HL Deb 25 February 1960 vol 221 cc405-16

3.47 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY rose to call attention to the effect of electrical development upon the natural beauty of the British Isles; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will acquit me in respect of having chosen a day like this on which to discuss the natural beauties of our native land. An authoritative writer, who recently contributed an important turnover article to the pages of The Timeson the subject matter of to-day's discussion, summed up the present position in these words: The landscapes of this country have emerged from the 1950's more torn and spoiled than ever before. He then notes that this is despite the fact that the responsible authorities have had more expert advice from such bodies as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Royal Fine Art Commission than was ever previously at their disposal, and goes on to say: Ten years ago, recognising that expert knowledge and æsthetic taste were concentrated within these organisations, the people believed that their heritage of lovely scenery would be permanently safeguarded, but by the end of the 1950's their confidence was lost.

I should like to thank the author for the tribute paid to the work of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, of which, as I have previously informed your Lordships, I have the privilege of being the honorary secretary. Similar tributes have been paid by almost every Minister of Housing and Local Government and by a number of Ministers of Fuel and Power, though, as the writer points out, they disregarded most of the advice they received from this and other similar bodies. I think that this statement accurately reflects the views of all those in what is called the amenity movement, those who have been struggling over all these years—during, indeed, the last half century—to safeguard England's green and pleasant land. I think it also reflects a growing feeling of disquiet among the more thoughtful and sensitive sections of the community about this whole problem. The subject matter was discussed in an interesting debate in another place last November, in which the Government were asked to reappraise the machinery which is available for handling this problem, and the Government accepted the Motion. So fur we have not seen much sign of the reappraisal, but we live in hopes that it will yet take place.

As your Lordships will appreciate, in my Motion I have singled out electrical development among the unfortunately numerous damaging factors in the countryside, because just now it gives to the C.P.R.E., and I think to all the other societies, and certainly to the National Trust, the greatest headache. It is, of course, a long-standing danger, but it is one which gets worse with the years. This, I think, was recognised by Sir Christopher Hinton, the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, in his most thoughtful address to the Roya! Society of Arts last November, an address which gave rise to perhaps the most useful discussion of this particular problem that has so far taken place.

Sir Christopher recognised, quite frankly (and I quote his words) that the activities of the Generating Board often conflict with amenity, and that this conflict tends to grow in magnitude, and that public opposition to the Board's schemes is increasing. How true, my Lords. The present position is particularly frustrating, because, as your Lordships will remember, by Section 37 of the Electricity Act, 1957, the preservation of natural beauty was for the first time made a statutory obligation to be taken into account by the authorities who were concerned with considering particular schemes. I think it is worth noting, in passing, that Section 37 did not appear in the Bill as it came to your Lordships from another place. It was put into the Bill after presure from all parts of the House under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth; and it was accepted by the Minister with good grace. But I think that this shows that we cannot rely on Government initiative in this matter; we have to rely on ourselves. The initiative must come from Parliament, and Parliament must see to it that the Government take the necessary action. In the result, Section 37 has proved most disappointing and its effect has hardly been noticeable.

I am glad to acknowledge that natural beauty did receive some consideration before Section 37 was inserted into that Act. I can remember one of the first big grid schemes in which the then Minister, the late Lord Hore-Belisha, after careful consideration, altered the site of a most important line in the Southern Lake District, with very good results. From time to time that example has been followed; but the difficulty is that it has not really been followed enough. The Ministry of Health in their Annual Report for 1958 stated that in as many as two cases they had been able to persuade the Minister of Power to order that lines should be grounded. I suppose that some people might say that we ought to be satisfied with the crumbs that fall from the table of these rich Electricity Authorities. I can only say that we are not at all satisfied, and we feel that the people of this country deserve better treatment at the hands of the authorities than they have been getting.

It is obvious that there are two main aspects of electrical development which are damaging the natural beauty— namely, the building of power stations, and particularly of nuclear power stations, and the erection of transmission lines. During the last years, a great deal has been said on these topics in earlier debates in your Lordships' House to which I have made contributions from time to time. I therefore do not wish to take up too much time in going over this ground again. Much new material can be produced as to the situation since the passing of the 1957 Act and the other Acts which are relevant to this matter, and I hope that a good deal will come out during the course of this discussion, because there are on the list of speakers the names of noble Lords who have specialised knowledge of a number of aspects of this problem. I want to speak as much as possible on the constructive side and to make some suggestions which I hope may be found useful to the authorities.

