§ LAKES IN NATIONAL PARKS: CONTROL OF BOATS, ETC.
§ Lords Amendment No. 14: In page 14, line 23, at end insert Clause A:
151| 25 | (d) authorise the making of reasonable charges in respect of the registration of boats or vessels in pursuance of the byelaws, |
| 30 | (e) make different provision for different circumstances, and in particular may impose different restrictions in different parts of the lake and at different times or seasons. |
| 35 | (4) In acting under this section the local planning authority shall have regard to the fulfilment of the objects set out as respects National Parks in sections 1 and 5 of the Act of 1949, and, before making any byelaws, shall consult the Commission. |
| 40 | (5) Byelaws under this section shall not be made so as to extinguish any public right of way over any waters, but, except as otherwise expressly provided, any byelaws under this section shall apply to persons exercising any such public right of way as they apply to other persons. |
| (6) Byelaws under this section— | |
| 45 | (a) shall be of no effect if and in so far as inconsistent with any rules under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which are in force as respects the water to which the byelaws apply, |
| (b) shall not interfere with any functions relating to the water or land to which the byelaws apply which are exercisable by any authority under any enactment. | |
| 50 | (7) This section shall not apply to any lake owned or managed by a river authority or by any statutory undertakers. |
| (8) Section 106 of the Act of 1949 (supplementary provisions as to byelaws) shall have effect as if byelaws under this section were byelaws under that Act. | |
| 55 | (9) Subsections (1) and (2), and subject to the next following subsection subsection (4), of section 92 of the Act of 1949 (appointment of wardens of land for which byelaws may be made under section 90 of that Act) shall have effect as if the power of making byelaws conferred by this section was contained in the said section 90. |
| 60 | (10) For the purpose of securing compliance with any byelaws made under this section, a warden appointed under the said section 92 as applied by this section may enter upon any land, or go on any water, whether or not within the area where the byelaws are in force. |
| 65 | (11) Where two or more local planning authorities' areas consist of or include part of a National Park, the powers conferred by this section may be exercised by them, or any of them, jointly, or may by agreement between them be exercised by one local planning authority in the part of the National Park in the area of another. |
| 70 | (12) Byelaws made by a local planning authority under this section may be enforced by any local authority in the area of that other local authority. |
| 75 | (13) In this section "lake" includes any expanse of water other than a river or canal." |
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. Gibson-WattI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, after ' lake', insert—
'to which the public have access'.I hesitate to stop the headlong rush with which we are satisfactorily disposing of this part of the Bill, but there is one point which requires an answer from the Government.The House will be aware that the Clause will give powers to local authori- 152 ties to make byelaws for the prohibition or restriction of traffic of any description on any lake in a National Park. Further than that, subsection (13) provides that:
In this section 'lake' includes any expanse of water other than a river or canal".Therefore, the Bill as it will read amended will mean that if anybody owns a pond or a small lake in a National Park—if any association such as the Birmingham Anglers' Association owns such a lake or pond—it will be subject to local byelaws in this respect.153 The words
traffic of any description in a lake in a National Parkcould mean a row-boat as well as a motor boat. My hon. Friends and I have extreme sympathy with the Amendment to the extent that it seeks to do away with noise in an area of scenic beauty such as a National Park. I appreciate the danger concerning noise, but I also see the danger of unnecessary interference by local authorities in respect of a pond or lake of only a few acres, and especially in respect of the sort of row-boat traffic to which I have referred.Will the hon. Lady explain whether or not I have read the Clause correctly? If I have, does she not think that these anxieties will be felt by those who own ponds or lakes in National Parks? In the Principality of Wales, which we both know well, the areas now covered by National Parks are very large—in many ways this is a happy event—and the Government lead us to believe that they will be made even larger. Therefore, over half the Principality might be covered in this way. This may be a particularly Celtic question.
§ 8.45 p.m.
§ Mrs. WhiteWe can all sympathise with the hon. Member's apprehensions, although I believe that they are not well-founded. It might be of assistance if I referred to the scope of any byelaws which are likely to be made under the new Clause, with which we ask the House to agree. The Home Office is the confirming Department for such bye-laws and has advised us that not only do any byelaws have to conform to the specific matters in the Clause—that is, they must be intra vires—but they must also satisfy other criteria.
