Lords Sitting of 8 November 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Noel-Buxton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
2.36 p.m.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will state their intentions as regards the reform of local government after the passing of the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Bill.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Government's intentions in this matter were stated by the Minister of Health in another place in the debate on the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Bill, which will shortly conic before your Lordships' House. The Government are reviewing the structure and functions of local government, but are not yet in a position to announce proposals. There is, I am afraid, no prospect of legislation in the present Parliament.
LORD HINDLIP: I thank the noble Lord for his reply.

CLOTHING INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ORDER
2.37 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on October 27 last, be approved. The Clothing Industry Development Council Order for which I am asking the approval of your Lordships is presented to your Lordships' House in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and
318
Development Act, 1947. Its purpose is to set up a development council for the clothing industry, and it follows in fairly close form the precedents set up by the Orders already approved by Parliament, under which development councils were set up for the cotton industry, the furniture industry and the jewellery and silverware industry. Therefore, I do not think that I need worry your Lordships with the details of the provisions.
The clothing industry is one of our most important industries. Every member of the population is interested in it as a consumer. I suppose it could rightly be said that, after food, we are primarily concerned with clothes—and perhaps it could be said of the female sex that that order is reversed. Everything that happens in the industry, its efficiency, the quality and the price of its goods, the contribution it makes to the export trade and the demands it makes upon our man-power, are all matters of national interest. Its set-up follows closely the pattern of so many of our British industries: a few large concerns, many of medium size and a whole host of small ones. Only 5,000 employers in the industry employ more than ten workers, and in the great majority of these cases the number is less than 100. How many there are who employ fewer than ten at the present time I cannot say, but in 1935 it was estimated that there were over 20,000.
As does happen in industries where this state of affairs persists, it is the happy hunting ground for those who think that the number of trade associations provides a way to measure the efficiency of an industry. When we had negotiations with the clothing industry concerning this development council, we had to consult on the employers' side no fewer than twenty-five separate bodies, each claiming to represent a substantial number of employers in the industry, and there were, in addition, a number of local and other bodies. According to the information supplied to the Heavy Clothing Working Party, the total membership of the twenty-five central organisations of employers does not appear to exceed 6,000, so that 75 per cent. of the firms operating in this industry have no trade organisations. Upon the workers' side there are two unions having a membership of something in the region of

319
150,000, out of a total of about 450,000 employees in the industry. Despite the multiplicity of trade bodies on the employers' side, or perhaps because of it, the industry is not well organised. Consultation and negotiation on various matters for years past, other than the negotiations that were carried on in connection with this development council, have been very difficult, and this has prevented the industry from working out and pursuing a common policy and from overcoming some of the evils from which it has suffered in the past. And it must he admitted that in some of its branches, though not all of them, the over-all standard of production is not that which we would like and which we think is obtainable.
In April, 1946, the Heavy Clothing Working Party was set up. It was followed in the succeeding year by two other working parties, one for the light clothing industry, and the other for the rubber-proofed clothing industry. They were composed of representatives of the employers and workers, together with independent members. The Heavy Clothing Working Party Report was submitted in November 1946. It said:
"We consider not only that the need for a central organisation is evident but that the establishment of such a body to perform those functions which are not covered by the existing organisations and which cannot or should not be undertaken by the Government is essential to the well being and efficiency of the industry."
The Light Clothing Working Party Report, which was submitted in 1947, contained this finding:
"We have come unanimously to the conclusion that the best solution lies in the establishment of a single development council, but on a federal basis, providing the maximum degree of automony for the light clothing and heavy clothing sections of the industry."
The Report of the Rubber-proofed Clothing Working Party, which was also submitted in 1947, said:
"We think that the rubber-proofed clothing industry would have everything to gain from the setting up of a development council for the clothing industry, sharing in the benefits of any general work sponsored by it and able to bring to its attention the special problems of the rubber proofed clothing trade. We recommend that in any Order setting up a development council for the clothing industry provision should be made for direct representation on the council of the rubber-proofed clothing interest."
320
The draft Order before your Lordships' House sets up three separate committees; one for the heavy clothing industry, one for the light clothing industry, and one ' for the rubber-proofed clothing industry.
Section 1 (4) of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act reads as follows:
"A development council order shall not be made unless the Board or Minister concerned is satisfied that the establishment of a development council for the industry is desired by a substantial number of the persons engaged in the industry."
In submitting the other Orders to your Lordships for approval, I have had no difficulty in satisfying your Lordships that those in favour of a development council were a substantial number, because in all cases they have been in the majority. I cannot claim that this Order commands the same degree of support but I have little fear that I can satisfy your Lordships that the support which is
given to the Order is substantial. To enable me to satisfy your Lordships, I think it is only fair that I should acquaint the House with the hare arithmetic of the position. On the employers' side, two employers' organisations—the Master Ladies Tailoring Organisation, and the Light Clothing Contractors' Association—believed to represent over 1,000 out of a total of about 6,000 firms organised in the industry, have declared themselves firmly in support of the Order. One other organisation—the Bespoke Tailors Guild—after originally giving their approval, later made their support conditional. The majority, though not all, of the remaining employers' organisations are opposed to the Order. In addition, there are approximately 20,000 firms, representing about 75 per cent. of all firms in the industry, who are outside the employers' organisations. These have said neither "Yea" nor "Nay." Their views are not known, although we have tried to get their comments. We have issued a non-Parliamentary publication, Press notices and the like, but there has been no response one way or the other.
Upon the workers' side, the two unions, the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers and the Waterproofed Garment Workers Trade Union, representing some 150,000 employees, the whole of the organised workers in the industry, are strongly in favour of the proposals in this Order. That is the bare

321
arithmetic, but I would acid to the substantial number of 1,000 employers and 150,000 workers the three working parties, which were composed of responsible and leading industrialists representing all sections of the employers and of the unions concerned. These working parties, from whose reports I have just quoted, are unanimously in favour of setting up a central body such as a development council. Indeed, the United Committee of Light Clothing Associations submitted a memorandum to the Light Clothing industry Working Party which contained this basic recommendation:
"The United Committee are in favour of a central organisation being set up to cover all sections of the garment manufacturing industry. The United Committee further considers that this central organisation should be created by the Board of 'Trade under the powers conferred under, and in conformity with, the principles to be embodied in the Industrial Organisation Act when this becomes law. It is further recommended that the powers to be conferred by the Act be invoked to provide for the financing of this central body, or development council as it will more appropriately be called, by a compulsory levy on all manufacturers covered by the council."
Further support was given to proposals similar to those contained in this Order by a Council of the Clothing Trade Associations which was set up in 1943, under the chairmanship of Mr. G. Russell Vick, K.C., to report on post-war reconstruction in the clothing industry. A significant passage in their Report is this:
"With these facts and experiences in mind, it is clear that there is a call for the creation of a central body coordinating the functions of the various associations, providing facilities for discussion and action on common problems, and providing services to the industry which it would be beyond the powers, for various reasons, of individual associations to provide."
So the reasons which brought all these various bodies to the conclusion that a central organisation on the lines of a development council is necessary are the self-same reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to bring this Order before your Lordships this afternoon.
There are a number of problems of vital concern, not only to the industry but to the nation—problems which the present crisis brings out in stark relief. All these problems can be effectively dealt with only by some central organisation such as is proposed. The outstanding need is to increase, first of all, the
322
industry's productivity. Much can he done in this direction by the improvement of its technical efficiency, the improvement of factory lay-out, machinery, equipment, lighting and production methods. In our present crisis a
manufacturing industry which requires a labour force of approximately 500,000 must be expected to make an outstanding contribution to our export trade. At the present moment the clothing industry's contribution 'to our export trade is only 4½ per cent. of its total production—namely, about £13,000,000 out of its annual turnover of £300,000,000.
Both the heavy and the light clothing working parties regarded the evil of seasonal fluctuations as being very serious. Unemployment in the off-season, ranging at about 9 per cent, of the whole labour force, and short-time working for many, both on the male and the female side, were characteristics of prewar years. The establishment and maintenance of proper standards of quality, which is a highly technical matter and one well fitted for a body fully representative of the industry, is one of the all-important matters which must come under consideration. In the past, as a number of noble Lords here well know, the industry has been able to rely upon a plentiful supply of cheap labour. In the future, the economical use of labour and its better utilisation, resulting from improvement of equipment, is a matter which must receive the urgent attention of the industry, as must also the training of its technicians and designers. Attention, too, must be paid to that multitude of problems to which any highly developed industry must have regard.
I have drawn your Lordships' attention to the lay-out of this industry, which, as I have said, consists of a few large, many medium and a multiplicity of small concerns. It is the pattern of many British industries and will remain so while British individualism remains what it is. But it makes efficient organisation difficult. In fact the clothing industry is a typical example—I might almost say it is an outstanding example—cif where that wide gap between the most efficient and the least efficient firm e lasts—the gap to which Sir George Schuster so pointedly drew the country's attention in a recent letter to The Times. The industry has not organised itself. It has taken no

323
steps to implement the conclusions in that Report on Post-War Reconstruction in the Clothing Industry, which was issued in 1943 and which I have already quoted. It has taken no steps to organise itself since the publication of the Reports of the three working parties. I am therefore forced to the conclusion that this industry is so disorganised that it cannot organise itself without outside help.
The Government have a heavy responsibility in this matter. They can let the thing slide and drift; they can give the industry some statutory powers to organise itself upon a quasi-voluntary basis; or they can take it over. They do not wish to do the last, and they cannot do the first, so their proposal is that they should take the middle course and set up this development Council in order that the industry can organise itself, where the efficient can help the inefficient, where the total knowledge can be pooled, and where the recalcitrant have to contribute to the cost and not leave it to the public-spirited few to carry out the work and, incidentally, bear the expense as well. When there is so much controversy between noble Lords on the opposite side of the House and those on this side upon the merits or otherwise of nationalisation, surely there can be no controversy upon a matter in which the Government are willing to take steps to help private enterprise to do its job better in the national interest. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 27th of October last, be approved.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
2.56 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord for his exposition of a subject which was debated in another place for three and a quarter hours. I was particularly interested to listen to what I might term—I hope without offence—the special pleading of the noble Lord. He painted us a picture of a delightful Order, to which a few foolish people were objecting but which was deserving of unanimous support from all sides of the House. In the few moments I desire to take of your Lordships' time, I should like to try and show that there is another side to this problem. When the noble Lord talked about "the bare
324
arithmetic," I think he ought perhaps to have added that it was arithmetic of figures planned and presented in order to support his particular contentions, and mixed up with a somewhat one-sided presentation of the facts of the case.
We object to this Order on three grounds. First, it does not fulfil the undertaking given by Ministers in this House and in another place that a development council would not be foisted upon an unwilling industry. I will come back to that in a moment, and I may even quote the noble Lord himself, as well as some of his colleagues. Our second objection is that it does not fulfil the condition laid down in Section 1 (4) of the original Act, which says that if a development council be brought into being there must be substantial numbers of persons in the industry requiring it. I will come back to that in a moment. The third objection is that we feel it will not work, because it will impose a very considerable financial burden upon the industry—and eventually upon the consumers—just at the time when we are being exhorted by the Government to keep all forms of production costs down.
As the noble Lord said (I would like to achieve some measure of agreement with him, so far as I can) this is not one industry; it is a whole series of industries, employing, in round figures, 500,000 persons. The manufacturers'
associations, representing about 4,500 firms, employing 80 per cent. of the labour force, object to this Order. My first difference with the noble Lord is that he told your Lordships that 75 per cent. of the employers were not represented in the employers' organisations. That may be true in numbers, but the fact is that the employers represented in the manufacturers' associations employ no less than 80 per cent. of the labour in the industry. It is no good the noble Lord saying that 75 per cent. of the employers are not in these associations. What the noble Lord ought to say is that 80 per cent. of the employment in this industry is represented by the employers' associations. I submit that that would be a fairer way of putting this particular point.
The noble Lord then said that he based his case on the reports of three working parties which he said were unanimous in their recommendations for a development council. The noble Lord was not quite

325
clear—I think "clear" is a fair word—when he said that the Heavy Clothing Working Party reported before the passing of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. Since their recommendation was made before the Bill was passed, it cannot be used in support of a development council.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: What I thought I said was that the Heavy Clothing Working Party were in favour of an organisation similar to that which is now proposed.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I think it will he within the recollection of your Lordships that the noble Lord gave the impression that all three working parties were in favour. I am glad to receive that amendment to the noble Lord's special pleading in that direction. It is true that the Light Clothing Working Party and the Rubber-proofed Clothing Working Party, did recommend this. But what the noble Lord did not tell the House was that the employer members of the working parties were appointed as individuals; they had no mandate at all to speak for the employers' organisations to which they belonged. They were there solely as individuals, and their recommendations do not carry, and were never supposed to carry, any weight on behalf of the particular employers' organisations to which they belonged.
The noble Lord quoted three employers' organisations which are supposed to be in favour of this development council. What he did not tell your Lordships was that of the three he mentioned two represent not manufacturers themselves but sub-contractors, small people who do not own the main materials which they use to
fabricate. Those are owned by members of other organisations. It really is not fair to come to the House and say that employers' organisations are in favour, when the two he quotes are virtually small sub-contractors to the main body. He has also told your Lordships about the Bespoke Tailors Guild being in favour and then later withdrawing. I must press the noble Lord on this point, because there have been misunderstandings—I would not like to say misrepresentations—on it, and in another place the President of the Board of Trade said the same thing.
326
I have here a letter from the Bespoke Tailors Guild, together with a statement which was issued by them on November 8. I will read it to your Lordships, because we must have this matter fair and square. The statement says:
"In view of the statements made by Mr. Harold Wilson, President of the Board of Trade, in the House of Commons (a) that the Bespoke Tailors Guild was in favour of a Development Council for the Clothing Industry, and (b) had not declared its opposition. I must draw your attention to a Press Conference called at the offices of the Guild on February 21, 1949. At this Conference it was said ' We have never supported the proposals for the formation of a Development Council'."—
and then a further statement was issued. That is a categorical statement by the Guild which, in his special pleading, the noble Lord said was in favour of this development order.
I now come to the pledges which have been given by Ministers both to your Lordships, here, and in another place, that a development council would not be imposed upon an unwilling industry. I will deal first with the noble Lord himself, as it may ease his conscience a little if I take him 'before the other Ministers. The noble Lord, in reply to my noble friend, Lord Swinton, said in this House:
"…it was no good attempting to foist…on the employers and trades unions something with which they did not wholeheartedly agree, because that would have made the scheme abortive from the very commencement…"
The second pledge was given in another place by Mr. Marquand, who at that time was Paymaster-Genetal. He said:
"The Government have every intention of proceeding by agreement rather than by compulsion and does not wish to impose a development council on unwilling industry."
Then the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—who I regret is not here to be reminded of his words—said this:
"If in some particular industry the general attitude towards development councils is hostile, it is very unlikely indeed that a development council will be set up."
I know the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, did not give a definite pledge, but at any rate he gave an indication; other Ministers, as I have said, gave definite pledges.
The industry's objection is not based on any political grounds, as the President of the Board of Trade inferred in another place. It is a real objection by business men concerned with businesses in which they have spent their lives, and who feel