I must start, however, by giving one or two examples, in order, so to speak, to concretise the position, and I should like to refer first to the North Kent transmission line for the super-grid, the Ministerial decision on which has, I think, caused more consternation and dismay in the amenity movement than any recent Ministerial decision on a matter of this kind. This line is to go, roughly speaking, from Dartford to Canterbury. There are two possible routes. One is north of the Medway towns, which goes through country that is a good deal industrialised and largely urban. This line was advocated by the C.P.R.E. and, I think, by all the amenity societies and local authorities which gave evidence at the inquiry. After hearing this evidence the inspector for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government accepted that view. The other route, which goes south of the Medway towns, through comparatively unspoiled country, was no doubt technically preferable and cheaper to carry through, because it was supported by the Generating Board although by practically nobody else. Yet the inspector who conducted the inquiry on behalf of the Minister of Power reported in its favour and, ironically enough, one of the substantial reasons which he gave in support of this view was that he wished to protect natural beauty and the northern line would have gone through a suburban public park near Gillingham.

This inspector is no doubt a very competent engineer; indeed, he is well known in the amenities movement, because he has the reputation of being a particularly good electrical engineer, but not quite so good on the æsthetic side. I suggest that it is altogether wrong that the view of a technical engineer should be preferred to the unanimous opinion of all the amenities societies which have given so much thought and attention to this problem. It was the view of this engineer that the Minister accepted, and he has given his decision in favour of the southern route, which will undoubtedly cause a great deal of harm to the rural countryside of North Kent. I know it is the Minister's decision and not the decision of the inspector who holds the inquiry, but this particular inspector nearly always seems to get his way. That is one case out of many which could be given, and it is typical of what is happening.

With regard to the power stations themselves, since 1957 we have had the disastrous decision to site a nuclear power station in the lovely Snowdonia National Park, the Trawsfynydd scheme. The National Parks Act, and the National Parks which have been set up under that Act, have been supported by all Parties. I think my own Party deserves the lion's share of the credit, and particularly my noble friend Lord Silkin who piloted this Bill through. But it has received very generous support from all Parties, and those of us who worked during the long frustrating years before the war in order that National Parks might be set up thought that at last we should have at any rate the protection of the wildest and most beautiful areas of our island home, and that these would be kept free in future from industrial development and from similar unlovely user.

We were quite wrong. The National Parks are not protected against the Government or against Government-sponsored development. In creating National Parks we created indeed a series of Naboth's vineyards, at which ever since all sorts of developers have been casting longing eyes. They have become almost an invitation to everybody requiring a large area of undeveloped land in which to carry out their industrial schemes. Particularly, of course, they become the Naboth's vineyard of the Generating Board. Only within the last week your Lordships have seen in the Press that we are going to have a colossal radar station—this is perhaps peripheral to electrical development in the ordinary way—built in the very centre of the North Yorkshire National Park. This will apparently give us fifteen minutes warning of our impending destruction.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Four minutes.

LORD CHORLEY

I understood that it was fifteen minutes, but if I have half an hour I shall not feel much happier about it, and I do not see the point of it. Perhaps we are to spend this time in prayer and repentance—I do not know. The Americans, who are, I suppose, rather more wicked than we are, will get a longer period. I hope they will be able to make some use of it. At any rate, it is typical of the sort of thing that happens in these National Parks which we were led to suppose were going to be kept free of this sort of thing. Is there no method of making any part of England safe from desecration of this kind?

It would almost appear that the Generating Board themselves would like to have somebody to put his foot down and say, "No further". Mr. Donald Clark, the Chief Planning Engineer, in a most interesting and sympathetic address to the Town and Country Planning summer school last August said it would greatly simplify his job if someone would assume the responsibility for saying, "This is completely out of the question." But he went on to say, "But, of course, nobody will." It seems to me obvious that the Minister of Power will never put his foot down in this sort of way, because he is concerned with the development of power. Cannot we appeal to the Prime Minister himself to act as arbitrator in a crucial case of this kind? By all means, let the small inquiries go on in the ordinary way, but in regard to these really important problems I suggest that where regions of outstanding natural beauty are at stake the inquiry itself ought not to be taken by a man who is primarily an engineer, but by somebody who cannot possibly be suspected of having any subconscious bias. That would mean that it would be by somebody who would have to be appointed otherwise than by the Minister. I know now that the noble and learned Viscount takes some part in appointing these inspectors under the new Act, but, as far as we can see, so far that has had no effect whatever. Then I suggest that the report should be made to the Prime Minister direct, so that we get a decision from somebody who is not concerned with the promotion of the development of power