The Home Office must be satisfied that the byelaws are reasonable. If one is to be enforced, particular account must be taken of whether the general disadvantage of multiplying restrictions and regulations is outweighed in the particular instance by the convenience to the community which results. In other words, it would normally be unreasonable for byelaws to be made in respect of a very small pond. The Home Office must also be satisfied that any such byelaws would not be oppressive to particular classes of the community. That also would cover 154 some of the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman might have in mind.
Furthermore, any byelaws should not impose any greater restriction or requirement than is necessary to secure the object in view. One would not want elaborate byelaws in a situation in which the most one was concerned about was nuisance from noise. Finally, the byelaws must enable those to whom they apply to be able to comply with them in ordinary circumstances. In other words, someone could not ride a hobbyhorse and propose a byelaw if the Home Office did not feel that people could reasonably be expected to comply in ordinary circumstances.
It is with all these safeguards in mind that the proposal should be considered. What makes it difficult to accept the Amendment is that we believe that, in some circumstances, it could be strongly in the public interest to make a byelaw affecting a lake to which the public did not have formal access. The most obvious thing is the possibility of noise nuisance, which could affect a considerable area even though its performance was confined to the stretch of water.
In practice any such byelaws would be accepted and confirmed only if it could be shown that there was either some positive danger to the public or a nuisance of a kind so intense and intolerable that the criteria I have described—reasonableness, and so forth—might fairly apply. The new Clause was put down after strong pressure in Committee in a Government endeavour to meet the views expressed, and because the Amendment to line 4 would weaken the new Clause unnecessarily, I must advise the House not to accept it. Having described the background to the byelaw making power suggested in our new Clause, I hope the House will agree that this is the proper course to take.
§ Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster)I have a good deal of sympathy with the intention of the new Clause, as I have with most of the Lords Amendments. Indeed, when the other place is under a cloud in some quarters, it is notable that it has made 54 Amendments to the Bill and that the Government propose to accept all but five. The hon. Lady was very reasonable when she explained why she cannot consent to our 155 Amendment to the new Clause, but I think that, while the intention of the new Clause is reasonable, this is the wrong way to carry it out; if it is proposed to put extra restrictions on land in national parks which is not the property of a state body, then it should be done explicitly, and possibly should refer to all land and not only to land covered with water. But I could not accept the new Clause unamended yet still retaining subsection (7).
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. At the moment we are not discussing the new Clause but only the limited part of it which falls under the proposed Amendment to line 4.
§ Mr. SmithAs the Clause stands, statutory undertakers, even though the public do have access to their water, are excluded from the provisions, whereas individual owners, even though the public do not have access to their water, are included. This is a glaring example of the double standard being increasingly applied to property owners, under which the individual is assumed to be by nature bad and the State and public bodies are assumed to be by nature good. This is not always the case, particularly when it comes to amenity.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman's argument would be much more appropriate on the question of whether the House should agree or disagree with the Lords Amendment. The proposed Amendment to line 4 of the Lords Amendment is a very narrow point.
§ Mr. SmithI do not want to make a large number of speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so perhaps I may be allowed to say that the new Clause as it stands further enhances the double standard adopted towards owners of property and that, if our Amendment to line 4 were accepted, the new Clause would be improved at least to a small degree in that respect.
§ Mr. JoplingI well understand the apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and he was quite right to draw attention to them. The criteria which the Home Office will use and which the hon. Lady has explained have gone quite some way 156 to relieve my fears, but I must point out that one of my reasons for moving my new Clause in Committee and on Report was to try to prevent undue commercialisation of and undue new activity on some of our private lakes, particularly in the Lake District.
I understand that Loweswater, Butter-mere, Bassenthwaite and Rydal Water are all private lakes. They are owned by people who have no intention of introducing obnoxious forms of water sport which would, in some cases, be most unhappy. But if someone bought Rydal Water and wanted to start a private water skiing club, I understand that until this Clause becomes law there is nothing to prevent that being done. It was to prevent that sort of thing happening on these marvellous small lakes that we have in the Lake District, of which Rydal Water is probably the classic example, that I moved my new Clause in the first place. This is the other side of the coin to that given by my hon. Friend earlier. I hope that the hon. Lady's explanations will be enough to induce my hon. Friends not to press the matter to a Division.
