NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL

HL Deb 15 November 1949 vol 165 cc666-706

3.44 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The ENRL OF DRO6ITEDA in the Chair]

Clause 102 [General provisions as to acquisition of land]:

LORD CHORLEY moved, after subsection (5) to insert: () In this section, and in any enactment in this Act which confers a power to acquire land compulsorily, the expression 'land' includes any interest in land; and the provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts incorporated with this Act by virtue of paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946 as applied by subsections (2) and (4) of this section shall apply With the necessary modfications in relation to the compulsory acquisition of any interest in land, being an interest not falling within the definition of 'lands' contained in the Lands Clauses Acts.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment defines the expression "land" in connection with all acquisitions of land under the Bill, whether made compulsorily or under agreement. It will enable local authorities or the Minister, when acquiring the land for any of the purposes for which they may acquire it under the Bill, to acquire not only the land itself but rights over the land which may have been granted away to a stranger. To take a simple example, it may well be that there are shooting rights over some particular piece of land which the local authority wish to acquire as a camping site. It would obviously be inconvenient to leave in the air the question of the shooting rights. It is much better to acquire the rights over the land at the same time "as the land is acquired—that the greater should include the less, and that, if there are rights of this kind, whether for shooting, fishing or whatever it may be, the power to acquire these rights in addition to the land itself should be conferred upon the acquiring authority. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 82, line 27, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Charley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 103 agreed to.

Clause 104 [Default powers of Ministers as respects National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty]:

LORD CHORLEY

These Amendments are consequential on the Amendments which the Committee accepted on the previous occasion in connection with Clauses 53, 54 and 55. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 85, line 20, leave out ("being powers which") and insert— ("or (b) that any authority have failed to exercise any of their powers under the enactments relating to highways or under Part V of this Act, being powers for giving effect to approved proposals relating to a long-distance route.

and")

Page 85, line 21, at end insert ("the powers in question").

Page 85, line 23, leave out ("powers in question") and insert ("said powers").—(Lord Charley.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to. Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved, after Clause 104 to insert the following new clause:

Savings for s. 64 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930

". Nothing in this Act shall authorise any person to do any act which under Section 64 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, would be unlawful except in accordance with the provisions of that section."

The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney I beg leave to move this Amendment. It is a small but important Amendment. The reason for it is plain —namely, to protect the interests of the catchment boards as covered by Section 64 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. That section has worked satisfactorily to date, and we feel that these boards should be protected and that it should be done by means of the same machinery.

Amendment moved— After Clause 104 insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is unnecessary. As the noble Lord has pointed out, Section 64 of the Land Drainage Act has worked perfectly well. There is nothing in the Bill which in any way detracts from its continuing to work perfectly well. The general terms of this Bill do not in any way interfere with the specific terms of the Land Drainage Act, which will continue to apply, and under which the authority will be entitled to be consulted just as at present. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

It is felt that by Clauses 51 and 68 of this Bill the catchment boards might not be called in to give their sanction for the provision of bridges over water-courses. That was the main point.

LORD CHORLEY

I am assured that that right, which is specifically laid down in Section 64, is in no wise interfered with by anything in this Bill. I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept that assurance.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

After what the noble Lord has said, I do not wish to press the Amendment; but perhaps he will be good enough to look at the point before a later stage to clear up the matter. I am sure we are all agreed that Section 64 should be safeguarded.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 105 [Expenses of county councils in England and Wales]:

LORD CHORLEY

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 105.—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 106 agreed to.

Clause 107 [Supplementary provisions as to compensation under ss. 20, 46 and 71]:

LORD CHORLEY

The present wording of the Bill was put in as a mere stopgap, pending the passing of the Lands Tribunal Bill. As that measure has, in the interval, become law, there is no need for the words as they stand in the Bill at present, and the purpose of this Amendment is to get rid of them. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 86, line 23, leave out from ("determined") to end of line 30 and insert— ("by the Lands Tribunal. (3) For the purposes of any reference to the Lands Tribunal under the last foregoing subsection, section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 (which relates to costs) shall have effect with the substitution, for references to the acquiring authority, of references to the authority from whom the compensation in question is claimed.")—(Lord Chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is consequential upon the last one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 87, line 11, leave out subsection (5) and insert— ("(5) This section shall apply to Scotland—

1. (a) with the substitution for any reference to the Lands Tribunal of a reference to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland; and
2. (b) with the substitution respectively for any reference to a mortgage, to a mortgagee, and to the first mortgagee, of a reference to a heritable security, to the creditor in a heritable security, and to the creditor whose heritable security has priority over any other heritable securities secured on the land:

Provided that until sections one to three of the Lands Tribunal Act, 1949, come into force as respects Scotland the expression the Lands Tribunal for Scotland ' in subsection (2) of this section shall be construed as meaning an official arbiter appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and the following provisions of the said Act of 1919, that is to say, section three thereof (which relates to procedure), section five thereof (which relates to costs) as modified by sections five and ten of the said Act of 1949, but with the substitution for references to the acquiring authority of references to the authority from whom the compensation in question is claimed, and section six thereof (which relates to the statement of special cases) as modified by section ten of the said Act of 1949, shall apply for the purposes of the arbitration.")—(Lord chorley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 107, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 108 and 109 agreed to.

3.52 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 109 to insert the following new clause:

Issue by Minister of directions for guidance of the public.

".—(1) The Minister shall as soon as may be after commencement of this Act prepare a code (in this section referred to as 'The Country Code') comprising such directions as appear to him to he proper for the guidance of persons using public rights of way, public open spaces, access land, National Parks and places of outstanding beauty, and may, from time to time, revise the code by revoking, varying, amending or adding to the provisions thereof in such manner as he thinks fit.

(2) The country cede and any alterations proposed to be made in the provisions of the code on any revision thereof, shall, as soon as prepared by the Minister be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and the code or revised code, as the case may be, shall not be issued until the code or the proposed alterations have been approved by both Houses.

(3) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, the Minister shall cause the code and every revised edition of the code to be printed and issued to the public at a price not exceeding twopence.

(4) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the country code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under this Act or any bye-law made thereunder) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."

The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment which was referred to again and again during the Second Reading discussion. It speaks very much for itself, I think, and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with a long speech in moving it. I just cannot believe that the noble Lord who is responsible for the Bill is not going to accept it. The Amendment simply provides for a code of country behaviour to be laid down and given statutory authority, as was the case with the Highway Code. It has been drafted on almost exactly the same lines as the clause in the relevant Act which provides for the Highway Code, in order to make it doubly easy for the Government to accept it. Clearly the increased use of public rights of way, long-distance routes, access land and national parks, and the opening up of waterways and places of outstanding beauty, desirable though those objects are—and we are all agreed upon them, I think—will nevertheless result in a much larger number of people going to the country than have done in the past. Indeed, that is what we all hope for. But unfortunately that must increase the risk of damage, and also the fear of damage in the minds of farmers who have to live on the land and produce food from it.