We have a precedent of sorts, in that my noble friend Lord Attlee, when Prime Minister, largely took decisions in respect of requisitioning training areas out of the hands of the Service Departments. He acted as referee in a number of other cases where important amenity matters were at stake. I am not quite sure that Mr. Macmillan would do it as well as Lord Attlee, but I am prepared to trust him rather than any Minister of Power. I say this because after trying to defend Ben Cruachan and Loch Awe against electrical development a year or so ago, I received such a small amount of support from the Scottish Peers that I began to wonder whether the Scots are quite so sensitive in regard to matters of natural beauty as the English.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

Oh yes, they are.

LORD CHORLEY

I appreciated before I made that remark that I was trailing my coat a little and that I should get into hot water. But if it encourages the Scots to protect their wonderful scenery in the Highlands I shall be only too glad. I should be grateful to the Minster who is to reply if he could tell me whether a rumour which is going about that the electricity from this Ben Cruachan scheme is to be carried over Loch Awe on a cable from two pylons 200 feet high is correct, because if that is so, obviously the beauties of Loch Awe are gone for ever. There is a great deal of disquiet about this matter, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about it.

In making the suggestion that the Prime Minister should be brought into this business I do not for a moment want to imply that there is some personal lack of sensitivity in regard to natural beauty on the part of the Minister of Power. Those of us who remember the noble Lord, Lord Mills, dealing with this matter during the course of the Electricity Bill and other debates were im- pressed with his own personal reaction to this problem, and I am quite sure that the present Minister has the same sort of feelings. In the address of Sir Christopher Hinton, every sentence breathed a deep feeling for the natural beauty of the countryside. But the Minister's job is to promote the development of power, Sir Christopher Hinton is the Chairman of the Generating Board, and with them in the last resort power will come first—it is bound to. They will consider, as is their duty, the natural beauty; but, having considered it, the last word will go to power. Therefore, I suggest that we must have somebody independent, who is not concerned primarily with power, to come to decisions in regard to matters of this kind.

To return to the Trawsfynydd scheme, when once there is a decision like that and the place is already going up, the current generated has to be transmitted, and that can be done only on these enormous pylons. Already arrangements are being made to carry the cables across the beautiful Vale of Ffestiniog, and a pylon 130 feet high is to be erected on a knoll which dominates the whole of that superb valley. Incidentally, this will completely damage the view from the windows of an eminent Cambridge professor who retired to that secluded place in order that he might enjoy the natural beauty of North Wales. Of course, that is the kind of thing that happens.

The fact of the matter is that problems of power stations and of transmission are not two problems, but are two aspects of one problem. If the matter cannot be properly thought out and handled from the start in a farsighted way, difficulty after difficulty is bound to arise. If the super-grid is to inflict the least possible harm it must be planned in relation to the landscape from the very beginning, when the terminal positions for power production or stepping down of power are first decided upon. In such planning we should not have to depend only on the engineers in the national industry. They should be compelled to discuss the problem from the start with people who are qualified to assess the quality of the landscape which will be affected by the decisions which are taken.

While to-day it is out of the question to lay the super-grid underground, it is not impossible to lay substantial lengths of the 132 Kv. lines underground, and a readiness on the part of the authorities to do this on amenity grounds might enable such joint planning as I mentioned a moment ago, to avoid bringing the 275 Kv. lines across high and open ground where they do such irreparable harm. It is only by such planning as this at the initial stages—and I underline those words, at the initial stages—that green belts, for example, can be protected, and because so many people are now affected by the green belt provisions it seems to me essential that this vital amenity issue should be handled in this way. To save these attenuated strips and pieces of open country from industry and housing only to leave them undefended from major transmission lines seems to me to be the very negation of planning in the public interest.