327
that they know the industry and its requirements better, perhaps, than those who sit at the centre in Whitehall. As the noble Lord said, there are many common problems which can be tackled separately. The industry say that there are very few common problems which can be tackled centrally; moreover, such problems as exist are already being tackled and can continue to be tackled in the future. One form of agreed central action is the example of the Clothing Mission, representing both employers and employees, which has gone to Canada. And the industry feels that the Government could proceed by voluntary organisation. The noble Lord brushed aside very quickly any idea of there being a voluntary organisation, but the industry has never expressed its unwillingness —indeed, it has expressed its willingness—to go forward on a voluntary basis rather than have this development council foisted upon them. The industry objects—and I believe we must all object, as consumers—to a charge of £300,000 in three years, which will be the amount of the levy on this industry. Eventually, everyone will have to pay for that in the price of their clothes, either those used here or for export. We feel that this is a wrong moment for the introduction of such heavy charges.
I want to come for a moment to the Government's statement that there are substantial numbers in industry who want a development council. The noble Lord quoted the trade unions. I have here figures which show that only 28 per cent. of the men in this industry belong to various trade unions—that is the estimated number. Of that 28 per cent, in the industry, how many really want this development council or know anything about it? There has been no ballot amongst those men as to whether or not they want a development council. All that has happened, apparently, is that the central representatives, or the representatives of this 28 per cent., have said they want a development council. I do not regard that as proof that substantial numbers in the industry are in favour of it. I am reminded of one of those card votes at the Trades Union Congress which we read about in the Press. A great union—let us say the Sheet Metal
328
Workers' Union—supports a proposal for the immediate abolition of the House of Lords, the abolition of all private property and the nationalisation of industry—one of those extreme resolutions which sometimes come up at the Trades Union Congress. They are, I am glad to say, always defeated, and though a card vote shows a majority in favour of them, I am sure the noble Lord will not tell me that every sheet metal worker is in favour of these things. Of course not. And in the present instance there has been no ascertaining from the men in the industry whether or not they desire this development council.
Finally, I would remind your Lordships that the President of the Board of Trade in another place gave as a reason for rejecting the voluntary basis the fact that the trade unions would not cooperate on a voluntary basis. The President of the Board of Trade, though he is frightened to go forward on one course because the trade unions will not co-operate, is willing, if the trade union representatives want another course followed, to go forward with that, even if the employers, for very good reasons, will not co-operate. It seems to me that that shows where the power behind this Government lies; when the trade unions say they want something the Board of Trade immediately go ahead, irrespective of the fact that the employers say that the proposals are unworkable and undesirable. I repeat, that shows where the real power lies. I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should take back this Order and think again, and see whether he can not come forward fulfilling the pledges which Ministers have given, that nothing should be foisted upon an unwilling industry. I suggest that the Government follow the course of voluntary action by those concerned, so that there can be co-operation by all in the object which all have at heart—the further improvement of the industry. If the Government will do that, this improvement could be achieved by peaceful means, without any reason at all for antagonism. This Order has been passed in another place, and we on these Benches do not propose to divide on it. But even at this late hour I would ask the noble Lord to take back the Order, to ask his colleagues to think again and to let wiser counsels prevail.
3.14 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has already dealt with a great many of the points with which I had intended to deal. I shall not repeat what he said, but there are one or two points upon which he did not touch, and which I may perhaps be allowed to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to the fact that in 1943 there was apparently an idea that this industry should be reorganised. Surely that is quite natural. The whole industry had been tremendously upset during the war; it had been turned on to making uniforms and other war material, and it was natural that an industry of this sort should wish to reorganise when the war was over. My excuse for addressing your Lordships is that I am the honorary treasurer of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce; that is how I come into touch with all these industries —I say "all these industries" as there are many different industries within the ambit of this Order. If ever there was an industry which was unsuitable for centralisation, I think it is this. I believe this industry is far more complicated, and has far more separate units, than is the case with the iron and steel industry.
My noble friend has quoted some figures in regard to the numbers of firms and others who are implicated in this business. I should like to refer to the question of whether or not the industry was in favour of a voluntary advisory council. The Minister himself said that even if it was, he could not accept it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: When the noble Lord refers to "the Minister" is he referring to the President of the Board of Trade or to myself?
LORD TEVIOT: To the President of the Board of Trade.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Can the noble Lord give me the date on which the Minister said that?
LORD TEVIOT: The noble Lord will find it in Hansard, November 1, Col. 308. It says:
"…I indicated in reply that in my view a development council was desirable and that I was perfectly certain from the attitude on the trade union side that no voluntary body would receive the co-operation which would be required to make it work."
330
That, I think, deals with the question which the noble Lord has just asked.
Undoubtedly this is an unwilling industry. I myself within the last fortnight have had interviews with important people in this industry and I failed to find one on the employers' side who was in favour of this Order. There is one question I should like to put to the noble Lord to show the diversity of the various industries (or trades as one might call them) within this industry. What possible relationship can exist between ladies' corsets and men's hats? Yet both come within this Order. That surely shows the absurdity of trying to centralise an industry which has such a wide diversity of products.
There is another matter on which my noble friend did not touch. So far as I can make out, there is only one thing that this Order can insist upon, and that is that the component parts of the industry can be forced to pay this £300,000 levy, to be expended in three years, to keep this council in being. So far as I can see, if the council come, for instance, to my noble
friend or myself and say, "You are not running your business properly; you must do this or that to improve it"; and I say. No, I have been running this business for many years; it is running very well and I am not going to do what you tell me to do," there is no power to make me do it. No doubt there would be a reflex action in the fact that my supplies of raw materials might be interfered with by the authorities in order to make me do what I was told. But, so far as I can see, there is no question that I can be forced by this Order to carry out its recommendations, other than that of paying the levy. Moreover, this is bound to be a most wasteful enterprise. No questions arise in the industry that cannot be dealt with by existing bodies in the shape of trade organisations, employees' organisations and Government organisations. Any points that are likely to arise can be dealt with, without this new organisation which is to be set up at great expense. As my noble friend asked, where is the money going to come from eventually? It will come out of the consumer's pocket, here and abroad, and in view of our situation generally it seems to me that it is a most unwise project upon which to embark at the present time.

331
My noble friend has dealt with much of what I was proposing to say. Now I come to my final point. What is really behind this? I have read this Order very carefully, and it seems to me that it is just a prelude to an attempt eventually to nationalise the industry. Surely we have had enough nationalisation of industry. It has cost the country a terrific amount of money in every instance, and to begin to deal with a complicated industry of this sort, with such wide and different trades embodied therein, is asking for more trouble and placing more expense on the wretched consumer and taxpayer. I only wish that my noble friend, who opened the debate on this side of the House so admirably, would insist that we should divide upon the matter. I think it is a most important question, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will do everything he can to make the President of the Board of Trade think again before he embarks upon what seems to me a most hazardous, dangerous and unwise Order.
3.23 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I want to support very briefly my two noble friends. When the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, unfolds to us another corner of Utopia, I often wonder whether he really believes in it himself. It seems to me that the process is derived from the very childlike attitude of His Majesty's Government towards industry in general. When they see a plant growing, they always want to pull it up to see if it really is growing. This is just another example. Some of the reasons which the noble Lord gave for
the promulgation of the Order sound most specious. The reason why this industry does not provide a large export trade is perfectly obvious. If he put himself in the position of the corresponding industry in any country, he would snort with indignation at the thought of any British exporting firm breaking into his territory, and would proceed to erect a huge tariff against it. I thought that today our need was to reduce overheads. We frequently hear that cry from the noble Lord himself. We have certainly heard it from the trade unions and from the Government themselves. Yet this Order imposes more overheads upon that industry.
332
We have three committees. They have each fourteen functions and, if noble Lords read those fourteen functions, they will see that the possibilities of an accumulation of paper work are infinite. As much as £150,000 in a year can be spent by this particular development council, but most of the expense is to fall directly upon the industry; it will not be included in the £150,000 at all. I should be very surprised if the industry did not have to bear at least ten times that amount on its own account, in addition to financing the £150,000 by a levy. The list of functions is so diverse and complex that I do not believe the council, when set up, will have the slightest idea where to start and, in default of knowing how to do it, the first thing they will do is to take refuge in function No. 14—the collection of statistics. The collection of statistics from thousands of units (I think I am right in saying, from even tens of thousands of units) who do not keep them to-day, who do not know how to keep them and to whom statistics are quite meaningless when they are kept, will certainly tax the available staffs of the council to an enormous extent, to say nothing of the extra burden and cost which will be thrown upon the suppliers of the statistics. I know that, in spite of my noble friend's plea, the noble Lord may not be successful in getting the Order withdrawn. If he is unable to do so, I hope he will put in a strong plea that these organisations, when they start work, will ignore item No. 14 of their functions for the first two or three years of their life.
3.27 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for not accusing me of presenting this Order in an unfair manner to your Lordships. I have had the honour of putting proposals before you from this Despatch Box on many occasions. I have always tried to be scrupulously fair and honest in my statements, and I do not think I can be accused of not being honest in this. Naturally, the noble Lord opposite would expect me to present my case as well as I can. I should not be standing here if I were not able to do that. The noble Lord has presented his case in opposition as well as he could. He would not stand there if he could not. People who sit on Front Benches are not put there as

333
ornaments; they are put there for reasons of ability. I gave your Lordships the bare arithmetic and stated only the facts. Then I weighted, as I think I was entitled to weight, those facts with the opinions of the organisations to which I have referred.
The noble Lord will not deny that the men who sat on these working parties were the leading industrialists of the industry. I am quite prepared to admit that, although they were nominated by the organisations, it was clear that they sat as individuals. But that did not take away their brains or their reputations. If your Lordships would like me to read out the list of the employers' representatives upon the working parties I will do so, and you would see that they were the leading figures in the clothing industry. These working parties were unanimous, so I do not think mine was an unfair statement. The noble Lord then said that the Act stated that there must he "a substantial number." I went out of my way to acquaint your Lordships with what it said. I said that, although in this case there was not a majority, at least I could claim that there was a substantial number; and I maintain that there is a substantial number.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, asks: "Have you taken a census of the 150,000 employees in the trade unions as to whether they are all in favour? "No. I would ask the noble Lord, have the employers' organisations taken a census of all their members as to whether they are against the Order? The answer is, No, they have not. We have had quite a number of letters from members of the organisations saying that they are in favour. So we shall not get anywhere by arguing on this basis. I ask your Lordships to take this argument into consideration. Is a figure of 1,000 firms—some may be sub-contractors (that I grant the noble Lord) but they are at least members of the manufacturing side of this industry—
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is true that those 1,000 firms employ about 3 per cent. of the labour?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I will tell the noble Lord that I do not know. I have no figures to contradict that statement. But these are the facts:
334
1,000 firms upon the manufacturing side; 150,000 workers upon the workers' side; an organisation set up by the whole of the industry in 1943, who unanimously recommended that a central organisation such as this was necessary; and three working parties who unanimously reported, are in favour of such an organisation. It is true that one reported before the Act came into being and they could not, therefore, use the term "a development council." My Lords, am I not entitled to say that that in total adds up to "a substantial number"?
LORD TEVIOT: I would like to point out to the noble Lord that the fact that the working parties have come to certain conclusions does not for a moment, on the noble Lord's own showing, mean that the industry is in favour of the Order.
LORD LUCAS or CHILWORTH: I have been in industry long enough to know that a leader of industry who sits upon a national body is, somehow or other, supposed to be cognisant of the feelings of his industry and voices those feelings. If not, then lie belies the title of "leader." The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, also asked about pledges. This matter has not been foisted upon an unwilling industry. The Bespoke Tailors' Guild said to the Board of Trade that they would support this development council, albeit with reservations, and would want representation upon it. I am very certain that this industry will live to appreciate the action of His Majesty's Government and of your Lordships' House in approving this Order, as I understand from the noble Lord your Lordships will do. Because the noble Lord has given me that assurance, I am not going to say one 'word that will make co-operation between His Majesty's Government and this industry more difficult.
But I think I am entitled just to reply to one or two other points. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, says that this industry is totally different from any other. That is said of every industry and, believe me, this industry differs not one iota from practically every other British industry. Every British industry, as I have said (and it is quite true), consists of a few big, many medium and some very small concerns. The engineering industry is a typical example. That industry has thousands of shops which employ only two or three

335
men and make things as far divorced as are corsets and caps. I have no intimate knowledge of corsets. The noble Lord enjoys a certain reputation amongst your Lordships and I do not know whether he is a greater authority than 1. But if we get on to similes of various things, of wearing apparel and their connection with one another, we might get into deep waters, into which I feel your Lordships would not like to go.
LORD TEVIOT: I mentioned that merely as a diversity between the two things. I will take something else if the noble Lord does not like it. The overall trade and children's clothing are, I submit, miles apart. How can you centralise an organisation dealing with those?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: They still use the basic material, cloth. I do not think I need reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I have replied to the general point. But perhaps I should say this. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned that the cost of the levy for this development council was £300,000 per year.
LORD TEVIOT: It is for three years.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It cannot exceed £150,000 in any one year and it will cost the employer something in the region of 5s. per worker. If it could be reduced to the cost of a garment, it would be a fraction of one farthing per garment produced. That is the other side of it. The noble Lord's figure of £150,000 sounds very impressive, and my figure of a farthing per garment is equally impressive; it all depends on how you look at it. My Lords, may I end by thanking the noble Lord for his constructive criticisms and also by thanking your Lordships for approving this Order. It is really in the national interest, and I am certain that it will do inestimable good to the British clothing industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
3.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
The National Parks Commission
1. There shall be a National Parks Commission which shall be charged with the duty of exercising the functions conferred on them by the following provisions of this Act—
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, after paragraph (b) to insert:
"(c) For making known the situation and extent of an access to National Parks and areas of outstanding beauty and long distance routes and for educating the public in a proper standard of behaviour in National Parks areas of outstanding beauty areas to which the public have access by virtue of an agreement or order under Part V of this Act and other rural areas."
The noble Lord said: When the Minister introduced this Bill in another place he said it had two main objects, the first to enhance and maintain the beauty of the countryside, and the second to enable our people to see and enjoy it. Those, of course, are the two objects mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this clause. I ventured to suggest on Second Reading that there was another object which was almost as important: I said that it was of equal importance that persons entering these places should preserve and not destroy that beauty. The Committee will notice that paragraph (a) entails a certain sacrifice on the part of owners, and that paragraph (b) entails a substantial financial obligation both on the Ministry and the local authority. I venture to think that it is desirable that some small obligation should be placed upon the third party concerned, and that it should be inserted here.
I cannot but feel that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, will have a certain sympathy with this Amendment, because in the course of his introduction of this Bill he spoke strongly in favour of the principle that I am putting forward. No

