Lords Sitting of 22 November 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Saye and Sele—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.37 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXI be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Motion for the Second Reading of the British North America (No. 2) Bill [H.L.] over the other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, this is one of those times of great importance in the history of the British Commonwealth, which almost imperceptibly proceeds from one stage to another. In this case we are asked by the Government of Canada to accord to them some of the powers which are possessed by all the other members of the Commonwealth, but not, strangely enough, by Canada. It so happens that, when the Statute of Westminster was passed, at the express request of the Canadian Government an exception was made with regard to the British North America Act, with special reference to the division of powers between the Federal and Provincial authorities. As the result of that decision your Lordships have been asked at different times to agree
810
to certain legislation. But now the Canadian Houses of Parliament have submitted a Petition to His Majesty of which the Bill before you is the consequence and which will authorise the Canadian Parliament to amend the Canadian Constitution in relation to matters which are solely within the jurisdiction of that Parliament. That is a power which, except for the conditions to which I have already referred, is possessed by all other members of the Commonwealth—Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Ceylon and South Africa. It is only because of the circumstances I have mentioned that your Lordships are asked to take this action to-day.
I understand that early in the New Year there will be a conference between the Federal and Provincial authorities in Canada to consider matters which are semi-federal or semi-provincial in their character. So far as this is concerned, I am sure that your Lordships' House will be only too glad, and indeed anxious, to fall in with the wishes of the Canadian Parliament, and I hope you are willing to pass through all its stages this short measure which will be of great convenience to them. This occasion affords us an opportunity, of which I am sure we shall all be glad to avail ourselves, to express our gratitude to this oldest member of the Commonwealth overseas and our recognition of their splendid and loyal friendship and of their increasingly powerful help. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bi11 be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.41 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this I am sure is not a matter upon which noble Lords in any part of this House will desire that there should appear to be any difference between the Parties and the State in this country. I therefore rise to say quite briefly that I entirely concur with what has been said by the Leader of the House, and that I associate myself fully with his remarks about the country and the people of Canada.
2.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, if there were ever a time when matters of this kind were the subject of controversy in your Lordships' House, that time has long since passed. The

811
questions dealt with in this Bill appear to be largely both an anomaly and a survival, and if it be the desire of the Canadian Government that they should now be removed we certainly should be fully willing to fall in with their wishes, associating ourselves as we do with the very well-merited tribute of gratitude which the Leader of the House expressed.
On Question, Bill read 2ª; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been dispensed with (pursuant to the Resolution of November 17):
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Viscount Addison.)
2.43 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, as this is a very interesting moment, perhaps I may be allowed to add one word in the warmest support of what has already been said. It so happens that the constitutional development of Canada has been a subject to which I have professionally had to attend over a very long span of years. This moment is really both historic and moving. As the Leader of the House has said, Canada has a Constitution which, because of its antiquity, is in a tighter framework than the Constitutions of other members of the Commonwealth which have been more recently brought into being.
It is eighty years and more since the British North America Act was framed. Of course, it was not framed in this country. It was framed by Canadian statesmen, meeting at Quebec to devise a plan of federation, then for only part of what we now know as Canada, and it brought together the original Provinces under one Federal Government. When the Fathers of Federation at Quebec had finished their work, they sent Resolutions over here and asked the Imperial Parliament to express their conclusions in a Statute, which Parliament did in 1867, eighty-two years ago. At that date, it was thought desirable to create a Constitution which, to a very large extent, was rigid and could not be altered by any internal amendment. That is the reason why, as the Leader of the House no doubt
812
well remembers—for he has known of this happening on several occasions—at various intervals we have had before us Bills to make small changes in one way or another in the Act of 1867. But all that is archaic. It is now recognised that every one of these great members of the British Commonwealth enjoys just the same status and self-government as we enjoy in our own country, and each has the right, as we have, to alter its own Constitution. That has been prominently done in the case of Eire: the present Constitution of Eire is hardly recognisable as compared with the original Constitution. It has been done in the case of India. In the case of the Constitution of Australia, which was not drawn up until 1900, and of the Constitution of the Union of South Africa, which was drawn up in 1909, there are provisions which enable modifications in the Constitution to be made without referring to the British Parliament at all.
We are therefore doing a very interesting thing to-day. It is perhaps the final stage in the evolution of the complete autonomous self-government, in a constitutional sense, of the oldest of our Commonwealth members. Your Lordships will notice—though we did not, of course, need to have a Committee stage—that the language of Clause 1 of the Bill is such that it carefully preserves the rights of the Provinces of Canada, Canada, of course, is a Federation—we took part the other day in adding the last, the tenth of the Provinces, Newfoundland, to the Federation of Canada—and the Provinces are jealous of their rights as against a Dominion. That being so, your Lordships will notice that the language of the Bill very properly preserves matters coming within the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces, and in the same way:
"… as regards rights or privileges by this or any other Constitutional Act granted or secured to the Legislature or the Government of a province.…"
That, I apprehend, refers more particularly to the special protection which is to be found in the British North America Act—in the cases of both Quebec and Ontario—relating to matters connected with religious education.
So, my Lords, while I apologise for taking up your time at this moment, I cannot help feeling that we are assisting

813
in what is both an historic and a romantic change. I need hardly say that I join fully with what has already been said as to the unanimous delight of the House in putting this last matter in order, so that Canada may enjoy, in the fullest measure, the right to reconstitute herself as she thinks proper. We do it with a firm assurance that, whether in peace or in war, the greater be the completeness of her freedom, the better will be the understanding between the Canadian people and our own.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed.

