MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL (Hansard, 17 April 1958)

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, the reason I rise to refer to this mater is that I should think that probably before anybody else in this House was born I was interested in the development of Milford Haven. Now, after many years, what I tried to do, with various friends of mine, long before I was in either House of Parliament, looks like coming about. I have studied as sympathetically as I can the suggestion the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has made, and I am wondering whether anybody, reading the provisions of subsection (6) would consider it more important to have them as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests—that is, as a separate clause—than as they are at the moment, because I gather there is no difference between subsection (6) of Clause 1 and his new clause. Word for word the two would do exactly the same thing. That is so, is it not?
I think some people who read the words are a little fogged as to what they mean. There are the words "flora" and "fauna", and "geological or physiographical features ". They are particularly interesting words to me, because in my early life I was a mining engineer and had to go through a very severe course which concerned the meaning of the word "geological", and so on. I am wondering whether the ordinary individual understands what is meant. I have already come across one or two who have asked: "What does that really mean?" If I may, I should like to have a definition of what those two words mean. Perhaps the Minister who is going to speak on the subject will inform the 795 House, in order that the rest of the country may appreciate what is really meant. The words "flora" and "fauna" I think we understand. Most people are gardeners and know what those words mean, but I should very much like to have a definition of the other two expressions in a form that anybody can appreciate and understand.
There is just one other matter—and I do not know whether I am in order in referring to it. At a former stage (I believe the Committee stage) of the Bill, there was raised the question of whether the land contiguous with the Haven played any part in the deliberations of those considering this Bill. The Minister seemed to think not. I have read the Bill very carefully, and I think it must: it is absolutely necessary that that land should come into the general picture of the administration of the Haven. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, will, if he can, answer me on those two very simple questions.