For either good or bad reasons, I think your Lordships will agree, the provisions for compensation to the farmer are, to say the least, exceedingly slight. Such Amendments as have been moved from this side of the Committee in an attempt to provide for compensation have not met with any success. We feel that this code of country behaviour, while it may not compensate the farmer will, at any rate, expedite the education of people who visit the country. It has been made clear from the Government side of the Committee that they wish to depend primarily on what we may call the weapon of education. We on this side attach great importance to this Amendment. I am not going to say more about it at the moment. I wish to hear what the noble Lord who speaks for the Government has to say; I hope that he is going to say that the Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 109 insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD CHORLEY

I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint the noble Earl. We on this side are just as keen as noble Lords opposite that there should be a standard of conduct for users of the countryside, but we do not think that this Amendment provides the right way of securing it. We consider that it would be altogether wrong to establish a detailed and rigid code of the kind which this Amendment contemplates, and with the rather complicated Parliamentary procedure which the Amendment lays down. As was pointed out during the Second Reading discussion, one of the main duties—in fact, some people have said that it will be the most important duty—of the National Parks Commission will be to concern themselves with obtaining good behaviour in the national park areas. Clearly, one of the first things with which the National Parks Commission will deal will be the drawing up of general instructions of this kind. Noble Lords opposite have complained that the Commission are not being given much to do. By this Amendment, it is proposed to hand over to the Minister the duty to establish a countryside code of this kind, although that, I should have thought, was clearly a matter to be left to the Commission. I am glad to be able to give the noble Earl an assurance that the Minister will indicate to the National Parks Commission, when it is set up, that he regards this as one of the matters with which it should concern itself. That does not, of course, mean that the instructions should be put into the rigid formal code of the kind which the noble Earl envisages in this Amendment.

The Amendment is founded on the Highway Code which was established under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which deals with traffic on the highways. I think your Lordships will agree, however, that the problem here is completely different. As regards the countryside, much of the conduct which the noble Earl's Amendment refers to is already dealt with in the Second Schedule, and it will be further dealt with by the bylaws which are made to enforce matters referred to in the Schedule. That being so, it is unnecessary to have the position set out in a code of this kind. Apart from that, all that the noble Earl is aiming at, I am sure, is the establishment of a code of good manners. The Highway Code, of course, is not a code of good manners—it is concerned with the establishment of a number of rules for ensuring that motorists drive with reasonable care upon the highways and are not negligent. It is also designed to ensure that pedestrians are not jay-walkers, and that they too use the highways with reasonable care.

I suggest to the noble Earl that there is hardly any similarity between the two cases. Here we are concerned to educate people in proper behaviour in the countryside. After all, great numbers of them have already had that education. Many of them are enrolled in the ramblers' clubs which, as noble Lords agreed during the Second Reading debate, have done admirable work in the education of their members, and in the education generally of people using the countryside, in the way of decent manners. In my view—and this is also the view of my right honourable friend—it would be quite unsuitable that in the very early stages of this business we should try to establish a detailed and rigid code such as the noble Earl wishes to see enforced under the last of the subsections to his Amendment by establishing that there should be some sort of presumption that the law has been broken if the code is not observed.

That idea, of course, is taken from the Highway Code, in which it is a very sensible and reasonable provision. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that it cannot be adopted in the same way in connection with a countryside code. A large part of the code would deal with matters already explicitly covered by bylaws. Take the case of litter. Obviously, the countryside code and the bylaws would both deal with litter. If a man were proceeded against under the bylaws for leaving litter about, it would be necessary to prove that he had left the litter, and the fact that it was dealt with by the countryside code could not establish any presumption. It would still have to be proved in evidence by witnesses. We could not have a presumption in a case of that kind when a man was before a bench of magistrates. I think the noble Earl will agree, when he looks at the implications of his Amendment, that it is not such a suitable one as he supposes, and I hope he will withdraw it.

4.2 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

May I add a word or two on something which closely concerns questions of law, of which I am supposed to know something? The property which will come within the terms of this Bill involves a large proportion of the property of England. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands or millions of acres are involved, but the open spaces, the access land, the national parks and the places of outstanding beauty will cover a large part of England. By this Bill, we are altering the law; there are many things which people will be allowed to do, and a great many things they will not be allowed to do, as a result of this measure. I do not know of any Act of Parliament dealing with the rights arch obligations of the public that is so far-reaching as this measure will be. It is true that in a prosecution one is deemed to know the law, but everybody does not know the law—we all know that that is a doctrine of convenience. When we are making these far-reaching changes under this Bill it is necessary that the public should know what is going to happen in the future with regard to their rights and liabilities.

In my opinion it is essential that either the Minister or the Commission (I do not mind which) shall prepare and issue such a code as is proposed in my noble friend's Amendment. If we do not have such a code, I do not know how we are going to work this Bill. In the case of national parks, there will no doubt have to be at the entrances to the park notice boards stating that if people pass a certain line they will be in the area of the park. I do not conceive it possible to fence in the national parks, as would be done with a wild game park in South Africa, and as a general rule they will not be fenced. The noble Lords in charge of the Bill have mentioned the Lake District and the Norfolk Broads. I think it vital that we should tell the public in some document, such as the one the Amendment proposes that they shall be entitled to buy for twopence, where they step off the public road and come within an area over which there may be twenty or thirty bylaws, the, breach of which involve them in penalties. We cannot have maps of these large areas published in the newspapers, because there is not enough room in the newspapers for a detailed contour of a dozen national parks. To make the Act work, it will be necessary to let the public know as soon as conveniently possible what is the area of a national park and where they become liable to penalties if they do not comply with bylaws that generally they do not see at all.

I live in the country close to Ashdown Forest, which may become a national park. I cannot tell your Lordships the area of the Ashdown Forest, and I do not believe that the freeholder of the area, who is present in your Lordships' House, can tell us. It is an exceedingly tricky matter, because of ancient encroachments on what was a forest. One thing the countryside code must do is to tell the public where they become visitors to a national park. It should also tell them what they are entitled to do there without offence and what they are not entitled to do. If the Commission are asked to prepare and issue such a code, I think—and I believe the noble Lord who moved this Amendment will agree—that it would not be a bad thing to leave it to them; but we must have a clause in the Bill authorising them to spend the money and to do all the work necessary for the purpose; and they should be entitled to be repaid that sum. I do not know which body ought to do it, but I know that it should be done.

I earnestly urge the Government, if they have this measure at heart, to take some steps to make this Bill effective. People should not be liable to be told before a bench of magistrates that they have done something they ought not to have done, because it was contrary to bylaws which they had never seen and which had never been brought to their attention. On many benches, one hears magistrates say that the regulations on certain subjects are now constantly broken by people who do not know they are breaking the law. There is no reason why that position should be extended to such cases as will arise under this measure when a great part of England becomes subject to it. I hope that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill cannot give way on the Amendment now he will reconsider this question. I would only say for myself that I am not sure that subsection (4) of the Amendment is necessary. However, I imagine that my noble friend would be willing to drop it if that were the only objection to the proposal made.

LORD HAWKE

I must apologise to your Lordships for not being present when my noble friend moved this Amendment, to which my name is appended, but travelling has certain difficulties to-day. I have deduced from the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, what my noble friend said in moving the Amendment. Having heard the reply of the noble Lord, there is one point which I would add, and which I feel my noble friend did not make. I may say that I was disappointed with the reply of the noble Lord, and I hope he will consider what I have to say from a fresh angle. A rather wise man once said to me that history is the struggle between the town and the country, and the town always wins. That is partly true; but the struggle has its up and downs, and at the moment the country is on top. And it is when you are on top that you should make arrangements for the future, when you are likely to be at the bottom. I believe that this Bill, and this clause of the Bill, gives the country that opportunity of preparing its future.

