter of the greatest importance. We have just seen the mighty discovery of the atom bomb which has landed on Japan and annihilated many thousands of people. We are told that the Governments of this country and of the United States are now going to set to work to use that atomic power for the good of the country. I have seen stories, which I am sure are fallacious, that in France and, I believe, here, motor cars are being driven by it. That I do not believe. But a long way between destroying
1188
500,000 people at a blow and driving a motor car comes the making of electricity. Viscount Samuel is a scientist and may know; I am not, I am afraid. This, however, is the idea. I think it would be ghastly to find in three years' time, when the Tummel-Garry scheme has taken the water away from the Tummel and the Garry, that there was no need whatever for the Hydro-Electric Board. I do ask the Leader of the House if he will give that matter consideration, and discuss it with the Government's "back room boys" or whatever they call the scientists to-day. I want him to find out if there is any chance at all of atomic methods being used to get electricity, because, if so, then I think the Hydro-Electric Board ought to be very careful in what they do.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I make no apology for intervention in this debate for the reason that your Lordships would consider it, to say the least, somewhat of a lack of courtesy had I not been present while a matter was being discussed which was obviously controversial and with which I was so intimately connected as Chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, raised this question rather in general terms, though he specifically mentioned Section 9 (3) of the 1943 Act which, as you know, deals with the duties of the Amenity and the Fisheries Committees arid their relationship with the Board. About that I will say a word or two later, if your Lordships will allow me to deal with the matter in the same way as Lord Kinnaird did.
First of all with regard to the Tummel-Garry scheme. It may seem as if I were delving into what is now rather past history, but I am bound to do so and for two reasons: first, because this is the first opportunity which I, as Chairman of the Board, have had of explaining in your Lordships' House the policy and the actions of the Board since the passing of the Act; and secondly, because there was made in another place rather an unwarranted and perhaps I might call it an undignified attack upon me personally and upon my Board. Not that we mind—we are getting used to it. At the same time, I am afraid it is necessary for me to point out that we feel that this gentleman obviously had not taken the trouble to con-

1189
sider the Act and to study it, or, if he had, he had greatly misconstrued it. He stated that I and my Board—and I place it in that order because that is the order in which he placed it—should have the courage to resign, because of the pressure which was being put upon us by, I gather, the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners. That point has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, and others. May I state, once and for all, quite firmly and emphatically, that there is no question of any pressure being placed upon the Board at all? The Board has formulated its own policy, bearing in mind the Cooper Report, and this Tummel-Garry scheme is an expression of that policy of the Board.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: All the more discredit to the Board.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: This policy has been evolved after all the most likely and suitable water resources for hydro-electric purposes in the Board's area have been examined. May I say, in answer to the interruption just now, that this examination was made by a panel of technical officers which was set up by the Board when first appointed—a panel which is comprised of some of the best and most experienced brains in electrical development in the country. Therefore I must repeat, most emphatically, that we are not under pressure from, or the servants of, the Central Electricity Board at all. In fact, our views differ on many matters to the extent that we may require to submit once again our conflicting viewpoints to an independent tribunal. I do hope that at least your Lordships will take it that if either my Board or myself were once pressed, either by the Central Electricity Board or by the Electricity Commissioners, to go father than we felt was in the best interests of our area, we should refuse to do so. The Electricity Commissioners do not dictate our policy. It is quite true that they can disagree; as the advisers and watchdogs of the Minister of Fuel and Power, and to some extent of the Treasury, they can veto the Board's policy, but they cannot, and do not, dictate it. The Electricity Commissioners perform the same function in relation to every other electricity undertaking in the country, including the Central Electricity Board itself. I know that in your Lordships' House it is not usual to read from speeches in
1190
another place, but you will find that corroborated in Hansard in a speech made the other day by the Member for Hillhead when the Tummel-Garry Scheme was discussed there.
My Board, and I personally, have tried again and again, by means of speeches and through the medium of the Press, to explain our reasons for taking this controversial scheme so early in our large programme. Let me say that at no time have the Board or I myself not fully appreciated the effect which schemes such as those we contemplate carrying out may have upon the face of the countryside. I maintain, humbly but quite firmly, that we are as good Scots as anybody. Because of the very controversial nature of the Tummel-Garry project we welcomed the decision that the scheme should be placed in front of an impartial Tribunal in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act. That was done, and the Tribunal gave its opinion in no uncertain terms—namely, that having weighed the question from every angle and having had the assistance of all the evidence which was placed before it, it was bound to recommend that it was in the public interest that the scheme should go forward. If you read a copy of the evidence which was given, there is no doubt that the Tribunal paid particular attention to the question of amenity. If I may say so, I myself felt that they, like the Board, realized that the scenic beauty would be changed but that that change did not necessarily mean destruction and injury. The tribunal found as follows—and I am using their own words:
"Weighing the matter as best we can with the materials at our disposal, we consider that the injury which may be caused to amenity is not sufficient to outweigh the balance of considerations presented in support of this scheme."
The Board selected this scheme because it was centrally situated for supplying electricity in bulk to the Eastern Highlands and to Central Scotland. There is already a shortage of electricity there and that shortage will become more acute by the time this scheme has come into effect. The Tummel-Garry Scheme using, as it will, waters already stored and controlled in Loch Garry, Loch Ericht and Lock Rannock, will have an extremely low cost of production. It will have, in fact, as you may have seen mentioned in the newspapers, a cost of production lower than a steam power station even if

