HL Deb 19 April 1961 vol 230 cc604-23

2.55 p.m.

LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the national parks; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is almost exactly ten years since the first national park in this country was confirmed and approved by the Government; namely, the Peak District. Since then, nine other areas have been designated and confirmed as national parks, the latest being the Brecon Beacons about four years ago. I feel, therefore, that it is opportune that we should to-day celebrate the tenth anniversary of the first national park by having a discussion as to what progress has been made in carrying out the purpose for which these parks were originally set up; what difficulties and problems have emerged; what we can do to increase the enjoyment they give and are capable of giving to the general public; and, generally, for hearing what noble Lords feel about our national parks.

First I should like to say a word about their geographical distribution. Of the ten national parks, seven are in England and three in Wales. That seems a rather unfair distribution, having regard to the respective areas of the two countries, but if one takes into account the exceptional beauty of Wales in most of its parks, then I think that is probably about right. The area which has been confirmed represents about one-eighth of the total area of England itself, and about one-fifth of Wales, which is very considerable. Unfortunately, there are no national parks in Scotland. Whether they felt that there were no areas of outstanding beauty or whether they felt that there was no need to try to preserve them I do not know; but there is to-day a very strong movement in Scotland for the creation of national parks, and it may well be that in the near future something will be done about Scotland.

When one looks at the distribution of these national parks one is struck by the fact that there is no national park within a reasonable return journey within a day from London. The nearest national park to the London area is the Peak District, which is about 150 miles away. I had hoped that we might have been able to designate and confirm the Norfolk Broads as well as the Sussex Downs or the Chilterns. I should have thought that each of them would qualify as a national park on the criteria laid down in the Act, and certainly they are exceptionally beautiful areas. As to the Norfolk Broads, I am aware that the Government were conducting discussions with representatives of bodies affected by the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Inland Waterways, the Bowes Committee. This was in 1959. I have not heard what the results of those discussions are. I have given the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, notice that I was going to ask this question, and no doubt lie will be able to tell us whether any progress has been made in dealing with the Norfolk Broads. As noble Lords who know that area are aware, there is a considerable danger of them silting up, and, gradually, this unique and most beautiful part of England is disappearing—I admit slowly, but each year that goes by reduces the amount of waterways in the Norfolk Broads.

I realise also, as regards other areas around London, that a number of them—areas of outstanding natural beauty—have been designated and confirmed. The Kent and Sussex Downs are under consideration; the Surrey hills, I believe, have been confirmed; the Chilterns have been confirmed, and there are several others which the National Parks Commission have in mind. But we have to bear in mind that designating areas of outstanding natural beauty is a second best, and that the powers of the National Parks Commission in respect of those areas are limited, as are the powers of the planning committees, If it had been possible for the Commission to crown their achievement by establishing one or more national parks within reasonable reach of London, I think most of the one-third of the population of this country which is residing in or around London would have been very pleased indeed.

Now in creating our national parks there were two objects in mind: first, the preservation and enhancement of the beauty of the landscape, and second, the enjoyment of those areas by the public. I cannot feel too happy that the first of these purposes has always been the dominant consideration in the mind of the Government. Too often the beauty of an area has been spoiled or greatly impaired by permitting the erection of industrial buildings or allowing mineral gravel workings to take place when other places might have been found that were less desirable from a scenic point of view, though possibly at some additional cost. I was going to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, hut he is not here; he has conveniently left the Chamber. But the overhead mains for the supply of electricity are often seriously damaging to the high scenic beauty of areas such as those we are considering.

One example of many is referred to in the Commission's Report for 1960. It is the case of overhead mains at White-sands Bay, near St. David's, in Pembrokeshire. This has caused the Chairman of the Commission to write a long letter to the Minister concerned; and, knowing the noble Lord, Lord Strang (whom I am sure we are all glad to see here), and his abundant patience, it is significant that he should have felt it necessary to write to the Minister in the terms of that letter, which is referred to in Appendix E of the Eleventh Report of the Commission.

This is a case where the local planning authority have objected to the provision of electricity by overhead mains over a certain part of the area, and have asked that a portion of the mains should be put underground. The Electricity Board stated at the inquiry—and this is the gravamen of the case against them—that if they could not put the wires overhead the inhabitants would have to wait indefinitely for their supply. This places the local planning authority and the Commission, who are charged with the duty of preserving and enhancing the beauty of the area, in very great difficulty: either they have to abandon their objection or they have to leave the locality without electricity for an indefinite period. I submit that that is a most improper alternative to put before the National Parks Commission or the local planning authority.