337
doubt he will say "I am strongly in favour of it, but you will find it well incorporated in the Bill." I think it is so important a principle, however, that one should not have to go all the way to Clause 85—or even to Clause 61—to find it: it should be, so to speak, in the forefront of the battle. There is another reason why I suggest that this third paragraph should be inserted, and it is this. Perhaps the main criticisms of this Bill have been on the grounds of the extremely nebulous duties of the Commission and their almost non-existent powers. If this third paragraph is inserted it will at least show that there are some duties for the Commission, and that they are not entirely a cipher in their own house. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): In rising to deal with this Amendment may I ask noble Lords to follow the good example which has just been set by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, and to move their Amendments as briefly as he has moved this one? If they do that, it will help us greatly to get through Amendments on the Marshalled List, which altogether total nearly 300. Lord Cranworth was right, of course, in his anticipation of my attitude on this Amendment. In Clause 1 of the Bill are set out the fundamental purposes for which the Commission is set up, and the Government feel that it is not necessary to add further definitions at this point. The noble Lord mentioned that what he has put in this Amendment is covered by what is already in the Bill. That is so. All I would say is that the Commission have a duty to provide information services and to encourage good behaviour in the country; that is laid down in the Bill. It may well be that it would please the noble Lord if certain things which are contained later in the Bill were put in earlier. But it is not possible to have everything in the forefront. As I say, what the noble Lord has set out in the Amendment is already covered in the Bill. For that reason I do not think it is necessary to accept such an Amendment as this at this stage.
There is another consideration to be borne in mind. In drawing up his
338
Amendment the noble Lord has gone beyond what is provided in Clause 8. He suggests that there should be included among the Commission's purposes the encouragement of good behaviour on access land and in rural areas generally. Clause 85 naturally limits it to access land. I assure the noble Lord that, as he has said, I have much sympathy, as has the Minister, with the purpose of the Amendment, but we think that its purpose will be achieved without its inclusion in the Bill. After all, it is to be recognised that we should cut right across Clause 1 and its purposes by inserting what is, after all, not really a definition of a purpose but a method to achieve that purpose. In view of these considerations I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Of course, he cannot expect me to be in entire agreement with him. But, after all, this Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment., and as the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept it, I ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Constitution of Commission
2.—(1) The National Parks Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") shall be a body corporate by that name with a common seal, and shall consist of a chairman and such number of other members as the Minister may determine, of whom one may be appointed to be deputy chairman.
(2) The members of the Commission shall be appointed by the Minister and shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the instrument under which they are appointed and, on vacating office, shall be eligible for reappointment.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1) after "members" to insert:
"at least two of whom shall have a practical knowledge of agriculture and forestry—"
The noble Earl said: I think your Lordships will agree that this Amendment is of considerable importance, not only to the agricultural and forestry interests, whom we wish to see properly represented on the Commission, but to the whole working and purpose of the Bill. I am sure your Lordships on all sides of the Chamber will be with me when I say that the whole success of the Bill for

339
which we all hope will depend ultimately, not merely on legislation or on the words in the Bill but on an increase in the closeness of understanding between town and country.
As I ventured to say during the Second Reading debate, there is no question but that this Bill is widely welcomed in rural areas. On the other hand, there is a considerable amount of fear, particularly in the minds of the farmers and others responsible for food production, lest inevitably there should be a great deal of interference—most of it possibly arising through ignorance—with their interests. If the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, would agree to this Amendment, which is intended to ensure that the Minister shall appoint at least two members of the National Parks Commission from among those who have a practical knowledge of agriculture and forestry, he would be giving a great measure of reassurance to rural interests. He will notice that we have not asked for representatives of agriculture and forestry to be appointed on the Commission. I do not think any of us would want to see this body in any way made into a representative body. We say simply that it should include at least two individuals who have practical knowledge of agriculture and forestry.
I do not want to help the noble Lord to make his answer, but we all know perfectly well what it is going to be. No doubt it will be the stock ministerial answer to the effect that: "You must not ask me to specify any particular members of the Commission because if you do every other interest which may be concerned will want to have nominees." I suggest to the noble Lord that the whole purpose of the Bill is to increase the number of people who have access to the countryside. Inevitably, however much we all desire it, that must tend to affect very seriously, in particular, those connected with agriculture and forestry. May I end by saying this: let us remember that when we talk about agriculture to-day we are not talking purely in terms of the interests of the farmers and land owners, we are speaking in terms of something that may well decide the future of this country in the next few years—namely, food production. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after "("members") insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I say just a word or two on this Amendment, which I regard as of some importance? I think everyone will agree that the great danger of this Bill is that if it is worked without regard to the interests of agriculture and forestry it may inflict a great injury upon something that is of vital importance at the present time. We do not want a single acre of good agricultural land to be destroyed, if we can help it, by the operation of this measure. I confess that I am rather perturbed because there is no positive prohibition in the Bill against the doing of acts injurious to agriculture and forestry. That the interests of those occupations must have due regard appears from the Bill itself, for Clause 5 (4) sets out that:
"In the exercise at any time of their functions as respects any National Park the Commission and local authorities shall have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry."
That means, obviously, that they are to consider whether a proposed park or
something which is to be done is likely to injure agriculture or forestry. They are to have "due regard" to those interests; but they are not positively prohibited from doing harm to them. In some cases it would be a matter of discretion.
Take the case of forestry. All your Lordships know that during the last few weeks numbers of letters have appeared in the Press about the sort of trees that should be planted or destroyed in certain areas. I conceive that if a Commission which is constituted under Clause 2 of the Bill has not in its membership at least two people who have a fairly profound knowledge of how to carry on the business of agriculture and how to manage the business of forestry, there will be a great danger that the National Parks Commission will approve something which will ultimately turn out to be an unfortunate step in the interests of agriculture and forestry. Accordingly, I think it is clear that a provision such as this ought to come into the Bill somewhere. I do not think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has ever suggested that it would do anybody any harm. It is an additional two or three lines to a somewhat lengthy Bill, and that is the only harm I can suggest. I urge the Government to reconsider this matter, if necessary between now and a later stage, and I hope they will show quite early in the Bill in this

341
way that the general interests of agriculture and forestry are being deeply regarded 'by the Government.
VISCOUNT EUBANK: I should like to support my noble friend in his Amendment. This seems to me to be the same question we have discussed over and over again in this House during the last year or two. In nationalised industries especially, the Minister has always sought to evade a statutory demand that individuals who know about the subject with which they have to deal should be placed on statutory bodies. In this instance, no provision is made with regard to placing on the Commission individuals representing agriculture and forestry. I urge the Government to accept this Amendment, or something which will produce the same result, and not to stand fast in the attitude which apparently they are to adopt to-day, and which they have adopted in the past only to find themselves broken down in it by a Division in your Lordships' House.
EARL HOWE: I should like to support what has been said by my noble friends on this subject, but I would also like to add something to it. When we come to Clause 92, I have an Amendment dealing with the question of trunk and Class I roads, anti I hope to be able to give precise figures of the mileage of roads affected by this Bill. I feel that, if this Amendment is accepted, there is every reason why we should also ensure that there is someone on the Commission with a practical knowledge of transport. I feel that this Amendment is justified, for the reasons given by the noble Earl, and I urge the noble Lord to ensure that transport users might also be represented in view of Clause 92.
LORD HAWKE: As a non-agriculturist, comparatively, I wish to support my noble friend in this Amendment. I hope he will press it to a Division. I know that we have had Amendments that look similar on many of the nationalisation Bills; we often put forward proposals that people should be put on these hoards because, having experience in certain functions, they might be relied upon to know their job. But this is not quite on all fours with such cases. We are not asking two national park keepers to be put on the Commission, but two members who have a knowledge of agriculture and forestry. We have a very special reason, namely,
342
that although agriculture is now our greatest national industry it has always been—and, rather surprisingly, I venture to suggest, will continue to be—the Cinderella of British industries. I think that future Governments might be well satisfied if they found laid down in this Bill that it is necessary to appoint two agriculturists to the' Commission. After all, the position will undoubtedly arise at some future time, perhaps when we are in power or perhaps when noble Lords opposite are in power, when the urbanised masses will he able to get fed very much more cheaply by buying their food from overseas; and agricultural interests in this country will then go to the wall. In fact, any vested interest that agriculture can secure against the future is one we should endeavour to support.
LORD CRANWORTH: In spite of the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I venture to support this Amendment. The noble Earl who moved it most emphatically said that it would not mean giving representation to one industry, and so would not give occasion for other industries to demand representation. I want to support this Amendment for the reason put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. Clause 5 (4) says:
"In the exercise…of their functions…the Commission…shall have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry."
How on earth can the Commission have "due regard" to the interests of agriculture if they do not know anything about agriculture? What will they do? I imagine that they are supposed to go to the Ministry of Agriculture and find out their views, but I do not think that is good enough. The Commission ought to be in a position to have some views of their own. After all, agriculture and forestry are now fairly important industries, and it seems to me vital that the Commission should have sufficient knowledge—though I do not say that they should be all thorough experts—to be able to talk the language; and at present we have no guarantee whatever that they will. I sincerely hope that this Amendment will he favourably received by the Government and, if not, that my noble friend will press it to a Division.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I should like no misunderstanding of the points on which we

343
all agree. We all agree that if this Bill is to operate successfully it is essential to have the fullest co-operation and good will of the agricultural community. It is agreed that on the National Parks Commission there should be direct representation of those with a practical knowledge of agriculture.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: And forestry.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR:—and forestry. There is no difference of views on that.
LORD HAWKE: To-day.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: —to-day. The difference is this: that we consider it unnecessary to insert this Amendment in order to safeguard the position. My right honourable friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning in another place gave the assurance that there would be representation of agriculture and forestry on the Commission. Last night, at a joint meeting with noble Lords opposite and myself, my right honourable friend reaffirmed that statement, and asked me to repeat with all emphasis possible the assurance that there would on the Commission be representatives with a practical knowledge of agriculture and forestry.
The reason why he is unable to accept this Amendment is obvious—it has been given by several noble Lords. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, in a moment of candour, suggested an obvious reason. It is said that since agriculture will be
affected by this Bill we should have on the Commission somebody with a practical knowledge of agriculture. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, tells us that since
transport may be affected by this Bill, we should put on the Commission somebody with a practical knowledge of transport. The Minister feels that it is better that a definite assurance should be given that there will be on the Commission representatives of agriculture and forestry.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: With respect, that binds only this Minister for the time that he is Minister it binds no one else at all. If the Amendment is rejected, another Minister can argue that Parliament did not put this in and that he is not bound.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Some noble Lord used the words "stock argument" a moment ago. That is a stock argument again.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Stock common sense.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: At the moment we happen to have a Labour Government. With all respect to noble Lords below the gangway, I think the change is likely to be a Conservative Government—if there is a change. Am I to understand that if such a change takes place the Minister would then be a person who would not have regard to the terms of this Amendment? I do not think the argument that the present Minister may be well-intentioned but that his successor may not be well-intentioned, is a very formidable one. As I say, we consider it unwise in this type of legislation to tie the hands of the Minister and say that he must have two of these, two of those and two of the others. I hope that the Opposition, having received this firm assurance from the Minister, will not argue that, because the next Minister may not be a party to that assurance, we must decide this issue by inserting these words. As I say, we feel it is unwise to accept the Amendment for the reasons which I have given. I can, however, assure your Lordships that there will be on the Commission one man with agricultural knowledge and one with forestry knowledge.
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am sorry that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment. The reason why this provision should be inserted is not only the one given hitherto from this Bench, that a different Government might alter the practice adopted by this Government, but that agriculture and forestry in this connection stand on an entirely different footing from any other industry—as, for example, transport. I am sorry the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rather spoilt the case for this Amendment by bringing in transport. Others might say that we ought to have representatives of fishing and other industries. I do not think that can hold good, because from a consideration of the area of the country to be affected—it has been said that it