ELECTION COMMISSIONERS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, this is another Consolidation Bill. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
2.48 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Constitution of Commission]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to the promise given to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, during the Committee stage of the Bill, that members of the Commission would hold and vacate office on terms to be prescribed in regulations made by the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out from ("with") to ("and") in line 16 and insert ("such terms as may be prescribed by or under regulations made by the Minister").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power of Minister to give directions to Commission]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to the clause:
"() As soon as may be after giving a direction under this section the Minister shall unless
814
in his opinion it is against the interests of national security so to do, cause a notice setting out the direction to be published in such manner as appears to him to be requisite for informing persons and bodies of persons concerned."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by my noble friend, in which he accepted in principle, subject to looking at the wording and placing, of an Amendment moved by, the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney. The noble Lord wished to ensure that any directions which the Minister gave to the Commission should be made public at once, instead of waiting until the publication of the annual report which the Commission have to make to Parliament. This Amendment imposes a duty on the Minister as soon as may be after he has given any direction to give public notice of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 4, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [National Parks]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, but I am in a rather embarrassing position. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor was to have dealt with this Amendment and unfortunately it is not covered among the papers which I have.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, perhaps I may be able to help the noble Lord. This Amendment is to clear the ground for a new clause after Clause 83 for the protection of agriculture and forestry. The noble Lard will remember that we had a long discussion on subsection (4) of Clause 5, and on the extension of the protection which it gives, but only to national parks. We are anxious to extend that protection and also to have members with special knowledge of agriculture and forestry on the National Parks Commission. As a result of that discussion, and of further useful discussions which have been held since the Committee stage, we have arrived at what seems to me to be a satisfactory compromise—namely, to omit subsection (4) of Clause 5 and then have after Clause 83 a general instruction to safeguard the interests of agriculture and forestry.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Earl. I understood that this was a drafting Amendment, and that it is preliminary to a major Amendment to be moved later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [General duties of Commission in relation to National Parks]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, a similar Amendment to this was moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, but was withdrawn on the understanding that my noble friend would look into the point raised. This Amendment is the result. It has the same effect as Lord Merthyr's Amendment, but the wording has been revised. The effect is that the Commission will be required, where they think it appropriate, to make representations to other Ministers, as well as to the Minister of Town and Country Planning, about the progress made in accomplishing the purpose of the park. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("to local authorities or to") and insert ("or, where the Commission deem it appropriate, to any other Minister or any local authority or").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, this Amendment is satisfactory, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for moving it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, Your Lordships will remember that on Committee stage, as a result of a Division, an Amendment was carried which I am now anxious to amend. The new subsection imposes on the Commission a duty to make recommendations to the planning authorities about the exercise of their powers to make bylaws under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, supported by several noble Lords, asked for more than this, but this Amendment would make it a duty for the Commission to tell authorities what sort of bylaws they should make. In so far as the Commission thought the bylaws should
816
be uniform in all national parks, it would be their duty to say so. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has put down an Amendment to Clause 89 dealing with a similar question, and I suggest that it would be more appropriate to discuss this point when we come to Clause 89. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out from ("purposes") to end of line 34.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I want an extension of this power to areas other than the national parks, but we can deal with this matter later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
("(d) to make to such authorities, as respects the exercise in relation to National Parks of the powers hereinafter conferred on them to make byelaws, recommendations as to the matters in respect of which such byelaws should be made, either generally or in the case of any particular Park").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved, in subsection (4) (c) after the first "development" to insert "or use." The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who is unable to be here this afternoon, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in his name.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, after ("development") insert ("or use").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount has seen me privately and stated that all he required was some assurance from the Government that what he had in mind was covered. I am now authorised to give that assurance, that any changes in the use of land would be development. That is all the noble Viscount asked for.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to a promise given to the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. I think he will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 38 and insert—
("() to notify to the Minister, or where the Commission deem it appropriate to other Ministers, the general nature of the action which will in the opinion of the Commission need to be taken as respects land in a National Park for any of the purposes specified in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section, in cases where it appears to the Commission that the Minister in question should be informed thereof before considering future proposals for the development of the land for other purposes; and").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment; it is acceptable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.58 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
". Notwithstanding the provisions of section thirty-five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, a local authority or a statutory undertaker proposing to carry out any development in an area designated as a national park or which they have reason to believe is intended to be designated as such, shall, not later than the date upon which an application is made by them for an authorisation of a Government Department in respect of such development, inform the Commission in writing of the nature of such proposed development."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a modified form of an Amendment I moved on Committee stage and withdrew. We had a long discussion on this matter and I do not think it would be right for me to weary your Lordships with a repetition of what was then said. The point is simple. If this machinery is to work smoothly it is most desirable that the National Parks Commission should as soon as practicable be made aware by authorities, such as the Electricity Board, who are likely to be undertaking developments in an area which may in the near future become a national park of their proposed development. One or two difficulties arose in regard to my original Amendment. For example, it laid down
818
a period of ten years for the designation of the area as a national park, and it left undefined the stage when a development authority should approach the National Parks Commission. This Amendment states definitely that the point at which the National Parks Commission should be approached is the date:
"upon which an application is made by them"—
that is, by the Electricity Authority, or whatever authority it may be—
"for an authorisation of a Government Department in respect of such development.…"
That is perfectly well defined. One point I regret is that have omitted any reference to any Government Departments. That means that Government Departments will be free to go on to areas that will he designated as national parks. That is a weakness. However, I think your Lordships will agree that this Amendment is an improvement upon the previous one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7, insert the said new clause.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right in saying that a similar Amendment was moved on Committee stage, and I agree that this is a modification of that Amendment. However, I regret that even in its modified form I am unable to accept the Amendment. As your Lordships know, under Section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, local authorities and statutory undertakers carrying out any development may get a deemed planning permission from the Minister responsible for the type of undertaking concerned—for example, the Minister of Fuel and Power might authorise the erection of a power station, or the Minister of Health the building of local authority houses. This is a matter merely of simplifying the administrative machinery, and does not mean that no planning permission is required.
The noble Earl laid some stress on the question of the time at which the Commission ought to be made aware of the possibility. When the Minister of Fuel and Power or the Minister of Health has come to a decision, the Minister of Town and Country Planning will at that point have an opportunity of consulting

