Lords Sitting of 20 March 1957

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

MILFORD HAVEN DEVELOPMENTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having in mind the proposal to build a dam across the upper reaches of Milford Haven for the purposes of water storage, they will take advantage of this unique opportunity of effecting a great improvement in communications by constructing a main road along the dam; and whether they will ensure that the dam is sited at the lowest possible point of the estuary which is consistent with economy, having regard to the great saving in time and in transport costs which would thus be effected.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, no firm decision to build a dam has yet been taken by the water undertakers concerned. If they should decide to go forward with such a scheme, they would have to seek the necessary powers by means of an Order under the Water Act, 1945, and my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing would arrange a public inquiry before coming to any decision on the proposal. It is known that the Pembrokeshire County Council are aware of the importance of considering whether such a dam could be used to secure an important highway improvement, and they may be expected to co-operate with the Prescelly Water Board. All the points mentioned in my noble friend's Question would be brought out at the public inquiry and taken fully into account by the Minister, who would consult with my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport on the traffic and navigation aspects of the proposal.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for his Answer, may I ask him a supplementary question arising from it; namely, whether Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider the possibility of saving an appreciable sum of money—I think it is about £150,000—which it is proposed to spend on a vehicular ferry between Pembroke Dock and Neyland, which could be done if the site of the dam were low enough down the estuary?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I think the answer to that question is clearly, Yes. My right honourable friend fully realises that this might well be possible, and he intends to keep in touch, as and when necessary, with the Pembrokeshire County Council who, as the highway authority, are responsible for the proposed improvement to the slipway at Hobbs Point Ferry.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I may ask a further supplementary question, will Her Majesty's Government provide for an authority, in the nature of a conservancy authority, to look after all the various conflicting interests upon this whole waterway?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I understand that the question which my noble friend asked is whether Her Majesty's Government intend to establish an overall authority for control of the new port at Milford Haven, and the answer is, Yes. After consultation with the interests concerned, we have decided to establish a conservancy authority for Milford Haven, and a Bill for this purpose will be introduced in the next Session of Parliament. My right honourable friend is making a similar statement in another place in reply to a Question this afternoon.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, would the noble Earl do whatever is possible to bring the whole question to the notice of the Minister of Transport? Motor traffic increases by leaps and bounds every year, and if nothing is done to improve the existing ferry at Milford Haven, it means that anybody who wishes to proceed from Tenby or Pembroke to Fishguard, through Haverfordwest, will have to face an extra twenty-five to thirty miles' journey. It is a matter of great importance from the point of view of communications, and I very much hope that this

645
suggestion will be pressed when the Minister of [Transport comes to consider it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, there are two points which my noble friend raises—first, the improvement of the ferry and, secondly, the construction of a road over the dam. My noble friend will realise that these points are closely connected, and that the decision on one must depend on the decision of the other. However, I certainly will convey the noble Earl's views to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that delays in getting on board the ferry, when there is such a volume of motor traffic on the roads to-day, are very considerable and that the matter is of first-class importance from the point of view of road transport.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I fully appreciate that point. If the noble Earl has been on the Hobbs Point Ferry, as I have, he will not go again.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I hope that this question is not irrelevant, but may I ask whether this proposal for a dam at Milford Haven links up in any way with the other proposal for improving the docking facilities at the port? There have been proposals to improve greatly the docking arrangements at Mil-ford Haven. Are the two matters linked up in any way?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, if Milford Haven is ultimately developed into a large and important port, then, of course, the docks will have to be reorganised, enlarged and improved.

CYPRUS
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given private notice—namely, whether they will be in a position to make a statement on Cyprus to-day?
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): Yes, my Lords. By leave of the House, I propose to interrupt Business at
646
some convenient moment between half-past three and four o'clock this afternoon to make a statement on Cyprus similar to that which my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary is to make in another place at about that time.

NATIONAL PARKS
2.43 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to draw attention to the Seventh Annual Report of the National Parks Commission; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I thought it right to put this Motion down in order that the Horse might have an opportunity of considering the Seventh Report of the National Parks Commission and I hope, to discuss the question of national parks in a broader way than is, necessarily, done in the Report. As I say, this is the Seventh Report of the Commission, and seven years is an important period in the lifetime of any body or individual.
I think it right at the outset to say something about the authors of this Report. First, there is the Chairman, Lord Strang, who is a Member of this House, but who, unfortunately for the purposes of this debate has his lips sealed. On the other hand, his eyes are open, and so are his ears, and I am sure that he will derive some benefit from what is said in the course of this discussion. A few weeks ago the noble Lord, Lord Strang, took part in a discussion before the Town Planning Institute, and he talked about national parks. I read his speech; it was a fine speech, and I am only sorry that he cannot make it in this House. At the end of the discussion which followed, the seconder of the vote of thanks said that he had considerable apprehensions about Lord Strang's appointment to the chairmanship of this Commission, but that after his three years' work, and having heard him make this speech, he had no hesitation in saying that the Commission was really fortunate in having Lord Strang as the Chairman. I think we can all echo that, and hope that it will be very long before he is able to make a speech in this House on national parks.
We also have in this House my noble friend Lord Lawson, who until recently

647
had been Deputy Chairman of the Commission ever since its inception. Lord Lawson has been a tower of strength to the Commission: his great wisdom and experience have been entirely at their disposal, and the fact that all his life he has been very keen on outdoor activity, and a great walker himself, in his time, has been of great value to the Commission. He is no longer a member of the Commission, unfortunately, but that fact will give him the opportunity, which I hereby invite him to take, of joining in our discussions this afternoon. The membership of the Commission is a distinguished one. I will not go through all the names, but I should like to make reference to the successor to my noble friend Lord Lawson, Mrs. John Dower. The late Mr. John Dower was really the author of the national parks idea as it is understood at the present time. He was asked by the Ministry, before my time, to make a report on national parks. It was a most distinguished report, and arising out of it we had the Hobhouse Committee, and thereafter the National Parks Act which we are discussing to-day. It was, therefore, the work of Mr. John Dower, ably supported by his wife, which put national parks on the map, so that it is a great satisfaction to friends of national parks that Mrs. John Dower should now be the Deputy Chairman.
Lastly, I should like to mention one other person—it may be a little unorthodox and I hope your Lordships will forgive me—and that is the Secretary of the Commission, who has held office ever since its inception. I myself appointed him. He was a distinguished athlete in his time, an Olympic runner, and he has done a fine piece of work. I sometimes think that having to prod the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and to get them to keep up anything like the pace to which he was accustomed in his young days, has been somewhat of a frustrating job. But he has done his best, and I think this Report indicates that he has met with some success.
The Report itself is long, detailed, and most informative, and sets out fully the activities of the National Parks Commission during the past year. It is a little unfortunate that this work is not sufficiently well known among people who are resident in towns. A friend of mine recently asked me when I next proposed
648
making a speech, because she would like to come and listen. When I said that I should be talking about national parks, she thought I was going to talk about Hyde Park and Regent's Park. That is an indication of the extent of people's ignorance on the subject of national parks, and particularly among people who are living in large towns. I think that it is also partly due to the fact that the Act itself came in with the minimum amount of controversy. It was passed in 1949; it was a non-Party Act, and was passed with the active support of Members from all parts of both Houses. Therefore, it did not have anything like the publicity and the excitement of some other measures with which one has been concerned in the past.
The term "national parks" is used in this country in a way which is far different from that used in any other country in the world. We are not the only country which has national parks, but in other countries, such as the United States of America, Canada and South Africa, the term is used to indicate large expanses of territory where there is wild game and where there is hardly any population, areas to which people come to spend a long holiday amidst the most natural and primitive surroundings. Inevitably, our national parks are of a totally different kind. They are places of high, outstanding beauty, but they are also places in which people live and work and carry on their ordinary avocations. It is the function of the National Parks Commission, while retaining the general character of these national parks, to make them also places to which people can come and enjoy recreation and the exceptional beauty of the countryside. In fact, the purpose of the National Parks Commission is to prevent these places from becoming museum pieces or show places, to enable them to evolve and develop in the normal natural way and yet to preserve their exceptional character.
If one accepts that conception, one can perhaps appreciate the right attitude to certain developments which inevitably have to come even to places of that character. For instance, there are mineral workings. Obviously, the introduction of mineral workings in a national park in no way adds to the beauty of that park. On the other hand, one has to weigh that up against the necessities