345
amounts to about one-tenth of the whole —it is obvious that agriculture and forestry are far more affected by the Bill than any other class of the community, other than those who are to benefit through the enjoyment of the amenities of the national parks. To my mind, it is very important that we should carry with us the good will of the agricultural community in the establishment of the national parks.
On the Second Reading of this Bill I ventured to address your Lordships, and I laid great emphasis on the fact that the national parks movement is not to be regarded as in any way hostile to agriculture—indeed, that the reverse is the case. The national parks movement, with which many of us have been con-netted for many years, recognises to the full, in the first place, that for economic and other similar reasons, the country cannot do without agriculture; and, secondly, that the very essence of the English landscape includes its farms, its villages and its pastures. If these were to be in any way hindered or handicapped by the formation of national parks, the parks themselves would be injuriously affected as parks. We are not a country which can put aside vast stretches of magnificent scenery like the Rocky Mountains or the Yellowstone Park, or great stretches of uncultivated land like the Kruger National Park in South Africa. We have to depend upon England as she is. If we de-limit these large areas to be specially devoted to the amenities and enjoyment of the people we must at the same time recognise that agriculture is an integral part within this area; and, therefore, it must he right that some special steps should be taken in the formation of the Commission itself to indicate, not only that that is recognised by the country but that it is the express will of Parliament that agriculture and forestry should be specially represented in the very centre of the organisation.
I am sure your Lordships do not wish to inflict a defeat upon the Government in a matter of this Bill, on the general purposes of which we are all most cordially agreed. I would venture to ask the noble Lord whether, in view of the general feeling of the Committee—no one yet has expressed an opposite view to that of the mover of the Amendment—
346
he cannot see his way to reserve this matter, and to consult the Minister and others who are concerned with the passage of the Bill, to see whether at a later stage he cannot accept this proposition. I am sure if the noble Lord will do that it will be gratefully received in all quarters.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I rise briefly to support what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. There is not very much between us, when all is said and done. The noble Lord has just given us an absolute assurance that the present Minister is determined to have representatives of agriculture and forestry on the Commission. Why is he determined to have that? Surely, it is because he thinks they ought to be there. Is that so?
LORD MAC-DONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then why not put it in the Bill? I would like to draw the attention of the Government to the Title of the Bill. They will see that this Bill has certain purposes. It is
"An Act to make provision for National Parks and the establishment of a National Parks Commission; to confer on the Nature Conservancy and local authorities powers for the establishment and maintenance of nature reserves to make further provision for the recording, creation, maintenance and improvement of public paths and for securing access to open country, and to amend the law relating to rights of way; to confer further powers for preserving and enhancing natural beauty; and for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid."
Those are all excellent purposes; but in the full title of the Bill there is no mention at all of agriculture. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, pointed out, that Clause 5 (4) says:
"In the exercise at any time of their functions as respects any National Park the Commission and local authorities shall have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry."
But it does not say that they need have any special knowledge of the subject; it does not say in the Bill that there should he expert opinion on this most vital aspect of national parks. I therefore urge upon the Government the necessity of putting something in to safeguard this most important aspect. They have said they want to do it; they have said they think it is desirable that it should be done.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Well, they have said that it is desirable that representatives of agriculture and forestry should be on the Commission. They have agreed to that. Therefore, why not insert that in the Bill? The analogies of transport, fishing, and other aspects that have been mentioned do not come into the same category. This is much more fundamental. We do not want to press this Amendment to a Division if we can reach an agreement with the Government about it. In this House we always avoid Divisions if we can. I do ask the Minister to take it back to the Minister of Town and Country Planning and try to get him to agree to what is essentially a reasonable point of view. If he will agree to do that, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Dc La Warr would be willing to postpone his Amendment to a later stage.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: May I add one sentence? The argument put forward by the Government is that they are afraid that if this were admitted other industries might also require to be represented. But the strange thing is that it is the Government themselves who, in this Bill, have selected agriculture and forestry as matters which have to be specially mentioned in the Bill. In subsection (4) of Clause 5 they do not say that regard shall be paid to transport or any of the other things which have been mentioned. They have selected those two, and all that the Committee are suggesting now is that, under those circumstances, those important matters ought to be matters upon which two members of the Commission should have a certain knowledge.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENSYGOR: On the merits of the Amendment I have nothing more to add to what I have already said, but I could not remain deaf to the appeal of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. In agreeing to the course they suggest, I desire to emphasise that I cannot hold out any promise whatever. If, as a result of consultation between now and Report stage, a compromise can be found, well and good. I am prepared to agree to consultation to see if we can reach a compromise.
EARL DE LA WARR: In view of what the noble Lord has said I gladly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.12 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (2) after "with" to insert:
"regulations to be made by the Minister as hereinafter provided and".
The noble Lord said: If I may, I will speak on this Amendment and the next together, because (he second naturally follows the first. In response to the noble Lord's request I will be as brief as I can, and if he will encourage me by handing out a few concessions about once every two hours I will make my speeches briefer and briefer. I have taken the wording proposed in my Amendment from the Electricity Act, 1947, which makes a similar provision which was accepted by the Government. All that it is intended to do is to make certain that the appointment or dismissal, should there be one, of the members of the Commission shall not be done in any secret manner; that it should be perfectly open for the public to see and hear about and, therefore, that regulations shall be made, as in the Electricity Act, which will be binding on all parties and will be known to the public. It may be said that the word "instrument" is sufficient, but the word "instrument" may mean a mere letter, and that of course, will not be published or known to the public. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, after ("with") insert ("regulations to be made by the Minister as hereinafter provided and").—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I should like to express my support of this Amendment moved by the noble Lord. As my arguments would be exactly the same as those already advanced, I will say no more.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is anxious that I should make concessions every two hours. I think I am going to make them every two minutes. I have made one already, and I am prepared to accept this Amendment in principle. However, I would ask the noble Lord to allow us to look at it again.
LORD MERTHYR: I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
4.16 p.m.
LORD CLWYD LORD CLWYD moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Welsh Parks Commission
". Such of the functions of the National Park Commission relating to Wales and Monmouthshire as may be determined by the Commission shall be delegated by the Commission, subject to such conditions or restrictions, as may be so determined, to a sub-commission to be called the Welsh Parks Commission and the provisions of this Act as to the constitution of the National Parks Commission shall have effect as to the constitution of the Welsh Parks Commission."
The noble Lord said: In view of the very large number of Amendments upon the Paper I, too, will be as brief as I can. This Amendment deals with the conditions of Wales under the Bill, and I am glad to think that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill knows Wales and is not unacquainted with the aspirations of the people. Let me remind the House of the weighty support for this Amendment from public opinion in Wales. The Welsh county councils are in favour of the Amendment, and there are a great many important bodies in Wales also in favour of the Amendment—I will not trouble the House by enumerating them. Also—and this is a vital point—the Amendment has the support of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, the Welsh Parliamentary representatives.
Let me in one or two sentences state the case for the Amendment. It is intended in this Bill to designate large areas in various parts of the country as national parks. It happens that the areas intended to be designated in Wales are located in nine of the thirteen counties. A larger proportion of the area of Wales will be thus designated for this purpose than in any other part of the Kingdom. As noble Lords know, I think we in Wales have a notable distinction in the possession of a great many tracts of country and in beauty unsurpassed in the whole of the United Kingdom. That naturally creates a desire on the part of the Welsh people that they should have some direct responsibility in the administration of these areas. There is another point which I should like to
350
mention. The configuration of many of these areas in Wales—the mountains and the abundance of high water—inevitably increases the menace of injury from the setting up of industrial and engineering undertakings in their midst. We in Wales think that we have better and more effective ways of resisting these encroachments if we have the sub-commission asked for in the Amendment. I know that the view of the Government is that the Commission is largely only an advisory body, and that in relation to all its operations it has consultations with the Welsh town and country planning authorities, which in the view of the Government should go a long way to meeting the purpose of this Amendment. All I can say is that that is not the view taken by the Welsh county councils, and it is not the view taken by the Parliamentary representatives of Wales.
There is one further general consideration which I should like to put before your Lordships before I conclude. This Amendment rests also upon the basis of nationalism. The noble Lord opposite, who is in charge of the Bill, knows that during a long Parliamentary career, I have striven hard in another place, and later in your Lordships' House, to secure the recognition of the claim of Wales for special treatment in legislation. The future is uncertain in every way, but I am quite sure that in time it will be found necessary to pass a considerable measure of devolution of Parliamentary power. When that takes place Wales will claim its rightful share in those developments. But that is for the future.
What we have to deal with to-day is the situation created by this Bill. It is a Bill designed to promote the welfare of rural life in rural districts, including those of Wales, and we shall be able far more advantageously to use the powers which are given to us in this Bill if we have separate machinery by means of a special Commission in order to do so. I hope that at all events the Committee will give some consideration to these points which I have ventured to bring forward in connection with this Amendment. The feeling in Wales is strong on the point. We feel that in view of our own language, literature, traditions and public institutions—and, in large measure, a separate system of education—we have every right to that which I am suggesting. It is not

351
surprising, with a Bill of this sort, which opens the door for something to be done which would be to the great advantage of rural populations, that we should ask for this separate machinery which we believe would help us to make the best use of the powers given in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Clwyd.)
LORD MERTHYR: I hope this Amendment will not be passed. With all respect to the noble Lord who moved it, I hold that the Amendment is merely another instalment of Welsh nationalism; and I am against Welsh nationalism, as I am against every other kind of nationalism. I want to unite peoples and not to divide them one from the other—and that applies to all peoples, including the English. The practical question here is this: Are there any national park problems which are peculiar to Wales and which do not apply to England? I think the answer is in the negative; there is not a single one. I cannot understand what language or literature have to do with national parks. If it should be the case that there is at any time a separate Parliament for Wales, then there will be a case for a special Commission for Wales; but I very much hope there will not be a separate Parliament for Wales. The noble Lord said that Wales in this matter should have special treatment. Does that mean more favourable treatment than England gets? If not, I do not know what it means. I cannot see that there should be any special treatment for Wales or for England. This Commission is a Commission for England and Wales, manned by individuals from England and Wales. I do not see that either of the two countries should have preference over the other. I am not trying to put Wales in any worse position than England. I want them to be equally treated. For this, among other reasons, I hope that this Amendment will not be passed.
LORD HARLECH: I should like to support the noble Lord who has just spoken. Nobody is more anxious than I am to see the preservation of the Welsh language and of her separate education system, separate universities, and all the rest of it. But here we are up against a definite practical problem—namely the
352
administration of national parks. I think the noble Lord who moved this Amendment said something which defeats the whole point of his Amendment. He said we are up against the fact that the principal Welsh national park—the bulk of Caernarvonshire, the greater part of Merionethshire, much of Denbighshire and Montgomeryshire—is a very high rainfall area, composed of mountains, and that these are menaced by the vast State monopoly of the provision of electricity. Does he think that a separate Welsh Commission would have as much power as a united National Parks Commission for the United Kingdom, on which Wales will be amply represented? I doubt it.
I am afraid that by seeking to separate itself from England on matters of this kind Wales will be regarded by Whitehall as de minimis, and we shall lose our case, whereas if we unite with people with exactly the same problems in Cumberland and Westmorland, we shall have another voice similar to our own in the same cause. I am afraid that if we in Wales separate ourselves from the National Parks Commission proposed in the Bill and have a "show" of our own, we shall not have the same standing or influence as if we were part and parcel of the major Commission. We should not have the same force in dealing with the various Ministries if we were separate as we should have if we were united.
I hope that in dealing with this Amendment we shall have an assurance from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that Wales, which will have Snowdonia in the first category and the Pembrokeshire coast in the second category, is to have effective representation on the National Commission. Provided that we can be assured of that I am confident that both Wales and England will be able to speak much more effectively on these practical questions than if we talk about our separate languages and all the rest of it. That has nothing to do with what we are fighting, which is a great powerful electricity authority, who talk in a jargon of their own which neither Englishmen nor Welshmen can understand. Therefore I regret the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, though they are natural enough sentiments.
The noble Lord opposite is chairman of the Welsh Committee of the National

353
Trust, but we do not have a separate National Trust. I am very glad that the National Trust operates in England and Wales. My noble friend and I are both on the central body of the National Trust, and the interchange of experience and need from the association of England and Wales is very valuable on a matter of that kind. And so it is even in cultural matters. For some time I was on the Arts Council of Great Britain and Chairman of its Welsh Committee. I should deplore the separation of the Welsh Committee from the Arts Council of Great Britain and the setting up of an entirely isolated body—in Cardiff, of all places! I am sure that much greater value is derived by us from being able to have periodical visits of the Hallé Orchestra and various other bodies from all over England to help us in our musical activities, and by people in England from Welsh choirs and the like going there. The attempt to separate and divide Wales from England on these matters does no good to Wales and no good to England. I think that we in Wales have from our special experience a very special contribution to make to the problem in England. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment to a Division.
4.32 p.m.
LORD MACDONALD on GWAENYSGOR: Whatever may be your Lordships' views on the merits or demerits of this Amendment, I feel sure it would be in accordance with the wishes of all your Lordships that I should offer to the noble Lord Lord Clwyd, on the first speech I have heard him make in this House, our congratulations on the thoroughness with which he has prepared his case and also the ease and clarity with which he has presented it. The noble Lord, Lord Clywd, is one of the senior members of your Lordships' House—I think the second senior member. He is certainly not junior as regards length of service in your Lordships' House. He has had thirty years as a member here, and that was preceded by twenty-six years as a member of another place. If I am any judge of to-day's performance, he is likely to be with us for some years to come.
Like the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I regret that I am unable to-day to accept the Amendment of so great a
354
friend of mine as the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd. I noticed the reasons he gave—one being that so much of Wales is included in what are likely to be designated as national parks. The amazing thing to me is that, were it not for industrial activities, the whole of Wales would have been included. The other reason was that this question of national parks was better conducted by Welshmen who, living in Wales, know Wales better than those who come from outside. But I think that my noble friend Lord Clwyd will appreciate that the designation of national parks must be a responsibility of the National Parks Commission. The total programme of parks must be considered on a national basis because, after all, the choice will depend largely on the needs of the big towns, not only in Wales but also in England. The noble Lord knows, as I know, that by far the larger majority of the visitors will come from outside Wales to many of these parts of Wales.
As regards Welsh men knowing more than those coming from outside Wales concerning the national parks, my noble friend is perfectly right. But what he has overlooked, I think, is that the administration of the parks will be in the hands of the local authorities. In that, we go a very long way indeed, if not the whole way, to meet the wishes of the Welsh people and of the noble Lord in particular. In the first place, the members of the local authorities in Wales all live in Wales, and the vast majority are Welshmen. I am certain that my noble friend need have no fears as regards those Welshmen looking after Welsh national parks. There is the further point that they are elected by Welshmen and not appointed by somebody who is not a Welshman. From that angle, it seems to me that the interests of the Welsh people are fairly well safeguarded. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, made reference to the need for the Welsh nation to be represented on the Commission. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, can see the danger we are running into, although I can give an assurance again that there will be at least two Welshmen on the National Commission. I can also assure my noble friend Lord Clwyd that they will be very prominent Welshmen—Welshmen who, to the best of their ability, will safeguard the interests of Wales.

355
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, will feel that he has no need to press for a Division. I will tell him why. It would raise some rather difficult points in another place. I am advised that it would affect the procedure there. It may be that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, with his long experience, will help us on this matter. I will read what I am advised. It is that any proposal for imposing a new charge on the Exchequer can be proceeded with only after a financial Resolution authorising that charge has been passed. The new Clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, contemplates that there is to be a separate Welsh Parks Commission, and the clause can have no meaning unless the salaries and expenses of that Commission are to be defrayed out of the Exchequer. The existing financial Resolution passed in connection with the Bill in another place covered an Exchequer charge for salaries and expenses of the National Parks Commission but not of the Welsh Parks Commission. Accordingly, this is a new charge of the kind mentioned above and, if the Amendment were carried—I would draw your Lordships' attention to this—it is thought that the House of Commons would be unable to proceed to consider the Amendment. By this is meant not merely that they could lay it aside as infringing on privilege, but they could not even go so far as to consider whether to lay it aside or not. The difficulty is not a new one, but no precedent can be quoted where the Speaker has had to consider the effect of such an Amendment made by the Lords, because the House of Lords, when warned of the difficulty, has never insisted upon the Amendment. In view of that statement, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD CLWYD: Before I deal with the position in regard to my Amendment, I am sure the Committee will allow me to thank my noble friend most warmly for the kind things he has said about me. I greatly appreciate his remarks. As for my Amendment, in view of the reception which it has received in your Lordships' House and also in view of the Parliamentary difficulties which have been mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, I
356
will not trouble the House with a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Power of Minister to give directions to Commission]:
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to the clause:
"Any directions given under this section shall be published as soon as may be after the same shall have been given."
The noble Lord said: In his absence, my noble friend Lord Bathurst has asked me to move this Amendment. As the Bill stands at the moment, any directions which
are given to the Commission have to be published in the annual report. This point was considered during the Committee stage in another place. I would like to read a short extract from what the Minister said:
"Under the New Towns Act, I have similar powers to give directions not of a general character, but I have never given a direction yet, and I would regard it as something of a reflection either on myself or on the Development Corporation if I had to do so."
I quote that only to show that when a direction is given it obviously is an important matter. All that I am asking is that, when a direction has been given, it should as soon as possible afterwards be published, so that it can be generally known and, if necessary, raised in Parliament. If the Commission is to have the status which I think we all wish it to have, when a direction has been
given to it a year should not elapse before the fact becomes publicly known. I hope very much that the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: To show the reasonableness of the Minister and the Government in regard to this Bill I may say that we have considered this Amendment. We did not altogether like it, but the quotation given by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, shows that the Minister does not anticipate making any directions, and that makes the matter a little easier for us. Therefore we are prepared to accept the Amendment in principle, if he will allow us to look at it again in relation to its wording and placing.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: Certainly. I thank the noble Lord, and for the moment I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Annual Report of Commission]:
LORD MERTHYR: This is a small though I think not a trivial point. Clause 4, subsection (2), deals with representations and recommendations made by the Commission during the year for which they have made their annual report. It says that after stating the representations and recommendations they are also to state the conclusions reached thereon. This annual report will be eagerly awaited by certain sections of the public, but it might happen that while representations and recommendations have been made no conclusions have been reached thereon at the end of the year; and the Commission might therefore fed bound under the terms of the Bill not to mention anything of that subject until the following year. It is a rather technical point, but I want to ensure that even if the Commission have not reached conclusions on these matters they are nevertheless able to publish the full story of the representations and recommendations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 16, after ("conclusions") insert ("(if any)").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL moved to add to the clause:
"() The Commission may at any other time issue such statement on the discharge of their duties as may appear to them to be in the public interest."
The noble Viscount said: The clause which is now before the Committee lays great emphasis on the annual report of the Commission, and might be interpreted as almost limiting the public declarations and representations of the Commission to that one occasion. In order to clarify the matter and to make sure that that is not so, I beg to move the new subsection which stands upon the Order Paper. It may even happen that questions of great
358
urgency and possibly of great national interest and importance arise during the course of the year, and that in the public interest an interim report ought to be issued by the Commission. That is the object in view in this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, at end insert the new subsection.—(Viscount samuel.)
LORD MERTHYR: I support what the noble Viscount has said. I do not think the Commission ought in any way to be muzzled or prevented from making a statement other than in their annual report.
LORD MACDONALD of GWAENYSGOR: I wonder whether the Committee will permit me, having made reference to Lord Clwyd and the passing of the years, to honour the entry of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to his eightieth year and ID assure hint of our best wishes. I am rather reminded of another Samuel. There are some words regarding the other Samuel which can, with a very slight alteration, be made to refer most appropriately to the present Lord Samuel. In the quotation "child" is the proper word, but my wording of it would read
"and the man Samuel grew on, and was in favour both with the Lord, and also with men."
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: "With the Lords"?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: it is in the singular. With regard to the Amendment, I was very pleased to hear the noble Viscount say that he was moving it for clarification purposes. He is anxious to know whether, in view of the construction of the clause, the Commission will be allowed to issue statements if and when they desire to do so in the public interest. I am advised (that is all I can say in your Lordships' House, but it was said in Committee in another place also) that the Commission would be free at any time to issue statements as part of the discharge of their functions without any express provision being required in the Bill. Further advice has been taken and it is confirmed that there is no possible doubt of the legal right of the Commission to issue public statements, where

