THE TORIES

A policy for the environment

EDWARD HEATH

The emergence of questions affecting 'the environment' as being of the first importance has been one of the most significant political developments of recent years. In this awakening of public opinion the SPECTATOR has played its part and since 1967 numerous articles on this topic have appeared in these columns. The present pre-election period brings a need to have the political parties' distinctive attitudes to environmental pro- blems made clear. Labour's measures are a matter of record: therefore it seemed useful to obtain from the leader of the Opposition a considered statement of the Conservative? 'environmental' platform. Edward Heath ac- cordingly wrote the following article at our invitation, The growing concern in this country with the environment is something which every Con- servative must welcome. A detailed and practical interest in the quality of life which we lead in these islands is central to the philosophy of the Conservative party. In the nineteenth century it led our predecessors, with their strong roots in the countryside, to doubt the wisdom of the rigid application of the doctrines of laissez-faire. In this century the Conservative party has been conscious that alongside a desire for rising standards of living there has grown up a worry that we might be destroying with one hand what we were creating with the other, that rising stan- dards of living are not purely material and that they depend also on the sort of life that people are enabled to lead and the sur- roundings in which they an lead it. There can be no doubt now of the grgwing anxiety that even if we achieved rapidly rising stan- dards of material living again, we might find that we had only achieved them at the cost of producing a country about which, in terms of amenity, we were no longer so en- It was this train of thought which led to a massive volume of valuable legislation passed br Conservative governments in the 1950s and early 1960s. The titles of the Acts range right across the field: The Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1953; the Clean Air Act, 1956; the Litter Act, 1958; the Ra,roac- tive Substances Act, 1960; the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act, 1960; the Noise Abatement Act, 1960; the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961; the Water Resources Act, 1963. All this legisla- tion—and there was much more besides—either dealt directly with various aspects of the environment, such as noise and pollution, or else contained important provisions to do with amenity, conservation, planning and so forth.

But we are not complacent about this record. Far from it. Long before pollution became a fashionable topic, the Con- servatives were taking a critical look at this question. Our objective was—and is—to see where the gaps are in the legislation; to decide on what specific policies and pro- grammes will need to be carried out by a Conservative government; to review the ex- isting machinery of government and to determine whether or not it is adequate to deal with what will undoubtedly be one of the major issues of the 1970s.

We have for some months been engaged in a wide-ranging study of a series of questions affecting the environment, including noise, air pollution, water pollution, land use, hous- ing and transport problems. This work is still continuing, but the principal guidelines for a Conservative programme in this field are already emerging. We have tried, so far as possible, to avoid the emotion and the rhetoric which so often tend to cloud the issue. This is an area where action counts for more than words.

We regard it as intolerable that the work-

ing of the Clean Air Act which has for the last few years brought life and light to Lon- don and other cities as well as to much of the country outside them should be put in jeopardy through careless planning and poor co-ordination regarding the supplies of solid smokeless fuels. We have censured the Government already on this. Existing smokeless zones have been suspended, and the creation of new zones is postponed until April 1971. This is not good enough. Special provision may be needed in cases of hardship but this important programme must not be reversed and delayed. If future supplies of these fuels cannot be guaranteed the change- over must be made to other forms of heating.

The operation of the existing Clean Air Act must be extended to cover emissions of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere. This question was not touched by the 1956 legisla- tion. On grounds of health, as well as amenity, it can no longer be ignored.

We believe, in view of the accumulating levels of carbon monoxide in our cities, that the time has come to review existing stan- dards regarding automobile exhaust emissions. Though current generalisations that '60 per cent of air pollution is caused br the internal combustion engine' of course need to be examined critically, we recognise that this is a major problem and will discuss with motor vehicle manufacturers as well as oil companies ways in which it can be diminished.

We are deeply concerned with the general question of noise, especially the effect of aircraft noise on those who live near airports. We believe that new standards of quietness may need to be formulated and fully taken account of in the future siting of airports, motorways and—looking ahead- vertiports.