The Bill makes it possible for people to visit the country more than they did before. This clause is designed so that they may be educated not to do the damage which they might otherwise do; it also provides that there should be the means of education to people who perhaps have no intention of visiting the country at the moment but who may one day do so—I refer to the schoolchildren. Unless there is some sort of code of this nature, what is a teacher to teach in school when he is told to tell the schoolchildren how to behave when they go into the country? In any case, the teacher may not know how to behave himself. He will require some sort of textbook. The moment we have a code of this sort the teacher can learn it and expound it, and in future years we shall reap the benefit. It is for that reason that I think the Government ought to accept this Amendment.

LORD WINSTER

I have great sympathy with the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl. I think I realise the objective he has in mind, but I doubt whether his object will be best served by the procedure which he proposes. If I am right, what the noble Earl fears (if I am wrong I will withdraw at once) is that damage may be caused by townspeople coming into the country. It is true that townspeople coming into the country do leave gates open, do frighten cattle and do trample growing grass—I agree about all those things. However, I feel that they do those things through ignorance and not from evil intention. That being so, I am sure that they are susceptible to guidance and instruction on these matters. But I fear there is always a latent tendency in our natures to buck against authority. I am sure that people are far more likely to be susceptible to a code of guidance, such as might be issued by the Commission, than they would be to something which is in an Act of Parliament, with a hint of penalties—because no code which is approved by Parliament can be effective unless there is in the background some hint of penalties. Therefore, I think it is wise to leave this matter to the Commission, who I am sure will prepare and issue a pamphlet dealing with the points which should govern the conduct of people coming from the towns into the country. If it is said that teachers must instruct the young people, I am sure the teachers are just as well able to do that on the basis of a pamphlet issued by the Commission as they are upon the basis of an Act of Parliament. And the young people are probably more likely to be susceptible to the one than to the other.

LORD HAWKE

May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Would a pamphlet issued by the Commission have the same authority with the Minister of Education to be expounded in schools, as a pamphlet issued under this Act?

LORD WINSTER

I cannot answer for future Ministers of Education, but from my knowledge of the present Minister I am sure he would give every possible facility to the inculcation of guidance on the basis of a pamphlet issued by the Commission; and I cannot believe that any future Minister of Education would not be happy to do the same. I can assure the noble Lord that I share his concern about this matter, but I think it can he left to the Commission. If it is found that guidance and instruction on these matters does not have the desired effect, then it is open to the Minister of Town and Country Planning to come before Parliament at some future date and ask for further powers such as the noble Earl seeks to achieve by his Amendment. At the moment I feel we might leave it with the Commission.

LORD MERTHYR

I am disappointed and surprised that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment, and I hope the noble Earl will press it to a Division. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said, but, with great respect, I think he was making bricks without straw. I could not detect in his argument any real opposition to this Amendment, or any real reason why it should not be passed. He said that this was a different problem from that of the Highway Code, but he did not say in what respect it was different. In my submission, the Highway Code is a code of manners for the highway, and a code under this Amendment would be a code of manners for national parks and access land. I should like particularly to ask the Government, if this was done by the Commission, whether they would approve of subsection (4) being left in as part of the code. Unlike the last speaker, I should have thought that it would be far better for any code containing subsection (4), or something like it, to have behind it the authority of a Government Department, rather than be left to the emaciated Commission which is to be set up under this Bill.

Most up-to-date land owners—and there are many—will welcome this Bill, and will be prepared to put up with some inconvenience caused by the opening of their land to the public. But anybody who thinks that as a result of this Bill there will be no more hooliganism is deceiving himself. It is obvious that for many years to come there will be damage done on these lands, on the highways and in the parks. It is unfortunately a fact that in this country—much more so than in continental countries— a great deal of damage is done. Nobody, surely, believes that that will suddenly stop. There are two alternative courses of action to land owners if this damage is done: they can prosecute or they can educate. I would suggest that in every way it is better to educate than to prosecute. As the noble Earl who moved the Amendment said, it is primarily a matter for education, and it has to be made to sink in over a number of years. I feel confident that at the end of a number of years the code of behaviour will lave greatly improved. I cannot see any real objection to this Amendment, and I hope that the Government will not be stubborn about it but will yield and thereby improve the Bill.

4.20 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

Like many other noble Lords who have spoken, I must say that I am disappointed that the noble Lord cannot see his way to accept this Amendment. It is an Amendment of fundamental importance. As I have pointed out already, the Government have refused to accept any Amendment dealing with compensation, or giving wardens effective power. Therefore, we are thrown back on the single point of increasing the effectiveness of the bodies concerned with the operation of this Bill—that is, with regard to education. A code of behaviour such as this is fundamental to success in any agricultural campaign.

The noble Lord says that this is quite different from the Highway Code. Why? The Highway Code, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said, is a code of good manners on the highway. Why is it less important to have a code of good manners in the countryside—unless it is, as one is driven to suspect, that noble Lords opposite do not think that it is important? They do not think it matters how people behave in the countryside. That may sound hard when one is speaking on a Bill which is non-controversial, and yet one is almost driven to that conclusion. I am sure that many of those living in the countryside who are friendly to this Bill but nervous about it, will come to that conclusion. The simple point before the Government is this: Do they take this question of possible damage in the countryside seriously, or do they not? If they do take it seriously, then they are bound to reconsider their attitude on this Amendment. If the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, cannot meet us on it, I shall certainly ask your Lordships to voice your opinion. But I appeal to the noble Lord. One point he made gave me a little hope. He said that he did not think it was for the Minister, but for the Commission, to carry out this proposal. What would the noble Lord say if we were willing to take out the words "the Minister" and insert "the National Parks Commission"? If that is the view of the noble Lord—I am thinking only on my feet—and if he would be prepared to say that he would accept those words, then I should be prepared to reconsider my position. We have deferred a great number of points to Report stage, and I think we should settle the matter one way or the other.

LORD CHORLEY

I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Earl's suggestion. We do not think it is suitable to deal with this problem by means of a code. I have discussed this matter with my right honourable friend, and I agree that it would be much better to clear the matter up by having a Division.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Could the noble Lord tell us by what means the Government think this problem should be handled, if it is not to be done by a code?

LORD CHORLEY

Unfortunately the noble Marquess was not present when I replied to the noble Earl. To put it briefly, under Clause 85 the National Parks Commission are charged with the duty. If the noble Marquess will look at the later passages of Clause 85 (1), he will see that it says: …and that suitable methods of publicity are used for the prevention of damage in national parks and such other areas as aforesaid and otherwise for encouraging a proper standard of behaviour on the part of persons visiting national parks and such other areas. The Government think that this matter should be left to the National Parks Commission to deal with in the way they think fit. My right honourable friend is prepared to indicate to the National Parks Commission that he thinks it advisable that they should give attention to this question of a standard of conduct in the countryside and draw up some sort of instructions on the matter. But he does not think that a code of this kind should go through the elaborate procedure of coming before each House of Parliament. Noble Lords will remember that the Highway Code took several years to complete, and this is a much more complicated subject. It deals with all sorts of conduct which may be quite different, for example, in the Broads area from what it is in other areas, whereas the question of negligence on the highway is a much more circumscribed and easier problem with which to deal.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The noble Lord has referred us to Clause 85. That clause deals only with national parks, and the whole point of this Amendment is to have a code of good country behaviour which will apply equally to access land whether inside or outside national parks—that is one fundamental difference—and also to people using rights of way which are to be more specifically laid down than they were in the past. This is a great opportunity for Parliament to try to get somebody—I do not mind who—to lay down a code of country behaviour which will be officially recognised as such, and which will apply to all areas. The clause to which the noble Lord has referred applies only to national park areas, and that does not go far enough.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

May I appeal to the noble Lord with a precedent which the Government themselves have set, and which I hope will soften his heart a little? If the Foreign Secretary has found it desirable, and indeed necessary, to issue a code of conduct for the able diplomats who are under his charge, by which they can avoid committing social solecisms, does not the noble Viscount the Leader of the House think it desirable that the less instructed members of the urban population should have a similar code of conduct prepared for them?