359
they think that that is necessary in the proper discharge of their functions, at any time that may seem to them appropriate. I think that that is sufficient clarification for the noble Viscount. He appreciates that they can do it.
But there is one thing which exercises my mind, and I am sure exercises his mind also. There may be occasions when some special matter is under discussion between say, the Commission and the Ministry, and is awaiting decision. I do not think the noble Viscount or myself, or any of the Committee, would approve of the Commission then issuing statements to try to rouse public feeling on their side against the Ministry in question. I hope if and when the Commission do decide to make such statements, that they will have regard to propriety and to the period when the statement is being made. But that they have the power to do so is I am advised, in the Bill, and therefore the Amendment is unnecessary.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I think that statement is quite satisfactory so far as the Amendment is concerned it is now on the record with ministerial authority and no difficulty is left to arise in the future. But the question of the Commission exercising a discretion if they find themselves in controversy with the Minister is not the only situation to be considered. There may be many cases in which it would greatly strengthen the hand of the Minister for the Commission to make some public declaration when an important matter of infringement of amenities is in question. Those were rather the circumstances that I had in view. I trust that the Commission and the Minister will get on well together, and that neither will give cause of offence to the other. May I thank the noble Lord for the very kind observations that he has been good enough to make? My own claims to your Lordships' indulgence for my seniority are quite inferior to those of my honourable and noble friend Lord Clwyd, who is seven years my senior. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [National Parks]:
4.49 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (4), to omit "as
360
respects any National Park" and to insert: "under this Act." The noble Lord said: This is a small but important Amendment. As the clause now stands, the Commission and the local authorities in their functions need have due regard only to the interests of agriculture and forestry in a national park. By my Amendment they would have to have due regard throughout the whole Act. I do not intend to repeat the arguments on the importance of agriculture; I think they are obvious to the Committee. But there are a number of people who are not satisfied that the protection given by this Bill to agriculture is sufficient. I would agree that in several places (in access areas and several others) special provisions are made, but there are several instances in which the position is not quite certain—to name one or two: beauty spots, long-distance routes, rough grazing, footpaths and the powers which local authorities have to plant up certain areas with trees. We are not quite satisfied that enough emphasis is put in the Bill on the need for having due regard for agriculture and forestry, and I feel that if the noble Lord could accept this Amendment, it would reassure a number of people who have the interests of agriculture and forestry very much at heart. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, leave out from ("functions") to ("the") in line 45 and insert ("under this Act").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The noble Lord is quite right. This Amendment would extend beyond the national parks a requirement which was intended to be confined to the national park areas. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that the chief functions of the Commission, outside parks, which would be affected by the Amendment are in relation to the making of proposals about long-distance routes, and the provision of accommodation along them; their duty to advise on questions affecting natural beauty; and their power to designate areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is not obvious, however, that agriculture or forestry would be likely to be greatly affected by the Commission's activities under these headings. Therefore we do not see any need for the Amendment. So far as the local authorities' functions

361
outside national parks are concerned, the chief ones that would be affected by the Amendment are the power to create new rights of way and the power to divert and close public footpaths under Part IV of the Bill. However, as I think the noble Lord will realise, that is fully safeguarded. I do not think that his Amendment needs to be pressed in order to achieve what he wishes to achieve. Agriculture and forestry will not be affected to the extent which he thinks, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment to a Division.
EARL. DE LA WARR: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, feels that he cannot meet the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, on this point. On the other hand, in some ways it would perhaps be fair to consider this Amendment as part of the much more general question which we had under consideration a little while ago concerning the membership of the Commission. The question is, how are we to provide in the Bill for this greater consideration for agriculture and forestry? In the circumstances, unless the noble Lord wants to press the Amendment to a Division, I suggest that we might refer this point also to the wider consideration which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has undertaken shall be given to the whole matter.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
General duties of Commission in relation to National Parks
(2) The power of the Minister to give directions under section three of this Act shall extend to the giving of directions as to the order and time of designation of the said areas, notwithstanding that the directions may be of a specific character.
(3) As respects areas designated as National Parks, it shall he the duty of the Commission—
(b) to keep under review the progress made from time to time in accomplishing the said purposes and to make to the Minister, to local authorities or to other persons, such representations as appear to the Commission to be necessary or expedient as to any matter affecting the accomplishment of those purposes.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of the last foregoing subsection, it shall be the duty of the Commission, subject to and in
362
accordance with the following provisions of this Act in that behalf—
(c) to assist such authorities in formulating proposals as to the exercise by such authorities of their powers under this Act for securing the provision of accommodation, access for open-air recreation and other facilities for persons visiting National Parks and otherwise as to the exercise of their powers under this Act as respects National Parks, and to consult with such authorities with respect to the recommendations to be made by the Commission as to the payment of grants by the Minister under this Act;
4.54 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to omit subsection (2). The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will look at this subsection I believe you will agree with me that, to a large extent, it contradicts subsection (1). Subsection (2) appeared in this Bill only at a very late stage it, another place; it was not in the Bill at all when the measure was first published. It was put in later, and I think it most unfortunate that it should have been. Subsection (1) says that it shall be the duty of the Commission to determine in what order the parks should be designated. Surely that is a very proper function for the National Parks Commission. Indeed, if they are not to do that, I am beginning to wonder whether they are going to have anything to do at all. But such responsibility as they might have under that subsection is taken away almost entirely by the next subsection, which gives the Minister a completely overriding power to issue directions of a specific character as to the order and time of designation. In other words, the Minister can upset completely all that the National Parks Commission have done about designating national parks. To my mind, that negatives one of the most important functions of the Commission. It seems to me that this is an important matter and one which should receive the serious attention of the Committee. I do not want to labour it further, but I think the Amendment is one of considerable substance, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: In rising to deal with the noble Lord's Amendment I should like to have started by conceding him something, but I am sure he realises

363
that as the average rate of concession seems to be about one every two hours, he is still due to wait about three and a half hours before there is another concession for him. The noble Lord suggests to your Lordships that subsection (2) is completely contradictory of subsection (1) of this clause. I am sure that, on looking at it closely, your Lordships will not feel that that is so. It merely enables the Minister in certain eventualities to take a certain line, which indeed, quite apart from the subsection, he could already take indirectly, as he has the power to refuse to accept designation on such grounds as may appear to him to be good. For example, he may do so if he thinks that other parks ought to be designated first, or that a particular designation is premature, or for other sufficient reasons.
Obviously, it is very much better that if the Minister is to deal with the designations he should do it under a specific power of this kind rather than under indirect rights which he already has. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that it is perfectly right and proper that this power should, in fact, be put in the Bill, though it is not at all likely that it will be used very much, if indeed it is used at all. It may very well be that in the case of some particular area—say the Norfolk Broads, for instance, which is a difficult area, or the Peak district, which is another difficult area—there might be some reason why it should be dealt with as a special priority. It might be that there was some reason why one of those areas should be designated perhaps first, or at a later stage. Under this particular subsection the Minister would have power to do as he thought right. I think your Lordships will agree that it is proper that he should have a power of this kind, and I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: When I read this Bill I sometimes wonder why the Minister thinks it necessary to have a Commission at all. I thought he protected himself fairly carefully against the Commission when I read this clause, and the noble Lord has now told me that there is another protection of which I did not previously know. I feel strongly about this Amendment but I am not going to
364
divide the House upon it. I must say that it seems to me that it will hardly be worth while being a member of the Commission. Why cannot the Minister sit down in his office and write out the order in which the national parks shall be designated? The task would take only a few minutes. I do not see why he should have a body to do it and retain for himself complete power to upset all that that body does. But I do not want to press the matter further, if it is not acceptable, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (3)(b) after "Minister" to insert "to any other Minister." The noble Lord said: This is not a very big point. This clause imposes on the Commission the duty to review progress and make representations to the Minister—the Minister, of course, being the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I do not think it ought to be confined to making representations to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. There may be points, as I am sure there will be, where they will want to communicate with other Government Departments. I think that would be impossible to deny, and it seems reasonable to enable them to approach directly any other Minister, instead of having everything funnelled through one Ministry. I think this would make for expedition and efficiency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, after ("Minister") insert ("to any other Minister").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. I am a little puzzled as to why the noble Lord did not move to insert it in the previous paragraph, where I should have thought, if it were to be put in at all, it would have been equally appropriate. Apart from that, surely the Amendment is unnecessary. The Minister responsible for the whole of this scheme is the Minister of Town and Country Planning. If the Commission wish to make representations to other Ministers, the ordinary constitutional procedure—and I would suggest to your Lordships the correct procedure—is that they should make their representations or give their information through the Minister of Town

365
and Country Planning. It is perfectly feasible that it should be done in this way and it would be superfluous, although I cannot say it would do a great deal of harm, to give them this new constitutional power to approach other Ministers directly.
LORD HARLECH: Do we understand that, should the National Parks Commission want to make representations through the Minister of Town and Country Planning to the Minister of Agriculture about some big forestry development, they could not be fobbed off by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, who might reply that this was no concern of his and that they must apply, though they have no right to apply, to the Minister of Agriculture? Are we to take it that the Government intend that, if the National Parks Commission have a point in which other Ministers are concerned, the Minister of Town and Country Planning will receive and forward their recommendations to the appropriate Department? Have we that undertaking'?
LORD CHORLEY: Certainly the noble Lord has that undertaking.
LORD HAWKE: I thought the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was correctly explaining the constitutional position, but my mind has been set in doubt by the words in subsection (4) (e) on the next page, where it says:
"… to make recommendations to the Minister and, where appropriate, other Ministers. …"
Could the noble Lord explain why on one page the correct constitutional practice is set out and on the next page there is another phrase differentiating in favour of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr?
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid the noble Lord has caught me; I cannot answer that on the spur of the moment.
LORD HAWKE: If my noble friend is prepared to accept such words as "to any other Minister, where appropriate," I am sure the noble Lord would he prepared to accept it.
LORD CHORLEY: At any rate, I would be prepared to look at it, if the noble Lord would withdraw his Amendment on that basis.
LORD MERTHYR: The noble Lord asked me in what sort of case this power might be wanted. Suppose the War Office took a large area of land in a national parks area, surely the National Parks Commission could communicate with the War Office about such a matter as whether or not the land could be open on Sundays, without having to go through all the machinery of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, which presumably has enough work to do already. Surely, it is reasonable to allow the Commission to do that. It may be unconstitutional, but it is not necessarily bad because of that. I would like to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, to consider this matter, perhaps with the inclusion of such words as "where appropriate." In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I may add that undoubtedly there will he constant consultations between the National Parks Commission and all ether Ministries and Commissions concerned. The Commissions are clearly covered by the words "other persons," but I think there is a difference between informal consultations and the formal negotiations which the noble Lord has in mind. But on the understanding I have given, the noble Lord seems to be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to subsection (3):
"(c) to prepare model bylaws which shall so far as possible be adopted by local planning authorities for the preservation of order in National Parks, the prevention of damage to the land therein or anything thereon and for securing that persons resorting thereto shall so conduct themselves as to avoid interference with the enjoyment of lawful pursuits or activities of other persons resorting thereto or of persons living or being therein.
The noble Lord said: Here we come to a somewhat important Amendment. The National Parks Commission have the powers set out in subsection (3) (a) and (b) and further duties under subsection (4), but none of them covers what I should have thought was one of their most important functions, if they are to do anything al all—that is, to

367
prepare model bylaws so that local planning authorities in the national park areas shall have the same code for public behaviour and that when the public go to the Snowdon district, for instance, they will know that they will be expected to behave in the same way as in other national parks. The Report of the National Parks Committee says, in paragraph 221:
"We recommend that the Commission should have power to make regulations subject to the approval of the Minister of Town and Country Planning, applying to National Parks generally, or to all or part of any specified Park. These regulations should be designed to impose such control as is reasonable and necessary over the general conduct of the public in National Parks. The tactful and unobstrusive enforcement of these regulations should be one of the recognised functions of the Commission's staff and wardens."
My Amendment does not go so far as that. It lays upon the Commission the duty of preparing
"model bylaws which shall so far as possible he adopted by local planning authorities for the preservation of order in National Parks"—
obviously something would have to be done about that—
"the prevention of damage to the land therein or anything thereon and for securing that persons resorting thereto shall so conduct themselves as to avoid interference with the enjoyment of lawful pursuits or activities of other persons resorting thereto or for persons living or being therein."
If we do not give some central body this duty or power, it seems to me that we shall have one set of bylaws for one national park and a further set for another. That would be going completely contrary not only to the advice of the Hobhouse Committee but also to the way in which national parks are run in other countries, where they are a great success. For instance, in Canada the national parks are under one Minister; the bylaws are administered from the centre, and there are the same rules and regulations to whichever park one goes. I should have thought that, with the little authority that is now being given to the National Parks Commission, one duty that should be given to them is that of preparing these model bylaws which, if they are approved by the Minister of Town and Country Planning, can be adopted by the planning authorities.
We did something rather similar in the matter of the training of magistrates, although, of course, that is a different topic. We there left it to the local magistrates' courts committees to provide courses of training; but those courses of training were to be courses in line with the suggestions of the Magistrates' Association, as approved by the Lord Chancellor. That seems to me to be a wise mixture of local control, with a sensible integration of effort from the centre. I suggest that this National Parks Commission should be given the job of preparing these model bylaws which, if they were approved by the Minister, would be available for adoption by the different planning authorities. We should then have a set of rules for all national park areas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD CRANWORTH: I naturally support this Amendment, because its aim is to carry out what I intended by my Amendment to Clause 1, which the noble Lord. Lord Macdonald, told me I need not press because the point was already in the Bill. I cannot find it in the Bill, except here. One of the objects of the Bill is to preserve and enhance the beauty of the countryside, and it seems to me that we ought to ensure that those who go to enjoy that beauty do not destroy it. It seems clear to me that the Commission will have a lot of time on their hands, and they appear to be the right people—in fact, the only people—to carry out this task.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I would like to add a word on the legal aspect, which is perhaps not quite so well known to your Lordships as it is to me. Parks in the nature of Crown Parks have existed in this country for a very long time. There are various Acts of Parliament which apply to them. There are also open spaces which are under the control of local authorities. Those are cases where there is obviously a necessity for bylaws governing the way people should behave when they go there. But I do not know of any cases (I do not claim to be omniscient, but I have a fair knowledge of this sort of thing) of large areas, such as these parks will probably be, where the