1191
that steam power station were to get its coal free. My noble friend Lord Rosebery, who has found it impossible to wait, although he has made several criticisms—he says he has to go to Scotland to-night, and so have I, if I may say so—asked the Leader of the House whether he would give him some information on the question of atomic energy. If atomic energy is harnessed to produce power for domestic or industrial use it will, as I am informed and credibly so, be harnessed in the form of heat. In order to produce electricity that heat would still have to be employed in raising steam in boilers and the whole paraphernalia for the production of electricity would remain as it is to-day. Consequently, even if that atomic fuel were to be free of cost, the Tummel-Garry Scheme would still be more economic.
This scheme will have three points of advantage. Firstly, it will help a national need. I do not think anybody in his senses will deny that there is everywhere to-day a shortage of electricity. Secondly it will—
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: May I ask the noble Earl, who says there is such a shortage of electricity in Scotland today, why the Grampian and Galloway Power Companies are exporting electricity to the North of England?
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I can tell you that the Grampian Company refused our demands for power for the purpose of carrying out this Number 2 construction scheme because they could not supply it to us. They wrote to us—we have the letter in our office—asking us when we were going to get on with the scheme because they were short of power and wanted power from us. Secondly, this scheme will help a local need and, although this is perhaps a lesser matter, it will help by increasing the amount derived from rates; it will give a fairly substantial increase up to about £20,000. It will meet the increased demand for power from that area, and it is obvious that that demand must even further increase if that area is to be properly developed by the Grampian Company.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Will the noble Earl excuse my interrupting to ask, did not the report of the Commission say there has been no direct benefit to consumers in the area?
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I will explain what benefit there will be. To anybody who knows that area it is perfectly patent that there must be a large extension of demand there when that company really gets going. Half the houses have not got cookers or refrigerators. It may be that they cannot get the machinery yet, but there will be a demand. At present the company cannot meet that demand. They will want further supplies in the future and we are the only people who can give them to them. Powers are vested in this Board for the generation of water power, and only in this Board. Thirdly, it will help the Highlands as a whole. I do not think it is an idle suggestion when I suggest that we have got to got away from this parochial outlook. One of course sympathizes with the area which has suffered, but it is necessary to look at the whole picture. It will help the Highlands as a whole by enabling uneconomic schemes in the Outer Isles and in the far-flung places to be developed which could in no circumstances be developed in any other way because they are completely uneconomic. It will also furnish the moneys whereby a grid can be laid which will distribute electricity throughout the Board's area. Three of the Board's main constructional schemes have already been published. Two of them have been passed, Loch Sloy and Tummel, and the third, Fannich, is before your Lordships' House and another place now. You have therefore the beginning of a Highland grid.
The further point I wish to make is one which is often forgotten, and that is that this export to the Central Electricity Board can be terminated, on giving three years' notice, in the event of a further demand for power being created in this area. That seems to me an entire answer to this antagonism against export; once a demand is created in the area you can switch from this export to Central Scotland back to the local area and give them what they need. That is of course what will happen. Many of these distribution schemes have already been prepared. I think this answers one of the questions put by one of your Lordships. There are actually 22; Orkney, Shetland, Skye, Lewis, Harris, North and South Uist, Benbecula, Barra, Mull, Seil and Luing, Islay, Arran, Bute, Great Cumrae, North and West Sutherland, Lochinver, Ullapool, Jeantown, Lochaber and Onich,