Obviously, the Electricity Board have to face the fact that, for some areas, the cost of providing underground wires will be greater, and this is one of the things that they have been required to take into account under Section 37 of the Electricity Act, 1957. In formulating their proposals, they have to take account of the effect on the landscape of anything they propose to do. And, while nobody would be so unreasonable as to require them always to put their wiring underground, whatever the cost may be, I would suggest it is most improper of them to take the view that, whatever the National Parks Commission may say, if the planning authority insist on having the wires underground there will be no electricity supply for the inhabitants. Even the Electricity Board are not entitled to make a dead letter of an Act of Parliament; and those noble Lords who took part in the discussions on the Electricity Bill in 1957 will remember that this House took a very strong view about the preservation of the landscape in appropriate areas. Section 37 was put into the Act at the urgent pressure of noble Lords in this House, and if it is to be virtually abrogated, then I think that this House ought to take very serious note of it. I should be very glad to hear from the noble Earl, who I think is aware of this point, what is the Government's view of this matter. Is Section 37 of the 1957 Electricity Act still in force, or is it not? If it is in force, then the Electricity Board should not make the kind of statements which they have made at the recent inquiry and also, I understand, at other inquiries.

Now I should like to make some comments about forestry. A number of noble Lords who are speaking to-day are very interested in this subject, and quite properly. The question has arisen as to the number of afforestation proposals in the national park areas, particularly in Dartmoor and Exmoor. Afforestation is carried out primarily, and to a very great extent, by the Forestry Commission—and let me say at once that there is no complaint at all about the attitude of the Forestry Commission. Having made a number of complaints, and being about to make some more, I feel it is gratifying to be able to say about one body that one has no complaint about them at all. They have been very co-operative; there has been the closest consultation between the National Parks Commission and the Forestry Commission as regards woodlands for which they are responsible; and I understand that they have been able to settle all questions amicably. The problem really arises owing to the considerable increase in recent years in private forestry, and particularly on open lands—as I have said, on Dartmoor and Exmoor. As the law stands at present, Section 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act does not regard the planting of trees, or afforestation, as development; therefore no planning permission is required to enable a body of persons Or individuals to carry out this activity.

I do not claim for a moment that all afforestation, even on open land, should be automatically prohibited; that would be quite unreasonable. In some cases afforestation might even enhance the beauty of the land. Nor do I claim that the planting of any particular kind of tree is objectionable or otherwise. I am not arguing for or against conifers or hardwood, or anything of that sort. All I am suggesting is that, in these special areas, before any individual should be allowed completely to change its character by planting trees on a large scale on land at present open land, there should be some consultation and some agreement; and that nobody should be allowed, at his own pleasure, to desecrate land which has been dedicated to the public. Much of this open land, in any case, is land to which the public has access, and by planting on a large scale the public are deprived of that access.

That is the problem which has to be faced. The Government have considered this matter. I understand that they have had discussions with the bodies representing the forestry owners, and an agreement has been entered into. I hope the noble Lord will be able to elaborate, because I think the particulars of the agreement—

THE EARL. OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I shall be referring to three paragraphs of the agreement, if that is any help to the noble Lord.

LORD SILKIN

I am much obliged; then we shall learn more about it. My understanding, subject to what those noble Lords who are going to deal with it will say, is that a voluntary agreement has been entered into by which all proposals for afforestation in these areas will be brought to the notice of the National Parks Commission and the local planning committees; that they will be discussed, and that, in the event of disagreement, the matter will be dealt with by the Minister.

If I am right, then the only question I should like to be clear about is this. At present, any decision by the Minister is not binding—because it still remains the fact that afforestation is not "development" within the terms of the 1947 Act. I should like to be quite clear whether the forestry owners will accept the decision of the Minister as to whether or not they shall he allowed to plant. If the position is that they have agreed to accept his decision and that they will not act contrary to it, then I think the agreement might be allowed to stand and we can see how it works out. But I am bound to say that there is considerable apprehension among the various amenity societies as to whether the agreement goes far enough, and, naturally, we should all like to feel assured that it does.