649
of the community, and the essential fact that we have to maintain our economic life. If one can obtain these minerals from other parts nearby which will not jeopardise the beauty of the national park so much the better, and the greatest care always has to be taken in connection with any development which is proposed in a national park. But in many cases some kind of development will be inevitable unless one is going to make tremendous sacrifices in our economy. The National Parks Commission, therefore, have a very difficult task at times in weighing up the importance of maintaining the general character and appearance of one of these national parks as against the need for development which becomes necessary as our population grows and our needs increase.
I say that one of the important features about our national parks is that they are intended to be places to which people will come for recreation and outdoor exercise, and all the different types of outdoor life which are so much a part of our existence. We have to remember that 80 per cent. of the population of this country lives in towns, and a large proportion of those spend a great part of their lives in enclosed quarters, either leading a sedentary life or spending a large number of hours in buildings, healthy or otherwise. It is the purpose of the national parks to enable such people to enjoy their leisure in healthy outdoor conditions. Apart from the preservation of the countryside and the beauty of the national parks, that is the main purpose. After all, there is no point in preserving the beauty of them unless a considerable number of people are available to enjoy them.
I said earlier that this Act was a non-controversial Act and that that accounted to some extent for the fact that there was little excitement about it. There is obviously very little excitement going to take place in this debate. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that I am not going to say anything frightfully exciting or even controversial. But there was some controversy over this Act, and that arose mostly on the machinery—there was none about the purpose of it—on the powers of the National Parks Commission, and on the kind of local committees for the administration of local parks—whether they should be joint
650
boards or separate boards where the national parks extended over the area of several counties. In some quarters, this controversy is still alive, and there are some individuals and some bodies, having nothing else to argue about, who find it desirable to maintain the controversy and to keep it burning.
At the end of seven years, I think the various Governments were wise in allowing a variety of administration in the national parks. I think the Act itself was biased in favour of the joint board where the national park spread over a number of counties. But, after all, machinery will work satisfactorily only if the people who are going to work it believe in it and want to make it work. In our own lives and in the course of our own experience we know that the most defective machinery will work if people want to make it work, and the best kind of machinery will not work if the people do not feel that it is the best. Therefore I should like to congratulate the various Governments—not only this one, but all previous Governments—on having been somewhat elastic in permitting different types of machinery to exist side by side, even though I think that on balance the view of the various Governments was that the join board was the most satisfactory instrument of all.
In the course of the seven years, as stated in the Report, nine national parks have been created and one has been designated—I am not sure whether by now the Minister has approved it or not—that is, the Brecon Beacons. Those national parks are distributed pretty well all over England and Wales. It is a great pity that there are no national parks readily available for London, but that is not the fault of the Commission or the fault of any Minister; it is the fault of the particular kind of scenery that happens to exist within 100 miles of London; there is nothing that is really suitable for a national park. The Hobhouse Committee did recommend the Sussex Downs as a national park. That is an area which I know very well. They are very beautiful, and if it were at all possible the Sussex Downs could have been made a national park. But I doubt whether the type of scenery in the Sussex Downs and its general character is appropriate to the creation of a national park, and I think the Commission have been quite right to

651
do the next best thing and make it an area of outstanding natural beauty.
3.0 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: I do not think it has been designated as such.
LORD SILKIN: NO. I believe that it has not been actually been designated. I am much obliged to the noble Marquess. They are contemplating it, and they certainly have it very much in mind to do something about it. The other area they have designated—I think I am right—is the Surrey Hills, near Dorking. They are very beautiful. But here again this area is not entirely suitable as a national park. It is inevitable, but a great pity, that there is nothing within reasonable reach of London. I myself should not press for any extension of the national parks. At the present time, I think we have ten, and together they constitute a fairly substantial area. Certainly for the time being I would recommend that the Commission consolidate the areas they have—with the exception, that is, of the Norfolk Broads.
I want to make a most urgent plea to the Government to do something about the Norfolk Broads. This is a unique area; there is nothing like it in the whole world. It is a natural waterway which has given great pleasure to hundreds of thousands of people—I was going to say "and will continue to do so"; but it will not. It is gradually silting up. I myself have seen the difference between the Broads as they were ten years ago and as they are to-day. These waters are gradually disappearing, and within a very few years, unless something is done, there will be nothing left of these wonderful Norfolk Broads. One Government after another has played with this. I think the last Minister said that the time was not opportune to do anything about it, or even to approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been held in such awe that he could not even be approached on a matter of this kind.
The position to-day is just this. Either something is done immediately about the Norfolk Broads, or the Broads will disappear. I recognise that it may involve a considerable expenditure, and I should understand it if the Government were to
652
make a decision and said, "We are not prepared to spend this amount of money to preserve the Norfolk Broads." I should not approve, but I should understand such a decision. What I do not understand, and what I strongly disapprove of, is that a decision should go by default; that a decision should virtually be taken which consists merely of saying that the time is not opportune for approaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer, thereby, in effect, saying that the Norfolk Broads must go. I hope that it may be possible for the noble Earl, Lord Munster, to give the House some comfort on this matter. I know that the Norfolk Broads are held very dearly by large numbers of people who have enjoyed the amenities of the Broads in the past.
I do not propose to say very much more in detail about the Report itself, but I should like to make one or two suggestions to the Commission as to what they might tell us in the future. They have told us a great deal about their activities and the machinery, and I think there is nothing about the national parks that one might want to know that is not contained in the Report. But I should like to know how the public are reacting to the national parks. Are they being visited to any greater extent than before? What has been the result of all this activity? What additional facilities, such as transport, have been made available? I know that something is said about hostels, facilities for refreshment and so on, but are people able to get them? There is something said about car parking, too. One just does not know what is the reaction of the public to the national parks. I understand that within fifty miles or so of one of the national parks, the Peak District, something like one-third or one-quarter of the whole population of Great Britain is resident. How many of that population visit that national park? I do not expect the noble Earl to know—I do not suppose for a moment that he has counted them; but it would be interesting if one could get some idea as to whether an increasing number are, in fact, visiting these parks since they have become officially designated as national parks.
I think the Commission have wisely turned their attention to designating a number of areas of outstanding natural beauty, and I have dealt with some of

653
them, particularly those near London. I hope they will go on doing that, because Great Britain is, I think, the most beautiful country in the world, and we must not lose those areas of outstanding beauty because we do not recognise them. It is a great thing just to say on paper "This is an area of outstanding natural beauty", and "This is an area which we ought specially to try to preserve." As I said earlier about national parks, that does not in the least mean that no charges are taking place. They are bound to take place, but at least we must hesitate before we do anything which will spoil the natural beauty of those areas; and, if we do it, we must do it with our eyes open, realising that it is, in our view, inevitable. So I think the more areas of exceptional beauty we designate, the better. I hope that the National Parks Commission will go on and make that one of their most important jobs in the coming years.
One of the most outstanding things in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was the great act of faith, in which all parties participated, in making large tracts of land open to the general public. It was an act of faith because many of these areas are areas where farming operations take place, and there was a great danger of these operations being interfered with: of cattle being let loose; of gates being left open, and of all the other things which farmers so much abhor. It is to the credit of the farming population that very little objection was taken, at the time of the passing of the Act, to providing this access to the general public over certain defined areas of the countryside. I should have liked to be informed what has been the result of this act of faith. Has it, on the whole, been successful? Are there many Complaints from farmers about the way in which the public treat their land?
One has to realise, of course, that the public need to be educated. These axe townsfolk who come into the countryside, and many of them do not appreciate the harm in leaving a gate open, or of doing other things which may help to contaminate cattle, and so on. This provision of access has its educational aspect. My own view is that, if we start with the children, we shall, in due course, get a generation who will learn to respect, appreciate and love the countryside, even though they themselves are not living in
654
it. But I should have liked to know what has been the effect on the adult population. A certain amount of money has been spent in providing a country code, and also a warden service. Here I should like to pay a special tribute to the wardens, many of whom have volunteered and are unpaid. They are taking part in this work of wardens because they like the countryside and they believe in providing access. They do it in their spare time, and they are making a fine job of it.
The Report refers to several tons of litter that were left in certain of the areas at certain times, especially during holidays. People do tend to leave their litter about, especially if there are no receptacles in which they can put it. I feel that sometimes we have not shown sufficient consideration to those who have the litter. What are they to do with it? It is asking a lot of some people to take their litter home again, and if we can provide more receptacles and other ways of disposing of the litter, I think that the tons of litter referred to in the Report might well be reduced to hundredweights. At any rate, I should like to know whether the amount of litter that is left in these areas is being reduced or not. Is it on the increase? One would like to know the reaction of the general public in this matter.
Now a word about footpaths. That, too, is one of the purposes of the Act—to revive footpaths which disappeared during the war, which were ploughed up and were lost. It has been a difficult business to make a map throughout the country of all the footpaths, and a great deal of devoted service has been given to the revival of these footpaths and to the re-establishment of existing ones. As your Lordships know, a great many of these footpaths depend for their existence upon the memory of the oldest inhabitant and so on. I realise that this task having been entrusted to the parish councils, they have quite a big job to do. Nevertheless, the progress has been rather slower than I should have liked, and I am sure slower than those responsible for preserving the footpaths would have liked. A great deal of help has been given by such bodies as the Ramblers' Association, who have provided voluntary workers to assist the councils in their activities. If the Government and the Parks Commission can do anything to