LORD CHORLEY

There is really nothing between us in respect of that matter. The instructions to diplomats and others do not have to be drawn up in a code which comes before Parliament, but are dealt with in an informal manner. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is quite right when he points out that Clause 85 is restricted to national parks and other areas, such as areas of outstanding beauty; but I think your Lordships will agree that when a code is once published it will be taken as a standard to apply over the whole country. There is no reason at all why the National Parks Commission should not publish it as their opinion that it should be applied throughout the countryside. Your Lordships will remember that the first clause of this Bill puts upon the National Parks Commission the duty of preserving and enhancing the beauty of the countryside. In other words, in addition to their specific duties in these park areas and the smaller areas they have a very wide purview; and undoubtedly, as it appears to us, if they do draw up, as I am sure they will, a standard of conduct of this kind, that will be taken as applying over the countryside generally.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

If it is necessary for a municipal authority to protect these parks by a code of behaviour, surely it is the Government, representing the nation, who should lay down that code of behaviour. I do not see where the difference lies. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord has expressed his views about subsection (2) of this proposed clause. I should like to ask him whether, as he has such a strong objection to that subsection, he would accept the Amendment if I were to agree to omit it.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

I would venture to make an appeal to the noble Lord. I fully recognise the difficulty about having this code in an Act of Parliament, but, in view of the strong expressions of opinion of so many noble Lords, could he not consider before the Report stage giving some definite assurance that the Commissioners will draw up a code? I am not wedded to any particular form. All that is wanted would be a few simple directions for the help and guidance of the people who use these parks. I saw something of this kind in the great national parks in America. A few simple directions were given covering many things, from the picking of flowers to the teasing of hares, and all sorts of things. Surely the Government might in this way be able to meet to sonic extent the strong feeling expressed by so many of your Lordships. But I repeat that I fully recognise the objections to making such directions part of an Act of Parliament.

LORD CHORLEY

During this discussion, and particularly during the later stages of it, many modifications of the Amendment as tabled have been suggested, which I think ought to be looked at more carefully than is possible across the floor of the House. If the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment I should be glad to discuss the matter with him.

EARL DE LA WARR

In view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 110 to 113 agreed to.

Clause 114 [Interpretation]:

LORD CHORLEY

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 90, line 10, at end insert— ("(4) References in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as references to that enactment as amended by or under any subsequent enactment including this Act.")—(Lord Charley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

First Schedule:

Provisions as to making, confirmation, coming into operation and validity of certain instruments

2.

(2) If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn, the Minister shall, before confirming or making the order, as the case may be, either—

1. (a) cause a local inquiry to be held, or
2. (b) afford to any person by whom any representation or objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose,

and, after considering the report of the person appointed to hold the inquiry or to hear representations or objections, may confirm or make the order, as the case may be, with or without modifications:

Provided that in the case of a public path order or diversion order, if objection is made by statutory undertakers on the ground that the order provides for the creation of a public right of way over land covered by works used for the purposes of their undertaking or the curtilage of such land, and the objection is not withdrawn, the order shall he subject to special parliamentary procedure.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, the Minister shall not confirm or make an order so as to affect land not affected by the order as submitted to him or the draft order prepared by him, as the case may be, except after—

(a) giving such notice as appears to him requisite of his proposal so to modify the order;

(4) Where, in the case of an access order, it is represented by the persons carrying on a statutory undertaking, being a water undertaking, that any land comprised in the order as submitted to the Minister or in the draft order prepared by him, as the case may be (or, where notice of a proposed modification has been given under head (a) of the last foregoing sub-paragraph, any land to which the proposed modification relates), should be excluded from the operation of the order on the ground that by reason of—

1. (a) the proximity of the land to any reservoir used for the purposes of the undertaking, or
2. (b) any other physical factor affecting the flow of water from the land into any such reservoir,

the operation of section sixty-one of this Act as respects that land would be likely to involve danger to the purity of the water supply which could not be prevented by the taking of any reasonable measures, sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, or head (c) of the last foregoing sub-paragraph, as the case may be, shall have effect in relation to that representation as if it provided for the consideration of the report therein referred to by the Minister and the Minister of Health acting jointly.

4.34 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in paragraph 2 (2) after the first word "be" to insert: if the objection is made by a local authority cause a local inquiry to be held and in any other case. The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and the next, standing in my name on the Marshalled List—and I hope I may be allowed to take them together—may give rise to certain legal complications with which I am not qualified to deal. The purpose I have in mind is a simple and, I think, a reasonable one. It is to ensure that nobody shall lose any right which he at present enjoys of objecting to, or appealing against, town planning restrictions simply because he happens to live within a national park area. These inquiries will be of great importance, particularly in the national park areas where the standards of preservation are likely to be high. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of certain types of farming, or of considerable industries such as the cement industry, in which many thousands of pounds of capital have been sunk, will turn on the result of these inquiries. It is no mere academic point which I am raising.

Under ordinary town planning procedure the planning authority and the objector argue out their cases on terms of equality. They both state their cases and produce evidence, and that evidence is subject to cross-examination. They argue their cases in front of an impartial arbitrator—or, at any rate, an arbitrator who is as impartial as any Minister's representative can be. I have no complaint about that procedure. But in recent years there has been developing rather a different sort of public local inquiry: it is local, but only partially public—I refer to cases in which a Minister or a Government Department promotes the project. The ordinary objector's case has to be settled publicly, but the Minister's case need not be settled publicly.

One of the most obvious examples of this procedure appeared in connection with the new towns designation inquiries. I attended one such inquiry and I believe that any of your Lordships attending would have been struck by the apparent oddity of the proceedings. Although the room was full of objectors, accompanied by their counsel—who were all anxious to display their forensic skill—they had to content themselves with attacking a map, for nobody was there either to present the Government case or to defend it. This procedure is not peculiar to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Other Ministries follow it, in somewhat different ways, according to the Act of Parliament which they are operating.

LORD CHORLEY

If I may interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment, a great deal of what he is saying seems to be directed rather to the Amendment which stands in his name further down the Marshalled List.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I began by asking your Lordships' permission to discuss both of these Amendments together. I shall, of course, move them separately.

LORD CHORLEY

I could possibly help the noble Viscount over the first Amendment, but the second goes so much further that I certainly could not go all the way with him.

VISCOUNT GAGE

The whole thing is connected and, perhaps, with your Lordships' permission I may continue. I do not entirely understand the reason for the form of inquiry to which I have just referred, except that I suppose there is a certain natural reluctance on the part of any Minister to demonstrate too clearly that he is inquiring into the propriety of some action which he himself proposes to take. Also, he may be asked about the views of other Ministries and this may lead to the washing of a certain amount of inter-departmental dirty linen in public. I appreciate this point, but the fact remains that although justice may be done it does not appear to be done.