I believe, generally speaking, that the Commission have done everything possible, within the limited resources that have been provided, to preserve and maintain the beauty and character of the areas which have been entrusted to them. I should like to make it quite clear that nobody who understands the question wants to regard these national parks as museum-pieces. We do not suggest that they have to be preserved for all time exactly as they are now. They are places where life goes on, where conditions change. They have to be dynamic, living places where development may be necessary—even, in the last resort, some form of industrial development. All we ask is that, whatever essential development takes place, it should not impair the beauty and the character of those particular areas of our lovely countryside. I believe that that is a perfectly reasonable request, and it is in harmony with the purposes of the National Parks Act.

I want now to say a word or two about the enjoyment of these national parks by the public. The Report says very little about what has been done to provide facilities to enable the general public to visit and enjoy these beautiful places. There is reference to the provision of a building for the supply of refreshment to replace an unsightly tea caravan; and there are a number of places where car-parking facilities have been provided. Pamphlets have been prepared setting out maxims for a Country Code, dealing, so far as possible, with unsightly advertisements, caravans and litter.

All these things are very good. They have been very helpful in providing information about the parks, places of historic interest, and other places as well. But little has been done about accommodation, and little has been said in the Report about accommodation. Again, I do not expect that these national narks should go into competition with Blackpool, or even with Southend-on-Sea, in the provision of accommodation. I do not want to provide large-scale facilities for coach-loads of people to descend on the Brecon Beacons, and I do not think they want to. People who enjoy the kind of facilities which are provided in the places I have mentioned would not dream of going to the national parks. But it was always contemplated that there would be a public that would want to go to the national parks—people who want that sort of holiday or recreation; and they are increasing in numbers. People want to get away from the bustle of urban life for a short time, and to enjoy the beauty and serenity of our lovely countryside.

Speaking for myself, as one who goes abroad quite a lot and enjoys beautiful scenery abroad, every time I come back to England I feel that we have something unique in the peacefulness and serenity of our countryside which other countries, with all their grandeur and majesty, simply have not got. That, I am glad to say, is being appreciated more and more; but the facilities for enjoying it do not exist. You can go for an hour or two and, with great difficulty, you can get a cup of tea—query lunch: am not sure. But if you want to stay for a weekend, the facilities are very limited indeed, especially when you have reached the age when you want a little comfort. There may be a hostel, but that is not everybody's "cup of tea". I should not want to spend a weekend in a hostel at my time of life: fifty years ago it was a different matter. I feel that something should be done for the kind of people who want this sort of peace, and who would find it in our national parks.

Before I leave national parks, I want to say one word about the handicaps from which the Commission are suffering. The main one, as your Lordships will not be surprised to hear, is the inadequacy of the funds at their disposal to carry out even the simplest of their duties. In the Report of the Hobhouse Committee, on which national park policy was based, it was suggested that a capital outlay of £9¼ million, spread over a period of about ten years, was necessary, with an annual expenditure of £750,000—that is, if we were to do the thing properly and do justice to these areas. The national parks have now been in existence for ten years, but, instead of providing £9¼ million and £750,000 a year, I understand that the parks have had, in all, £300,000, which represents about one penny per person per annum.

As far back as 1956, in their Seventh Report, the National Parks Commission made recommendations for the amendment of the National Parks Act which experience of its working had shown to be necessary to enable them to effectively carry out the objects which the Act had in mind. As might be expected, a number of those proposals related to the provision of adequate funds. I do not know what has happened to those proposals. I do not know whether they have been considered by the Government, whether they have been accepted or rejected. Some of them would require legislation. The Commission's latest Report gives us no inkling of the fate of their 1956 recommendations, but I gather that they have obtained no satisfaction about them, because they refer to the recommendations again in this Report.

This is not the way to treat our priceless heritage, and it is not the way to treat a Commission which was set up by the Government themselves. A priceless heritage such as we possess has to be properly fed, and nobody can suggest that the amount of money placed at the disposal of the Commission would enable any body of people to carry out their work in the way in which it should be carried out. In this connection, I should like to thank The Times—I do not often pay them compliments—for the helpful and sympathetic leading article on this subject which they published on March 27, headed "Melancholy Reading". They say very much what I have said about the way the Commission are being treated and about the lack of financial facilities.