819
the Commission, if they are not already sufficiently aware of what is afoot. I am authorised to say that he will do so in all cases where the development has any material effect on the park. On the point regarding the local authorities, I may say—and this may be some inducement to the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment—that the local authorities and statutory undertakers will, in their own interests, recognise the value of early consultation with the Commission, for this reason: they may well proceed with their project only for it to prove futile because the Minister of Town and Country Planning may then refuse to give permission. We feel that there is no danger, and that the noble Earl need have no worry with regard to the Commission not being brought into play at an early date. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I am still not happy about the Electricity Authority. It is important that before the Minister of Town and Country Planning makes up his mind whether or not to refer a matter to the Commission or to take action on a proposition coming from the Minister of Fuel and Power, the National Parks Commission should be consulted, and that the Minister should have their views on any particular new undertaking. It is vital for these highland areas, with the growth—I may say, the justifiable growth—of hydro-electric power stations, that they should be so planned. This would not only be in the interests of the economy of the Electricity Authority, but would also be in accordance with the desiderata of the national parks. Once the Minister of Fuel and Power has given sanction to one of these big undertakers to proceed with a scheme, then there is great difficulty in getting it altered. The important thing is to prevent that happening before the scheme gets under way. As I see it, this Amendment safeguards that position, and I had hoped that the Government would accept it.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, may I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that when a Government Department have decided on their policy regarding these matters, they will at that point inform the Minister of Town and Country
820
Planning before they proceed further. The Minister will then discuss it with the Commission. I feel that the noble Lord's point is met in that way.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am a little unhappy about this matter. The Government have none some way in meeting us on a number of points, and I am sure that no noble Lord wishes to divide on any Amendment now before us. At the same time, a number of noble Lords are genuinely worried about this point. We have had so many discussions between the Committee and the Report stages that I hesitate to make the suggestion of further discussion. However, I wonder whether we could not talk this matter over again between now and Third Reading. On that understanding, I would be willing to withdraw the Amendment. I feel sure the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, appreciates the point. It is a real point. It is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, said, to avoid getting into the position where people have their plans prepared and have taken their stand, because it is very difficult to get out of such a situation once it is created. We know that the Hobhouse Report proposed a number of areas for national parks, and it is unlikely that all those areas will be scheduled at once. Therefore, there are a number of well-defined areas which, though they are almost certain to be national parks in the future, will not be scheduled for some time. I would impress upon the noble Lord that this is an important point, and I would ask him to look at this again.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: I will certainly agree to that, but on this occasion I cannot give any undertaking. The discussions between the Committee and the Report stages were so fruitful that I will see what can be done between now and Third Reading.
EARL DE LA WARR: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lord, your Lordships will forgive my pointing out that we are now on the Report and not the Committee stage. It will be as well if we all bear that in mind.
Clause 8:
Arrangements for administration of functions of local planning authorities as respects National Parks.
(2) Where a National Park lies partly within the area of one local planning authority and as to the rest within the area of one or more other such authorities, there shall be a joint planning board constituted under section four of the Act of 1947 for a united district consisting of the area of the Park:
Provided that where, on the representation of any of the said authorities, the Minister is satisfied after consultation with the Commission that by reason of any special circumstances it is expedient so to do for securing efficient administration in the Park, he may direct that as respects all or any of the authorities the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not have effect unless and until the direction is revoked.
(6) Not less than one third of the members of—