369
Acts of Parliament have not provided for the making of bylaws. How do you expect law and order to be kept in these parks, unless, indeed, some clause, which neither my noble friend who moved the Amendment nor myself—
LORD CHORLEY: May I remind the noble and learned Viscount of Clause 89, which deals with the problem of bylaws?
EARL DE LA WARR: That is purely permissive and local.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I assume the noble Lord refers to subsection (2).
LORD CHORLEY: Subsection (2) is the more important.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I must apologise to your Lordships. I had not discovered that.
LORD LLEWELLIN: If I may interrupt the noble and learned Viscount, I would say that I knew the local planning authorities had this power to make bylaws. However, the point of my Amendment is to see that uniform bylaws are made on the advice of the National Parks Commission.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: As my noble friend Lord De La Warr has said, Clause 89 is purely permissive. There must be an imperative direction in this Bill as to how order is to be kept and as to how orders will be made. There may be a big area on the Norfolk Broads, or in the neighbourhood of the Lakes, with a number of people in a place which is sometimes very densely occupied and at other times hardly occupied at all. There is no policeman there, but there must be somebody there who will keep order. Not only that, but the local planning authorities must have the right to stop people from misbehaving themselves by depositing rubbish, or things like that; and, if the necessity arises, they must have the right—which is given in one or two of the Acts to which I have referred—to demand the name and address of the person who is offending and, if necessary, to arrest the man without a warrant and take him to the nearest police station. In my opinion, there is no other way of keeping real order in these large tracts than by provisions of that character. Those, of course, are not in Clause 89. I earnestly beg the noble Lord in charge
370
of the Bill, and behind him the Government who instruct him, to apply their minds to the question of how we are to keep, not only the land decent, but the behaviour of the people such as it should be in these national parks unless there are bylaws to enable the park to be kept as well as one of the Royal Parks.
How do your Lordships suppose order is kept in Hyde Park? Do you think it is because a local authority has the right to make bylaws? Not a bit of it. There are special provisions for it, and there are a number of other places of the same kind. There are heaths all over England which will very likely be treated as national parks, and order has to he kept there by somebody. There will no doubt be bylaws to prohibit the making of fires. Who is to enforce them? Somebody has to stop people boiling their tea, or whatever it is, in order to prevent the whole place being destroyed. I live in the country in a place close to Ashdown Forest. We are constantly having fires there caused by nature, but we are also having fires which, in some cases, are deliberate acts of people who like the fun of a bonfire. It would be impossible to stop them; there would be no heath, no heather, and no gorse left in Ashdown Forest, unless somebody had power to arrest people who are contravening the bylaws. That is something to which I most earnestly invite the attention of His Majesty's Government. I do not suppose my noble friend Lord Llewellin will be irritated by my having had to supplement the bylaws he has suggested. It is something which has to be done in a very different way from that proposed in Clause 89. In this case the Commission should have the power to make the bylaws which will serve to carry out the objects we all have in view. I earnestly support this Amendment.
5.22 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: I desire to bring the House back to the wording of the actual Amendment. As I understand the Amendment, the essential word is "model." I suggest that there is no difficulty about this. The Corporation of London have done this for over seventy years. Under the Epping Forest Act of 1878, powers were given to the Corporation to frame model bylaws. Since then the Corporation have taken over Burnham Beeches, Faring Downs, Coulsdon

371
Common, Riddlesdown, Kenley Common, West Ham Park, Highgate Woods, Spring Park, Queen's Park, Kilburn, and West Wickham. The original acreage of Epping Forest was some 6,000 acres, and now there are considerably more than 7,000 acres of Corporation open spaces. The point I want to make is that they prepared model bylaws which have been the guide for all these other open spaces. And as I understand it, the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, in this case is that there should be a set of model bylaws so that there would not be conflicts in different national parks and different open spaces.
LORD W1NSTER: I strongly support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, which seems to me to go to the very root of the matter. If these national parks are to fulfil the purpose for which we are establishing them, it is essential that there should be bylaws regulating their use. Surely, it is obviously desirable that those bylaws should be standardised so far as possible, so that in whichever national park you may happen to find yourself, you will know that certain rules and certain bylaws obtain. It seems to me clearly to be within the province of the Commission which we are going to set up that model bylaws, standardising so far as possible the bylaws for the national parks, should be made. It seems to be a clear duty devolving upon the Commission, and for that reason I strongly support the Amendment. I am bound to say that I should be puzzled to understand on what grounds the Government could possibly resist it.
VISCOUNT ESHER: I do not think this Amendment is very happily worded. I do not believe it is possible for any bylaw to prevent a large mob of people spoiling each other's enjoyment. Also, I feel that it would be a mistake on our part to try and draft bylaws here in this House. I do not think the bylaws would he easy to apply, and they would he still more difficult to apply on top of Mount Snowdon. For many years, the National Trust has had the right to frame bylaws and has framed bylaws for all its properties all over England, in addition to those of the local authorities. As the State has given power to the National Trust in their Act to frame bylaws, how can the noble Lord possibly deny it to the Commission?
LORD CHORLEY: The policy of the Bill is to leave the framing of the bylaws to the local authority, who have the power to do so in Clause 89. These are bylaws which have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, and if they are not made there are default powers under which the local authority can be required to make bylaws under Clause 90. The bylaws can be enforced by the police in exactly the same way as the bylaws to which the noble Viscount has referred, just like other bylaws which are effectively made under Act of Parliament. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, that there must be bylaws, and the only question is whether the National Parks Commission should frame model bylaws for the purpose of the local authorities using them.
The Amendment which the noble Lord has moved goes very much further than the policy of the Government, because the noble Lord's Amendment would cover the whole area of the national parks. The great mass of land in the national parks will continue to be private property, and it is not the policy of the Government to give the local authority power to make bylaws to deal with the estates of private people. If your Lordships will look at Clause 89 (2), you will see that it says:
"A local planning authority may, as respects land in their area belonging to them and comprised either in a National Park or area of outstanding natural beauty. …"
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Is that not all the more reason for putting in this Amendment?
LORD CHORLEY: There may be a conflict of policy here, but the Government's policy is not to have these bylaws extending over the private estates and lands of individuals. In these national park areas there are all sorts of towns with people owning gardens, and I am surprised to find that noble Lords in this House are apparently anxious that the local planning committee should have such powers to make bylaws. My own impression was that the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, had made this as wide as he has by inadvertence.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Not in the least. The noble Lord did not read the whole paragraph; he read only the first few lines. The subsection says that a local planning authority may:

373
"… make bylaws for the preservation of order, for the prevention of damage to the land or waterway or anything thereon or therein, and for securing that persons resorting thereto will so behave themselves as to avoid undue interference with the enjoyment of the lard or waterway by other persons."
If the noble Lord compares those words with mine, he will see that mine do not go any further than that.
LORD CHORLEY: It is the area which is covered that is in question. The whole of the particular matters to which the noble Lord refers are covered by the first words of the subsection. If a local planning authority attempted to make a bylaw which operated in land other than that belonging to them, or falling within the words of this subsection, it would undoubtedly be declared to be ultra vires.
VISCOUNT ESHER: Does not the Bill give powers of access to this land? If it does, you are allowing people to go on to the land even if it is private, and there will be nobody with any control over them.
LORD CHORLEY: It applies to access land. It is not proposed that most of the land in a national park area should become access land. Access land will be uncultivated rough land which has no particular agricultural or horticultural value. It is not proposed that all the rich agricultural and horticultural land in a national park area shall be made access land. I should have thought that noble Lords in this House would have been the first to object to any such proposal had it been made.
EARL HOWE: How are people to understand what code of conduct is required of them when they are enjoying access to national parks unless you have some uniformity in your regulations? You must depend on the general good sense of the public to see that their privileges in these national parks are not abused. There should be an easily-understood code applicable to all, which everyone can understand.
LORD CHORLEY: I have not yet come to that point. I was dealing with areas on which the proposed bylaws are to operate. The Government's view is that it is very doubtful whether, in the early stages, it is good to have a model set of bylaws which will apply over the whole of the national parks. The conditions in the various national parks differ
374
widely. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the powers in the metropolis
and the immediate neighbourhood. But we are not dealing with ordinary parks, and conditions differ very much in all sorts of ways. There is, for instance, a great difference between the conditions in the Norfolk Broads and those in Snowdonia or Dartmoor; and these variations may give rise to all sorts of different considerations. It may be that eventually it will be found that there is a certain set of bylaws which are necessary; and it is the intention in due course that the authority for the bylaws, which is the Home Office, should frame a model set.
EARL DE LA WARR: Are they in the Bill?
LORD CHORLEY: The Home Secretary is the confirming authority for local authority bylaws. The whole principle of the Bill is to leave the administration of the national parks to the local authorities.
EARL DE LA WARR: But the noble Lord said that the Home Secretary is going to frame model bylaws. That is not leaving the matter in the hands of the local authorities. If the Home Secretary is going to frame bylaws, why not put it in the Bill?
LORD CHORLEY: It is inherent. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 90, he will see that the Home Secretary is the confirming authority; and that enables the Home Secretary to frame model bylaws. It would surely be wrong to insist that the bylaws should be framed at once by anybody. As the scheme worked out, the National Parks Commission would undoubtedly get a great deal of expertise in dealing with the problems of local authorities. Local authorities, when drafting bylaws, are under obligation to consult with the National Parks Commission. Consultations will no doubt be going on with the different local authorities contemporaneously.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Unless we pass this Amendment, it will be no part of the National Parks Commission's duty.
LORD CHORLEY: It will be the duty of the local authority to consult with the National Parks Commission about all their arrangements in connection with national parks.
EARL DE LA WARR: Where is that in the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question, because he is putting me in an immense "national park." I thought, when I read this Amendment, that no conceivable case could be made out against it and that it was merely doing something which was permissive. But the noble Lord has taken us through a befogging wilderness of areas and Home Secretaries and so forth. Am I right in thinking that the noble Lord's case is that the Home Secretary is the man who has power to make model bylaws, which can be adopted by each of the local authorities? If he refuses this Amendment, what he is really doing is saying that the proper person to make the bylaws is not the Minister of Town and Country Planning or the Commission, but the Home Secretary. Is that his case?
LORD CHORLEY: We do not want an obligation to frame bylaws in the Act at all. The Home Secretary already has power to frame bylaws and is the correct authority to do it. The National Parks Commission will undoubtedly acquire a good deal of valuable information concerning these problems. As I have said, it is the duty of the local authority to consult with the National Parks Commission in respect of all their arrangements in the national park areas. If the National Parks Commission think that the bylaws proposed by the local authority are not satisfactory or adequate, that view will undoubtedly be brought to the attention of the Home Secretary, who will be able to consider and decide whether he thinks they are proper bylaws. Eventually, when the scheme has been working for some time, I have no doubt—indeed, it is the intention of the Government—that the Home Secretary will frame bylaws which will satisfy the point which has been made by a number of noble Lords to-day.
But I suggest that until the system has been working for a time it would be wrong to try to put the local authorities in a strait jacket in the matter of the administration of the park areas. The job of the administering of these areas has been entrusted to local authorities, who know better than anybody else the sort of bylaws which will be required for the purposes of regulating the use of
376
these areas. Surely, it is better to leave the matter to be worked out in this way than to insist on having a provision of this kind in the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD HARLECH: Where there are, say, three local authorities dealing with a national park, as there will be for the Lakes in Cumberland, Westmorland and Lancashire, is there machinery in the Bill to make sure that those three county councils will have the same bylaws in the national park area? If there is not, there should be. Otherwise, different local authorities will be making different bylaws in the same national park.
LORD CHORLEY: The answer is clear. Clause 8 provides for the setting up of joint boards, and that joint board in each instance becomes the planning authority for the area, and has the power under Clause 89 to make the bylaws.
LORD HYLTON: Referring to this question of the local authorities, is it still abundantly clear that they can make bylaws only for land belonging to them?
LORD CHORLEY: Yes.
LORD HYLTON: Your Lordships would all agree that that is absolutely inadequate for the purpose.
LORD CHORLEY: Or for access land.
LORD HYLTON: Or for access land. But it is not sufficient, and I think the whole case that has been made this afternoon, supported on both sides of the Committee and from all quarters, is that the power in this Bill is inadequate for the purpose for which it should be applied. The answer of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has in no way helped in resolving this problem. He says that it applies in the case of land belonging to the local authorities. But that is only a tiny fraction of the area of these parks. The whole object of my noble friend's Amendment surely is to extend the application of these bylaws to the park areas.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: There appears to be some doubt about this matter. Listening to this debate, I am not sure that the doubts are those that my noble friends expressed. I feel doubt as to the wisdom of putting in this Amendment, the reason being that there is a very old-established and constantly used procedure