655
speed up the determination of these footpaths, I think they would be doing a good job.
The same remark applies to the long-distance footpaths. A great deal of interest has been aroused in these long-distance footpaths, whereby one can walk for perhaps a hundred or more miles in complete isolation on difficult ground, and really enjoy the beauty of the countryside. But although a great number of these footpaths have been started, no single one has been completed. I do not know why there is this delay. There ought not to be. Everyone is agreed on the principle of long-distance footpaths, and if only a little "ginger" were put into the operation I have no doubt that it could be completed quickly. I should like to make this observation on long-distance footpaths: I hope that whoever is responsible will bear in mind that they are intended not merely for athletes, and people of great vigour and energy, but for ordinary people who like walking, who enjoy long walking, but who are not so young or agile as they used to be. I myself would gladly undertake a ten or fifteen miles walk, so long as the ground was not too rough, too steep and so on. I hope that that will be born in mind in creating these long-distance footpaths.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but in Cumberland, where I happen to live, there has been tremendous co-operation from the farmers and everybody in the county, so that not only are these footpaths kept open but there are stiles over every fence. Everybody is helping.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I hope the Chairman of the National Parks Commission is listening and will regard that as an example to the rest of the country.
Now I want to refer to the proposals which the National Parks Commission make for the amendment of the Act. It is not surprising that at the end of seven years' experience there should be a number of suggestions for amendment, but I think it is a tribute to the Act itself that these suggestions are not more drastic. I should like to refer to just two of them—they are contained in Appendix H of the
656
Report, at page 64. A number of the recommendations refer to finance. It is not surprising that, like most other bodies, the National Parks Commission find that the funds available are inadequate to enable them to carry out their functions as they would like to carry them out.
They have not been very extravagant. During the whole period of seven years, all they have spent is £185,000—not a costly business for the creation of nine national parks and a number of areas of outstanding natural beauty. That sum covers salaries, travelling expenses and publicity, and so on. I think it may be said that the money that they have had has been well spent, but they could do much more if more funds were placed at their disposal. They would like, for instance, to be able to appoint landscape consultants, should that become necessary. I think that often it is necessary. After all, this is a body of laymen. They do their best, and they have by now had considerable experience; but if certain operations are regarded as necessary in a national park, or in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and the Commission are compelled to agree to such operations, at least it should be possible for the Commission to make suggestions which will minimise the damage that is being done to the beauty of the area. For that purpose it will often be desirable to appoint landscape consultants, and I think they ought to be in a position to do so. That is one of the recommendations that they make. They refer to the possibility of using the Land Fund for the purpose of obtaining further money. I do not think it matters whether the money comes from the Land Fund or from any other source, but it seems to me that this is one of the purposes for which the provisions of the Act might be extended.
Then I should like to refer to recommendations 6 and 7, at page 64 of the Report. It often happens that a developer in a particular area wants to carry out certain developments which might suit his purposes but would not entirely harmonise with the character of the area itself. Let me quote an example—I agree that it is not the best example that could be given, because it concerns an area which is not a national park. Suppose that a person wanted to

657
build a house in one of the lovely Cots-wold villages, he might himself be prepared to live in a house of normal brick, with slate roof and so on. That would be highly undesirable, because it would completely spoil the character of these lovely villages. On the other hand, it seems a little unfair, and sometimes difficult, that such a person should have to provide the additional money required to prevent that happening. So the National Parks Commission recommend that they should be in a position to make a grant in cases of that kind, where it is insisted that the development should conform to the character of the neighbourhood but such a course is more expensive. That seems to me a most reasonable suggestion.
The other point is that it is desirable, at any rate for the time being, and certainly in view of the success of the warden service, that that service should be extended to areas for which at present a grant is not payable. It is a small matter, but I feel that they are justified in asking for an amendment of the Act to enable this relatively small extension of the warden service to be carried out.
I have made a general survey of the Report, and your Lordships will appreciate that I have no great criticism of the way in which the Act has been administered, and still less of the National Parks Commission; but I have made a number of suggestions as to how the work can be speeded up and improved. The national parks and the facilities for greater access to the countryside make a unique contribution to the health and well being of the community. When an increasing number of our people lead a sedentary life, or spend all or most of their working life indoors, the more we can encourage the use of leisure in the open air, the better for the future of our people. After all, this is an alternative to television, and of the two it is far healthier for the general public to use their leisure in visiting national park; and getting out into the country than to have their eyes; glued to television. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will feel that it has been worth while to spend a little of our time in considering intangible but none the less vitally important aspects of our life, and that every encouragement will be given to further the great work being done by the National Parks Commission, the various local parks committees
658
and all who are actively concerned in the work. I beg to move for Papers.
3 24 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, my noble friend who moved this Motion is qualified in a way in which no-one else is qualified to talk about the national parks system. Indeed, nobody knows more than he about the legislation concerning it, and that fact seems to have been recognised in your Lordships' House, in view of the sparseness of the list of speakers this afternoon. But that does not mean that there is a lack of public interest in the subject in this country. Certainly whenever there is a threat to the natural beauty of any part of the country there is no lack of citizens to get up and defend it. The National Parks Commission, whose Report we are debating, is the instrument to which is entrusted a good deal of the task of defending these natural amenities.
One thing that may have been noticed in the Report is the strange silence on the subject of finance. The cost of operating the national parks is not mentioned, but I believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, the administrative figure is very low. Even when all expenditure is taken into account—Central Government expenditure in grants, and local government expenditure, from the rates—it comes to a very low figure. I have heard it said that £100,000 a year would cover the total cost of all these parks. We should recognise that we are getting this amenity "on the cheap". As your Lordships have heard, we rely on a great amount of unpaid voluntary labour—the Warden Service and the services rendered by the Ramblers' Association and their members—and I would remind your Lordships that in other countries they think it justifiable to spend a sizeable figure to pay for the national amenities.
I have read that in the United States of America the national parks budget for the coming year is more than £16 million, having risen by some 50 per cent. since last year, and that they expect that 50 million American citizens will take advantage of those national parks. We do not know how many of our citizens visit our national parks, and I think that is one of the things the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had in mind in saying that