§ LORD CRAIGMYLE
My Lords, I rise to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and perhaps in the course of what I have to say I may be able to raise a little the heart of the noble Lord. Lord Teviot. Before speaking on the Amendment I have to declare an interest in that I am a Director of Milford Docks Company and also a sand and gravel merchant in the Milford Haven area. I am, therefore, closely interested in the excellence of this Bill; and I hope in the course of a few weeks to be interested in its smooth working. I also have to apologise for being unable to be in my place on the Committee stage. I very much wanted to speak to the Amendment which the noble Lords opposite put forward, but I was in Milford Haven and did not get back until eleven o'clock in the evening.
I am glad to see the difference between the Amendment now proposed and the Amendments moved then. I was not at all happy about a reference which was made to "fostering the cultural and social development of the population". It has seemed to me a very curious thing to ask a Board of this nature to do, and I ventured to look up and ascertain whether any comparable Board had comparable power. The nearest approach 796 was the case of the Port of London Authority, which had powers to make bylaws for preventing the use of obscene and abusive language. I do not know whether that relates to the cultural development which the noble Lords had in mind. However, the point is no longer relevant.
The point that has arisen in our minds, in considering these Amendments in Committee, and to some extent now, is that this Bill is not meant to be a town and country planning measure. The inclusion of references to amenities is really an indication of the importance which is attached to that subject whenever and wherever industrial development is being considered. It is for that reason that I consider these references to amenity should not come in Clause 1, where they are now, which deals, according to its marginal sub-title, with "Establishment and duty of Conservancy Board ".but should come, as is suggested in the Amendment, in a separate clause which has the title, "Protection of amenities".The Bill is not a town and country planning measure, and therefore these words should not be included in the clause describing the duties of the Board. Town and country considerations for amenities are very important matters and they are therefore a suitable subject for a separate clause. I think that in saying that I have emphasised the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—not perhaps with the same emphasis he has given it; but I have agreed basically with him with a slightly new emphasis.
From what was said in Committee, and also from what has been said elsewhere. it seems to me that some people would have liked to see this Bill drafted more in the form of a planning measure. But I cannot see that a planning measure was necessary. I think that the Bill has been correctly drafted: to be simply a conservancy authority Bill. The danger exists of a multiplication of planning authorities. I remember being told by a farmer in Cumberland a couple of years ago that if he wanted to put a stronger roof on his cowshed he had to get permission from six different authorities. That is not planning; that is making the situation chaotic, and we should be acting very foolishly if we allowed the development of Milford Haven to get bogged down in a multitude of different planning authorities.
797 I am speaking from commercial experience in that area, and I am quite satisfied as to the competence of the existing authorities. The Pembrokeshire County Council came in for some rather hard words on Committee stage, as I read Hansard. Reacting, for example, the report of the proceedings at the inquiry into the proposed iron-ore clump at Angle, on the other side of the Haven from Haverfordwest and the town of Milford, I was confirmed in the impression I have had all along: that the Pembrokeshire County Council, and particularly their planning officer, have a most reasoned and balanced attitude towards the development schemes projected in the county. They are not prepared to say, on the one hand, "We must have development and the amenities can look after themselves"; nor, on the other, "We must have amenities and the developments can go elsewhere." They are out to get, so far as they can, the best of both worlds; and surely in doing that they are doing precisely what they should do under the various Acts under which they work.
Not only the County Council, but also other authorities—for example, the Haverfordwest Rural District Council, in their capacity as coast protection authority—are following a reasonable and balanced course of action. As a sand and gravel merchant, I have had close experience of a project tentatively mentioned in Committee—by the noble Lord, Lord Ogalore, I expect—to dredge gravel in Dale Road, in the north-west corner of the Haven. As soon as the proposal was mooted, those who made it were inundated with information about what went on in Dale Road in the way of marine life and marine biological research, which would not go on if what we had in mind was done. We negotiated with the parties whose duty it is to protect such matters, including the field societies, the Nature Conservancy and the University of Wales, and, of course, the Haverfordwest Rural District Council, as the coast protection authority, and we were able to come to satisfactory conclusions. The reason was that we did not, as a commercial interest, go all out to get something which obviously was going to be a nuisance in the district; and the field societies and others accepted the fact that it would be a good thing that we should be able to dig sand and gravel in the neighbourhood. The results of these consultations were satis 798 factory to all and I suspect that this sort of experience can be duplicated by any commercial interests in the area.
Further, in respect of the large projects, some of which have been started and some of which are still under discussion, considerable trouble has been taken by the big companies concerned to ensure that their projects do the minimum possible harm to local amenities. This morning I was speaking to one gentleman, who was able to confirm that his company had taken the advice of Mr. Colwyn Fulkes, the landscape consultant, and he assured me that acceptance of some of the advice would be costly to them. Surely that is an illustration of the fact that industrialists nowadays are not prepared to desecrate the countryside, as our ancestors did a hundred years ago by the sort of development which tore the heart of people like Ruskin. Nowadays, industrialists recognise their responsibility towards the amenities of the countryside in which they are working.
For all these reasons, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is right in emphasising the importance of the amenity provisions of the Bill, but asking that they should not be regarded as part of the duty of the Board under Clause 1 and should be mentioned separately as a new clause. As I see it, the change which he is proposing will assist the Board, in that they will be able to point out to those who perhaps regard it as their duty to safeguard amenities that it is not in fact laid down by Parliament as part of their duty, but that the matter is the subject of a separate clause and phrased merely in this way: that the Board ought "to have regard to" the desirability of doing these things. May I say to my noble friend Lord Teviot that, while it may seem a bit vague to talk about natural beauty and flora and fauna, he will realise that the existing authorities—the Nature Conservancy and the field societies—are quite clear in their own minds about the meanings of these terms.

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR WELSH AFFAIRS (LORD BRECON)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for putting this Amendment down again. I am sorry that I dealt so abruptly with the Amendment 799 on the previous occasion. But the fact that he has put it down again has enabled me to give further consideration to the matter. I realise that the purpose of the Amendment is to emphasise the amenity problem of this area. My noble friend Lord Teviot has raised the question of the flora and fauna, and the geological and physiographical features. … I am sorry, my Lords, for my momentary indisposition. … I am glad that my noble friend has not asked me to explain about the flora and fauna because he says that he knows all about them. The geological features, of course, relate to the rocks, and the physiographical features are those of the islands within the Haven and those features below the high-water line which must be preserved at all times. The Amendment as now moved requires that the part relating to amenities shall be given a clause of its own. I am glad to say that, after consideration, on behalf of the Government I accept the Amendment as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, and also our regret at his temporary indisposition. I hope that he will take a rest and feel better. If he wants any "tips" about what to do, I think I can help him, because I felt the same some months ago.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I beg to move.