THE NATURE CONSERVANCY (Hansard, 28 February 1962)

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUN HAILSHAM)
My Lords, I am so sorry. I was having my attention distracted at the very moment the noble Lord was asking his question. I wonder whether he would kindly repeat it.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I was asking whether it would not be for the convenience of the House if we did not wait on the pleasure of the other place, but had the statement now, so that noble Lords are not required to wait after half-past three should my speech go on longer than twenty-five minutes.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, I am afraid that would not be possible. The arrangements between the two Houses are—at least, this is as I understand them to be—that where, as it were, the Minister principally responsible is in another place, the Minister who repeats the statement here does not do so until he has word that the statement has begun in another place; and I do not think it would be wise to depart from that tradition.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I fully accept that, but I have at least given notice to noble Lords that they will have to wait at least a period before they come to listen to the very important statement.
My Lords, I should first like to say how very noble it is of the Leader of the House to be here at all. I heard last night that he was in bed with a high temperature and bronchitis, and I think it is a tribute to his interest in this subject of nature conservancy—indeed, he was very largely responsible for sparking oft this debate—that he is here, and that we are discussing for the first time the work of a very important research council. I should also like to say that your Lordships' House has been heavily involved in this body. The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, is of course chairman of the Nature Conservancy. Unfortunately, to-day he is silenced, as chairmen of Government bodies tend to be, but he will be a free man (regrettably for the Nature Conservancy but beneficially to us) in regard to these subjects after the end of March; and I am sure your Lordships will wish to congratulate him on his work during this time.
961 When we look at the history of nature conservation in this country we can see why it is that the Nature Conservancy is having to run so very fast, and therefore subject itself to criticism, in order to meet up, not only with national requirements but also with the achievements that have been attained in other countries. It is fifty years since, in the United States, Theodore Roosevelt gave that tremendous lead, calling every governor of every State to Washington, which led to the passing of conservation laws and the appointment of expert staffs. In this country, we have been rather slower.
During the First World War Charles Rothschild, through the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, tried to get something started here by submitting to the Board of Agriculture a schedule of areas which were considered worthy preservation. It included a good many of the existing national nature reserves, and also a number of areas which now have been irreparably damaged and lost. Then the Geddes Axe fell, before conservancy could be launched; the Society had to start all over again in the Second World War, and I think it was left to my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth to set up the Conservancy, which was given its Charter in 1949. At least it did not have to wait for yet another war to provide a stimulus for action to be taken.
I should like to say one thing straight away: that conservancy is much more than a sort of naturalist counterpart of the National Trust. It does not exist only to look after nature reserves, or to preserve sites which are notable for their fauna and flora; it is concerned with all the fauna and flora in this country. The Nature Conservancy is also concerned with research into fauna and flora, and into the widest aspects of nature conservancy and research. I would stress that something like 10s. in every £1 of the £400,000 or so—it is between £400,000 and £500,000—is spent on research. The work of the Nature Conservancy, and of those associated with it, represents a serious attempt to arrive at a proper understanding by man of his environment. It is not simply a matter of reserving a few places for scientific study, or even little patches of wild life here and there; it is much more profound. 962 Although I shall deal with certain particular points in the work of the Nature Conservancy, I should like to address my remarks rather more to the broader picture.
We are all familiar with the fact that, ever since man has existed, he has sought to interfere with the environment in which he has lived. The countryside in which we live, much of which we now seek to preserve, with difficulty, is essentially man-made. Ever since Mesolithic times (I think it was Mesolithic times, when we started playing around with new-fangled technology) we have been interfering with the balance of nature; and agriculture was the first, and still is largely the major, interference.