659
future annual Reports might give more details of the use made of the parks. But surely we can afford some more expenditure than is at present allowed in order to pay for these amenities.
There is just one other point on the report to which I wish to refer, and I should like then to throw out a suggestion. As your Lordships know, the Report refers to the long-distance routes and the disappointing progress that has been made in completing them. Possibly the noble Earl who is to reply may have some news for us about further progress having been made, but I believe it is correct to say that at present a 15-mile stretch of the Pennine Way still remains undedicated, six years after it was approved. The Pembroke Coast route, which was approved four years ago, still lacks 34 miles of rights of way, which is nearly half the total. Of the North Cornwall Coast route, which was approved five years ago, 37 miles are still required; and of the South Cornwall Coast route, a project three years old, there are still 41 miles required. That is a considerable total still lacking, and I wonder if the Minister can tell us whether further progress has been made and can offer any immediate prospect of success.
I should like to go on from that to make a suggestion for the extension of this national parks system. The underlying principles and purposes of the Act seem to me to be capable of being extended and adapted in a way not only to increase the amenities of the parks which we have now but also to contribute, to some extent, towards a solution of another very intractable problem which is before us—that is, what to do with the obsolete canals. That is a subject which has often been in the public eye. There is a Committee sitting now. It has been sitting for nearly a year, and it is engaged in investigating inland waterways. Among other things, it is to make proposals as to how the administration and finances should be arranged in connection with canals which can no longer be used economically for transport purposes.
As your Lordships will remember, Section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act makes it clear that the object of this legislation is:
660
"preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the areas specified…and for the purpose of promoting their enjoyment by the public."
These waterways have functions to perform. Their main value, as is recognised whenever the subject comes up, is as amenities, and I should like to suggest that the principles of the National Parks Act could be applied to them. There are various kinds of waterways, and there are a few that actually pass through or within the boundaries of the national parks. There is only one considerable one, the Brecon Canal, which passes for some seventeen or eighteen miles of its course through the Brecon Beacons National Park—which we hope we shall hear this afternoon has been approved.
There are other waterways closely adjoining other national parks. There is the Lancaster Canal, which approaches very close to the Lake District National Park, near Kendal. There are the Peak Forest and Macclesfield and Cromford Canals, all of which approach close to the boundaries of the Peak District Park. The Yorkshire Dales Park can be reached by water both from the East and the West Coasts of England. In all those cases, the waterway could be thrown into the Park by a small adjustment of the boundaries, a small variation of the designated area; and when that had been done the Act itself could be applied to them. Section 13 of the Act was specially designed to promote recreation on the waterways in such national parks as had them.
LORD KILLEARN: May I ask the noble Earl whether the Romney Marsh Canal was included in that list?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: That is one of the canals which is being considered by the Committee, I have no doubt. That is not within a national park area. There are other cases of areas recommended by the Hobhouse Committee as areas of outstanding natural beauty which have waterways passing through them. In those cases, although the Act as it stands does not apply, a small amendment to the Act would permit local authorities within the designated areas to carry out such work as is required not only for preserving the amenities but also for preserving the opportunities for public enjoyment.
In most cases, the presence of a canal adds to the beauty of a landscape, provided, of course, that the canal holds water and that it has not degenerated to

661
the state of a weed-grown ditch. But wherever there is one of these former waterways that can be maintained in sufficiently good order for pleasure-boating, there, I submit, is a case where the machinery of the National Parks Commission would provide a solution. It would add to the amenities of the area, so that it would be justifiable to expect some expenditure from the rates. On the other hand, it would add to the sum of the amenities open to the whole population and, therefore, would qualify for Central Government grant. I do not want to go into any great detail, but it seems to me that we and the Bowes Committee are faced with this very intractable problem of what to do with this 700 to 1,000 miles of canals which are useless for transport but which cannot be just abandoned. They will go on costing money to someone, but the canals that have amenity value should, it seems to me, be treated as amenities and paid for under the machinery set up for national amenities. I should like to put that suggestion to the Commission and to Her Majesty's Government.
Finally, I should just like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said about the work of the National Parks Commission, and to emphasise our indebtedness to all the voluntary workers who assist in keeping the system of national parks going, and to add my congratulations to my noble friend on the flourishing health in which his "baby" finds itself on its seventh anniversary.
3.37 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree with my noble friend who moved this Motion that the national parks deserve their one day a year in your Lordships' House. At any rate, the moving of this Motion today has given my noble friend an opportunity of paying a tribute, which is very well deserved indeed, to all those who work so hard in furtherance of the Act establishing national parks. I know that I shall carry your Lordships with me when I say that no one will rejoice more in these tributes than the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who has played such a very notable part in the implementation of the Act.
As regards the speech of my noble friend, there are only two remarks I should like to make. He spoke of this
662
country as being the most beautiful country in the world. Perhaps it may seem rather ungracious to question that remark, but I think that natural beauty falls into certain categories, and on our particular category I would agree with my noble friend. But when I think at random of such countryside as that of the Austrian Province of Carinthia, of the South Island of New Zealand, and of the Isles of Greece, I should feel it a little difficult to agree with him that this is the most beautiful country in the world.
I should like to endorse my noble friend's remarks about litter. No one could realise more than I do the advantages of the development which has taken place in the Lake District of his country, whereby that wonderful countryside has been thrown open to the populations of such cities as Manchester, Wigan, Warrington and so on. I wholeheartedly rejoice that that wonderful playground is at their disposal and that they take advantage of it, but I really regret that they bring their litter with them. It is disgraceful to find on those beautiful fell tops in Westmorland and Cumberland the disfiguremert of cigarette cartons, empty bottles, orange peel and so on, and I hope that every opportunity will be taken by the Youth Hostels Association, the Friends of the Lake District and other similar organisations to bring home to the people that it is not treating properly the countryside they so enjoy to disfigure it with this horrible litter.
I see from the list of speakers that, with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who is to reply on behalf of the Government, the speakers on this Motion are drawn entirely from this side of the House.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I point out that that does not mean that other noble Lords are not most intensely interested in the subject?
LORD WINSTER: The noble Lord is a little quick; he has anticipated my next sentence. I was about to say that I know well that that fact does not indicate the slightest lack of interest amongst noble Lords on the opposite side of the House in the preservation of the beauties of the countryside. If I may be allowed to say so, I see opposite me noble Lords who, I know, have no interest nearer their own hearts and who could have done no

663
more to preserve the amenities of the countryside in every way possible on the land which they are fortunate to possess and over which they have jurisdiction.
In what I have to say, I want to call attention to certain points where I feel that the Act constituting the national parks is capable of improvement and where I think it fails for lack of that improvement. I cannot say how far these points can be rectified administratively or how far some of them would call for amendment of the Act. I fully realise that amendment of the Act is probably not possible, but I would ask the noble Earl who is to reply whether certain of these points permit of administrative action without amendment of the Act. I feel strongly that the Commission are handicapped in their work because they have not their own budget in the shape of an annual block grant provided by the National Land Fund. I think that if they had such a grant, they would be free to allocate it for use by the national park planning authorities.
If we wish fully to carry out the purpose of the National Parks Act, there should be a grant from national funds for planning and administering the national parks, which would be proportionate to the increased expenditure falling on the area by virtue of its having been constituted a national park. And I think that it should be conditional on the employment of adequate staff for carrying out the purpose for which it was made. For instance, in some cases new footpaths have to be made to carry out the intention of the Act, and in these cases I feel that a 100 per cent. grant should be made. As regards existing paths there should be a grant for their maintenance. Again—and I think that my noble friend Lord Silkin touched on this point—onerous conditions are imposed, quite rightly, for the protection of amenities when a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty is developed. In my opinion, a local planning authority should have power to compensate private developers for the expenditure in this respect upon residential or agricultural buildings, with, of course, an upper limit of compensation proportionate to the total cost. If private developers are called upon to go to expense in preserving amenities in
664
accordance with the Act, it seems to be only fair and right that there should be some compensation for them. I think that the Commission should have power to acquire land by agreement or, if agreement cannot be reached, compulsorily, in order to carry out the purposes of the Act.
To come to one or two other points, I think that the duty already imposed upon the Commission to advise the Minister and planning authorities ought to be extended to apply to areas of outstanding natural beauty as well as to national parks, in order that the full intention of the Act may be carried out. I think, too, that there should be a completely separate authority—and I use the word "authority" because I do not mean a committee—where there is what I will call a single county national park—that is to say, where the whole of a national park is contained in a county. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that this is a matter of importance. I should like to see the Commission empowered to employ expert consultants—water engineers, foresters and so on—and make their services available without charge to the planning authorities in connection with national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I feel that that would have a marked effect.
Something has been said this afternoon about long-distance routes, and those along the coast in Pembroke and Cornwall have been referred to. I think that improvement in that matter would be hastened if responsibility for completing the gaps existing in these long-distance routes could be transferred to the county councils and if there were grants in respect of the cost involved in completing these gaps. Another point I have very much in mind, especially from what I have seen in the Lake District, is that what is known as permitted development in national parks should be severely restricted; and particularly I feel that new road works ought to be brought under planning control. In that connection, I would say, too, that I think the powers of traffic restriction ought to be extended. As things are at the present moment, motor cars can be, and are, driven with the consent of the owner of the land on bridle ways and footpaths. Again citing the Lake District, which is the district I know best, I would refer to the extension of motor traffic over