1193
Ardnamurchan, N. Cowal and S. Cowal. If that is not a good job of work in two years by a Board which has nut had the labour or tools to do it I do not know what is.
Many of these distribution schemes, as I say, have been prepared, but none of them can be made to pay, and in fad they will actually show a loss collectively which will eventually reach the sum of about £276,000 a year by the fifth year. The figure of loss is likely to stay at that level for some considerable time. The Tummel-Garry scheme, which is undoubtedly the most remunerative scheme in the Board's area for general purposes, will be able to meet the losses on about a third of the schemes a list of which I have just read out. As your Lordships well know, and as everybody is inclined to throw in our faces, under the Act of 1943—and we can do no more than administer the Act—the Board are required to balance their budget over a term of years. They must therefore develop remunerative schemes along with unremunerative schemes. The duty is laid upon the Board to carry out the distribution of electricity throughout the Western Highlands and Islands, and this is the only way in which we can do it. In other words, it is the only way in which we can administer the Act. A scheme such as this Tummel-Garry scheme is the best type of scheme to enable the Board to do it. We do not want alternative schemes to the Tummel-Garry scheme; we want more like it.
The criticism that no alternative schemes were considered is incorrect. In fact, in all these matters the Board has been advised, as I have said, by a panel of technical advisers who are at the head of their professions as consulting civil, electrical and mechanical engineers. They have carefully considered many alternative schemes, big and small.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: May I ask the noble Earl, in that case, whether he disagrees with the evidence of Sir John Kennedy before the Tribunal in Edinburgh?
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I am telling the strict truth. I know that the panel of experts whom we have appointed have considered many schemes, and should like to pay a very warm tribute to the work and to the remarkable achievements of the gentlemen on this panel and their staffs, who have accomplished an amazing
1194
amount of survey and other work, though short-handed and subject to many war-time difficulties. Frankly, I do not know how they have done it.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: May I ask whether these experts and technical advisers have been instructed to take account of, and give full weight to, amenity?
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Yes, of course they have, because they work with us and we are in close consultation with them all the time. I should now like to say a few words about alternative schemes. In view of the need to produce energy to meet the deficiencies in the Hydro-Electric Board's area and in the Central Electricity Board's area, and to meet the deficit on uneconomic schemes, the Tribunal, according to their report, were satisfied that no other suitable hydro-electric scheme was available or could be brought into effective operation within the available period of time. The Tribunal were surprised that the Central Electricity Board had not considered alternative schemes. It was no part of the duty of the Central Board to do so; they are bound by the Hydro-Electric. Act to take the power which the Board offer them, and they need it badly. The Hydro-Electric Board did consider alternative schemes, and told the Tribunal about them—five of them. Those five schemes and the other alternative schemes are all excellent in their own way, but none of them is comparable to the Tummel-Garry scheme. Those in the Central and Southern Highlands will be suitable for revenue-producing sales to the Central Electricity Board, because they are close; those in the North are better adapted to supplying industry and general purposes there, since the power is cheaper because there is no transmission.
Here I should like to take up a point which Was brought out in the evidence which I gave at the inquiry, and which was mentioned by Lord Kinnaird. I made the statement that we had reached the parting of the ways. I put it in the form of a question: Do the people of this country want electricity or not? The Tribunal in their finding called my attitude a blunt and uncompromising one. I should like to take this opportunity, which I have not had before, of saving that of course when I stated this I was referring