These doubts, moreover, are not confined to the lay public. I notice that in one case, in which, I think, the Ministry of Transport was concerned, one of His Majesty's Judges was moved to ask: "Is not the whole procedure farcical?" Because of the peculiar relationship of this National Parks Commission to the Government and to the local authorities, I am afraid that there is a danger of these local inquiries appearing farcical. There are several stages in the evolution of a national park where a local public inquiry may be held, but I am concerned with only two. One is the designation order stage, when the boundaries of the national park are fixed, and the second is the development plan stage, when the nature of the restrictions that are to apply within those boundaries is decided. If we may take the designation order stage first, I think that that is clearly the job of the Commission. The Commission make the designation order, but it does not become operative until it has been confirmed by the Minister—usually after the local inquiry. We have no reason to suppose, in view of these debates, that there will always be complete unanimity between the National Parks Commission and the local planning authority. It may well be that there will not be unanimity; there may in fact be acute differences of opinion. My submission is that, if that happens, the public ought to hear both sides of the story. If the National Parks Commission were not allowed to appear at such an inquiry, there would be a great deal of local indignation if the Minister made a decision about the boundaries of the park which appeared to run in the face of the evidence that was allowed to be heard publicly. Therefore, I ask that, if a substantial objection is raised to the making of an order, there shall be a local inquiry, that the Commission shall appear at it and present their whole case, and that any witnesses they may produce shall be subject to cross-examination in exactly the same way as would happen if a Bill were promoted before a Committee of your Lordships' House upstairs.

The second stage to which I want to refer is the development plan stage. That, of course, is not referred to in the Bill, but I understand that that stage will be carried out in accordance with the procedure of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I do not understand what will happen if the National Parks. Commission are not allowed to give evidence. The case here has to be presented by the local planning authority—of course, after consultation with the National Parks Commission. But, if there is some major difference of opinion, how are the public to hear of the changes which the National Parks Commission are asking the Minister to make before he confirms the plan? I ask that the National Parks Commission should appear there, and that if they have any objection to make they should make it publicly. We have been told again and again that there are two sides to the restrictions that may be imposed in a national park area. There is the local side and there is the national side. All I am asking is that the national as well as the local point of view shall be put forward. This National Parks Commission are in a most unusual relationship to a local planning authority, and I do not believe there is any parallel case where a body is by Statute placed in a position of having to give advice to a local authority, without any powers of direction. I think we should hear this advice. I am in no way tied to the wording of my Amendment. If the Government can see any way to meet the substance of what I am asking for, I shall be extremely grateful. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Pare 92, line 27, after ("be") insert the said words.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD MERTHYR

Like the, noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I rather regret that the noble Viscount has discussed these two Amendments together, because it seems to me that the points in them are somewhat different. In order to save repetition, may I speak on the first of these Amendments and draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that I have on the next page of the Marshalled List a group of three Amendments which come at the same point in the Bill? They begin at the same line and at the same words. My Amendments deal with the same point as that of the first of the noble Viscount's Amendments. I venture to submit to him that he will not object to my Amendment, because it goes a little further than his, and includes the provision which he seeks to make. If I understand it aright, in his first Amendment the noble Viscount wants to make sure that, where a local authority are objecting, there must be a local inquiry. I have no quarrel with that; but I want to go a little further and give that advantage not only to the local authority but to all objectors in every case except where the objection is in some way frivolous or obviously unnecessary. Therefore, I have included in my second Amendment words which I have taken from the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—the Sixth Schedule, paragraph 4—which I understand are more or less regarded as standard procedure. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment when I come to move it.

It is important, where there is an objection, no matter whether it comes from a local authority or from a private individual, that there should be an inquiry of this sort. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Amendment covers objections to any order which can be made under this Act. I am anxious that there should not be a mere private questioning behind the scenes: there should be a local public inquiry in every case except a frivolous one. That is why I put down the group of Amendments on the top of the next page of the Marshalled List which, as I said before, would include the noble Viscount's Amendment and would satisfy him. Since he has referred to his second Amendment at page 92, line 40, may I say that I entirely agree with it? I hope that the Government will accept it.

LORD CHORLEY

I regret that I had not appreciated that the noble Viscount was discussing both his Amendments at the same time, and that I interrupted him during the course of his argument. With regard to the first of his Amendments, I entirely agree that, in a case where a local authority wish to object, there ought to be a local inquiry. It has always been my right honourable friend's intention that in such a case there should be such an inquiry, in order that the objections can be made publicly so that everybody can understand what the situation is. Clearly, something of that sort is necessary. I am glad to say that I can accept the first of his Amendments on that basis, though it may possibly be that we shall have to look at the wording, and I am sure that if that is found necessary the noble Viscount will be prepared to co-operate. With regard to the later Amendment, if we may discuss all these matters at the same time—

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

We had better discuss the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, as well.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I think the better course would be for us first to dispose of the first Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage.

LORD MERTHYR

If the Government accept the noble Viscount's Amendment, I presume I shall he unable to move mine, because it affects the same words.

VISCOUNT MAUGHANI

Why not?

LORD MERTHYR

If I can, I would like to move my Amendment.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am afraid that I have been guilty of unsettling the order of debate, and I apologise to the Committee. Having regard to what my noble friend Lord Merthyr has said, I should be perfectly willing to agree to his Amendment, if it means what he says it means. I should have thought that there was some doubt—

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I suggest that as the Government are willing to accept Lord Gage's first Amendment, that we should accept that position, and then discuss Lord Merthyr's Amendment when it is moved?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MERTHYR

had given notice of three Amendments in paragraph 2 (2) of which the first was to omit "either." The noble Lord said: I submit that my Amendment goes further than that which has just been passed. I still think that mine is a wider Amendment, and that if it is passed the local authorities will always be able to have a public inquiry, which the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, wants—in fact, that anybody will be able to have a public inquiry unless the Minister thinks fit to dispense with it, being satisfied that in the special circumstances of the case the holding of an inquiry is unnecessary. As I have already said, that provision is taken from the Town and Country Planning Act and I understand it to be intended to deal with frivolous cases. It is most unlikely that the objection of a local authority will be frivolous. Therefore, subject to what will be said in a moment by the noble Lord, I still think that mine is the wider Amendment, although I am willing to be corrected if I am wrong. I do not think I need add anything further, because I said it all on the last Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 92, line 27, leave out ("(Lord Merthyr.)

LORD CHORLEY

I quite agree that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is a wider one. It is so much wider that I am afraid we cannot accept it. We entirely agree that any objection put forward by' a local authority is deserving of consideration at a public inquiry, but there are numerous small private objections which are dealt with in many cases by discussion between the persons in question and the officials of the Ministry, or whoever it may be, who are concerned with them. Lord Merthyr's Amendment would make it obligatory to hold a public inquiry in all those cases except where, in special circumstances, the Minister otherwise decided. His Amendment would remove the possibility of dealing with the matter by private negotiation—the very method which is found to he successful in the majority of cases. The phrase "special circumstances" is always rather an objectionable one, and it is unfortunate that it should be used if its use can be avoided.