I should like to say something about long-distance paths and footpaths. I realise that the setting up of these is proceeding, but it is proceeding much too slowly. It seems to be a spare-time occupation with local authorities, who appear to have very little snare time; and in the meantime many footpaths which are unknown to us are being lost to the public. They are being ploughed up and incorporated in the adjoining owner's land. This is nothing more or less than robbing the public of land which properly belongs to it. I hope that the Government will bring to the notice of local authorities the great importance of doing something about these footpaths. After all, as most of your Lordships realise, after the two-days debate we had on the Road Traffic Bill, it is no longer safe for the public to walk on public highways, and the only places they can walk on are our footpaths. We shall soon be forgetting how to walk, if we do not get more of them made available.

think that I have talked long enough about the ten years' life of the national parks. I would conclude by drawing the attention of your Lordships to one bright spot in the picture. That is the undimmed enthusiasm of the National Parks Commission, of the local planning committees and of the amenity societies in helping 'to keep the flag flying amidst the great difficulties I have described and the lack of sufficient encouragement on the part of the Government.

Our thanks are particularly due to the noble Lord, Lord Strang, the Chairman of the National Parks Commission, who has been Chairman for seven years—that is, for well over half the life of the national parks; to my noble friend Lord Lawson, who acted as Vice-Chairman for a number of years but unfortunately is no longer able to act, and to the present Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Dower, who is the widow of a very famous man in the history of the national parks. John Dower was one who, by his famous Report, by his description of what national parks ought to stand for, helped to bring the idea of national parks to life. We owe a debt of gratitude to all these people and to those who serve on the Commission and on the local planning committees. I hope that this debate may give them some hope and encouragement, and the assurance that the noble work they are doing is recognised and appreciated in many quarters and will not be forgotten. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.27 p.m.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

My Lords, I am sure that everyone connected with the administration of the national parks, and many who visit and reside in national parks, will share your Lordships' gratitude to the noble Lora, Lord Silkin, for having introduced this Motion in your Lordships' House at this time. He has done so with such a degree of moderation, and such profound knowledge of the subject, that I find myself in agreement with almost all the comments he has made. Those of us who for many years have been connected with national parks and the planning movement remember the skill with which the noble Lord designed the provisions of the 1949 Act. Although there are many issues on which I do not agree with the noble Lord, I must say that on that occasion I admired the masterly fashion with which he reconciled many of those issues Which at the time appeared to be incapable of reconciliation.

I think that, on the whole, the 1949 Act has proved itself to be an effective instrument for the foundation of national parks in this country. Twelve years' experience of administration since the Act was passed has shown, however, that there is good reason for the Act to be overhauled at this time. For my part, I intervene in this debate as one of the Minister's nominated members for the North Yorkshire Moors National Park Committee. But, like many others, I find myself representing opposing interests on that Committee of the National Parks, having, in my case, acquired office in the Council for the Preservation of Rural England (in fact, I was a joint founder of the first branch in Yorkshire), in the Youth Hostels Association, ramblers' clubs and cycling clubs, as well as having the responsibility of ownership for a fairly large area in my own national park. At the same time, like others, I am closely connected with the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. So that one finds work on the Parks Committee a reconciliation of one's own diverse sympathies.

I do not want to take long in following the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on what he has said in respect of afforestation and private or semi-private syndicates which are engaged in afforestation, especially in the Exmoor and Dartmoor areas. However, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord said in regard to the recent voluntary agreement which I understand (and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will confirm this) has received the approval of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government; that is, a voluntary agreement between the National Parks Commission, the Forestry Commission, the Timber Growers' Association and the Country Landowners' Association, which I think should go far to remedy the great trouble that certain areas, and particularly those in national parks, have experienced recently over this matter.

I agree with the noble Lord that if it should be found over a number of years that this voluntary agreement—which will, in any case, need a far greater degree of co-operation between the Forestry Commission and the National Parks Commission, between the timber growers and private interests—were to fail, it would be wise for the Minister to adopt some method of control, so that those areas which have been traditionally accessible to the public, and which in many cases are some of the finest areas of landscape in our country, should be properly preserved.