§ Mrs. WhiteThe hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) is mistaken in his remark about the double standard. The fact is that various statutory bodies—the river authorities, the internal drainage boards, the conservancy boards, British Waterways, and so on—have other byelaw making powers, and it is largely for that reason that they are excluded from the provisions of the Clause.
I would remind the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) that we have similar lakes in Snowdonia, about which I am very much concerned.
§ Mr. Gibson-WattWith the leave of the House. I confess now to feeling somewhat like Solomon. The hon. Lady's first explanation boiled down to the Home Office having told her that it would be all right in the end, because the Home Office would only settle for anything put up by a local authority if the proposal was sensible.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) and I are agreed that as the Clause is now drafted it means that any piece of water, however small, which 157 is in private hands will be liable to bye-laws by the local authority. My hon. Friends and I cannot accept that state of things. I do not want to make too much of it. I have spoken about the noise question, which has also been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling).
Having weighed things up, I come down on the side, not necessarily of the angels but of those hon. Members who
§ feel that this is an invasion, and something which could have been avoided had the Government decided to redraft the Clause in a different way. As the Clause is now drafted, I have no option but to advise my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 83, Noes 125.
159| Division No. 233.] | AYES | [8.59 p.m. |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Holland, Philip | Pike, Miss Mervyn |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Hornby, Richard | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Batsford, Brian | Hunt, John | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Price, David (Eastleigh) |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Pym, Francis |
| Brewis, John | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Rees-Davies, W. R. |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Kershaw, Anthony | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn) | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Channon, H. p. G. | Lane, David | Scott, Nicholas |
| Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Sharpies, Richard |
| Costain, A P. | Loveys, w. H. | Silvester, Frederick |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Lubbock, Eric | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Smith, John (London & W'minstcr) |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Maude, Angus | Speed, Keith |
| Eyre, Reginald | Mawby, Ray | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) |
| Foster, Sir John | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy |
| Glyn, Sir Richard | Monro, Hector | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Goodhew, Victor | More, Jasper | Van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Grant-Ferris, R. | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Grieve, Percy | Murton, Oscar | Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley) |
| Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Gurden, Harold | Nicholis, Sir Harmar | WhiteIaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Onslow, Cranley | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Oeborn, John (Hallam) | |
| Hawkins, Paul | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Mr. Anthony Grant and |
| Hill, J. E. B. | Percival, Ian | Mr. Timothy Kitson. |
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Gourlay, Harry | McBride, Neil |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | McCann, John |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Gregory, Arnold | MacDermot, Niall |
| Beaney, Alan | Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | McGuire, Michael |
| Blackburn, F. | Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Maclennan, Robert |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Hannan, William | MacPherson, Malcolm |
| Booth, Albert | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Manuel, Archie |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Haseldine, Norman | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Hazell, Bert | Maxwell, Robert |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Mendelson, J. J. |
| Buchan, Norman | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Millan, Bruce |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Hoy, James | Miller, Dr. M. S. |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Milne, Edward (BIyth) |
| Carmichael, Neil | Hunter, Adam | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) |
| Coe, Denis | Hynd, John | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Dell, Edmund | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Moyle, Roland |
| Dickens, James | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Murray, Albert |
| Dobson, Ray | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.) | Newens, Stan |
| Doig, Peter | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | Jones, T. Alee (Rhondda, West) | O'Malley, Brian |
| Eadie, Alex | Judd, Frark | Orme, Stanley |
| Ellis, John | Kenyon, Clifford | Oswald, Thomas |
| Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | Lawson, George | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) |
| Fernyhough, E. | Leadbitter, Ted | Paget, R. T. |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Lestor, Miss Joan | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Ford, Ben | Lipton, Marcus | Pentland, Norman |