665
some of the passes not designated as roads, and the trials carried out over these rough mountain passes. It is deplorable, and I should like to see the powers of traffic restriction extended to prevent it.
With reference to the Motion that my noble friend Lord Lawson moved in such felicitous terms last week (we shall have the opportunity of referring again to that when the Electricity Bill comes before your Lordships), I am bound to say that the National Parks Act will not, in my humble opinion, be worth the paper it is printed upon if these super-grid lines are to invade and disfigure the national parks and the areas of outstanding national beauty. An industrial project or development, even a small one such as these grid lines, which would go completely unnoticed in a country the size of the United States—it would be lost in that vast area—in the small area of this country can disfigure a whole tract of beautiful countryside.
I would ask the noble Earl to be good enough to give some thought to the point I am now about to make and to which I attach particular importance. During the war—I remember it well because I happened to play a tiny and insignificant part in it—I recollect that the Admiralty and the Air Ministry retained the services of Sir Patrick Abercrombie, who advised them upon problems connected with the new buildings and establishments which had to be set up in the countryside. Those two Departments—my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough will remember this well—were wise enough to retain the services of this great and internationally recognised authority to advise them, and with happy results. Such an appointment goes far to placate public opinion and to temper criticism. I would ask whether it would not be a good thing if the Commission were similarly to appoint such an authority to be at their elbow and to advise them in respect of the planning developments which come before them. I do not expect the noble Earl to be able to answer that point to-day, but I would ask him to be good enough to give it consideration.
Again reverting to the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Lawson last week, I feel that it would help a great deal if the National Parks Commission were consulted about the selection of sites
666
for the nuclear power stations. Finally, I feel that development in respect of national parks, might receive more support than it does at the present moment from Government Departments other than those immediately concerned. I believe that much of the disfigurement caused by the Electricity Authority could be avoided if there were more support from other Government departments. I have called attention as briefly as I can to points which I feel support the working of the Act and might lead to what I am sure all your Lordships most earnestly hope: that the National Parks Act will become the means of preserving what is left of the natural beauty of our wonderful countryside.

THE SHIPBUILDING DISPUTE
3.57 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MNISTRY OF DEFENCE (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, I should like to intervene briefly in order to make a statement about the further developments in the shipbuilding dispute similar to that which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service. Following the meeting with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the informal talks with the President of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation, to which my right honourable friend referred yesterday, he met representatives of the Federation last night and they are to discuss the situation with their Executive later to-day and with their Board tomorrow morning, after which my right honourable friend will see them again. He is meeting representatives of the engineering employers later this afternoon.
As regards the interesting suggestion which was made yesterday by the right honourable Member for Ebbw Vale, and which is similar to one that my right honourable friend and his offcials already had in mini, I am able to say that the shipbuilding employers are willing to give it their careful consideration. Although my right honourable friend has not so far been able to obtain the full official view of the unions, I am given to understand that hey are not likely to favour the suggestion.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord for the statement he has just made. The whole country is exceedingly anxious about the situation created by this major disagreement between the employers and the employed of two vastly important and really integrated industries. If the engineering dispute goes on in the kind of snowball fashion indicated, we may have workers on strike running into millions. That is a very serious situation. I wonder whether we are yet wholly satisfied that everything is being done which can possibly be done to bring the two sides together after these long attempts at negotiations, at least in the shipbuilding industry, over many months past, without getting any real response from either side. I know the Minister will do his best to get them together as that would be a most useful thing to do.
I hope it will not generally be taken in the spirit of the last paragraph the noble Lord read out—that assumptions are made as to what will be the ultimate attitude—until the full results of consultations with the workers' side are known. I feel sure that that cannot be the Minister's real intention, but the reading of that paragraph struck me as being rather unfavourable in negotiations of this important and delicate nature. Whatever the merits of the case—and on that one is not entitled to comment at the moment—I hope that the efforts which are being made to bring a peaceable settlement to the matter will mature, and that we may escape some of the very serious consequences of a grave disagreement of this kind.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, has said, and also thank the Minister for his statement. The noble Viscount referred to the last paragraph of this statement, where some doubt was expressed that one side would consider favourably the suggestions. To counterbalance that there is the fact that these suggestions came from the right honourable gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale, and I hope that, in view of the origin, the sign that there is some sort of intention to discuss the matter further coming from one side will encourage the other side to take it up.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am certain your Lordships are grateful to both noble Lords for the tempered way in which they have spoken. I am sure we share the acute anxiety expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service will do everything in his power to try to bring the parties together, and will accept any suggestion that might possibly help. That is what he has done in respect of the suggestion of the right honourable gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale. I merely indicated to your Lordships what my right honourable friend thinks is the present state of reaction to those suggestions.

CYPRUS
4.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, if it is convenient I will now make the statement on Cyprus to which I referred earlier.
The representative of Her Majesty's Government on the North Atlantic Council has received a communication from the Secretary-General, Lord Ismay, offering his good offices for conciliation on the Cyprus question, in accordance with the resolution on the peaceful settlement of disputes which was adopted by the North Atlantic Council last December. The representative of Her Majesty's Government has been instructed to inform the Secretary-General in reply that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept in principle this offer of his good offices in the search for an acceptable solution of the differences which exist between the Governments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom regarding Cyprus.
Her Majesty's Government have noted the declaration of the leader of E.O.K.A. that his organisation would suspend its operations as soon as Archbishop Makarios was released. The Governor of Seychelles is to-day drawing the attention of the Archbishop to that declaration and to the statement which my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary is making in another place. As the House knows, the Archbishop has been asked on many occasions whether he will make a public statement calling for the cessation of violence by E.O.K.A. He is now

669
being asked whether, in these new circumstances, he is prepared to do so. If, as we hope, he makes a clear statement to this effect, a new situation will have been created. In that event Her Majesty's Government will be ready to bring to an end his detention in Seychelles. There can be no question at this stage of his return to Cyprus.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl for making the statement here, and I am quite sure that the Government are right in accepting in principle—which is as far a we go at the moment—the offer of the good services of the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council. I am rather anxious, however, that your Lordships' House might have the benefit of a little clarification of later passages in the statement. I should like to know, for example, what exactly is meant by saying that if the Archbishop will make a public statement of the kind that has been asked for, to the effect that he would be against violence in the future,
"a new situation will have been created. In that event Her Majesty's Government will be ready to bring to an end his detention in Seychelles."
Do I understand that the Government at this moment, in these circumstances, will not be moving to make any further negotiations with the Archbishop? Do I understand that the suggestion that he is in no case to return to Cyprus rules out the possibility that he should come either to London or to some other place for negotiation if he makes this statement? Could we have some further clarification as to what are the real intentions of the Government?
LORD REA: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, may I put another question or two? First of all, we all know that the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Council is a man of two personalities. He is an international figure, and a Member of your Lordships' House, and I am quite sure that any help he can give us will be most acceptable and very able. At the same time, I cannot help feeling that the sort of advice which is likely to be given by this Organisation is probably very much on the lines of advice which has been given by Her Majesty's Official I Opposition and by the Liberal Party in
670
both Houses of Parliament in this country. I rather hoped that, before we had to rely on an outside organisation, Her Majesty's Government might reconsider their rather inflexible attitude on this matter.
There is a further question I should like to ask, and it is one chat I have asked before It has been suggested that if the Archbishop will order that violence is not to continue we shall then be prepared to enter negotiations. May I suggest that we put it the other way—that we tell E.O.K.A. that if they stop this violence and upheaval, we shall be prepared to discuss with the Archbishop, as obviously we shall have to in the end. There is one final point. It is said that if we enter into any sort of negotiation with the Archbishop we are condoning murder and violence. Obviously, we have somehow to get to grips with this matter, possibly, unfortunately, through the Archbishop; and if we do not enter into negotiations with him, then I maintain that in those conditions we shall be condoning further violence and murder of our own young men and of the Cypriots in that unfortunate Island.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Perth, can hold so many questions in his head at one time, but I should like to add three more to those already asked. In the first place, I should like to ask what precisely is meant by the request to the Archbishop to call "for the cessation of violence" in Cyprus. The noble Earl will remember that he E.O.K.A. truce offer ordered a suspension of violence, which presumably might be resumed if there was no agreement. Is the Archbishop being asked to endorse the suspension of violence, or is he being asked to appeal for a cessation of violence in Cyprus for all time, whether or not agreement is reached? That is the first point I should like to put to the noble Earl.
The second point was, I think, mentioned by my noble friend and Leader: what is meant by the "new situation" that will arise if the Archbishop denounces violence? Does it mean that the Government will then be willing to discuss with the Archbishop the Radcliffe Report and the future of Cyprus? Because I cannot myself imagine that he would make what would, to him, be a

