Clause 1 (Hansard, 24 June 1968)

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot)
I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to alter the title of the Countryside Commission to that of "Countryside and National Parks Commission". In Committee of this House, an Opposition Amendment was carried to alter the title to "National Parks and Countryside Commission". But the original title, "Country Commission", was restored during the Report stage here without a Division. We now face an inverted form of that Amendment.
We debated this matter very fully and I would only say now that our objections to the proposed title are really the same as those put when we discussed the matter on Report—namely, that it is a cumbersome title which in practice would inevitably be shortened in daily usage. Most people, no doubt, would shorten it to "Countryside Commission"; others would probably shorten it to "National Parks Commission"; which could be a source of confusion; others might shorten it to initials, and "C.N.P.C." would not be very informative.
In any case, all this is superfluous because the shorter title we chose patently embraces the range of responsibility, including the National Parks. The proposed title in the Amendment would also carry an undesirable implication of divided re- 112 sponsibilities for the countryside and for the National Parks.
The decision to return to the shorter title on Report stage in this House had the support of the National Parks Commission and the Chairman has again written to me expressing the Commission's views on this Amendment, in the following terms: It is the Commission's considered view that the short title ' Countryside Commission' is preferable to 'Country and National Parks Commission '. In both Houses the main argument advanced for the retention of a reference to National Parks in the title has been that the absence of such a mention would adversely affect the status of the parks. As I stated emphatically on Report, this is not the Government's view. We do not think that the title "Countryside Commission" will mean any downgrading of the status of the National Parks. They will continue to be known as National Parks by their own particular names, and the planning committees and boards responsible for them will continue to bear the full titles of their National Parks. For these reasons, which are really repetitions of our arguments on Report, I advise the House to reject the Amendment.

§ Mr. H. P. G. Channon (Southend, West)
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman has decided not to accept the compromise which I thought generally satisfactory to a great number of people in another place and outside it. He has reminded us that, in Standing Committee, the original title "Countryside Commission" was changed to "National Parks and Countryside Commission" and that the Government reversed this decision on Report.
In Standing Committee, I supported the original title but hon. Members on both sides were anxious for a compromise between the two points of view expressed so forcibly. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson), the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and others were anxious for a change of title to "National Parks and Countryside Commission". This matter was debated also in the House of Lords fully in Committee and on Report and a genuine attempt was finally made to resolve the serious differences of opinion. I do not say that this is a matter of 113 earth-shaking consequence but it is an important matter.

§ Mr. Grant-Ferris (Nantwich)
The titles we give to our parks and to many cither things always seem far too long. Is it not possible for us to agree on something short and concise and which the public can seize on easily? A compromise like this, which would simply substitute one long title for the other originally proposed here, with neither falling easily off the tongue, is not a good way to proceed with these bodies. We should look at this again and see whether something concise cannot be used.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. If anyone attempted to do so at this stage, he would be out of order.

§ Mr. Channon
I understand the point. Indeed, I supported it in Standing Committee, but it was not the view of a large number of my hon. Friends nor that of a number of hon. members opposite. Nor was it the view, indeed, of many of their Lordships. I understand their views and therefore I do not fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris).
There are those who fear that, unless the National Parks are mentioned in the title, some of the original impetus on which the present National Parks Commission was set up and some of its outstanding work, to which we all pay tribute, might be lost. We must, of course, lend weight to the Chairman's letter and many hon. Members felt that the shorter title was more succinct and more practical. It is true that the title "Countryside" includes the National Parks and I agreed, when we discussed this earlier, that if the Commission was called "National Parks and Countryside Commission", giving it the initials N.P.C.C, 114 there could be some danger of confusion with such bodies as the N.S.P.C.C.
The two views were reconciled, as far as possible, in another place, largely owing to suggestions put forward by my noble Friends Lord Swinton, Lord Nelson and Lord Brooke of Cumnor. They put the ingenious suggestion that both points could be met if the Commission were called "Countryside and National Parks Commission", thus preserving the reference to the National Parks while accepting that, in practice, the Commission would be called the "Countryside Commission".
After all, the full title of the original Act was the "National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act" but it is nearly always referred to as the "National Parks Act". If we had the title "Countryside and National Parks Commission", we should have the shorter title "Countryside Commission" used in practice but the full title would preserve the name"National Parks", which is what so many people wish to do.
These are extremely finely balanced arguments both ways. I was quite happy with the original title "Countryside Commission". I voted against the original Amendment including the title "National Parks". But many others took a different view. I would be happier if we could stick to this compromise set out by their Lordships. It can hardly be said to be a party issue. It is an issue which the House of Commons is qualified to judge and on balance, the great effort having been made— It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.