| Fowler, Gerry | Lomas, Kenneth | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | Loughlin, Charles | Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) |
| Rankin, John | Spriggs, Leslie | Wellbeloved, James |
| Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) | Whitaker, Ben |
| Roberts, Albert (Normanton) | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) | Symonds, J. B. | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Roebuck, Roy | Tinn, James | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.) | Urwin, T. W. | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) | Varley, Eric G. | Woof, Robert |
| Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) | |
| Silverman, Julius | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Skeffington, Arthur | Wallace, George | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Slater, Joseph | Watkins, David (Consett) | Mr. J. D. Concannon. |
§ Mr. JoplingI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 35, at end insert:
'and any district council in whose area the lake is situated'.The new Clause vests in the Planning Board powers to regulate boating. I know that it is arguable whether the Planning Board should have these powers, but I believe that it should. Some people believe that the powers should not be vested in a non-elected body such as the Planning Board, but I think that it is right that district councils should not have the right to make these powers. However, there would be tremendous confusion on a lake like Ullswater, where three district councils are involved. It is essential that in promulgating bye-laws the Planning Board should consult the county district councils.Windermere Urban District Council not only owns the bed of Lake Winder-mere. It also deals with moorings on the bed of the lake. It is directly concerned with the boating industry which exists around the lake. It has a great interest in the happenings on the lake and in control over the lake. My view is that the council ought to be consulted by the planning board at an early stage when byelaws are being drawn up.
Under the new Clause as it stands, a planning board has to consult the Commission and the Home Secretary has to confirm the proposed byelaws. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary would consult district councils at that stage, but I should much prefer the district councils to be consulted by the planning board at the outset. My Amendment would make it mandatory to consult district councils affected right from the start of the evolution of byelaws.
In the Lake District, full consultation takes place between the planning board and the district councils, and I believe that it will continue. I have spoken to the clerk to the Lake District Planning 160 Board on the matter, and he has assured me that, if the new Clause goes through, there will be the fullest consultation between the planning board and, for example, Windermere Urban District Council when byelaws are being drafted. But we are legislating for the future. In 20 or 30 years, relations between the planning boards and district councils, if they still exist in their present form, may deteriorate, and consultation may not be as effective as it is now or as we reasonably expect it to be if the Clause is enacted.
I understand that my Amendment is acceptable to the Lake District Planning Board. I have spoken to the Clerk about that. If it were adopted, it would be welcomed by the district councils which have lakes within their boundaries, and, what is more, in my own constituency, for instance, the Royal Winder-mere Yacht Club would very much welcome such an Amendment. I have had a letter from the club telling me that.
The Minister has told us that, after the Bill is passed, a circular will go out from the Ministry asking planning boards to consult district councils. But this is not enough. If the Government are prepared to issue a circular on the subject, they should be prepared to go the whole hog and write into the Clause an instruction to planning boards to consult district councils which are involved.
§ Mrs. WhiteWe have the fullest sympathy with the object expressed by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). We fully appreciate his concern, particularly as regards Windermere, where the urban district council has a rather special position and where, if there were no consultation, there would be, so to speak, a storm on the lake. But his Amendment raises a question which we discussed on many occasions at earlier stages, the question of particularising in the Bill itself.
161 We are strongly in favour of a local planning authority initiating byelaws under the Clause consulting the appropriate district councils, but there might well be parish councils and other bodies which wished to be consulted. Although we understand that in the peculiar circumstances of Windermere the urban district council looms large, elsewhere in the country other appropriate authorities might demand consultation.
In our view, the proposal as it stands is the more satisfactory, and we should not particularise in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. A firm undertaking has been given, and I repeat it, that administrative action will be taken to advise all local planning authorities that they should seek these consultations at the earliest possible moment. They are all the more likely to do so because the local authorities, district councils and others, will have the opportunity to make their views known to the Home Office before any byelaws can be confirmed.
9.15 p.m.
There cannot be any sort of hole-in-the-corner about this. If byelaws are to be confirmed, notice must be given and it will be open to the district councils, as to other local government authorities and other interested bodies to make their views clearly and firmly known to the Home Office.