The danger does not come only from urbanization: it comes from everything we do in the countryside, and particularly with the advances of technology. It is the purpose of the agriculturist, and it is in the interests of the community, to raise more crops—to establish, in effect, a monoculture, and therefore to drive out the forms of life which have normally provided a balanced environment. This, of course, is a major interference. On other occasions, we have discussed the consequences of the destruction that has been caused in large areas of the world through bad or ill-conceived (in the long term) agricultural methods, whether they be in the creation of dust bowls, or in the lowering of the water table, and the general destruction of the ecological balance. If we look abroad, it appears as if in Africa man may succeed, in a mere 70 years time (in fact, he has already gone a long way towards it), in doing something which took the Europeans in Europe more like 1,000 or 2,000 years to do in the way of destruction. When we look at the devastated areas of Southern Europe and North Africa we must remember that these again are the consequences of technological advance, even of a primitive kind
It is against this background, my Lords, that we must consider the work of the Nature Conservancy, even in this very fortunate island, which is one of the few areas in the world that is practically immune—unless man tries very hard—from the sort of general gross erosion which is such a serious factor 963 in other countries. None the less, we have to learn to live on terms, and I think there are reasons why we should pay particular attention in this country—and I draw your Lordships attention to it—to the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, which was published in 1960. The Council say this in part of their Report: The arguments for the most effective use of what we have are therefore very strong indeed"— and they have already said that the United Kingdom is not richly endowed with natural resources— and we believe that in this field there is scope for direct action through the Research Councils and other scientific agencies to ensure that scientific methods are applied to the problems of conservation. We are satisfied that there is a significant absence of basic research in the scientific assessment of such major problems as the conservation and long-term utilisation of our water supplies; and in formulating the considerations on which policies of land utilisation can be based, we feel that much remains to be done towards a scientific classification of land capability,"— and so on. There are a number of repeated statements about new measures being required to deal with basic research relating to the conservation of natural resources.
Earlier this month this House, in my view, took a historic decision over Ullswater. We now have to face the consequences of the decision, which the House took against the advice, very largely, of the Government, and we have to decide what the implications are. An important water undertaking—namely, Manchester—was debarred from obtaining water in a way that seemed, after, no doubt, very careful consideration, to be the most economical and the easiest way of meeting its commitment. That decision of the House of Lords cannot be related to this single point. It was, in effect, a decision that water, and the demands for it, must not be treated in isolation from the other needs of the community. In this case the decision related to the amenity factors of Ullswater; and I must say, so that there is no misunderstanding, that I was wholly in sympathy with the decision of the House.
But, my Lords, as I say, we must now face the consequences. It may seem strange that, in this wet Island of ours, 964 there are not unlimited supplies of water. Some time in the next 30 years we are almost certainly going to have to look for water sources other than the fresh water which we find in our own land. There are already some parts of the country which are insolvent in terms of water, in the sense that they have to import from other parts; and other counties will become so. Essex will be insolvent in another ten years; Manchester certainly in another ten years. In America they have a map which shows the dates on which the various States will go bankrupt from a water-supply standpoint and will have to become importers. Yet only now, just after we have taken this decision on Ullswater, is it seriously proposed to carry out hydrological research.
This matter is dealt with in some detail in the Report of the Nature Conservancy, on pages 31 and 32. The Conservancy has already had a good deal of experience (in so far as anybody has had any experience) in investigation in watershed areas, and is primarily expert on the biological and the physiographical aspects of water supply. It was only last year that the Nature Conservancy was urging, at a special Conference of the British Waterworks Association that foresight was required in regard to competing claims to the use of water, and co-operation to avoid friction and to ensure the wide acceptance of wise policies. They emphasised that the many interested parties should not press individual claims on water supply undertakings and advised that factual information must be obtained and agreed principles must be worked out.
Has the Nature Conservancy the funds to play its part in this matter? The D.S.I.R. hydrological unit which again is the responsibility of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, is in existence in theory, but I am told that there is still no money available. If we are not to run into serious trouble and frustration, this is a matter on which some real action and energy and, about all, money must be made available. It is clear from the Report of the Nature Conservancy that this is a matter of great importance. This illustrates my point that the Nature Conservancy, or some other body, ought 965 to be concerned with the wider aspects of our natural resources. I am well aware that the Slater Committee are considering this matter, but we need to think not merely in terms of national production but also in terms of our natural resources production. We have plenty of national income economists. I do not know how many natural resources economists—how many ecologists—we have in this country.
Some of the research being carried out by the Nature Conservancy is contributing towards this and is a means of estimating—I am sorry to use these terms, but they illustrate what I want to say—the value of our biological capital and the best way to get the right returns from it. A small but good example of the help which is being given is contained in page 14 of the Report, which deals with the work of the Nature Conservancy in the island of Rhum. Rhum was made a nature reserve in 1957, primarily for research purposes. At that time, it produced sheep and deer and the vegetation was rapidly deteriorating, but since then the Nature Conservancy has already achieved an output of meat, this time wholly in terms of venison, equivalent to the output from sheep, and improved the vegetation. An area has been set aside for afforestation. Important scientific results are being achieved which, I am told, have been of real value to the Red Deer Commission. This illustrates how the Nature Conservancy can help us in the right use of land. This work is comparable with the policies which are being worked out in Africa, where antelope farming may be preferable in some areas to cattle farming.