671
very big concession he has hitherto refused, unless an offer were made by Her Majesty's Government. My third question is, what exactly is meant by the release of the Archbishop from detention in the Seychelles? Does that mean that he would be a free man, apart from his right to return to Cyprus? I think that that is very important indeed, because, as the noble Earl will remember, the E.O.K.A. offer was made conditional upon the release of the Archbishop.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I will endeavour to answer the various questions that have been raised. It is gratifying to know that the noble Lords who have just spoken all welcome the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in accepting the offer of Lord Ismay. On the question of what is meant by, "a new situation will have been created"—the question raised both by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—the implication of that is that, if he makes this statement, then there will be a new situation in the sense that, as a result, Her Majesty's Government will be ready to bring to an end his stay in Seychelles.
To answer the second part of the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, at that time the Archbishop will be free to go anywhere that he wants, except back to Cyprus: his detention ends and he is a free man. I think several questions have been raised saying, "Shall we then be prepared to negotiate with the Archbishop on the Radcliffe Report?" Our answer to that must be that we want to do first things first. There has been an offer from N.A.T.O. to use their good offices to endeavour to settle the differences between the three Governments. We do not know (perhaps this helps to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea) just what action N.A.T.O. may take, or the form it may take. Until we are clear on that, it seems to us to be a mistake to do anything which may prejudice the good offices of N.A.T.O.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, as to whether we could not put the offer to the Archbishop the other way round, I think our answer to that must be, No. We have examined it and considered it very carefully, and we feel that putting it this way is the best way
672
and is, indeed, both right and proper in the circumstances. I hope that I have answered all the questions raised.
4.12 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I make a brief remark? I should like to congratulate the Government most sincerely upon a statement which does at any rate reopen the door to negotiations. Whether those concerned will be willing to pass through the door is another matter, but the statement has been made and the offer of negotiations is now open. I may perhaps be allowed to remark that the N.A.T.O. suggestion was made a long time ago, but I am delighted to think that the Government have now taken it up. If the Archbishop accepts, and agrees to make the statement about terrorism which is suggested, I assume that it would follow that the Archbishop would be present and would represent the Greek Cypriots in any negotiations which took place. It seems to me that that is implicit in the statement which the noble Earl has made. Unlike my noble friend Lord Rea, I do not wish at the present moment to look the N.A.T.O. offer too closely in the mouth. I think the situation must be allowed to develop. I can only say that with all my heart I wish the Government success in the step which they have taken.
LORD GLYN: My Lords, may I ask one question, before the noble Earl answers the questions that have been put to him? In a debate in this House a short time ago, it was proposed that there should be a re-assessment of the value of Cyprus in regard to its strategic position. If there is going to be any consideration of the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Ismay, would it not be much better that he should be perfectly free to make his suggestions, without any idea that Her Majesty's Government are determined that Cyprus should remain as a strategic base without any question? Would it not be much better, if this matter is going to be considered with the assistance of N.A.T.O. that it should be considered perfectly freely, on the basis of what was best from a general consideration and strategic considerations in general?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I remind the noble Earl, Lord Perth,

673
who has answered a large number of questions most handsomely, of my first question, to which noble Lords on his own back Benches seemed to attach special importance but to which he did not reply—namely, whether the request to the Archbishop is for cessation of violence for all time or for suspension of violence for the time being?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not answer the noble Earl's question before. It does mean cessation of violence, and not suspension for the time being. The congratulations of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, are most welcome. As to his question of whether the Archbishop would be the leader of the Greek Cypriots in any negotiations, I think that that again is something which we can see only as circumstances develop. If I may, I will leave it at that for the moment. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glyn, I think that the answer must be that just what N.A.T.O. may want to do, or what way they approach it, will determine how we ourselves will react, and how we will answer any questions they may raise. It would be premature for us at this moment to give any indication one way or the other on that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are glad to have the last statement, because I think it is extremely important that in the first place we should concentrate on getting peace, and the end of the bloodshed and terror that is going on. That must be first. With regard to the question of the permanent use of Cyprus as a base, surely that is a matter for discussion in the N.A.T.O. Council itself, with our representatives there, to find out what is the exact attitude not of the noble Lord, Lord Ismay, but of the General Council of N.A.T.O.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: There is one further point I should like to raise, although I do not like trespassing on the time of the noble Earl who has been very good to us. After the truce offer last August, there was a suspension of the execution of the death penalty for the time being, until the offer fell through. Will the Government consider asking for a suspension of the execution of the death penalty while the E.O.K.A. offer is still open?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, we have discussed that question with the Governor, bearing in mind that there are at the moment several terrorists who are under sentence of death. The Governor has said that he will be prepared to consider the cessation of the terrorists' activities as a relevant consideration of a public nature to be taken into account in the exercise of the Prerogative, although it would not be the only, or decisive, factor in cases of violence against the person. I do not think I can go any further at the present time.

NATIONAL PARKS
4.19 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, until I entered the House to-day I was under the impression that, as the ex-Vice-Chairman of the National Parks Commission, I was not entitled to speak, because my name is actually identified with this Report which we are discussing; but I understand that, as I have no further financial interest, to my regret, in the National Parks Commission, I am entitled to speak, although I do not speak with that preparation I should have made had I known that I was able to speak. I described to your Lordships' House a few days ago, in the speech referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, the enthusiasm with which this Act was passed, as I saw it, in another place. I did not dream at that time that I should have to take part in the implementing of the Act and in the discussions about the making of national parks.
I say frankly that the enthusiasm was limited to the Parliamentary sphere. We had to deal with large numbers of local authorities. Let me say that it is to the credit of the local authorities concerned with these parks that, on the whole, they have been so forthcoming and understanding, and that, once the designation took place, they have been so businesslike in the administration of the parks. The Peak Park, for instance, to which my noble friend referred, has five county council authorities connected with it, and each county council has a large number of district councils, rural and urban, and when one thinks of those authorities in three great conferences, such as I, with

675
others, had to face, one wonders that things went as smoothly as they did.
It may be permissible to repeat what my noble friend pointed out. The Peak Park has, as its administrative bodies, five county councils and dozens of district councils. They are of course representative of the district and protect an area of the park. As my noble friend said, they are responsible for the protection of a district which has, within fifty miles of its centre, 60 per cent. of the whole population of England, an area in which there are such large towns as Leeds, Huddersfield and Bradford. It is amazing that it has been possible to save that area from encroachment not only by population but by industry, to the extent that has been achieved. Yet the Dove Valley is almost in an unspoilt state. The Dove is the river with which I understand Isaac Walton was associated. As one drives through these places of beauty in a car, there are notices which, surprisingly enough, indicate that one is within six miles of Manchester or some other great city with a teeming population. We called upon the local authorities concerned to protect the area from encroachment by population and development.
I make this point because I think great credit is due to the local park committees and sub-committees which deal with the question of development. I have been astounded that in some of these parks there has not been more trouble over development. "Development" is a polite name for it. Development has taken place in the Peak Park. There is a type of chemical development. That is not what one would call a happy development. Sometimes attempts have been made to work minerals. Some projects have been accepted and, by judgment, skill and good sense, the local committees have managed to soften what would have been the worst features of that form of development. Sometimes they have said "No" to the development, and have justified what they have said; and, in the long run, their decision has been accepted. I say these things because I think it is a real experience to come in contact with local authorities on a large scale. Often they are composed of working men, sometimes business representatives, and of all political colours, but of such skill and knowledge as has enabled them to carry out what, in some cases, was a difficult task.
676
Those who have read the Report will see that at the moment there are nine parks. There will soon be ten—I do not know whether or not the other one has yet been accepted. These parks will cover something like five thousand square miles. I did what I could to see this country before I became an official of the National Parks Commission, but my life has been spent mainly in dealing with industrial matters and in political activities in the more crowded areas. Of course, I knew one or two of these areas in the north, but I must say that it has been an experience to go into some of these parks and to take part in opening them out. It has been an experience that can only be described as wonderful. It would be impossible to describe how unique and how beautiful some of these areas are. That is why, having seen them in different and sometimes remote parts of this country with which I was not familiar, I have been deeply moved at any prospect of "blotting out" the beauty of these places which Parliament and the local authorities have taken such trouble to preserve.
I think my noble friend mentioned the Pennine Way. Members of the National Parks Commission who are skilled in these matters and who know the Pennines, such as Mr. Francis Ritchie and Mr. Tom Stevenson, have given up a great deal of time and have done fine work, along with members of the Commission and the staff. I saw that staff established and I saw the engagement of the present secretary. I think that the Commission and Parliament are most fortunate in having at their disposal such a man as Mr. Harold Abrahams, as they were also in the first Chairman, Sir Patrick Duff, who ought to be mentioned in this respect as having "faced the music" in the first of the parks. I should like to endorse the tribute paid by my noble friend Lord Silkin to the present Chairman, who is bringing all his skill and experience to this new task and is responsible for the opening of new parks. The Pennine Way is a point in question. Sometimes one can get large stretches of such places accepted without great difficulties. Sometimes the question of ownership arises—and it is not always the largest stretches which cause the trouble. A small part of such areas may sometimes be a matter for despair.
No-one regrets more than I do that the Broads has not become a national

