§ 4.19 p.m.
§ Debate resumed.
§ LORD LAWSONMy 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 MUNSTERMy 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 SILKINMy 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.