1195
to the actual Tummel-Garry scheme. We had come to the parting of the ways in that case. The scheme was so vital to the main structure of the whole of the North of Scotland hydro-electric project that it was obvious to the Board that the needs of the public interest would, in their opinion, outweigh the injury, if any, caused to amenity and other interests by the scheme. I never meant, and I never intended to suggest, on this or any other occasion, that the interests of amenity, fisheries and agriculture should not be carefully considered and taken into account on their merits.
With regard to the accusation of secrecy and lack of tact and dictatorial methods and Hitlerism and all the rest of it, of which I read frequently in the newspapers, I can give my assurance that the Board have honestly done all in their power to give what information they could, as soon as they knew it was reliable; but it was no good giving out anything except in general terms until the schemes were really in a shape or form when they would not be likely to be subjected to the continuous alteration which happens to engineering projects. In this respect the Board have gone far beyond their remit under the. Act. They have continuously met local authorities and landowners. I think that I have met nearly all the local authorities myself, and I have tried to meet a great many of the landowners and their representatives. In the case of the Tummel-Garry scheme, I am sorry to say that we were met with the reply that any information which we gave would only be used to defeat the scheme if possible. I felt rather hopeless about that, but we have made every effort and will continue to do so.
Finally, in regard to the question raised by Lord Kinnaird, and also mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, with regard to the work of the Amenity and Fisheries Committees, I want to say that these two Committees are Advisory Committees which were set up to advise the Secretary of State and the Board, and they must be consulted by the Board before and during the preparation of a construction scheme. The procedure in regard to this is laid down in the Act and has been carried out. But it must be remembered that the duty of these two Committees is to advise on amenity and fishery
1196
matters and nothing else. They cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered as vetoing committees. The Board's duty, therefore, as we see it, is to consider their advice and to take it if we can; but if we feel that the provision of electricity—which is, after all, our job—would be interfered with by the recommendations of either of these Committees, in our opinion we have no other course than to inform the Secretary of State that we are unable to accept these recommendations, giving the reasons why we cannot do so. In all cases this procedure has been followed, and I have here a list on twelve foolscap pages (which I shall not read) of 116 matters on which the Committees have been consulted or on which information has been sent to them with regard to the various schemes which have up to now been published.
There is one point with regard to amenity and fishery questions to which I must refer. In the Tummel-Garry scheme there are three power stations, each dependent on the others to a certain extent. The Fishery Committee recommended that the top one should go, and the Amenity Committee recommended that the bottom one should go, so that all that was left was the middle one. That completely emasculated the scheme, and the Board could do nothing else but refuse the recommendations and explain why they did so.
LORD KINNAIRD LORD KINNAIRD rose—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the noble Earl is continually being interrupted. I think it is only fair to allow him to make his statement.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: Sooner or later it was inevitable that some scheme was bound to come to the parting of the ways, when the decision would have to be made by someone as to whether the needs of the production of electricity for the public benefit would outweigh the interests of amenity, fishing and agriculture. My Lords, the Tummel-Garry scheme is such a scheme. It is only fair to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has said, that the Amenity Committee's recommendations were made on majority finding of three to two. The Secretary of State, as he has explained, went so far as to ask the Chairman of the Amenity Committee whether there was any chance of that majority finding being converted into a