(a) a joint board or joint advisory committee constituted for an area being or including the whole or any part of a National Park, or

(b) a planning committee, or sub-committee of a planning committee, for such an area, where no joint board is constituted for the area,

shall be persons appointed in accordance with the following provisions:—
(iii) in any case the persons appointed shall be persons nominated by the Minister, after consultation with the Commission;
Provided that if in any particular case the Minister, with the agreement of the Commission, so determines, this subsection shall have effect as if for the words "one third" there were substituted the words "one quarter."
3.7 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to omit the proviso to subsection (2). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for introducing a controversial subject at this late stage of the Bill, but it is one of such importance to a number of people that I feel I should not be doing my duty if I neglected it. If your Lordships will look at subsection (2) of Clause 8 you will see that the Bill seeks to carry out one of the most important recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee. But the Bill then goes on, at line 4 of page 7, to take away all the good of that subsection. The Bill there provides a loophole through which the Minister can escape, if he sees fit so to do, and so, in effect, nullifies this important subsection.
I am aware that there is considerable disagreement about this matter, but I repeat that it goes right against one of the fundamental recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee. Paragraph 73 of the Hobhouse Report says this:
"For the purpose of planning, each National Park should be treated as a single geographical unit, to be planned in accordance with the Commission's policy and under their general guidance."
Then paragraph 75 says the scheme provides:
"… that each National Park should be constituted as a 'united district' for the purposes of planning and that a local Park Committee should he established as its statutory local planning authority."
Those who have been thinking and dreaming of national parks for a decade, and more, must be bitterly disappointed by the Government's attitude in this Part of the Bill, and at their complete overthrow of this recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee. If there is a national park extending over as many as five counties—and there are two proposed parks which spread to five counties—how is it to be administered except by one authority? We all know—it is notorious—that local authorities do not work well together voluntarily, unless there is some supervising authority to compel or cajole them to do so, and I am sure they will not do so in this case. I do not want to labour this point, but I felt it right to bring it before your Lordships' House and to point out this complete disagreement between this Bill and the Report of the Hobhouse Committee. In my view, unless this Amendment, or something like it, is carried, one of the main recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee will be completely neglected, and there is a serious chance that the national parks, on this count alone, will not be a success. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 4, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 10.—(Lord Merthyr.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not be persuaded by my noble friend, Lord Merthyr, because I feel that, at any rate in my county of Sussex, a compulsory joint board would work a good deal worse arid produce worse results than the set-up which we now have. If we carried out my noble friend's suggestion in the spirit, as well as in the letter, I suppose we should have

823
a single committee to cover a long narrow strip of land about eighty miles long and from five to ten miles broad. To produce sufficient local knowledge upon a representative committee a very large body would be necessary, and probably the most convenient place for them to meet would be in London. But over and above that, on the southern side of the national park—if it followed the suggestions of the Hobhouse Committee—you would be leaving a kind of narrow rim of very highly developed coastline. That, I suppose, would have to be administered separately and by other officials. In other words, having agreed in 1947 that planning areas should not be smaller than the areas of counties we should here be dividing the county up again and, I think, in a highly inconvenient way. All the local authorities in Sussex are against this proposal, and I feel sure that it would result in a widespread attempt to evade the spirit of the provision. For these reasons I hope your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is, and will leave a certain discretion to the Minister. I have no doubt that in some national parks it is essential to have joint boards, but having regard to the extraordinary variety, in shape, size and nature of the country which is included in the proposed national parks, we ought to give a discretion to the Minister. I do not know what a Minister is for unless he has powers of discretion. My noble friend Lord Merthyr is an enthusiast on national parks, but I think he must have some regard to the question of planning as a whole, and that he must consider the bits that would be left over by his suggestions. I am sure that if he considered this question of Sussex he would come to the conclusion that the problems of the coastal belt areas are far more difficult than any likely to arise with the proposed national park areas.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that when we reached Clause 8 on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, fortunately or unfortunately, was in the Chair, and we got through that clause without much trouble. I am only sorry that he is not in the Chair at this moment! However, I regret that I am unable to accept this Amendment. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has given satisfactory reasons
824
for my refusal. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill first appeared in another place the clause dealing with this matter was phrased in far wider terms than the present clause. The Minister himself agreed to what I consider were words very restricting upon his power. The clause is now so phrased that the Minister can dispense with a joint board only in cases where he is satisfied that the park will be more efficiently administered without a board than with a board; it is not merely a question of his being satisfied that it will be no worse. I should have thought that that would have satisfied even the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. If the Minister is satisfied in that manner, surely he ought to have the power to do it. It may be that, in some areas or for some reason, a joint board will prove to be undesirable, and it is felt that it is much better to have this reserve power in the Bill just in case it needs to be exercised. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR had given notice of several Amendments in subsection (6) (iii), of which the first was to leave out "Minister" and insert "Commission." The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I take these three Amendments together? The object of this group of Amendments is to give a little more power to the Commission and a little less to the Minister. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, said that I ought to be satisfied with leaving a discretion to the Minister, and in his last speech, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, made much the same point. But we have to look a long way ahead. There will be a great many Ministers of Town and Country Planning, and it is not an easy thing to know what will satisfy the existing Minister in, say, twenty years time from now. With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, I believe that it is permissible to insert in an Act of Parliament something to guide or restrict the Minister, as the case may be. If the Minister is to be given complete discretion it is hardly necessary to have a Bill at all. This Amendment is a simple one. It suggests merely that the Commission