677
park. It is a wonderful area of that uniqueness of which I have spoken. It is a part of the country that was long almost unknown to me, and I was deeply moved at my first sight of the white-sailed boats moving through the countryside, and of the Broads themselves. Deep and great questions have to be settled before anything can be done there. Everybody seems to be agreed that the Broads should become a national park. The National Parks Commission agree, and on one occasion when I was there we obtained the consent of a majority of those representing the local authorities concerned, though what would be the view now I do not know. There are such questions as the silting up of the Broads and the nature and disposal of the silt. It is a baffling problem, but one which I believe is still receiving attention. In the long run, the expense arising from the silt and its disposal are important matters to be considered.
Before I sit down, may I say that one of my regrets is that an experiment in making footpaths along rivers from their source to the sea has not turned out as we had hoped. Mr. Francis Ritchie and Mr. Tom Stevenson were prominent among those who paid a great deal of attention to that question. Let anyone imagine to himself the possibility of a footpath from the source of the Thames to the sea. That would be a very desirable thing. It would be very striking for our young people to be able to travel along such a track, and to see the country from an angle that would otherwise be quite impossible. I was particularly disappointed, because I once hoped that if it proved possible to carry out that continuous footpath from the source of the Thames to the sea, it would not then be difficult to apply that principle to other rivers in this country. Some time ago, when I was on the River Wear—a river with which I ought to be familiar, for it is in my own part of the world—I left the River Commissioners at a certain point to go up river. Suddenly I said to someone, as I looked, even at the busy River Wear, with all its industry: "Why, this looks like Newfoundland." So I visualised to myself the possibility that, if the opening up of a path from the source of the River Thames was made possible, it might result in experiments with rivers in other parts of the country
678
which are unknown even to those who live quite near to them.
Although I have been a member of the Commission for a time, I feel that all credit is due to local authorities, to planning committees and parks committees, and particularly to those who do the day-to-day work in connection with these parks. Though perhaps I should be a little more diffident, I feel that this should be said: great work has been done and an Act of Parliament; has been applied with greater results than might have been expected when one saw its beginnings. I hope that nothing will happen to spoil these great stretches of land which are so beautiful and which are there for the physical and mental restoration of the people of this country. It is a great thing to have these places at our disposal in a state of absolute nature. I sometimes wonder whether they have seen any changes. So far as I can see, no change, has taken place in them at any time, though the scenery may have altered to some extent by a little cultivation here and there. I feel it is a marvellous thing to have these great natural tracts, places of such beauty, at our disposal. One can wander about places which are associated with great names. I cannot express to your Lordships' House the thrill I had when I followed in the steps of Lorna Doone, in the Blackmore Country, and saw the place where John Ridd tickled the trout, and the places where originated all the things of which one reads, places associated with great literature and places of unparalleled beauty.
Parliament did a good thing when it set up the National Parks Commission. Though I cannot say that my part has been outstanding, I feel that the Commission have done a great job, and I think their staff, and chiefs, not least the Chairman, are entitled to great credit for the work that has been done in recent years.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the last time your Lordships debated the subject of he national parks was in May, 1953, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who was the founder of the Act, has seen fit to raise the matter in your Lordships' House again this afternoon. I think, if I may be so bold as to say so in front of the noble Lord,

679
that he can be justly proud of the contribution which he personally has made to the provision of these parks up and down the country. Since the Third Report of the Commission, which was published in 1952, was written, orders designating the North Yorkshire Moors, the Yorkshire Dales and Exmoor and Northumberland as national parks have been confirmed by my right honourable friend. These four parks add some 1,900 square miles to the area already designated, which, as a whole throughout the country, now exceeds 4,700 square miles.
I think it is true, as the noble Lord said in the course of his observations, that in its early stages the work of this Commission was probably quite unknown in towns and cities throughout the country. But I believe it would now be true to say that the general mass of the population are fast taking advantage of the facilities which have been provided for them under this Act. The Commission have also designated the Brecon Beacons National Park, though the order has not yet been confirmed by my right honourable friend. Thus, as the House will observe at once, much has been done since 1952 to enlarge the area of national parks. I feel certain, just as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, feels certain, that the House would wish to express its gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and to all his colleagues on the Commission—including the noble Lord, Lord Lawson—who, in spite of some difficulties, have done such a great deal to implement the purposes of the Act.
As I understand it, the Commission are now turning their attention to designating "areas of outstanding natural beauty" under Section 87 of the Act. These areas, which it is true to say are of great beauty, are not of sufficient size to be given the status of a park, but the Commission have so far designated four areas, of which the Gower Peninsula and the Quantock Hills have already been confirmed by my right honourable friend. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who asked me the question, I may say that the Commission have designated Lleyn and the Surrey Hills. Those orders, however, have not yet been confirmed. I am given to understand that the Commission plan to designate as areas of outstanding natural beauty about half
680
a dozen additional areas throughout the country each year.
Of course we all know—at least those of your Lordships who have taken an interest in the Act know—that the Commission have other duties to perform. For instance, they have to be consulted about matters where rural amenities are likely to be affected. As the House can well imagine, the erection of pylons and overhead lines is always of very considerable interest to the Commission. In a great proportion of these cases, I am informed, agreement has been reached with the Electricity Authorities. In other cases, of course, a compromise has to be reached, which may not wholly meet the wishes and wants either of the Authority or the Commission. Furthermore, Government Departments are now all accustomed to consult the Commission about developments which might damage the amenities of the countryside. These consultations have certainly assisted in preserving the beauties of the rural areas. In the case of large schemes of development the Commission are endeavouring to secure that developers appoint landscape consultants to advise them at the earliest stage how best to harmonise works with the surrounding landscape. I feel sure that the work and skill of these consultants can do a very great deal to mitigate the adverse effect which industrial projects might have on the beauty of the landscape.
Perhaps I might turn now to deal with certain aspects of the finances of the Commission. I feel sure that Lord Silkin will be aware of their financial responsibilities, but there are sometimes misconceived ideas about the method of financing the Commission's work. In the first place, the Commission's duties are mainly advisory, rather than executive. In fact, they spend money only on their own administrative expenses and publicity. The Act provides that certain types of work in the parks, such as the provision of car parks and refreshment kiosks, qualify for an Exchequer grant of 75 per cent., the remaining 25 per cent. being borne by the local authority concerned. I am certain that this provision undoubtedly checks local authorities in embarking on extravagant schemes. At the same time, it is doubtful whether, in fact, it has prevented the undertaking of works which would be justified in the present conditions of financial stringency.