While Lord Merthyr's Amendment would lead to a situation which would be much less satisfactory than the one with which it is intended to deal, the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage provides the via media which is necessary, because the local authority is the planning authority which is concerned with the great mass of difficult problems which arise under this Bill, and any objection that it puts forward should, in every case, be dealt with at a public inquiry. It may be that in a large number of cases objections by other persons will be of a substantial character. In that event, I can give the noble Lord the Minister's assurance that a public inquiry will be held. But the Minister does not think he should be tied down to hold a public inquiry in cases where some small point which can be dealt with by the method of negotiation is involved. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD MERTHYR

I am bound to say that that reply is most unsatisfactory. In view of what appears in line 25 on page 92, how can it be said that no opportunity for private negotiation would be given? This subsection begins to apply only when private negotiation has broken down. It says: If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn. If I am not completely wrong, that leaves the door open for any amount of private negotiation; and it is only upon the failure of that negotiation that this subparagraph begins to operate at all.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

You must remember that we are dealing with Lord Gage's first Amendment as if it were passed.

LORD WINSTER

It has been passed.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

Then we are dealing with it as a fact that has happened. Lord Merthyr's observations do not bear that in mind. If there is a local government objection then there must be this inquiry. I do not think there is room for private negotiation unless you insert a paragraph which enables private negotiation to take place with some person appointed by the Minister.

LORD MERTHYR

I hesitate to debate any legal matter with the noble and learned Viscount but, possibly through my own fault, I am still entirely unable to see why you cannot have negotiation, based on line 25 of this page, before a public inquiry is even thought of. It is true that Lord Gage's Amendment has been passed, but I did rise when it was being debated to point out that I had an Amendment affecting the same place in the Bill. The noble Viscount's Amendment gives a preference to local authorities over others. I do not, in the slightest, object to that favour being given to local authorities, but it should not he a preference. I do not see why a private individual should not have an equal right to a public inquiry unless the Minister sees fit to dispense with it. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that the 'Minister should not be tied down. In this matter we have put in a means by which the Minister can escape. We are not tying down the Minister to hold a public inquiry in any trivial, frivolous or unimportant matter. He alone is the arbiter as to whether or not a local inquiry should be held. But I fail to see why a local authority should have a preference, and I entirely fail to see why private negotiation should be ruled out by this Amendment, as the noble Lord suggests. At the moment, I am most dissatisfied with the reply.

EARL HOWE

Surely there is a great deal in what Lord Merthyr says. After all, the matters dealt with in the First Schedule do affect a local inquiry, and in Part II of the Second Schedule, which deals with the transport aspect, the same situation arises. I support Lord Merthyr in this matter. I cannot see why a private individual should not have just as much right as a local authority; and if what the noble Lord has said against Lord Merthyr's proposal is correct, surely that is a whole-hearted condemnation of the procedure in the Town and Country Planning Act. He has said that the passage, which Lord Merthyr has told us has been taken out of the Town and Country Planning Act, is highly objectionable and that he does not like it. No doubt, he does not like it. Many people do not like the Town and Country Planning Act. But still the fact remains that this passage is taken out of the Town and Country Planning Act. It is procedure which is laid down in that measure. Why, if it is satisfactory in that Act, is it going to be so peculiarly unsatisfactory in this case?

LORD CHORLEY

The noble Lord's Amendment, I am afraid, cuts out the possibility of private representation and discussion. Let us look at the case of, shall we say, a small section of a footpath, not more than twenty or thirty yards in length, which crosses a corner of a field. Clearly, the most sensible way of dealing with a small matter of that kind is by representation and discussion. It would be absurd to hold a public inquiry. But if representations and discussion were no longer open to the man concerned, and the Minister took the view that it was an exceptional case where there should not be a public inquiry, the man would clearly have a grievance and the very object which the noble Lord wishes to achieve would be prevented. I am sure it is right that a public authority which is putting forward objections which concern matters of large public interest should have their objections considered at an inquiry of this kind. Many objections by private interests should be considered in the same way. But these smaller cases—and they would be in the majority—are better dealt with by representation and discussion in the way I have indicated. In the circumstances, I am afraid the Amendment cannot be accepted.

LORD MERTHYR

I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I understood the noble Lord to say that this Amendment cut out private discussion—or words to that effect. Will he tell me how and why that is so? Line 25 on page 92 of the Bill, begins with the words: If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn… Line 25 must apply to all these matters. The local authority and the private individual are alike concerned. The whole matter is based on line 25. The word "If" at the beginning governs the whole of this sub-paragraph of the Schedule. Will the noble Lord help me by telling me how and why private discussion is ruled out by my Amendment?

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think that Lord Merthyr is right on that point. The important words are "If any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn." If a man's point is made, he will withdraw his application, or it may be that some compromise will he arrived at. I do not think that Lord Chorley was right in telling us that acceptance of Lord Merthyr's Amendment would cut out all discussion. On the other hand, I do not see why a local inquiry need be held in every case. I rather take the view that Lord Chorley was right in the second part of what he said, but that the reasons which he gave for being right were wrong.

LORD MERTHYR

I do not want to press this Amendment ad nauseam. I am going to withdraw it, but at the same time I wish to express my complete dissatisfaction with the answer which has been given. With reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has just said, I would remind the Committee that there is a proviso in my second Amendment which gives the Minister a loophole to deal with any of the objections which the noble Lord is contemplating. However, I shall only worry the Committee if I continue, so I now beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.4 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (2) to insert: (3) In every case where a local inquiry is held or a person is appointed to hear representations or objections under the last preceding sub-paragraph the Commission the local planning or other authority by whom an order is made shall by a person appointed by them for the purpose attend at such inquiry or hearing and the person so appointed shall explain in evidence the effect of the order and shall be open to cross-examination by or on behalf of the person by whom the objection or representation was made The noble Viscount said: I have already made a speech on this Amendment, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for accepting my other Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 92, line 40, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Gage.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

There is much to be said for the view that at the present time these local inquiries are often highly unsatisfactory. Usually, they are conducted by an inspector sent down from a Ministry. If it will not bore your Lordships too much, perhaps I may be allowed to recall a case in which, when I was practising at the Bar, I was instructed by the Middlesex County Council to appear for them at a local inquiry. Land for the Western Avenue was being acquired by the county council, and the person sent down to hold the inquiry was an inspector from the Ministry of Transport. Before going to the place where the inquiry was held, I asked the people instructing me whether they knew the attitude of the Ministry in the matter. The reply was: "They are paying an 80 per cent. grant towards it." I said: "Then I suppose I shall have a favourable hearing from the fellow who has been sent by the Ministry." It does not appear that justice it; always fully done, when that is the basis of the inquiry. In that case we took the county surveyor along to the inquiry he was put up and was made available to be questioned and cross-examined by those who were objecting to what was proposed.

The modern tendency, however, is not to do that. The inspector or whoever is appointed for the purpose goes to the place of inquiry. A. statement is made to the effect that: "Here is the proposed order, or the plan or whatever it may be," and the question is put, "What are your objections?" As the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has said, in many cases there is no one present to explain matters or to be asked questions. When some one is put up who knows the proposal thoroughly it may well be that he can give an answer which satisfies the person raising objections. It may well happen in a lot of cases that a person who is raising the objection, when he has heard the official's explanation, will say: "I never understood that before: if that is the reason for this project, then everything is all right." When the inquiry is merely a matter of putting forward a proposal or laying a map or a plan before people it is often highly unsatisfactory. Some provision ought to he made somewhere to ensure that those responsible for putting forward a proposal should send down a responsible official who should be able to answer questions put either by the inspector or by those who raise objections. Therefore I hope that something on the lines of what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is now proposing will be accepted by the Government.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I entirely agree with what has fallen from the lips of my noble friend Lord Llewellin. I gather that he was once entitled to be addressed as "my learned friend." I hope he will not be offended by my saying that he has put his case extremely well. What I apprehend may happen as a result of the clause as it now stands is that the person sent down to hold the inquiry may be the kind of person who would merely listen to any objection or objections and say nothing. That would be profoundly unsatisfactory. If you are appearing to urge your views at an inquiry of that kind, and you want to persuade the person appearing on behalf of the Minister that something ought to be done, that can be effected satisfactorily only by questions. I do not suggest there should necessarily be any violent cross-examining of the official who is put forward, but it is essential to permit his view to be challenged, if necessary, by asking him to explain certain points in the matter.