825
should have the duty or power of nominating the few members of the local planning committees who are appointed on a national basis. Instead of having the Minister appointing "after consultation with the Commission," I propose to put it the other way round and let the Commission appoint "after consultation with the Minister." After all, the Commission have few powers and duties under this Bill, and I think this is a small crumb which might be left to them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Commission").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has made the intention behind the Bill quite plain—namely, that the Minister, in his official capacity, should undertake this duty. The intention also is that this shall be done in consultation with the Commission. No one could expect any Minister to undertake this kind of job without consultation with those who may advise him as to the best type of person to appoint, but there is something else. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has overlooked it; I know that he lays great stress on this. It seems to me, and I am sure that it will seem to the noble Lord, that for the Commission to submit the names to the local planning authority rather than to the Minister would be a difficult matter for the local authority. They are an elected body, and I know local authorities well enough to know that they will take much more in the way of suggestions of this kind from the Minister than from a non-elected, appointed Commission. I give an undertaking that the Minister does intend consulting with the Commission before coming to a decision; and he will be guided by them. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will not press his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to omit the proviso to subsection (6). The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (6) starts by saying:
826
"Not less than one-third of the members of—

(a) a joint board or joint advisory committee … shall be persons appointed in accordance with the following provisions. …"

Then, at the end of the subsection, comes another of these provisos which I should like to see eliminated. In effect, the proviso leaves it to the discretion of the Minister to alter the one-third to one-quarter if he thinks fit. We do not know what future Ministers are going to do, say or think about this Bill; and as we are trying to lay down immutable rules for national parks, it seems to me that if we say that the number shall be one-third and then give the Minister power to alter it to one-quarter, we are, in effect saying that the number shall be not less than one-quarter, which, in the minds of many people, is too small. The Hob-house Committee recommended one-half. There has been a good deal of argument about this matter in another place, and I did not move an Amendment which I had put down at an earlier stage to restore the one-half. But I think it is going too far to reduce the one-third to a quarter.
Another important recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee was that there should be an even balance on the planning committees between national and local members; and they recommended that the scales should be tipped by the inclusion of a nationally-appointed chairman. Here again, under this Bill that important recommendation has been thrown to the winds by the Government. The Bill provides that in all cases, there shall be a local predominance in the matter of membership. If we are going to have national parks I do not think it is asking too much to say that at least one-third of the people who manage them should be nationally appointed. If it is asking too much, why call them national parks at all? As a matter of fact, I maintain that under this Bill there will not be any national parks. The title is a misnomer. We shall have county council parks and nothing more. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 24, leave out from ("Provided") to the end of line 27.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I am sure that you will be impressed by the

827
impartiality shown by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. At one moment, he is on the side of the Minister, and at another on that of the Commission. At present he is on the side of the Commission. Let it be clearly understood that the Minister was very reluctant to accept the one-third. He accepted it conditionally only, the condition being that he could, by agreement with the Commission, make up the loss where he could not find enough people of the right quality. Your Lordships are aware that in some cases the number on a local planning authority may be thirty or more. Without reflecting on one's fellow countrymen one must say that in many cases, the work is of an expert kind and there may not be found ten or twelve suitable persons to do it. It is only in such cases—and in no others—that the Minister will make up the loss. I cannot believe that your Lordships will agree that, if it is physically impossible for the Minister to find the right type of people in the numbers required, he should not himself make up the loss. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will not press his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Duty of local planning authority to formulate, and carry out, proposals for the purposes 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 in respect of buildings (other than dwelling-houses) used for the purposes of general farming operations or the cultivation or felling of trees 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 he entitled to receive from the local planning authority compensation in respect thereof."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is very similar to an Amendment which I moved on Committee stage. On that occasion the Minister, although I think he agreed with the purpose behind my Amendment, said he thought it was too wide. I have, therefore, narrowed it by the insertion of the words:
828
"… in respect of buildings (other than dwelling-houses) used for the purposes of general farming operations or the cultivation or felling of trees …"
I hope that the noble Lord will now be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I appreciate the modification made by the noble Lord. He and I have discussed this matter at some length. I much regret that I am unable, in spite of those discussions, to accept the Amendment, even as modified, for the reason that it is considered that the points which the noble Lord wishes to cover are already met in the Bill and under the 1947 Act. Your Lordships will appreciate that an Amendment recognising the importance attached to agriculture and forestry has already been carried, and others are to be submitted later to effect the same result. We are anxious that forestry and agriculture should be protected under the Bill so far as possible, but this is an Amendment which requires careful attention. I have discussed it with many people and, as I understand it now, it is intended to apply only to cases where the value of land is depreciated as a result of
"loss, damage or expense in respect of buildings (other than dwelling-houses) used for the purpose of general farming operations or the cultivation or felling of trees. …"
And it is intended to apply only where this loss would not have been suffered but for the existence of a national park in that area.
Now let us look at the ways in which the planning authority's action could involve a farmer in such loss in respect of his farm buildings. Take, first, the authority's powers under this Bill. They might, perhaps, convert it into a youth hostel. If they did, they would have to pay the farmer for it. So that point is covered. It may be that because an area is in a national park there will be more new paths created and more land will be made subject to access. I need not tell your Lordships that neither of these steps is likely to involve damage or loss to farm buildings. A new path would certainly go round a farm building: it could not go through it, though a path might be diverted to avoid the building. Even then, if buildings were comprised in an