It is true that where afforestation is conducted on virgin land, whether or not it be in national parks, haulage roads are made and are open to the public for the purposes of walking, cycling and riding. But in the case of the Forestry Commission such roads are normally closed to motor vehicles; and I think your Lordships will agree that that is a wise measure when, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, it becomes rarer and rarer for any one of us to have the opportunity of walking or cycling in areas which are not pregnated with petrol fumes and noise. In this respect it is interesting to note that, in the case of those large areas that have been recently planted by the Forestry Commission, and certain virgin ground, the great extent of access by the public to those areas is quite contrary to the expert opinion given by so many amenities societies against the planting of trees. I am told, on good authority, that in the Thetford area, in Snowdonia and over other areas the Forestry Commission are now becoming quite embarrassed by the desire of the public to go to those areas. Therefore, it appears that perhaps those who for many years, and before the Forestry Commission fully got into their stride with planting, have advocated that there should not be trees on wide open spaces may be expressing a view contrary to the desires of the ordinary rank and file and, perhaps, the younger generation of the public.

I should now like to deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, described as the second great principle of his Act—namely, the rights of the public in those parts of our countryside that are worthy of visits. I want to mention, in particular, Part V of the Act, relating to access agreements and orders. The number of voluntary agreements has been extremely small. In my own case, it has only been one. The fact is that the public have, in any event, long enjoyed de facto access to almost all this land, and owners see little point in making agreements which give official blessing to an accomplished fact.

It is true that an access agreement or order brings into effect the Second Schedule to the Act, and this lays down a code of behaviour for all who visit these areas. It is an excellent list and, so far as I know, has the support of all owners and farmers. But failure to observe the conditions enumerated in sub-paragraphs (a) to (a) of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule (I will not read them to your Lordships, because it would take far too long) only causes the visitor to forfeit his right to remain on the land: it in no way prevents damage from being done. At least, without an access order or agreement. the perpetrators of damage can be sued for trespass. That is really only a theoretical consideration, however, for we all know that the law of trespass in these days is virtually a dead letter.

I lay great stress on this matter because, as your Lordships may recall, in May, 1959, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government said that national parks would fail in their purpose unless we carry with us those who have their homes and earn their daily bread within the national parks. The same year the National Farmers' Union made a survey which showed that the inherent difficulties of farming inhospitable uplands were seriously aggravated by the behaviour of some visitors. That has, I regret to say, continued since the date of that publication in 1959. While education (and I know how much the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has personally attempted to do under the banner of education) should help to avoid damage through ignorance, it does not prevent the hooliganism that occurs to-day. Farmers are not the only people to suffer from wanton destruction, but it is far more common and more serious in agriculture than in any other industry. The National Farmers' Union urge most strongly that more strenuous efforts should be made to bring offenders to justice, and that those (I am glad to think that they are not the majority, although I think it is inappropriate to describe them as a small minority) found guilty of malicious damage should be severely dealt with. In the sum total of my experience, I cannot but agree with this view.

Therefore, I propose to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the Government should bring in amending legislation to make the code of behaviour, as listed under the Second Schedule, apply to all areas in national parks, including enclosed grounds. I would also propose that misdemeanours as listed in that Schedule should have penalties attached to them. Appropriate penalties should be enforceable by a criminal court of law. Such proposals would, in my opinion, strengthen the hand of reputable bodies such as the Youth Hostels Association and the Ramblers' Association. Most unfortunately, the stigma which is attached to those who misbehave is also attached to those associations, and by and large I personally do not think it is justified.

The Act assumes that there are plenty of people in the remote upland areas who can detect and prevent misdemeanours, but owing to the financial structure of the Act there are not, and never will be, enough wardens to safeguard the interests of the farming community. Much of the work therefore falls on the voluntary wardens, and I think it is important that measures should he provided to give them special status and authority, and also that the national parks committees be authorised to make some reimbursement to such categories as gamekeepers and foresters who constantly do week-end warden work. It is. I think your Lordships will agree, grossly unjust for this expenditure to fall on private pockets when it is a service caused by the public and in their interest. This is a matter which goes to the heart of the subject the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to in the latter part of his speech, and that was the lack of financial provision made by his own Act. The noble Lord quoted the fact that the whole of the national park concept costs less than one penny per person per annum. If we compared that with the very high rate, which I think is something like 11s. per person per week, for our defence bill, we may get into proportion the great difficulties under which the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and his Commission have had to operate.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred to a leader in The Times. I will now refer to a leader (which is something I do not often do) in the Guardian on April 1. The view was there advanced that much more could be achieved if the Commission had an annual sum of £75,000 from which grants could be made to the ten national parks committees. A ready reckoner can easily see that that is an average of only £7,500 over ten national parks. I think it is quite inadequate, and I would therefore propose that a sum of £150,000 per annum be allocated to the National Parks Commission. Even then it is only 20 per cent. of the figure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, quoted of £750,000 advocated in the Hobhouse Committee Report. Local authorities in national parks are reluctant to demand money from residents to pay for the enjoyment of people who come largely from outside the area. For example, in my own area, after accounting for grants, the proportion of the county rate for national parks amounts to one-fifth of a penny in the pound, and this includes the cost of administration of two national parks in the Riding. No wonder we who advocate national parks are disappointed.