LORD CHORLEY

I cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment to insert this obligation into the Bill, although the Government have great sympathy with his point of view, that every objector, whether a local authority or a private person, should be given a clear explanation of the effect of the proposed order, should be given an opportunity of challenging it and of discovering on what grounds it is put forward and on what grounds he may make his objection. Otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has pointed out, the inquiry loses most of its value and may even degenerate into something which is little better than a farce. My right honourable friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning has given a great deal of attention to securing proper elucidation at inquiries, and the noble Viscount may be assured that every effort will be made to establish a procedure in which this problem is dealt with in the way I have described.

In many cases, that will result from the present procedure. Let me take the example of the local authority who promote an order for permitting access to open land. The representative of the local authority at the inquiry will be asked to make a statement explaining exactly what is involved and land owners and others who are there will be given the opportunity of asking him questions. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, used the term, "cross-examining" which has rather a hostile sound. I do not want to quarrel about a word, however, and it may well be that cross-examination should be allowed. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was particularly anxious that the National Parks Commission should be represented, should explain their attitude and should be prepared to answer questions. I assure him that it is my right honourable friend's intention, broadly speaking, that that object should be attained. The Commission are not yet in existence and it would be altogether wrong that ant sort of detailed undertaking should be given on this matter until they have had an opportunity of discussing with the Minister the whole question and the methods to be adopted. That will be one of the things to be done at an early stage. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, does what the noble Lord has said apply to all inquiries to be held under the Bill, or only to those under Part I of the First Schedule? Because the same point will arise in connection with Part II, in regard to transport. When an order is made closing a road, there will be an inquiry. Will the noble Lord tell us whether his assurance covers the practice of all inquiries under the Bill? The noble Lord has admitted that there is great force in what the noble Viscount has put forward in his Amendment and we attach great importance to it on the transport side.

LORD CHORLEY

I am happy to give the noble Earl the assurance for which he asks. What I have said will apply to all inquiries under this Bill.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the explanation he has given. Of course the whole matter is in the hands of the Minister, whether it is put in the Statute or not. I should like to know whether the noble Lord's reply went so far as this, because if it did it would fully satisfy me: It is entirely in the power of the inspector, if, when he holds an inquiry and nobody has bothered to turn up from the local planning authority or any other body promoting the order, to say he is not prepared to proceed with the inquiry until somebody is there from the authority promoting the order who can give an explanation and, if necessary, go into the witness box and answer questions from those who object. If inspectors are to be given those instructions, that would completely meet my case. It is a matter which could be dealt with administratively, and need not be put in the Bill.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I am afraid that my brief does not go so far as to allow me to give the noble Lord the assurance he asks for, but I think it would be in the spirit of my instructions. I shall be glad to bring the point to the notice of my right honourable friend.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think we should have a short statement on that matter on the Report stage.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I am perfectly satisfied with what is suggested. I see the great difficulty about putting into the Bill words dealing with this question. My point will be completely met if I can have an assurance that in any inquiry where a matter of general importance is raised, and on which the National Parks Commission and the local authority take different views, both views should be heard publicly. I understand from Lord Chorley that although he cannot insert words into the Bill that will be the procedure. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment, though perhaps words may be added, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, suggested, to make the point he mentioned perfectly clear.

EARL HOWE

Does the assurance include that questions can be asked and answered on both sides at an inquiry?

LORD CHORLEY

The Minister's intention is that at any inquiry in which the local authority and the National Parks Commission are concerned with the matter under inquiry, each shall attend and it will be open to objectors to put questions to them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHORLEY

This Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 92, line 46, at end insert ("specifying the time within which and manner in which representations or objections with respect to the proposal may be made").—(Lord Chorley.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I now beg to move my Amendment to that of the noble Lord.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— After ("time") insert ("(not being less than twenty-eight days)").—(Earl De La Warr.)

LORD CHORLEY

I am very happy to say that I accept the noble Earl's Amendment to my Amendment.

On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

5.20 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR moved, in paragraph 2 (4), to omit head (b). The noble Lord said: "My Lords, I put down this Amendment partly to find out what these two lines mean. I understand that the whole of this sub-paragraph was put into the Bill at a late stage in another place, and I think it is right to say that it has not had mature consideration by either House. I have no objection to head (a), but in regard to head (b), line 20, I think the Committee should have some further details as to exactly how far it goes. I am informed that these two lines are against the recommendations of the Committee on Gathering Grounds whose Report was accepted by the Minister. I should like to know what factors are contemplated as affecting the flow of water from the land into any such reservoir. I think they ought to be further defined, or it will be impossible for us to know what might be involved in these two lines. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 93, line 20, leave out lines 20 and 21.—(Lord Merthyr.)

LORD CHORLEY

This part of the Schedule deals with the problem of access to gathering grounds for water reservoirs. Your Lordships will appreciate that rather difficult medical problems are involved where it is so essential to protect the health of the community. The two matters to which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, referred are set out in paragraphs 2 (4) (a) and (b). The first is: the proximity of the land to any reservoir used for the purposes of the undertaking"; and the second, to which the noble Lord rather objects, is: any other physical factor affecting the flow of water from the land into any such reservoir. The noble Lord said that this is against the recommendations of the Gathering Grounds Committee. I cannot agree that that is so. The Gathering Grounds Committee had in view that there might be various circumstances, in addition to the proximity of the land. It is probably true that they did not actually use the words which appear in the Schedule, but that does not mean that they would not have approved of them. Obviously there are a number of matters connected with geological formation, such as the slopes down which streams flow, and matters of that kind, which are very relevant to this problem. It seemed that it would not be satisfactory to leave the matter based simply on the proximity of the land to the reservoir, but that other physical factors which might affect the situation ought to be taken into account. When one is dealing with an important problem affecting the health of the public (your Lordships are aware that typhoid epidemics have before now originated out of contamination of reservoirs) great care must be taken, and I think your Lordships will agree that these words are necessary. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

Can the noble Lord say whether lines 20 and 21 apply to hydroelectric schemes?

LORD CHORLEY

I do not think so.