829
access order, they would automatically be excepted from its provisions.
There is another aspect of the matter on which I have sought advice. It is possible that, in the interests of amenity, a planning authority might attempt to exercise a stricter control over new farm buildings than they had done in the past, and that the conditions imposed on such development might involve more expense to the farmers. I think I am right in assuming that Lord Carrington's Amendment, although it does not refer to proposed buildings, is intended to deal with a situation where the farmer incurs additional expense in erecting buildings. I can see from the words which he has used in this Amendment that the noble Lord has already referred to the Third Schedule of the Act of 1947. The definition of "farm buildings" which he uses is lifted straight from the fourth paragraph of that Schedule. I do not know whether the noble Lord also referred to Section 20 of that Act. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, might consider doing so, if he is going to intervene in the debate later, because the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has reminded us that this is Report stage and we shall need to make all the points we wish to in the one speech. If the noble Earl would refer to Section 20 of that Act, he will see that his point is already met in that section—at least, that is the advice I am given—and that is in regard to the country as a whole, and not merely for national, parks, a point which I know will appeal to your Lordships.
The noble Lord's Amendment refers to depreciation in the value of an interest in land by reason of the exercise of the local planning authorities' powers. Section 20 deals with cases where permission to develop has been refused, or granted subject to conditions, and where it is shown
"that the value of the interest of any person in the land is less than it would have been if the permission had been granted, or had been granted unconditionally, as the case may be."
The same section provides that in those cases
"the local planning authority shall pay to that person compensation equal to the difference."
I put it to your Lordships, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that this section meets the intention
830
of this Amendment. That being so, I hope the noble Lord will not press it.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I am not quite clear about this matter. I would like to ask the noble Lord this question. Suppose there were a barn which the owner wished to convert into a cowhouse. If it were suitable for that purpose, and the owner were prevented by this Act from so converting it, would this section provide him with compensation?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Yes.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, there has been some correspondence on this matter recently in The Times One of the greater authorities on art has been writing about the colour green, if I recollect aright. The property owner well knows that certain colours are far longer lasting and therefore cheaper in the end than other colours. If a property owner is forced to paint all his property a particular colour which happens to suit the local authority's taste and yet is a colour which has not the lasting properties of the colour that he would like to use, is he entitled to any compensation for that? Because otherwise a grave loss falls upon him.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord has gone some way to giving us an assurance that under Section 20 of the Town and Cot retry Planning Act compensation is in fact payable for extra expense incurred as a result of instructions from a planning authority. Reading through Section 20, it appears to me, as an extreme layman in legal matters, that that section does go some way in this direction. Then, unfortunately, one turns to the Third Schedule, and in paragraph 4 of that Schedule one reads that exception is made in
"improvement or alteration of dwellinghouses or of buildings used for the purposes of market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yards."
Apparently, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is prepared to put up with the exception of dwelling-houses—I do not think he likes it but he is prepared to make that concession in order to obtain agreement. But market gardens, nursery grounds or timber yard;—and, after all, we are talking about areas where a certain amount of timber work may be proceeding—are excepted from Section 20. If the noble Lord were prepared to say that