681
Local authorities, I think, fully realise that if they are to retain control as local planning authorities they must be prepared to accept some financial obligations; and although they may press from time to time for a greater degree of Exchequer assistance, they do not ask to be entirely relieved of the cost. Indeed, I think that no noble Lord who has spoken to-day has suggested that the local authorities should ask the Commission to take over their duties as a whole. I feel sure that it would be wiser to leave local authorities with their existing responsibilities—which indeed were provided for in the Act which the noble Lord introduced into Parliament.
It is sometimes said—I think the noble Lord himself stated it to-day—that the financial provision for general park purposes is inadequate. If the financial position of the country to-day had been such that greater sums of money could have been provided, there is no doubt that many expensive projects world have been devised. But since the passing of the Act it has not been possible to give grants other than for the most important work. In any event, the annual giant which is given has never yet been fully spent. The noble Lord who moved this Motion made a claim—I will not say a strong claim, but a claim—for the use of the National Land Fund. This question, of course, cannot be considered without full reference to the future use of the Fund itself, and as this is a matter entirely in the hands of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer I fear that I cannot give the House any further information on that question to-day.
Mention was also made of the delay which has occurred over the footpath survey. According to the original programme, the survey work should have been completed in 1952, but the volume of work was underestimated. I think it would be true to say, indeed, that it was badly underestimated. Nevertheless, out of the sixty county councils in England and Wales, fifty-two have now prepared draft maps for the whole of their counties and the other eight have made substantial progress towards doing so as well. Thus, over nearly the whole of the country to-day maps have been provided showing the complete system of footpaths and bridle paths, though I am prepared to
682
admit that all disputes have not yet been finally settled. I should not like to prophesy this afternoon when the survey, with all its ramifications and complications, will be completed. Indeed, my right honourable friend and his predecessors have not been willing to bring great pleasure to bear on local authorities, although they have been justifiably disappointed at the slow progress made by some of them.
I should now like to say a few words on the quest ion of long-distance paths, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan. The process of establishing these paths as a complete and continuous right of way has been a very long one. One of the main reasons is that the paths themselves generally consist of established footpaths, some of which may be disputed as rights of way, and the status of these cannot be determined until the Footpaths Survey is completed. I am advised that if the survey confirms that a right of way exists, nothing further need be done, but if it does not, then a new path has to be made by means of an agreement or Order under the Act. This, in its turn, cannot be done until the survey is completed. In consequence, some short stretches of these paths have not yet been legally established.
May I now deal with a number of the long distance paths, to give your Lordships some indication of what has occurred during the last few years. I think that many noble Lords will remember that the Pennine Way was approved five and a half years ago. Its total length is about 265 miles and it is now virtually completed. In fact, to-day only nine miles remain without a legal right of way. I now turn to the paths around the North and South coasts of Cornwall. On the north coast all but eight and a half miles (not 37, as the noble Earl suggested) have been claimed as public rights of way or have been the subject of footpath agreements, but the corresponding figures for the south coast show that 32 miles (and not 41) remain to be legally defined as rights of way. I readily admit that the rate of progress has given some grounds for dissatisfaction to the Commission and to my right honourable friend. However, a good deal of pressure has been brought to bear on the local authorities concerned, and I am sure in my own mind that things are definitely moving.

683
I turn to deal with the Norfolk Broads, which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, mentioned in the course of his observations. We are all anxious to preserve the Broads as we know them to-day. There has been a proposal that the Broads should become a national park, a proposal which has aroused a good deal of interest to the Commission and to my right honourable friend, but there are a number of complications and difficulties. There is no doubt that the Broads are silting up and the technical problem is to know how far the process can be arrested. In any event, it seems that little could be accomplished without the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. Noble Lords may be aware that the Nature Conservancy are interested in the Broads and have it in mind to make certain studies, which may prove helpful. Unfortunately, this work cannot be undertaken yet owing to financial stringency and therefore it has been decided to postpone further consideration until next year.
Perhaps I may turn back for a moment to deal with the long-distance paths and tell your Lordships what I ought to have told you a few moments ago, that the Commission have been fortunate in securing as their adviser Sir Geoffrey King, formerly the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions. It is to be hoped that through this appointment their progress will be speeded up. To use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I hope that Sir Geoffrey will put a little "ginger" into the whole operation.
I turn to deal with the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, that the National Parks Act should be amended to cover disused canals. At the present time there are few, if any, stretches of disused canals in the national parks. Nevertheless, there is power under Section 13 of the Act for a park authority to carry out work on waterways for the use by the public for sailing, bathing and so on. A grant of 75 per cent. could be made towards the cost of this work. If any disused canals were in the area of a national park, the Act could be helpful, of course, but it seems to me to be a very small part of the problem of disused canals and I am by no means certain that my right honourable friend would be prepared to amend the Act to give him new and, I believe, unwelcomed responsibilities. However, I will convey
684
the noble Earl's views to my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, raised the question of litter in the national parks. I do not want to go into great detail, but I know that much is being done to see that litter is disposed of otherwise than on the public footpaths. I do not believe that this is a matter which can be solved by legislation. I believe that it can be solved by education and by propaganda of all sorts, and my right honourable friend is making great efforts in these directions to lessen the amount of litter left lying about by the general mass of people.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, made certain suggestions of possible amendments to the Act which were similar to some contained in a memorandum which was forwarded to my right honourable friend by the Ramblers' Association. The Hobhouse Committee worked out proposals for the running of national parks. Generally speaking, these were on the basis that activities should be national, rather than local. In any event, the powers of local planning authorities were to be considerably reduced. I think I am correct in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was responsible for the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947, which made the county councils the local planning authorities, and I feel sure that the noble Lord has no wish for large pieces of the country to be moved out of the control of these local planning authorities. As I understand it, however, the proposals which the Ramblers' Association have put to my right honourable friend represent a return to the original proposals which the noble Lord himself rejected when he was drawing up the Act of 1947; and I think I should be correct in saying that the suggestions they have made would not be congenial to county councils to-day. However, if it should be possible at some future date to amend the main National Parks Act, then the memorandum which has been sent in by the Ramblers' Association and other organisations will naturally be considered on its merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred also to paragraphs 6 and 7, on page 64 of the Annual Report. These, too, are matters that will have to be taken into consideration by the Minister if at any time the Act is to be amended. I can give the same answer to the noble Lord,

685
Lord Winster, who suggested a number of ways in which he thought the Act was capable of improvement: they are all matters which will be taken into consideration when the day arrives when the Act can be amended. I have no figures to indicate in any way the number of persons who are using these national parks to-day, but I understand that the number of visitors to them is increasing almost yearly. I would say this, in conclusion. I think the debate to-day has shown that noble Lords in all parts of the House are satisfied with the way in which my noble friend Lord Strang and his colleagues are fulfilling the obligations which were given to them by this Act of Parliament. I feel that we should be grateful to them—and indeed, to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who introduced the Act—for the work that they have already accomplished and for the work that I have no doubt they will be performing in the immediate future.
5.3 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I can say at once that, on the whole, the reply of the noble Earl has been satisfactory and reassuring, except in one or two respects, to which I should like to refer. First, on the amendment of the Act, these suggestions have been made in both the Sixth and Seventh Reports and, as the noble Earl says, there have been suggestions from the Ramblers' Association. On February 3, 1956, over a year ago, the Minister, in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, thanking him for the suggestions about amendment, said:
"These will be most carefully considered, and I will write to you later about them."
I do not know whether they have, in fact, been carefully considered or not. I rather gather from the noble Earl that when the time comes for consideration they will be borne in mind, but that that time is not yet. That is a different thing from suggesting that they will be considered within a reasonable time, and that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, will be written to again. I am not prepared to say at this moment that there is an urgent necessity for amendment of the Act. When consideration has been given to all the suggestions, it may turn out that there is
686
no need to amend. But I see no reason for not looking into these suggestions or for holding up a decision. After all, people give a great deal of their time to thinking about the Act and to putting up numbers of suggestions for amendment. Surely, the Minister and his Department can say whether or not they think they are good suggestions.
On the question of administration, I am bound to repeat what I said at the outset: that I think, on the whole, I should be disposed to leave it alone. It is working, and even if it is not what certain people thought it ought to be at the outset I do not think a case can be made for altering it. I agree with the noble Earl on the question of a 75 per cent. grant. Normally, I would say that is quite sufficient, and that 25 per cent. is not an unreasonable proportion to ask the local authority to bear. However, there may be exceptional cases where even 25 per cent. is too high. It so happens that many of the national parks are in very poor areas. If the noble Earl will take the trouble to examine the rateable value of the areas of the Brecon Beacons and Snowdonia he will find chat they are poor areas, and even 25 per cent. may be a disincentive against doing what is necessary. The suggestion is that it should be possible, in these exceptional cases, to make a bigger grant.
The only other matter I want to comment on is the Norfolk Broads. I thought the noble Earl made a good speech, but, with respect, I do not think he appreciated the urgency of doing something about the Broads. This is a matter that will not brook delay. Putting it off until next year means merely that more and more of the Broads will be silted up; and the time will shortly arrive when the decision will be taken out of the hands of all of us, because it will be too late. I do ask the noble Earl to make strong representations to the Minister on this point. If he does that, and that alone, I believe that this debate will have been worth while. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.
Bill read 2ª (according to Order): Committee negatived.