In passing, I would refer to the work of the Red Deer Commission, if only because of its interest to your Lordships, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, who spent a long time dealing with the Red Deer Bill. It is encouraging to see the benefits which are being achieved by the right sort of scientific approach. Not the least result has been the arriving at a satisfactory balance between conflicting interests, and I think your Lordships' House did a good job, both immediately and ecologically, when we spent so long on the Red Deer Bill. It has even led some people in the Highlands to think that possibly Governments can occasionally do a useful job.
966 Another matter with which the Nature Conservancy has been particularly concerned and which again illustrates the consequences of technological advance is the question of toxic chemicals. Your Lordships will recall that we debated this subject not very long ago, and perhaps partly as a result of that and of the general concern throughout the country the Government took certain action. Notwithstanding this, no fewer than seven-and-a-half pages of the Report are devoted to discussing problems of the use of toxic chemicals. I still think that we do not appreciate what a serious effect the indiscriminate use of certain types of seed dressing has had on wild life. There is now in existence a map of the distribution of the peregrine. From it one sees that in the South of England there are no pairs nesting at all; a little farther North they are trying to nest, but nothing much happens; then come more northerly areas, where they do nest but still with only relatively disappointing results, and only in the far North do the peregrines continue to nest in the way they did in the past. The importance of predatory birds in maintaining a satisfactory balance in nature is very great.
I was disappointed by the reaction of the Government, and particularly by the reaction of the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, to the Report of the Sanders Committee, which made a long list of the different types of research that were necessary. I should like to know from the noble Viscount who is to reply how many of the various proposals of the Sanders Committee, to some of which the Nature Conservancy Report refers, are being carried out in this field. I will not waste your Lordships' time by going through them, but it is clearly necessary to get on with them. The new research station of the Nature Conservancy at Monkswood, which will be concerned with this matter, is being held up, it is generally believed among those interested in this matter, as a consequence of the shortage of funds.
There are many other examples I could give of technological advances and their consequences. There is the possible damage that hovercraft may do, if they develop to a point when they go roaming freely over the countryside. There is the 967 question of various types of electric grid. I think we ought to have more high-powered grids, of 400,000 volts, although the Russians have 700,000-volt grids. All these are matters which are of concern, not just to the supplier and the consumer, but also to the community as a whole.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount how many sites of scientific interest have actually been designated by the Nature Conservancy and how many have been lost because in fact there is no protection, not just against urban and industrial interests but also against agricultural interests. I do not seek to attack agriculturists, on whom we depend so much, but, as I have already sought to show, they may be some of the destroyers of our natural resources. This is a matter of great concern to the naturalists' trusts. It is a fact that, whereas urban or building development requires notification, draining, burning, ploughing, forestry or any of these things can be proceeded with over a site of scientific interest without notification. If my facts are wrong on this, perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will correct me. But it is a matter of great concern and there has been this loss.
Let me quote another example of the need for a more scientific approach. We have spent in this country something like £100,000 as a bounty on grey squirrels. Yet quite recently there was a Report, which I believe was written by the Chief Scientific Inspector of the Forestry Commission, and another one from the Ministry of Agriculture, suggesting that this £100,000 has achieved virtually nothing. It is possible that consultation with properly conducted research scientists might have saved this money. Indeed, it is arguable that this £100,000 might very much better have been given either to the universities or to the Nature Conservancy. This whole question of bounties is a dubious one, and the writers of the Report who were the people primarily concerned, said: A bounty on squirrels might be compared to building a sea wall six inches high round the entire coast of Britain …". Here is an example of wastage of money which might have been prevented had we done more research. Now we may be doing the same thing with coypu, but I will not develop that further to-day.

§ LORD TAYLOR
My Lords, before my noble friend leaves this question of grey squirrels, may I recall that when we were last discussing this question it was suggested that if the tails were cut off they grew again? Is there any ground for this absolutely extraordinary suggestion? Can my noble friend say? Or perhaps the noble and learned Viscount will explain it, because the Government did not deny it when it was last suggested in the House.

