HL Deb 22 November 1945 vol 137 cc1171-200

5.13 p.m.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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- 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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- 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.