I have already referred to the disappointing results of the passing of Section 37 of the 1957 Act. I should like to know what instructions have been issued for the purpose of getting this section properly implemented by the officers who are responsible for this matter. This is even more important in connection with the low tension lines than it is in connection with the super-grid cables. Public inquiries have been going on up and down the country since the passing of that Act, and at those inquiries objections have been lodged and sustained against the proposals of electricity undertakers, but these have not revealed very much interest on the part of the undertakers in the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. In the case of an inquiry quite recently into objections to a route proposed for the super grid in East Yorkshire, the spokesman for the Electricity Authority appeared, when he was cross examined at the inquiry, to be quite unaware of the existence of this section. Indeed the most striking feature of this two-day inquiry was the utter failure of the Generating Board to appreciate or to carry out their obligations to take account of landscape amenity, really a most upsetting and disquieting thing. They were unable to point to any section of the line whose routing had been influenced in any way by landscape considerations. The presentation of their case as a whole was really in remarkable contrast to the picture drawn in Parliament by the Minister as to the way in which such a public inquiry ought to take place. Despite the representations of the East Riding County Council, of two district councils and of the C.P.R.E., the Generating Board's highly objectionable proposals were approved, subject to one or two small modifications, for which again I suppose we ought to be thankful, but which really, seen against the scheme as a whole, are hardly here or there.

More recently in a similar case in Pembrokeshire the situation was exactly the same. The representative of the Electricity Authority seemed to be quite unaware of his obligations under the Act. When these were pointed out to him he said that if he had to do this they would have to consider withdrawing the scheme altogether. This is not good enough, and I hope Parliament will insist that it shall not be allowed to be good enough. Those are some typical cases of what has been happening, or not happening, in connection with Section 37.

There are a number of other aspects of this problem which are of substantial importance and which I should dearly like to deal with this afternoon, but it would trespass too long on your Lordships' time. But I ought to say a word or two on the important Lancastrian aspect. I was very hopeful that the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, would be able to speak on this subject because he has been very much bound up with preservation in Lancashire. Lancashire is perhaps more hardly hit by trends of this sort than any other county in England; it is so much urbanised that the small amount of rural country which is left is particularly precious. It is almost a series of green belts round the boroughs and county boroughs which are so common in that famous county. There is no part of England where the problem is more acute. Lancashire has, or is threatened with, no fewer than six super-grid schemes, as well as with having a proliferation of lesser tension lines which are almost beyond belief when one sees some of them.

I have put a series of excellent photographs, most of which are concerned with the situation in Lancashire, in the Royal Gallery, and I hope that your Lordships have seen or will see them before the end of the discussion. Some of those show excellently the clutter of wires which in some parts of that county now provide what was very vividly described in one of the speeches in the other place as "a birdcage situation". This is altogether wrong, and I hope that more attention will be paid to the problem in Lancashire. I should like your Lordships, if you are going to look at those photographs, particularly to look at that of the Conder Valley, which is south of Lancaster, and that of the Shap Pass, in my own native county of Westmorland, which was formerly one of the wildest and most austere spots in the whole of England. In this once, only ten or fifteen years ago, quite lovely valley south of Lancaster, standing in the road one can see no fewer than 40 pylons of one kind or another from that one position in the road.

Finally, I think it would be altogether wrong to close this speech without referring to the sordid aspect of the problem, but the one which, of course, actually dominates it: that is, the question of cost. This matter was very well put by Mr. Donald Clark, the Chief Planning Engineer of the Central Electricity Generating Board, to whose address I have already referred. He asked: What price for amenity? and that really seems to be the essence of the problem. Mr. Clark went on to ask: Is anyone brave enough to tackle the evaluation of amenity? How does one decide how high the standard shall be? How does one decide how much money—public money—to spend on safeguarding amenity? If we could spend one-tenth of what we spend on preparations for war in safeguarding the beauty of our native land, there would be an end of this problem; and even if we could spend one hundredth the problem would be within manageable limits. But the Government and the electrical industry have behaved with what seems to me to be an almost incredible meanness in this matter, and I use the word "meanness" deliberately.

I have among my papers the details of a proposal for grounding the low tension cables in a delightful Lancashire valley. The Electricity Authority agreed that it was proper that this should be done. They went into it and found that it would cost £2,500—a mere bagatelle— to preserve a lovely village, and then they demanded that the local authority should pay this—that from an Electricity Authority which is part of the most prosperous industry that we have in this country at present. Can the Minister tell us how much the concessions which he has from time to time insisted upon have cost the electrical industry? I doubt very much whether they have cost as much as one cruiser. The Conservative Party have recently won an electoral victory, largely by means of the slogan "You never had it so good!" Let them, through the Government which they control, insist that a small fraction of this great national wealth shall now be spent in preventing England's beauty from perishing. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.