LORD MERTHYR

I expect it is my fault, but I failed to gather from the reply of the noble Lord the explanation for which I was asking. I have not the report of the Gathering Grounds Committee, but I am informed that, while they said that in order to avoid pollution the land in the immediate vicinity of a reservoir and the immediate feeder streams should be excluded from access, they also said that there should be no exclusion from access on the remainder of the gathering grounds. In other words, they agree with head (a), but disagree with head (b). That is my information. The noble Lord who replied repeated the words "physical factor"; but apart from mentioning the geological formation I do not think he said what physical factors there could be. I still suggest that the words "physical factor" might embrace almost anything; and it could be argued by learned counsel that any number of things situated in a watershed could prevent access to a vast area of land round a reservoir, which was certainly not the intention of the Gathering Grounds Committee, and would probably be said not to be the intention of Parliament. Again, I do not want to labour the matter, but if those two lines are left in the Bill I feel the provision will be far too wide, so long as it contains no definition of the words "physical factor." There is no definition whatever of those two words. As I said before, this is an entirely new paragraph in the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord will reconsider the matter, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule:

General Restrictions to be observed by Persons having access to Open Country or Waterways by virtue of Part V of Act

1. Subsection (l) of section sixty-one of this Act shall not apply to a person who, in or upon the land in question,— (c) takes or allows to enter or remain, any dog not under proper control;

THE EARL OF ONSLOW moved to add at the end of paragraph 1 (c): and where such land is used for grazing not held on a lead. The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Amherst of Hackney. The point of this Amendment is obvious. The killing and mutilation of sheep is increasing, particularly in the north country and on south country downlands. Last year the figures in the north country were over 1,000 sheep killed and mauled by dogs; and in the months of March and April of this year, in a very small part of England, it was well over 150. The noble Lord opposite may say that the word "control" is used. We all know, however, that there are many dogs which we meet at our friends' houses which look quite friendly and tame, but as soon as they see something that runs (some of your Lordships may own terriers and will appreciate the point) nothing can stop them if they are not on a lead. I feel with those interested in the safety of sheep that something on these lines should be inserted in the Bill—that is, something stronger than merely the word "control." I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Onslow.)

LORD CHORLEY

I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. Your Lordships are aware that most dogs are perfectly susceptible to control without being taken about on a lead.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.

LORD CHORLEY

If they are, in fact, susceptible to control, it would be altogether wrong to require that a man who was going over mountain country of the kind envisaged in this Bill should have to take his dog on a lead the whole time. It is very different from going over agricultural land where there are sheep and cattle. Moreover, on a great deal of the land in question it is impossible to tell whether there are sheep until you have been there for some time. It would be an impossible obligation to put upon a man that he should put his dog on a lead when he is going across some hill like the Great Gable or Kinder Scout, in Derbyshire, where there might not be any sheep. Surely the solution is that in any particular part of the country where the problem of sheep-worrying becomes serious, it should be dealt with by bylaw. That is within the power of local authorities, and I have no doubt they will use that power in a proper case if the difficulty is brought to their attention.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

I must express my great dissatisfaction with the answer which we have received. Quite obviously the noble Lord knows very little about dogs, and a great deal less about sheep. If he wants to increase the mutton ration on his plate, he will sooner or later have to bring in something on these lines. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.31 p.m.

LORD BROUGHSHANE moved, in sub-paragraph (k) of paragraph 1, after the second "any" to insert "paper or other." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to emphasise the fact that the main disfiguration of the countryside is caused by paper. I want the notices which inform people that there are certain penalties attaching to misuse of national parks to emphasise in particular the scattering of paper. Broken bottles are a nuisance, and they are a danger; but far and away the worst thing which disfigures the countryside is the paper which is thrown about by people. One can see hits of paper miles and miles away, blowing about over a beautiful countryside just because of the carelessness of one or two people.

I remember a good many years ago being present at Hampstead Heath when King George V opened Ken Wood to the public. I remember him saying: "Now you have this lovely place belonging to yourselves. Do see that you keep it as it has been kept in the past by private ownership. Do not scatter paper about, but keep it neat and tidy." We then went into the grounds, and there was another ceremony in opening the house itself. But when we returned to the scene of the opening ceremony the beautiful greensward of Hampstead Heath had disappeared, to be replaced by a wilderness of white paper. His Majesty the King said: "Oh, my goodness, what a response to my appeal!" Ever since then, when I am at Hampstead I see that green meadow one mass of torn paper. I want to emphasise the notice by making the word "paper" stand out clearly as one of the principal items, and I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 38, after the second ("any") insert ("paper or other").—(Lord Broughshane.)

VISCOUNT MERSEY

I should like to support what the noble Lord has said, though I should have thought that it was a matter which could be dealt with by regulations. I remember a Secretary of the Office of Works, Sir Lionel Earle, telling me many years ago that he paid £200 a week for men to go round the Royal Parks picking up pieces of paper and putting them into baskets. Another part of the country which some of your Lordships know is Goodwood, where a great many people go to see the races. That is covered with paper, and if the Duke of Richmond were here he could tell your Lordships how much he had to pay to have it cleared up afterwards. To anybody who takes an interest in keeping the countryside clean this Amendment is important.

LORD CHORLEY

We are all anxious to get rid of this paper litter, and anything we can do to that end we shall naturally want to do. The noble Lord's Amendment, however, is not only unnecessary but positively harmful. Litter is already covered; paper is litter. If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted then, by a well-known rule of construction, things which are not paper—broken bottles for instance—would not be covered, because it must be litter of the same kind. It means litter of the same sort as paper, and it would be arguable that it was not covered. The sinner might get away if the noble Lord's Amendment were inserted in the Bill.

LORD LLEWELLIN

When paper is thrown about like that it must be rubbish, and paper obviously must be litter. I should have thought it was covered already.

LORD BROUGHSHANE

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MERTHYR moved to add to paragraph 1: () sells or offers for sale any article, service or amusement. The noble Lord said: I should like to explain briefly why I consider that this Amendment is necessary. When this Bill was first introduced in another place, the wording of sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 was different. The wording then was: Draws, drives, rides or uses any vehicle. In another place an Amendment was moved which resulted in sub-paragraph (a) assuming its present form. Your Lordships will notice that the words "draws" and "uses" were left out. Quite unintentionally, no doubt, a loophole was thereby created through which, in my submission, there is a serious danger that some other undesirable things may enter—as, for example, barrel organs, ice cream carts, Punch and Judy shows and coconut shies. It seems to me, although I may be wrong, that there is nothing in this Schedule, as at present worded, to prevent those things amongst others coming on to access land. I believe that all the representatives of the public and the land owners would desire that they should not be allowed on access land. Therefore, my sole purpose is to prevent them by moving the Amendment which stands in my name. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 38, at end insert ("() sells or offers for sale any article, service, or amusement").—(Lord Merthyr.)

LORD CHORLEY

For once the noble Lord has overlooked the fact that the substance of the matter is to be found not in the Schedule but in the Bill itself. If he will look at Clause 61 (1) he will find that the public have the right of access to this land only for the purpose of open-air recreation. If they go in for some of the purposes with which this Amendment deals, they have no right to be there; therefore, the Amendment is unnecessary. I am sure that with his logical mind the noble Lord will realise that and will withdraw the Amendment at once.

LORD MERTHYR

I should have thought it might be argued that a fun fair was recreation, but I do not want to dilate on this subject. I hope the noble Lord is right, but I should have thought it would be safer to insert the Amendment to make certain, because this is a matter of some importance.

LORD CHORLEY

Surely you cannot go on to a place and hold a fun fair for the purpose of making money and pretend that it is for your recreation.

LORD MERTHYR

I will not argue that point here, and I hope it will not be argued at all. In withdrawing this Amendment, may I say, since it is the last Amendment on the Paper that although the noble Lord has not handed me any concessions to-day, I do thank the representatives of the Government for the trouble which they have taken on the Amendments which I have moved.

At the same time, I hope that some of the points I have raised and withdrawn will be considered afresh on the next stage—which, I suppose, I ought to call not the Report stage but the "Assurance" stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.