377
for making bylaws in this country. The Home Secretary is the final authority, the reason being that these bylaws frequently impose penalties and make new offences, and someone has to regard it from the standpoint of the penal law and make sure that they do not unduly invade the liberty of the subject. Within my experience of the Home Office, there is a branch which deals with all these bylaws on all sorts of different subjects—not only what are specifically regarded as Home Office subjects. They always consult with the local authorities and the Departments concerned. The draft bylaws go from one to another, everyone's opinion is taken and then, finally, the Home Secretary has to give what amounts to a statutory sanction before the final draft is approved. In this particular case, there is a clause in the Bill, Clause 90, which says:
"… before making bylaws under this section as respects a National Park or area of outstanding natural beauty the Secretary of State shall consult with the Commission. …"
I am inclined to think that that is the right way to deal with the matter, rather than to put the onus in the first place upon the Commission; that the Home Secretary should make the draft after consulting the Commission and the other Departments concerned. Moreover, there is this to e considered: that, as has been stated from the Government Bench, the authorities that will have to administer and enforce these bylaws will not be the Commission but the local authorities. It is they who will have to have their representatives to perform the functions which were detailed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham. It seems that local authorities might resent having model bylaws, or draft model bylaws, sent down to them, not from a Minister of the Crown but from the Commission. Therefore—I may be wrong about this—I am rather disposed to think that the Bill is right as it stands.
LORD WINSTER: My mind has now become so completely befogged by the discussion that I must cling hold of the only lamp-post in sight at this moment. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, spoke about the Lake District, where the bylaws governing the national park will have to be made by three local authorities. From what I know of those local authorities,
378
it is likely that they will differ considerably amongst themselves. Would it not help them a little in their task if they had before them such a model bylaw as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin?
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord cannot have heard me aright. I said that the Bill provides that there should be a joint board for the three counties in the Lake District, which becomes the planning authority, and it is the planning authority which has the power to make the bylaws. It would not be a question of three county councils making bylaws; the joint board would make them.
LORD WINSTER: I entirely agree, but the three different representatives will certainly bring three different points of view to the joint board.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I must say that I was not at all satisfied with the reply given from the Government Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. If I may I will first deal with the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I am not attempting to have anybody other than the Secretary of State for Home Affairs ultimately promulgating these bylaws. I appreciate just as much as does the noble Viscount that there are legal matters which arise, and one has to be careful when one is creating new offences under the law. The Home Office is the right Department to have a say in that before any such bylaws are made and become operative. But what so much alarmed me about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was his idea that there must be different bylaws in the different places.
LORD CHORLEY: You might have them, not you "must" have them.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord referred to "exceptional circumstances" and said that it was rather a good thing that they should not all be uniform to start with, so that you would find out afterwards which worked the best. That was the kind of impression made upon me by that speech.
LORD CHORLEY: What I meant to say was that there would he a nucleus which would be found to be essential in all districts; then some would be found to apply to one area and some to another.
LORD LLEWELLIN: But the main bylaws must be the same. There are parts of all these national parks that are liable to catch fire; all of them are better without litter being left about; and in all of them there are gates which can be carelessly left open, with great damage to the farming population because the cattle—it may a tuberculin-tested herd, or something of that sort—may get out. We are not such a vast country that part of us is an arctic region and one part is tropical country. The real distinction between the attitude taken by the Government and that of myself is that they are prepared for each separate planning authority to submit these bylaws to the Home Secretary, who shall then consult the National Parks Commission, as I gather, on each one in turn, whereas our attitude is that it is much better to have model bylaws sent out which are uniform and a guidance to each local planning authority as to how the whole of them shall be framed by agreement and in uniformity with one another.
If there is anything that this National Parks Commission should be able to do,
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.57 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (4) (c) to leave out all words from and including "recommendations" and to insert:
"disbursement by the Commission of grants under this Act."
it is to draw up these bylaws. They will know the kind of model bylaw required. Ultimately, the Home Office may say: "That is going a bit too far; you cannot have that." That is a matter that can be dealt with in the model set. What we want to see is uniformity, not only for the sake of the areas but also for the sake of the ordinary public who go first to one national park and then to another. They want to know that the same kind of regulations apply wherever they go, and that they do not have to learn a new code if they are going to Dartmoor one day and Snowdonia the next. The reply of the noble Lord opposite was most unsatisfactory. He gave us no sort of assurance that this National Parks Commission would have any real say in setting up a uniform set of bylaws. In view of his reply, I think it is only right that I should ask the House to support me in this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the proposed new paragraph shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS

Salisbury, M.

Maugham, V.

Harlech, L.

Swinton, V.

Hawke, L.

Craven, E.

Hylton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Aberdare, L.

Killearn, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Llewellin, L.

Grey, E.

Baden-Powell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Halifax, E.

Carrington, L. [Teller.]

Merthyr, L.

Howe, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

O'Hagan, L.

Onslow, E.

Polwarth, L.

Poulett, E.

Cranworth, L.

Remnant, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Derwent, L.

Rochester, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Rockley, L.

Allenby, V.

Gifford, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Esher, V.

Grantley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Hailsham, V.

Hampton, L.

Wardington, L.

Margesson, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor)

Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Addison V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Clwyd, L.

Piercy, L.

Huntingdon, E.

Faringdon, L.

Rea, L.

Holden, L.

Shepherd, L.

Samuel, V.

Kershaw, L. [Teller.]

The noble Lord said: This is another of a series of Amendments designed to give a little more power to the Commission. The Committee will see that it is a question of whether under the terms of the Bill money shall be paid direct by the Government or whether it shall be paid through the Commission. In my view, it should be paid through the Com-

381
mission and disbursed by the Commission after receipt from the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, leave out from ("the") to end of line 10, and insert the said new words. —(Lora Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: There is an insuperable objection to this Amendment—namely, that it is outside the financial Resolution. Therefore, it is not really open to the noble Lord to put it forward to the Committee. As the noble Lord will appreciate, it deals with money.
LORD MERTHYR: I should have thought that it would not mean one penny of extra expenditure. It is only a question of how the money should be paid and through what channels. The same amount of money would be paid. With great respect, I should have thought that as it does not increase expenditure, nor for that matter diminish it, it would not have been a privilege Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I am advised that it is outside the terms of the financial Resolution, and I am afraid we cannot accept it.
LORD MERTHYR: In that case I shall have to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL moved in subsection (4) (d), after "development," where that word first occurs, to insert "or change in the use." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is put down for the purpose of clarification. This clause and its several subsections deal with cases of fresh development of land in the national park area, and when there is question of its development, then the Commission will come into play in order to safeguard the interests which are entrusted to their care. I would like to ask the spokesman of the Government what the word "development" includes, because I have in mind—and it is an instance that has come from my own experience as one of the trustees of the Oxford Preservation Trust—a case in which park land or open space is to be used, or is being used, by a. Government Department (in this case the War Office) for an artillery range, a training ground, or something else of that kind. Does that come within the statutory definition
382
of "development" or does it not? If it does, well and good; I am content and the Bill is as I would wish it to be. If not, then the Bill ought to be amended, because such cases ought clearly to come within its purview. It is not simply a question of the War Office erecting barracks on land. If, in some national park, they want to put up a training establishment, or use parts of it for an artillery range, clearly that ought to be within the cognisance of the authorities under this Bill. In order that we may get to know what the position is in that regard, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, after ("development") insert ("or change in the use.")—(Viscount Samuel.)
LORD CHORLEY: The meaning of the word "development" in this Bill is the same as in the Town and Country Planning Act. It is defined in Section 12 as including:
"any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."
The noble Viscount has put a case of the use of land by the War Department, which is not covered. Such actions by the War Department are not covered by the planning arrangements, and can be dealt with only by negotiation between the different Departments. If the noble Viscount had put to me some other instance, such as the erection of buildings or the use of land by some private concern or one of the nationalised boards, which fell within the Town and Country Planning Act, the case would have been different. As he specificially puts an instance in which the War Department is concerned, I am afraid that—
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I put that case because it was one which happened to come within my own experience. I would say, speaking generally, that it does not matter whether it is some other Department who are concerned. Let us say that it is the railway authority or a transport authority, or whatever it may be. Let us forget the War Department altogether and treat the matter generally. I understand that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act apply, and the wording there—which I think is rather doubtful—is:
"any material change in the use of any buildings or other land."

383
Presumably, such cases of the use of land as would affect seriously its use for a national park would be regarded as material use and would be covered. Development, I take it, does not mean only the erection of buildings or the like.
LORD CHORLEY: That is so.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I think this is a matter which ought to be cleared up. It is only a question of making clear what the Bill means. I, too, thought that development must mean what it means in Section 12 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, which I have before me and which I studied before considering this matter. But the curious thing is that "development" there has all sorts of meanings which involve operations or uses of land which are not to be deemed to involve developments. On top of that, we get something new in the clause to which this Amendment relates, in subsection (4) on page 5. This refers to proposals as to development of land in a national park, and it does not seem to me that it is at all clear that that involves development as the word is used in the Act of 1947. I think the Government must make up their minds whether it does or does not, otherwise no one will know where he is under this clause. The Act of 1947 speaks of the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land. I am not sure that that is intended in the clause we are considering. I am urging only that we should be informed precisely what the Government wish.
LORD CHORLEY: If the noble and learned Viscount would look at the interpretation clause—that is, Clause 114 —he would see that expressions used in the Bill will have the same meaning as those in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 unless it appears otherwise.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: The mere context may have the result of making it appear otherwise. It is the context which leads to the difficulty which I have in mind.
LORD CHORLEY: I certainly regard with respect the doubts which have been expressed by the noble and learned Viscount, but I am advised that the meaning of the word "development" in this particular clause is that which is
384
given in the Town and Country Planning Act.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I think we are all at one in our wishes. Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will look at the matter again between now and the Report stage, so that our minds may then be made clear on the whole question. If he will agree to do that I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment now and put it down again for that purpose.
LORD CHORLEY: I am very happy to give the assurance for which the noble Viscount asks.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Then I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL moved, in subsection (4) (e), after "where" to insert "the Commission deem it." The noble Viscount said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. Line 19 on page 5 states that the Commission may make recommendations to the Minister and, where appropriate, to other Ministers. The question is, who is to determine whether it is appropriate or whether it is not? Presumably that should be the Commission. They are intended to have a certain measure of free access to other Ministers besides the Minister of Town and Country Planning, but these words might be interpreted as meaning that the Minister should decide whether it was appropriate or not, and he might thereby bar that access. I move this Amendment in order that we may have an explanation on that point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, after ("where") insert ("the Commission deem it").—(Viscount Samuel.)
LORD CHORLEY: I agree with the noble Viscount. I do not think it is made as clear as it might be that the intention is that the Commission should do this. We are glad to accept the clarification which the noble Viscount proposes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved in subsection (4) (e), after "Park," where that word last occurs, to insert:
"and from time to time to bring to the attention of any such Minister their proposals with respect to such maintenance in so far as such

385
proposals seem to the Commission likely to be hindered by any development or class of development."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one are designed to enable the Commission to make advance approaches, if I may use that phrase, to other bodies or Government Departments and to tell them what their proposals are in respect of national parks. If that could not be done, other Departments might, unknown to the Commission, be framing careful and complicated proposals affecting the areas of a national park. Then when they are told that the Commission object to those proposals—I have in mind such a thing as a hydro-electric undertaking—they might say: "We took a great deal of time and trouble over this matter and we are not going to alter it all now." If only they had been told a long time earlier that the Commission objected to their proposals and could not accommodate them, they would not have that excuse. The object of the Amendments is simply to give the Commission powers to anticipate other people's intentions with regard to the park areas.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 24, after("Park") insert the said new words.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am not sure that the noble Lord is due for another acceptance just yet, but I am prepared, subject to the possibility of having the words redrafted, to accept his Amendment in principle.
LORD MERTHYR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Designation and variation of National Parks]:
6.10 p.m.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEYhad given notice of two Amendments, of which the first was, in subsection (1) to omit the word "and". The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment, which is coupled with the next, is to make it necessary for the Commission to consult river boards and drainage authorities before designating a national park. It is obvious that in certain areas the drainage authorities have very large interests. Take, for example, an area like the Norfolk Broads, where millions of pounds have been spent on drainage
386
works. It may well be that in deciding the exact boundary of a national park some important sluice or other works might be left out. I suggest that when consultations take place between the planning authority and the local authorities the drainage authorities should be consulted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 3, leave out ("and").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHORLEYAs this Amendment is preliminary to the next, perhaps we may take them together and discuss the whole problem. I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment. There is ample provision in the Bill for consultation with drainage authorities and river boards, as with all ether authorities interested in a national park. It would be wrong to single out this type of authority, as opposed to other authorities which are equally, and indeed might be more, interested, such as the county agricultural committee, which was suggested when this matter was discussed in another place. The noble Lord is right in saying that there are areas such as the Norfolk Broads, in which drainage is of the greatest importance; but I think he is aware that the Broads are specifically covered in Clause 13, to which an Amendment has been put down. In Clause 13, arrangements, which I hope your Lordships will regard as sufficient when we come to discuss them, are made for consultation with the drainage authorities in the Norfolk Broads area. If we leave aside the Broads, I think your Lordships will agree that a drainage board as such have no interests in a national park area different from those of other authorities, and there is no strong case for singling them out to be inserted in this clause. I may say that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has been consulted, because he is particularly interested in problems of drainage, and he concurs that this clause is satisfactory as it stands. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: In view of the assurance the noble Lord has given that in all circumstances the river boards and drain age authorities will be taken into the fullest consultation, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: The effect of this Amendment is to leave the form of a National Park order and the descriptive matter attached to it to the discretion of the Commission, instead of providing, as the Bill now does, that it should be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister. This seems a simpler way of doing it and should avoid much waste of time and trouble. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is a reasonable Amendment and will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out from ("order") to ("shall") in line 7.—(Lord Chtorley.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I welcome this Amendment and thank the Government for having moved it. It sets the Commission a little freer than they would otherwise be to perform their functions.
LORD CHORLEY: I thank the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is part and parcel of the last. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("as may be so prescribed or")—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("with the Commission and")—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
6.19 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Information to be given by Public Authorities
" —(1) The Commission may at any time after the commencement of this Act publish in the London Gazette a notice of their intention to make an order designating as a National Park the area described in the notice by reference to the counties and county districts in which such area is comprised and where such a notice has been published it shall be the duty of every public authority proposing to carry out any development within such area to keep the Commission excepting where in the opinion of the Minister, Board or responsible authority it is inexpedient in the national interest so to do, fully informed as to such proposals.
Provided that a notice shall not be published under this section unless the Commission are satisfied that an order designating the area as a National Park will be made within a period of ten years of the date of the publication of such notice.
(2) In this section the expression 'Public Authority' means any of the following, that is to say a Minister, a Board in charge of a Government Department, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a person appointed for the purpose by the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall, a local authority, a statutory undertaker or the National Coal Board."
The noble Earl said: This is a very important Amendment, but I can move it briefly because it concerns a simple point. It deals with the same question as Lord Merthyr's Amendment that has just been accepted, but from the opposite angle. The noble Lord's Amendment lays down that the Commission shall bring matters of projected development to the attention of the Minister and see that they are discussed in good time before everybody has taken their final stand. My proposal is that it should be obligatory on Government Departments and public authorities, when they contemplate an important work in a national park, to get in touch with the National Parks Commission at the earliest possible moment. I cannot help feeling that a great number of the troubles that have arisen, even comparatively recently, might have been handled in a different way if only there could have been prior discussion with those interested in national parks and in the general amenities of the countryside.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, is not here. I do not know whether I am representing him correctly, but I had the impression from his speech the other day —to which we all listened with such interest—that if in regard to the developments in the Snowdonia area there had been prior discussions with those interested in that area, and who are now taking such great exception to the scheme, modifications might have been suggested which would have removed all this difficulty. Surely, from every point of view that is desirable. As I have said, the point is of some importance, but as it is quite simple I will content myself by saying what I have said. I hope the noble Lord will see his way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It goes a great deal further than the scope of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, to which the noble Earl referred. Although I have every sympathy with the object the noble Earl has in view in moving this Amendment, if your Lordships will look at it in more detail you will see that if accepted it might, and probably would, give rise to a great deal of difficulty. The noble Earl has given a very wide meaning to the words "public authority," covering a large number of different types of authority to whom this information would have to be communicated. Coming to the decision to designate a national park is a process which takes a certain amount of time, and there may be discussions as to whether the first conclusions about the matter are right or not. But if information of this sort had to be given to all these authorities at this early stage, obviously they would then begin to make their plans on the basis that it was inevitable: they might well be led to considerable expense in conforming with the wishes of the Commission and, possibly, adopting exceptionally high standards of planning, leading to extra expense in that particular area. For various reasons it might afterwards appear to be right to the Commission that there should not be a final designation; or there might be good reasons why thee. Minister thought the particular area ought not to be designated. Undoubtedly there would then be a real grievance on the parts of the numerous authorities who had acted on information given at this too early stage.
Further, as I have pointed out, the words "public authority" are given a very wide definition in this clause. If, immediately after receiving this information, all these authorities were to put up to the Commission all the detailed proposals upon which they might be working, the Commission would be given a very big job indeed. If the noble Earl's object is to alter the whole direction of the Bill, to build up the National Parks Commission as opposed to the local authorities, then no doubt this Amendment would enable him to do so. But the policy of the Government in this Bill is to leave this question of planning to the local planning authorities and not to
390
entrust it to the National Parks Commission.
LORD HYLTON: I would point out to the noble Lord that the local planning authorities have no authority over these public bodies. All these public boards and Government Departments are completely outside the Act of 1947.
LORD CHORLEY: With great respect to the noble Lord, that is not so. He uses the words "board" and "Government Departments" as if they were one and the same thing: they are not. The noble Lord is right when he says that Government Departments are not within the Act of 1947, but the boards are. The Electricity Commissioners and the National Coal Board are certainly within the provisions of that Act, as I think the noble Lord, who is an authority on these matters, is well aware. This definition covers a large number of the authorities which are within the purview of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. In fact, it specifically refers to the Coal Board.
LORD HYLTON: These boards are in a very strong position as compared to the local planning authorities. Backed by Government Departments, these boards get their way in opposition to the local planning authorities.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord is rather straying from the object of the Amendment, which is to give notice to these authorities that it is proposed to designate a particular area as a national park. The result would be that all these different authorities would have to bring exactly the same points to the National Parks Commission as they have to bring to the local planning authority; and in effect there would be a duality of control between the National Parks Commission and the local planning authority. With great respect to the noble Earl, I think the whole scheme would break down and would not prove a feasible project. In the light of those observations, I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is an Amendment which we ought not to accept.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am disappointed that the noble Lord will not accept this Amendment. I am inclined to agree with him that if the principle were accepted we should, certainly have