1197
unanimous decision either one way or the other. The answer was in the negative. The Secretary of State, accordingly, sent the scheme forward to be examined by an impartial tribunal. In one thing I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, who has now left the House. I do not think that the Secretary of State could do anything else. If I had been in his place I would have done exactly the same. No doubt the noble Lord who is going to answer for His Majesty's Government will state the case more fully in regard to these matters than I have done. I have tried to touch on one or two of the points which have been raised by opponents of the scheme at various times and by noble Lords here to-day, and also on other points which have occurred to me as being ones which needed explanation.
Before I conclude I would like to say one word of warning. You have heard me pay a tribute to the panel of technical advisers to the Board for the remarkable work which they have done under great difficulties. This applies equally to the staff of the Board, who have toiled unceasingly—like others, I admit—during the war, but with few tools and fewer workmen, to lay the foundations of this great work. Both these bodies of people have completed a large part of their task. The Board and its staff are now becoming a large organization with offices and the necessary equipment to enable them to carry out their job. This organization will have to grow larger as the schemes grow. You cannot spend millions of money without a large establishment, and if you have a large establishment that costs money, a lot of money, and the deficit will go on getting larger and larger until you can put something back into the kitty. Equally, you cannot do this until the work of building dams, generating stations, transmission and distributing lines has been accomplished. Again you cannot do this without labour. The Loch Sloy scheme was our first public scheme and the first sod was cut in June. That was five months ago. So far we have only got 200 German prisoners as labour, and we have had them for only about six weeks. We have lost a year, and what is worse we have lost one of the finest summers that we are ever likely to get for this class of work. And now the winter is upon us.
I am not ignoring the difficulties of His Majesty's Government. I know that they
1198
are great and formidable. As Chairman of a county council no one knows better than I do the urgent priority of the need for housing, and also of the need, which has been mentioned by one noble Lord, of making provision for domestic water supplies. Nevertheless, we at present have this position. On the one hand, new houses are being built which will need electricity and there are no supplies for them. On the other hand, supplies of power for industry are short now, and they will be getting seriously shorter in the ensuing winters before the Board's schemes can be started up. We want labour and materials and we must have them. The country is losing its time and money in no small measure through the Board's inability to get on with these schemes through lack of labour. What is more, if labour cannot be given to produce electricity, the factories which are so vital to the life of the country at the present time will only be able to work half time through lack of power to drive them. You may have seen advertisements by the Ministry of Fuel and Power in the Press saying that electricity cutoffs are probable both on account of the fuel famine and the fact that existing generating machinery is getting worn out. It is vital for His Majesty's Government forthwith to expend more energy in getting men back in order to make the wheels of trade and industry go round. I appreciate their difficulties, as I have said. Everybody must do so. But the fact cannot be too strongly stressed that something must be done to secure these men in order to get these and other schemes going. Our organization is one only, but I bring its needs to your Lordships' notice as an illustration.
I am satisfied in my own mind, as is my Board, that this so very controversial scheme is vital to the provision of electricity in the Board's area, and that there is no alternative scheme which will be either so suitable or comparable in efficiency, and that in the best interests of the Highlands it is right that it should have been allowed to go forward. I recognize as well as anyone the sincerity of the beliefs of those noble Lords who have raised this question and who are opposed to this scheme, also of those who are opposed to it in another place and of those who are opposed to it outside. I sympathize with them fully, and I think I can claim to do so because I am con-

1199
nected with the land myself in some measure. I clearly recognize that the Board must do everything it can to mitigate any defacement of the countryside. Believe me, I have given this matter heart-searching thought by day and by night. It is not an easy row to hoe being Chairman of this Board. But I am confident that it will not be destruction that we shall see but change, and though that change may possibly not commend itself to all who know the places as they are now, yet to those who come after, in forty, fifty or sixty years time, it really will be as natural as the railways and telegraphs are to us to-day.
I would end, my Lords, with this. Never was there a time in the country's history when it was more necessary that the resources of our country should be developed to the full, and, therefore, I again make no apology for what may appear to be reiteration of many of the arguments for all the Board's schemes going forward in view of the vital urgency for the production of electric power in this country.
6.48 p.m.
LORD LANG OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I understand that there is still a considerable number of noble Lords who desire to speak on this subject. Therefore, I would submit to the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, that it would not be desirable to attempt to exhaust the list of speakers this evening. I hope that it may be possible to adjourn the debate to another occasion. Accordingly, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Lang of Lambeth.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I am glad to be able to inform the most reverend Lord that the debate can be adjourned until Monday, December 3.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that by virtue of the powers vested in him by Section 2 of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, he had nominated the following fifteen members of the House to be members of the Ecclesiastical Committee established under that Act, and to serve for the duration of the present Parliament:

E. Grey,

V. Chelmsford,

V. Sankey,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Denman,

L. O' Hagan,

L. Meston,

L. Daryngton,

L. Hailey,

L. Southwood,

L. Belstead,

L. Quickswood,

L. Clauson,

L. Hemingford,

L. Ammon.

House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.