831
between Report stage and Third Reading he would consider giving us some assurance, or, if necessary, inserting something in the Bill that would include those items in the protection already given by Section 20 for other purposes, then I think my noble friend Lord Carrington and others might feel a little happier.
I would impress on the noble Lord that this is a matter which might land one in considerable expense. I have personal knowledge of a beautiful old Sussex barn, parts of which have really gone, and it will not go on standing the weight of a tiled roof. The owner, with great regret, has had to come to the decision to put on a lighter roof of corrugated iron. It is a horrible thing to do but the alternatives are either to pull that barn down or else spend hundreds of pounds upon it. Is that owner now to be forced to spend that extra money on it? That might be desirable in an area to be designated as a national park. The question then is, who is to pay for it? That is rather digressing from the point, but if the noble Lord can agree to give us a full assurance that he will consider the inclusion of timber yards, market gardens and nursery grounds in the assurance that he has given us about Section 20, perhaps Lord Carrington will be prepared to consider withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the answer is "No." Experience in another place is a good thing. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in a pleasant roundabout way suggests the widening of this Amendment. It is with the Amendment on the Marshalled List that I have to deal. I am very sorry that I cannot give any assurance at all on the lines suggested by the noble Earl. What I stated regarding the Amendment should meet, and I think does meet, what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, had in mind. Though I can give no assurance on this point, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, can the noble Lord opposite tell me, from his experience, whether my point about the forcible painting of buildings of a certain colour is or is not covered anywhere in the Bill?
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: Not at the moment.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, for the present I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Provision of accommodation, meals, refreshments, camping sites and parking places
12.—(1) A local planning authority whose area consists of or includes the whole or any part of a National Park may make arrangements for securing the provision in their area (whether by the authority or by other persons)—

(a) of accommodation, meals and refreshments (including intoxicating liquor);

(b) of camping sites; and

(c) of parking places and means of access thereto and egress therefrom,

and may for the purposes of such arrangements erect such buildings and carry out such work as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient:
Provided always that an authority shall not exercise the power conferred by this subsection (other than a power of erecting buildings or carrying out work), to provide accommodation, meals and refreshment, unless it appears to the authority that no other person is able and willing to provide, in a manner which in the opinion of the authority will be satisfactory, the facility or service for the provision of which the power is exercisable.
3.38 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in the proviso to subsection (1) to omit all words after "Provided" and to insert:
"that a local planning authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefor are inadequate or unsatisfactory, either generally or as respects any description of accommodation, meals or refreshments, as the case may be."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to put into effect a compromise which I suggested during the discussions which we had in Committee on Clause 12. I hope your Lordships will be able to accept it in the spirit in which it is offered. Of course, it was never the intention of the Government that, when adequate accommodation and facilities were available, the local planning authority should go into the field and provide other accommodation and facilities. I should like to repeat what I said during the discussions that we had. I hope that these words will be reported, because my right honourable friend feels

833
that it is very important that those people who are living and earning their livelihoods in these areas should be well aware of the Government's intentions in respect of this matter. Where there are facilities already being provided by the people who are living in the particular areas, it is the Government's view that they should be respected and used. They are usually the best facilities that there can be for arrangements of the kind which the Government have in mind for the national park areas. I am sure all your Lordships will agree that nothing is more pleasant than a farmhouse tea or, indeed, accommodation in a farmhouse in the type of district over which a national park will extend. It has always been the intention of the Government that these facilities should, in fact, be used.
The Amendment makes it perfectly clear that the planning authority shall not provide facilities themselves where they consider that the existing facilities are adequate. Your Lordships carried an Amendment which not only provided for this but also for the case where there were no facilities, and the question was whether they should be provided by private enterprise or the local authority. We feel that we cannot go so far as that, but we do suggest that the substance of the speeches which were made in Committee dealt with existing facilities; that that is safeguarded by this Amendment; and that this is a satisfactory compromise which your Lordships will be able to accept. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 6, leave out from ("Provided") to end of line 12, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord and the Minister very much for the way in which they have met us with this Amendment. As the noble Lord has said, it is perfectly true that it does not go quite so far as the Amendment that we wanted, but it goes a long way, and we should be satisfied with it. There is only one doubt that is left in one's mind. The words as drafted suggest that it is purely a matter of existing facilities. It might be the case that some local tea house or public-house was contemplating a new building which would satisfy a new demand, and one is not clear whether that would he taken into account. I gathered
834
in private discussions that facilities of that character that were in early and bona fide contemplation would, in fact, be covered by these words. I do not know whether the noble Lord is allowed to rise again to assure me on that point. If so, I shall be glad of his assurance.
LORD CHORLEY: With the permission of your Lordships, I think I am allowed to give the assurance for which the noble Earl has asked, and I am very glad to do so.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think this will be a satisfactory compromise. One must remember that when it comes to a question of justices' licences, it is highly unlikely that licensing justices would give another complete licence if the holder of an existing licence were willing to provide an extra room to give additional accommodation. I think there is that additional safeguard. With the indication that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has just given, as to context in which it is hoped the Amendment will be construed, I think it goes a long way to meet us, and I, too, am much obliged to the Government for putting it down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER LORD ROCHESTER moved to add to the clause:
"() A Justices' licence granted under the Licensing Acts, 1910 to 1949, for the sale of intoxicating liquor in correction with the provision of accommodation, meals and refreshment under this section shall only authorise the sale of such liquor for consumption with a meal and a local planning authority shall in carrying on any activities under this section be subject to all enactments and rules of law relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor in like manner as other persons carrying on the like activities."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel we are coming on. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in moving the last Amendment said that nothing was more pleasant than a farmhouse tea. I agree with him. But on a previous occasion, I would remind him, he eulogised the pleasantness of a glass of beer. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Bill as at present drawn leaves the door wide open not only to restricted licences for liquor consumption with meals, but to full justices' licences without restriction. I have no desire to detain your Lordships this afternoon, as I argued this case at sonic length on Committee stage. I would, however, remind