The Conservatives passed a Clean Air Act and Clean Rivers Act. We intend to examine the case for a Clean Land Act as well. The elimination of derelict land and the preven- tion of further dereliction must be given a high priority. There are many industries which already have an excellent record in this area. But others do not. We aim to establish a realistic definition of derelict land no longer limited to conditions having a harmful impact on industrial development and review the system of grants and in- centives to local authorities.

We are not satisfied with the existing machinery and procedures for long-term water-use planning in Britain. The Water Resources Board was established by a Conservative government in 1963. Even so, uncoordinated schemes are promoted piecemeal by local water undertakings by means of Private Bills. We will ensure that the Water Resources Board speedily com- pletes its regional surveys, especially its survey of the south-west. We are concerned at the threat to National Parks and other areas of outstanding natural beauty posed by current reservoir proposals. We recognise that national parks cannot be considered in all circumstances sacrosanct. Nevertheless, the presumption of the 1949 Act is that amenity and access will be paramount con- siderations. The economics of desalinisation, particularly in the case of dual-purpose plants, need to be re-examined and un- conventional methods of developing water- resources, including ground-water schemes and estuarine barrages, must be sur- veyed.

The representatives of three million anglers will shortly be marching on Downing Street and I believe their anger is justified. The Ministry of Housing and Local Govern- ment has still not repealed its circular 64/68 which instructs local authorities (at best) to maintain the status quo, rather than aiming at improvements of our rivers and streams.

We cannot tolerate illegal discharges of in- dustrial wastes into our waters. Local authorities, industry and agriculture will need to find ways of sharing the burden of water treatment more equitably between them. We will review existing standards regarding accidental spillages.

These are some of the detailed matters on which we are continuing to work. Our ap- proach is quite distinct from that of the present Prime Minister. Mr Wilson, true to the principles by which he has throughout conducted his administration, created a vague overlordship of the environment in order to keep Mr Crosland inside the Government but outside his inner conclave. He has gone on to set up a Standing Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. These decisions do not of course amount to a policy. They do little to guarantee that government departments take account of the environment as one of the necessary dimensions in the making of policy. The en- vironment is by definition inter-disciplinary and all-embracing. Almost all government departments are involved. Almost all pro- posals for Action have an environmental as well as an economic cost. As the sad story of Stansted showed, we are used to looking at the latter, but not the former. We must learn to do both.

In my view the antithesis sometimes drawn between concern for the environment and economic growth is entirely false. If our pollution problem has become acute in these last few years, it is precisely because our rate of economic growth has been so low. Inade- quate economic growth robs us of choice; it condemns us to the shoddy and the second rate. As we create new wealth we must learn to use it wisely by investing part of it in the protection of our future.

I also reject the approach which defines a policy for the environment in terms of authoritarian measures imposed from Whitehall on unwilling private industry and unwilling individuals. Such a policy-.-will never work; the right approach is just the op- posite. The scope for voluntary effort, both at local and national level, is very great indeed. Here above all is a field for public debate and healthy argument. Are people prepared to pay extra for freedom from fumes, dirt and ugliness of every descrip- tion? Are we, for example, willing as members of the community to pay the extra cost required to site the third London airport where it will cause least damage to the quality of life of our fellow citizens? The Government should not prejudge such ques- tions. What it must do is make sure that the questions are fairly put, that time is allowed for full debate, and that the eventual decision is based not simply on the clash of existing interests but on a realisation that the outcome will affect the way of 'life of suc- ceeding generations.

This then will be the approach of the next Conservative government to the problems of environment. On the one hand, careful study of new measures to supplement those which we took in the past. On the other hand, the stimulation of public debate and a clear insistence that concern for the environment should always rate as a dimension in the forming of policies, whether it be by industry or by local authorities or by government itself.