I repeat that we are entirely in sympathy with the object of the Amendment, but, as we have said in the past more than once, we feel that it is not desirable to particularise in this way. A similar situation arises on development plans. In dealing with this rather narrow issue of planning authorities initiating byelaws for lakes in National Parks, we should not do something contrary to the generally accepted principle of administration in these matters.
§ Mr. Gibson-WattWe are back to the Home Office again. It is being a little overworked in all this, and the object of my hon. Friend's Amendment is to avoid
§ that. If the Amendment were made, before making any byelaws local authorities should consult the Commission and any district council in whose area the lake is situated. If the discussions took place at that level, the matter need never go to the Home Office.
§ Mrs. WhiteIt is the Home Office which must confirm any proposed byelaw. It must give public notice, and objections can be submitted to it before it confirms the byelaw. It is that kind of byelaw.
§ Mr. Gibson-WattI appreciate that the hon. Lady has more experience than I have in this matter, but would not it be much easier to get the objections settled at local level and to write into the Bill that the district councils must be brought in at that early stage? We should then avoid a great deal of unnecessary toing and froing and trouble.
I see nothing wrong with the Amendment. My hon. Friend is not particularising. He is speaking of any district council, not just the district council of Windermere but any district council in whose area the lake is situated.
I know that the Minister thinks that she has given us a satisfactory answer, but she has not satisfied my hon. Friends and me.
§ Mr. JoplingI am most disappointed by what the Minister said, and I very much agree with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt). It is far better that there should be the fullest possible local consultation before such byelaws go to the Home Office. If we all agree this, why not write it into the Bill?
The explanations given are quite unsatisfactory, and I shall press the matter to a Division. I hope that my hon. Friends will join me.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:
§ The House divided; Ayes 85, Noes 126.
163| Division No. 234.] | AYES | [9.19 p.m. |
| Allason, Jimes (Hemel Hempstead) | Channon, H. P. G. | Gibson-Watt, David |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Clark, Henry | Clyn, Sir Richard |
| Batsford, Brian | Cooper-Key, Sir Neill | Goodhew, Victor |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Costain, A. P. | Grant-Ferris, R. |
| Boardman Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) | Grieve, Percy |
| Brewis, John | Errington, Sir Eric | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Eyre, Reginald | Gurden, Harold |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Foster, Sir John | Hall, John (Wycombe) |
| Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) | Mawby, Ray | Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey |
| Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Scott, Nicholas |
| Hawkins, Paul | May don, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Sharples, Richard |
| Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Silvester, Frederick |
| Hill, J. E. B. | More, Jasper | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Holland, Philip | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Smith, John (London & W'minster) |
| Hornby, Richard | Murton, Oscar | Speed, Keith |
| Hunt, John | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) |
| Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Jopling, Michael | Onslow, Cranley | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Osborn, John (Hallam) | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Kershaw, Anthony | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) | Wainwright, Richard (Coine Valley) |
| Kitson, Timothy | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Knight, Mrs. Jill | Percival, Ian | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Lane, David | Pike, Miss Mervyn | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Langford-Holt, Sir John | Pink, R. Bonner | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | |
| Loveys, W. H. | Price, David (Eastleigh) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Lubbock, Eric | Pym, Francis | Mr. Anthony Grant and |
| McAdden, Sir Stephen | Rees-Davies, W. R. | Mr. Hector Monro. |
| Maude, Angus | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas | |
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Hoy, James | Paget, R. T. |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Baxter, William | Hunter, Adam | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Beaney, Alan | Hynd, John | Pentland, Norman |
| Blackburn, F. | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) |
| Booth, Albert | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Rankin. John |
| Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. |
| Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Buchan, Norman | Judd, Frank | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) |
| Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) | Kenyon, Clifford | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow.E.) |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Lawson, George | Roebuck, Roy |
| Carmichael, Neil | Leadbitter, Ted | Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.) |
| Coe, Denis | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) | Lestor, Miss Joan | Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) |
| Dell, Edmund | Liptcn, Marcus | Silverman, Julius |
| Dickens, James | Lomas, Kenneth | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Dobson, Ray | Loughlin, Charles | Slater, Joseph |
| Doig, Peter | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | McBride, Neil | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Eadie, Alex | McCann, John | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Ellis, John | MacDermot, Niall | Symonds, J. B. |
| Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) | McGuire, Michael | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George |
| Fernyhough, E. | Maclennan, Robert | Tinn,James |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Iikeston) | MacPherson, Malcoim | Urwin, T. W. |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | Manuel, Archie | Varley, Eric G. |
| Ford, Ben | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Fowler, Gerry | Mendelson, J. J. | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | Millan, Bruce | Wallace, George |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Miller, Dr. M. S. | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Gourlay, Harry | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Whitaker, Ben |
| Gregory, Arnold | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | White, Mrs. Eirene |
| Griffiths, Will (Exchange) | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Moyle, Roland | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Hannan, William | Murray, Albert | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefieid) | Newens, Stan | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Haseldine, Norman | Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) | Woof, Robert |
| Hazell, Bert | O'Malley, Brian | |
| Hcrbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Orme, Stanley | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Horner, John | Oswald, Thomas | Mr. J. D. Concannon and |
| Mr. Joseph Harper. |
§ Motion made, and Questtion proposed. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mrs. White.]