Another contentious point is that the grant from the Government towards the cost of providing certain buildings, equipment and services for national parks is 75 per cent.; the remainder falls on local ratepayers and, for the reason I have just given, is greatly resented. Also, the grant is too closely defined by the Act of Parliament. It would, I think, be much better for the public and the Treasury to have greater confidence in the National Parks Commission which they set up to operate on their behalf, and to allow them to judge what is worthy of assistance and what is not, on the basis of a block grant. If I may be permitted, I will take one example. In the Act public lavatories cannot be provided unless there is also a car park. This most certainly is not suited to our particular conditions in the North Riding of Yorkshire. One of the charms of our countryside is the miniature-like quality of its variety. In my own area remote valleys have a charm that would be entirely lost in, say, Switzerland or the Rockies. To preserve that charm I have myself provided the sum of £500 towards the cost of putting part of an electricity supply underground—a current supply to tenant farmers. This particular area is in the very heart of my national park, and perhaps more motor tourists visit it than any other park. It is wrong, in these days, for the amenity to be preserved only by the good will of a private individual.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred in strong terms to the need for the Electricity Authority to pay more respect to the representations made by the National Parks Commission and the local planning committees. My own committee has moved a resolution to this effect which has been for some time in the hands of the National Parks Commission. It is quite clear, from my experience of the last few years, that no responsible action will be taken in this respect until Her Majesty's Government give the necessary lead; and I hope this will be done very soon. I should add that some responsible authority should make a full investigation into why there is always a delay in supplying farmers with electricity, when efforts are made to take the best route rather than the shortest one. There are few things that throw national parks more into disrepute among farmers than that they are believed to hold up progress.

While national parks are expensive to the ratepayer and local authorities, they are also expensive to the property owners, and particularly to those owners who appreciate the intention and purpose of the National Parks Act. When these people propose to build new buildings or to repair old ones, they generally wish to use traditional materials, and to adopt high standards of design. This costs extra money, and unless they do it themselves it will not get done. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, there is no grant to help the park planning committee to help the individual. In my own case I have had to replace farm buildings near Rievaulx Abbey, and as those buildings were adjacent to an ancient monument they had to be constructed in harmony with their neighbours. They were essential buildings to the economy of the farm and they had to be put up without endless delay, for otherwise the farm could not survive.

I give that example to show that the expense and responsibility of preserving our national parks falls heavily on owners as well as ratepayers. I doubt that these facts are sufficiently appreciated by some of the visitors to our national parks who, I fear, are still dreadfully ignorant of the life and economy of the countryside. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, is not here, as an ex-Minister of Agriculture, to bear me out in this contention. Perhaps the name "park" makes the urban dweller think that he can carouse and cavort as a Londoner does in Hyde Park or Battersea Park. Except for the custodians and cleaners in urban parks I can think of none who earn their living from them, but exactly the opposite is true of our national parks.

My aim is in no way intended to limit the flow of visitors or to diminish for them the attractions of our national park areas, but I feel most strongly that in these major respects existing policy is defective: first, finance; secondly, the control of behaviour, and thirdly, the prevention of damage. I hope I may be forgiven for speaking plainly on these subjects when I tell your Lordships that last year in my own national park and on my own land a fire was started by a hikers' party which covered six square miles of moorland and destroyed 3,700 acres of heather. This represents a loss to the farmers involved of over £12,000 in income over the next ten or twenty years, assuming the moor comes back to growth in that time. It may be 40 years before the moor is restored where it was most severely burned. Sheep stock valued at £7,000 has had to be taken off the heather, and a contribution to the economy of at least £1,000 per annum has been lost by the destruction of shooting rents. The noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, whom I am glad to see in his seat this afternoon, lost 3,000 acres the previous year in the same national park, his neighbours lost a further 2,000 acres and six sheep farmers lost their main source of livelihood for a good number of years.