391
to look at the drafting of the Amendment. I had hoped, however, that the noble Lord would be in a position to accept the principle, which is that it is desirable —and it is likely to save a great deal of trouble and controversy—for the National Parks Commission to have early notification of works that are likely to be carried out.
LORD CHORLEY: I would like to say this in reply to that observation, which is a very pertinent one. I think that problem can be dealt with administratively, provided that the necessary arrangements are made between the National Parks Commission and the various Government Departments and nationalised industry boards which are concerned in these national park areas. I feel it would be much more effective to deal with the problem by administrative methods, rather than by establishing the obligation which would be brought in by this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Duty of local planning authority to formulate, and carry out, proposals for the purpose of s. 5 (1)]:
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to add to the clause:
"() Where by reason of the exercise of a local planning authority's powers for the purposes specified in subsection (1) of section five of this Act, any person incurs or is likely to incur any loss, damage or expense to which he would not otherwise have been put or the value of an interest in land of any person is or is likely to be depreciated, he shall be entitled to receive from the local planning authority compensation in respect thereof."
The noble Lord said: One of the main purposes of this Bill is to preserve and enhance the beauty of the countryside. It appears likely that local planning authorities will use the powers given to them under the Bill to see that this is done. I am sure we all agree that this is an admirable idea, and we should help it as far as we can. However, in certain cases it might cause hardship. Farmers or land owners might conceivably be required to put up a different sort of building in a more expensive material than that which they would have used had they not been in a national park area.
392
Again, they may be required to put the building in a different position. There are all sorts of examples of which one could think. I think it rather unfair that a farmer or land owner should be financially handicapped by reason of the fact that he lives in a national park area. It is true that Section 20 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, partly covers this point, but it is limited in its application. My Amendment seeks to provide compensation for those land owners and farmers in the case which I have quoted. The Hobhouse Committee suggested a proposal of this sort in their Report, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to meet this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 5, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD CHORLEY: This is re-echoing a controversy which was debated a good deal under the Town and Country Planning Act, in which, as the noble Lord has pointed out, some little concession was made. That is as far as the Government are prepared to go in this matter. It is felt that those who are privileged to live in one of these areas of exceptional beauty may have to be prepared to spend rather more on maintaining their properties in a fit state, and it is no insufferable hardship upon them to do so. I am sorry I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am disappointed with the noble Lord's reply—he has not tried to meet me in any way at all. Because a farmer happens to live in a part of the countryside which the National Parks Commission are going to designate as a national park, and because people want to come in and enjoy the countryside, it seems to me unfair that the farmer should have to pay for it. I do not think the noble Lord has made any attempt whatever to answer my point. Section 20 of the Town and Country Planning Act does not cover this point. Indeed, the present Bill had not been thought of when the Town and Country Planning Act was before your Lordships' House. I would ask the noble Lord if he would look at this again.
LORD CHORLEY: I could say that I would look at it again, but I am afraid there is no possibility of the Government

393
altering their view. It is quite true that national parks were not discussed when the Town and Country Planning Act was before your Lordships' House, but it was clearly envisaged in that Act that there would be some areas where particularly high standards would be required. Within my own recollection, this matter was discussed then, and also on the Second Reading of this Bill. In each case the Government made their position very clear. I think it would be waste of your Lordships' time to say that I will take it back, because there is no question about the answer.
EARL DE LA WARR: We are still living, more or less, under a Parliamentary system, and I think it is customary for a Minister, when turning down an Amendment, to attempt to give some reply, out of respect. The noble Lord has merely said that the Government have decided to do nothing, and he has not attempted to meet the case. I do not know whether this is a privilege Amendment or not, but it is a question of justice. One can only say to the noble Lord that if this line is taken, the Bill will be received in a very different spirit from what it has been up till now. Many of the land owners and farmers in these areas —they are often their own men—are not at all wealthy people. On the whole, the land we are dealing with is extremely poor land, which cannot stand the expense. Just because townspeople come down to the country to look at something pretty, we in the country are to have these heavy burdens imposed upon us. It will be deeply resented. I resent the attitude of the noble Lord, who thinks he can stand at that Box and say: "We have decided to do nothing," and give no answer whatever.
LORD CHORLEY: I think the noble Earl is rather unfair, because I did point out that the view was that people living in these particular national park areas enjoy an exceptional privilege.
EARL DE LA WARR: By having hundreds of thousands of people coming into their homes?
LORD CHORLEY: It is a great privilege to live, for instance, in the Lake District.
LORD CARRINGTON: Has the noble Lord tried farming there?
EARL DE LA WARR: Has the noble Lord had to try to drag a living from the soil?
LORD CHORLEY: I know farmer friends of mine who are making a good living in those areas. Surely noble Lords will recollect that it is the local planning authority who are responsible for the arrangements in these particular areas. The noble Earl speaks as if farmers were not represented or in any way protected by their own local authority. I am sure that a very reasonable attitude will be adopted, and I think the noble Earl is being rather unfair in suggesting that great burdens are going to be put upon the farmers in this regard.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: I would like to intervene to refer to something which was said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. I must say that within the limits allowed to him he has done his best to meet us, but the emphasis of all he has been saying throughout this Bill—in his admirable speech on Second Reading and several times to-day in Committee—was that this Bill could not work unless it carried the agricultural community with it. This is exactly a case in point where the interests of the agricultural community are affected. The noble Lord who is lieutenant in this matter has said: "But, of course, you must not go and desecrate the beauty of Snowdon or the Lake District." I do not suppose that anybody will attempt to do that, unless it be the Minister of Town and Country Planning.
But it is not only Snowdon and the most beautiful parts of the Lake District which are subject to this Bill. Take my own district, which I think is lovely, Swaledale and Netherdale. That is going to come into this Bill as a national park, and I am very glad that it should. But the whole of that, apart from the moors, is agricultural land. Indeed, there are a good many who do not seem to realise that the moors, in addition to producing grouse, carry a great many sheep, and if the moors were not well burnt and well drained—to which the grouse contribute something, or the people interested in grouse—the sheep would not get a living. The best hill farmer I know said to me: "What is good for grouse is good for sheep." Once you get off the moors, all the lower parts are agricultural land. It

395
is quite likely that the people who come into these national parks (not the people who are accustomed to organising hiking expeditions, whom I have never known to do the least damage) will, with the best will in the world, do damage by leaving gates open. Farmers now have attested and unattested herds, which they go to every expense to keep apart, but nobody can make a claim if any damage is done.
We are glad to take a chance in the interests of making this scheme succeed. Land owners may put up buildings which some of these experts do not like—though I do not think their own taste is very good. Perhaps the buildings would not be the kind of buildings that the experts themselves would put up on the seafront, or the kind of beautiful things that they now erect as Government buildings. But it would be great fun if the Barrack Department of the War Office were brought in to add to these amenities. People put up farm buildings, and when the old slates come off they may have to use something else for repairing. But by and large they put up what is useful and, incidentally, something which on the whole blends extraordinarily well into the landscape; and the last thing one wants to risk is that some æsthete should come from outside and try to force his ideas upon these people.
I know that the local authorities are to have some say: but I also know that the Minister of Town and Country Planning is doing all he can to override local authorities, local sentiment and local opinion. I think that if the Government want the co-operation of the farming community, the small people who make their living in these places and put up these buildings, they must take their views into account. I would ask the Minister to take this back and see whether there cannot be some sort of compromise. Apparently the Government say that they must not spend any money, but they do not mind saying that the hard-pressed tenant, farmer, or owner may be ordered to spend money. I would like my noble friend, who is performing a most valuable service to the agricultural community by raising this matter, to try again and see whether we cannot get some security and some safeguard against that sort of imposition being put upon the farmer. I know that this cannot be carried further
396
at this moment, but I sincerely hope that discussion and reconsideration will take place before the Report stage. If not, hope my noble friend will put down his Amendment again, or some other Amendment designed to prevent this sort of thing happening.
LORD REA: Living as I do in West Cumberland, I know the feelings of the people there, and I hope the Government will bear in mind that for the last fifty or even hundred years there have been many land owners and farmers who have made personal sacrifices, without any reward whatsoever, in order to keep the amenity spirit going in these areas. When this Bill comes into force they will say that their public spirit over these years is to be rewarded by having this burden placed upon them.
LORD WINSTER: I know the Lake District very well, and many of the farmers there. My grandfather farmed on the fringe of that district. These are men who have to struggle all the year round against cruel nature and against very hard conditions to earn a living. They are men who in one respect at least have shown themselves to possess a great eye for natural beauty. I believe they appreciate the beauties amongst which they live. As the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has said, the buildings which they have erected have shown a great sense of harmony with the beauty of the district—I am thinking in particular of the bridges which they have built in the Lake District. These untrained men have built those bridges, with their lovely curves, obviously with a natural eye for beauty. They have a hard struggle to earn their living and, as has been said, if any additional burden is to be placed upon them it will certainly affect their point of view towards this Bill. The Bill may well put a cruel and undeserved burden on these men. Knowing them as I do, and having such good friends amongst them, I earnestly trust that nothing will be done in the Bill to place an additional burden on their shoulders.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Speaking as one who has to deal with the point of view of a local authority, I hope that some such alternative as has been suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, will be adopted. The point I have in mind is that already restrictions are being

397
placed on buildings and so forth, prior to the National Parks Bill operating. I think it would be extraordinarily difficult, having regard to the fact that these restrictions are being imposed, to prove that the restrictions that will be imposed after this Bill has become an Act will he entirely due to the existence of the Act. I think it would place local authorities in a most difficult position and that they would be forced to fight these claims for compensation on that ground. It might be better if certain classes of building were wholly excluded from control.
LORD CHORLEY: There is obviously a very great interest in and feeling about this matter. The Amendment as it stands is a very wide one and, as I have suggested, it impinges very much on the whole problem of compensation. The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has suggested that there might be some alternative method of dealing with the problem, and we shall be glad to look into anything which falls short of this very wide Amendment. The Committee will understand that I am not in a position to give any undertaking or assurance, but I will certainly bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the expressions of opinion which have come from so many noble Lords, and I will ask him whether anything can be done. Perhaps the noble Lord may now care to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I think his second thought is better than his first. It shows what perseverance will
398
do! I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think this would be a convenient time to break off for today. If we enter upon discussion of Clause 12, I understand that it will take quite a long time.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: I should like to remind noble Lords that we may have to sit after dinner on Thursday in order to make further progress.

WRITTEN ANSWER WHISKY EXPORTS
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDasked His Majesty's Government whether they will state for each of the financial years 1945–46 to 1948–49 inclusive, the total gallonage of Scots whisky exported to the United States of Canada, and the other hard currency countries respectively, together with the foreign exchange received as a result of these exports from each of the countries concerned; as well as similar figures for the countries of the Empire, the Colonies, and the sterling bloc.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Exports of Scotch whisky are not separately recorded in the trade accounts. The following table sets out the United Kingdom exports of whisky (Scotch and Irish) in the financial years stated.

UNITED KINGDOM EXPORTS OF WHISKY (SCOTCH AND IRISH (1)

Countries to which exported

April, 1945 to March, 1946

April, 1946 to March, 1947

April, 1947 to March, 1948

April, 1948 to March, 1949

Quantity

Value

Quantity

Value

Quantity

Value

Quantity

Value

Thousand proof gallons

£'000

Thousand proof gallons

£'000

Thousand proof gallons

£'000

Thousand proof gallons

£'000

United States of America

2,347

4,284

2,813

5,328

4,426

8,849

4,760

9,795

Canada and New foundland

391

722

489

896

665

1,346

871

1,831

Other Present Hard Currency Countries

711

1,372

484

929

623

1,296

619

1,292

Members of the Commonwealth (including Canada and Newfoundland)

1,168

2,102

1,331

2,412

1,427

2,789

1,816

3,646

British Colonies

277

517

381

719

381

762

328

668

Total, Commonwealth

1,445

2,619

1,712

3,131

1,808

3,551

2,144

4,314

Sterling Area (2)

1,111

2,011

1,305

2,399

1,192

2,304

1,295

2,531

Figures of foreign exchange received for exports of whisky are not available. The figures shown above represent the sterling f.o.b. value of exports.

(1) Figures for Scotch whisky only are not available as the trade returns heading relates to "Whisky, Scotch and Irish."

(2) These figures relate to exports to the sterling countries of the Commonwealth together with those to the Irish Republic, Iceland, Burma and Iraq.

House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.