§ Mr. BlenkinsopI do not think that we should pass this without expressing our warm thanks, I hope from both sides of the House, for the great efforts made 164 by the Ministry in drafting this Lords Amendment. The drafting of such an Amendment was felt by many people to be impossible at one stage. It was felt impossible to reconcile the conflicting interests involved. This has been a problem over a long period of years, and it has defeated many who have tried to solve it. It is only right to say that there 165 are many people in the Lakes areas who are delighted that this Amendment should have been passed in another place. They are very happy that there seems to be some real hope that in this way we shall be able to meet the growing recreational needs without damage to all the other interests which are involved. I am sure that there are very many on both sides of the House who are delighted that this Amendment has at last been made.
§ Mr. John SmithI echo, of course, what the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has just said, that this Lords Amendment, if it works, will do something which we want done and which was thought to be very difficult. But in view of what the hon. Lady said earlier I must revert, briefly, to the double standard in this Clause, which is that statutory undertakers are exempted from the Clause even if the public do have access to their water, while individual owners are bound by the Clause even if the public do not have access to their water.
9.30 p.m.
The hon. Lady said that statutory undertakers have powers to make byelaws. Of course they have those powers, in the Bill, but they are powers to be used only if the statutory undertakers wish to use them. They may make byelaws. There is no guarantee that they will. I can even imagine circumstances in which the duties of the statutory undertakers conflict with the making of such byelaws and will make it difficult for them to do so.
The assumption is that individual landlords are born base and that public bodies, as landlords, are by nature virtuous. Surely it is extremely dangerous to build up an old-boy network of public bodies on the assumption, as we have heard in the speeches that have been made, that public bodies can always be relied upon to do the right thing. I firmly believe that all owners of property should be treated alike by the law. For example, I am strongly in favour of council tenants having the same security of tenure as the tenants of other landlords. While welcoming the purpose behind this Lords Amendment, I very much regret the extension of this double standard in this new Clause.
§ Mr. JoplingI think that it was partly through my initiative that this new Clause has appeared, and I welcome it. It will go a long way to meet the case I asked 166 the Government to meet in Committee and on Report.
Reverting to subsection (7), about which I am bothered, and I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), we have had a good deal of experience of lakes in the Lake District which are owned or managed by statutory water undertakers. I would like an assurance that the lakes of Ullswater and Windermere, from which Manchester Corporation is empowered to extract 45 million gallons of water a day, will not be excluded from the provisions of this new Clause by virtue of that fact. This is an important point and I should like an assurance on it from the Government.
§ Mr. Gibson-WattAlthough there are three points in this new Clause from another place about which we had our doubts and disagreements, in general we welcome and support it. We are grateful to the Government for the way that they have followed the discussions on both sides in Committee. Our hope is that the fears which we have expressed earlier this evening will prove groundless.
§ Mrs. WhiteWe welcome the response which, on the whole, this new Clause has received. I should like to set at rest the doubts of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). The fact that a statutory authority may have extraction rights does not mean that it owns or manages the lake. Therefore, the two lakes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will come within the ambit of the new Clause.
§ Question put and agreed to.