My experience, which has been a fairly close one, has been that the existing provisions are completely inadequate either to prevent or to control fires on heaths and moors. I would say that a fire plan must be devised in the national parks if the rural economy and forestry plantations are to be protected against the threat of fire. It is clear that the great dangers arise in periods of drought when visitors to highly inflammable areas light fires, throw away lighted cigarettes and leave bottles, all of which cause fires. In order to prevent fires starting and to control them when they have started, I would propose that there should be, in addition to the provisions that might exist, three further provisions: first, further power of closing inflammable areas during periods of drought; secondly, a Government grant for the ploughing of firebreaks; and thirdly, an adequately equipped rural fire lighting plan.

May I briefly deal with the first point? The existence of drought conditions in a particular area could be defined by the Meteorological Office or their regional offices. As we know, such periods of drought occur very seldom, say, only once in seven years, in this very uncertain British climate of ours, and the occasions, therefore, when the area would be closed would be infrequent and of short duration. I think, therefore, it would be totally unreasonable for others, provided they are well behaved and appreciate the national park areas, to say their rights would be gone. At such times roads, footpaths and tracks through dangerous and remote areas should be closed by local authorities except to essential motor traffic.

I know that this is a very bold recommendation to make for amending legislation, but there is a precedent for it, in that the provisions of the foot and mouth regulations do close areas, because if the spread of that disease is as fast as it was last year, the cost to the Exchequer is millions of pounds. Main highways could be kept open where it could be assumed that there would be appropriate supervision and easy access for fire brigades. For the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is going to reply, I may say that I am well aware of Section 69 of Part V of the Act, which provides that any owner can apply to the Ministry of Agriculture in respect only of those areas that are subject to an access order. That is quite inappropriate because, as I have already informed the House, access orders are a dead letter. Secondly, would any of your Lordships have confidence in applying to the Ministry of Agriculture in a period of extreme drought of getting a quick answer before the fire had burned everything or the rain had come?

One word on the second point, the ploughing of firebreaks, and that is, of course, a tough and arduous task in difficult upland areas. It often requires special machinery and it takes a great deal of time and money. A Government grant under the Livestock Rearing Act should be made available to those who applied, as in the case of bracken grants. To make this safeguard satisfactory—and of course it applies only to those areas which are suitable for bulldozing—the sowing of grass and the spreading of lime should also be subject to the same grant.

May I give a little further explanation on the third point? A rural fire plan could limit the extent of fires which at the present time seem to be more often than not put out by rain. I suggest that urban fire-fighting vehicles are quite inefficient on rough ground, and more four-wheel drive vehicles are required. This, clearly, is an expensive item for an individual local authority, and therefore my proposal would be that such vehicles could be pooled by a combination of local authorities and ready to move on transporters. The provision of wardens, wireless communication and air reconnaissance are, I think, essential if the fire-fighting plan is to be given the priority that it requires, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, the Chairman of the Commission, will he so good as to investigate the remarks that I have made and perhaps make recommendations in due course.

My Lords, I have spoken for too long, but may I conclude by saying just one word on what I believe to be basically worth while in the concept of our national parks? To me it far transcends any Party political strife that there may be over such contentious subjects as the ownership of land. Our heritage includes in certain limited areas, still to-day, in these small isles, a natural beauty of landscape of such variety and interest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Siikin, said, it constitutes something very rare, even to those who have travelled far and wide throughout the world, as he has.

This heritage can be one of those indefinable forces that help to elevate man to realms of imagination and spiritual concept not ordinarily or easily found. Perhaps the remote and rural influences provide the opportunity for modern man to revitalise his feelings, to regain a sense of humility and to re-assess what is worth while and what is not. In such times as these, of rapid change and staggering development, it is perhaps all the more necessary for modern man to have the opportunity to escape from his highly urbanised environment and to find peace and serenity in nature's beauty. Thus he might learn to curb a sense of arrogance arising from all the scientific and materialistic achievement of the age. If this be true, I think your Lordships will agree that there can be few finer things than the concept of national parks in this small country. But, as in all great ideas, their implementation must be tempered with justice, so that those who choose to visit the parks from without, do not deprive those within of their daily bread and livelihood.