§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAM
My Lords, to tell the truth I did not think it was worth denying.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, my noble friend is a better biologist than I am, so perhaps he can answer the question. There will be some who will complain that conservation is apt to mean restriction and it may have the effect of stopping people from getting on with the job. I would suggest that it may on occasion be a stimulus to greater resources, and I should like to give your Lordships an example which I hope is an accurate one. At the beginning of the 18th century Parliament was confronted by the exhaustion of the forests as a result of a demand for charcoal by the ironmasters, and a severe conservation policy introduced by the Government and Parliament of the day compelled a certain Abraham Darby to set up his ironworks in Shropshire. Deprived of his natural fuel of charcoal, he tried coal; and I am informed that this, in 1715, led to the foundation of the iron and steel industry as the direct result of the conservation policy of the day.
In our use of national resources we shall clearly have to think more fundamentally. We shall be confronted with all sorts of problems, especially when we go into the Common Market. We may find that the area of marginal land increases, and we shall have to decide on good advice how best to use it. It is interesting, looking at the Report, to see the detailed information which is coming up on the precise value of land, which will lead to a great deal more clarity than our present planners are able to achieve.
The truth is that the Nature Conservancy is spread too thinly. It is the subject of criticism on the ground that it 969 tends to grab more than it can manage. It is understandable that it should, when it feels all the time that it has a race against time. But a few applied research stations are not enough. It is no more reasonable to suggest that the Nature Conservancy exists to run research stations than it would be to suggest that British Railways exist to run railway stations. I think we need a much more fundamental approach, not only in regard to water and toxic chemicals.
I should like to draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount to the fact that it is believed by a number of people in this country, and particularly ecologists, that we are not helped by the rather blinkered approach of certain of our specialised scientists; that there are not enough people operating in this wide field; and that biochemistry, in a sense, becomes a soft option in the possibilities of the returns that will come from it in comparison with the difficult and unrewarding work, in short term, of the ecologists. The truth of the matter is that we are under-investigating. The consumer finances huge programmes of research for new technical advances in equipment and in chemicals, but there is no matching research to cover the public interest against the specialised interests. I do not blame the farmer or the chemical manufacturer. It must be for us to decide what is necessary in order to keep level with these advances, so that each advance does not bring with it a parallel step backwards. We need to get this across to the country.
It is probable that the Nature Conservancy, which tries hard enough, needs to improve its public relations; and for this it needs more money. Furthermore, it has to meet its obligations to the Department of Technical Co-operation. Here again, I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he thinks the Nature Conservancy has the resources to play the part in Africa that is so necessary. There is reason to believe (though here I would only hazard a guess) that some of the famine and floods in Africa may have been due in part to unsound policies and the lack of a proper conservation policy. An example of that has been the destruction of the Cloud Forest on the N'Gora-N'Gora crater, where at a height of 6,000 feet and above the forest has been 970 destroyed, the vegetation has suffered, flash floods have been the result (and in due course there will possibly be erosion and drought) and it is going to be necessary in that particular area to re-afforest. It may be that the African, who has lived closer to nature, will have a more fundamental approach. I am told that at the Arusha Conference one African, so far from accepting the argument that Africans were likely to be less interested in nature, pointed out that they would have much more interest, and said, "Speaking for myself, I am an elephant because I am a member of the elephant tribe". We do not claim quite those animal associations. We hope that the Nature Conservancy can at least provide the advice necessary for the Department of Technical Co-operation.
We have created the minimal requirement in the Nature Conservancy. It is an amalgam of research and practical management, and they are developing a philosophy which I think we all need to understand. It is, of course, that our energy and our wealth come from the sun, and the reservoir is the soil; and from this comes plant life which we need to support ourselves. I hope that in this work the Nature Conservancy will continue to encourage, as they are doing, the admirable work of the voluntary bodies, like the county trusts. I have not time to refer to them, but certainly any debate of this kind must refer to these quite admirable institutions. I hope we shall get an encouraging reply from the noble Viscount, and I hope, above all, that we shall hear that money will be available for a further advance in a field which is of profound importance to our happiness and to our well-being in a country which is blessed but which still needs scientific guidance and scientific advice with regard to its natural resources. I beg to move for Papers.