835
your Lordships that on that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, replying for the Government, based his objection to this Amendment on the plea that it would penalise the rambler "who carries his food with him in his rucksack." The noble Lord sought to wring our withers about "the rambler who has been walking under a hot July sun for many hours" with a well-nigh unquenchable thirst. The noble Lord might never have heard of the superfluity of licences already in existence, or of tea and coffee and soft drinks, which are so easily obtainable throughout the countryside! Was there ever a more flimsy pretext for providing additional facilities for promiscuous alcoholic drinking? Ramblers are not usually inarticulate as to their requirements. I challenge the noble Lord to produce any evidence for such a demand. Is it not rather a case of providing facilities to create a demand than to meet a demand?
By far the largest organisation catering for ramblers is the Youth Hostels Association. At the end of 1948 they had 228,069 members in England and Wales alone; and they provided for those members 282 hostels, containing approximately 13,000 beds. Nearly a million and a quarter bookings were made in 1948 for overnight accommodation in these hostels. The rule of the Association is strictly that no intoxicants shall be taken into any one of these hostels, and they are all unlicensed. Other organisations, such as the Co-operative Holidays Association and the Holiday Fellowship, also have a rule forbidding intoxicants in their holiday centres. Then there is the Workers' Travel Association, with which so many members of His Majesty's Government are honourably associated. The Prime Minister, Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. Herbert Morrison, and my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, are all members of the Council of that Association, and associated with them are many others, including members of your Lordships' House and Professor Gilbert Murray. The Association have catered for ramblers for over a quarter of a century, and have their holiday centres geographically scattered over the countryside in carefully chosen beauty spots. They provide for tens of thousands of ramblers annually, and their financial turnover last year exceeded £1,000,000. Yet none of their
836
guest houses is licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
In general, my Lords, people who find their pleasure in rambling are those who desire to get away from the congestion and crowds of towns and cities; and, in so far as they take their refreshments with them, they tend to consume these refreshments in small picnic parties and would not be attracted by licensed premises, which would cater for larger groups of people and would, therefore, make little appeal to the typical rambler. If it is argued that the licensed premises would sell liquor for consumption off the premises, so that ramblers could take their drinks away and consume them elsewhere, I would point out that this practice would lead inevitably to the encouragement of the litter of empty bottles lying about in these beauty spots. That point in respect of empty beer bottles being left about does not seem to have been dealt with, although it was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham during the Committee stage, just at the time, when I was away—imbibing nothing stronger than tea. However, I see, on reference to Hansard, that in his reply Lord Chorley said:
"I am sure my noble friend Lord Rochester, if he were here, would regard a bottle as rubbish, whether it were full, empty or broken."
On the contrary, if the rubbish were no longer in the bottle, I should take no exception to it, so long as it was not left about as litter.
During the Committee stage Lord Chorley called me a "temperance fiend." That did not cause me even a momentary twinge, for in the cut and thrust of debate I know only too well how one is apt to find oneself for a moment at a loss for just the right word. I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean "fiend"; he might have meant fanatic. It is the demon of strong drink which turns men into fiends, and causes such havoc in our land, and which is so largely responsible for broken homes and so much cruelty, as well as for the carnage on our roads which we all so greatly deplore. How many of the fatal accidents which take place on our roads every day are, directly or indirectly, caused by drivers and others under the influence of drink, through taking just one glass more? That is not the work of drunkards but of moderate drinkers. Even the brewers do not like

837
drunkards. Theirs is the only trade that is not proud of its finished article! Our economic recovery is being retarded, and our plans for social security sabotaged by the colossal national expenditure of no less than £762,000,000 on intoxicants. It has been well said that:
"Drink is commercially our greatest wastrel; socially it is our greatest criminal; morally it is our greatest enemy."
Speaking at Preston as recently as November 6, Mr. Herbert Morrison deplored the excessive expenditure on alcoholic drinks. And on the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill in another place he said:
"a diminution in the consumption of alcohol is a perfectly legitimate purpose of social policy."
Then why not set about it, instead of providing under this Bill for additional facilities'?
This Amendment is in identical terms with that which I moved on the Committee stage, and I withdrew that Amendment only on an undertaking from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, that if I did so he would see whether any accommodation on this matter was possible. His words were:
"If the noble Lord would be willing to withdraw his Amendment for the time being, without prejudice, of course, to freedom of action at a later stage, I will go into conference with him and the Minister to see whether we can arrange any accommodation."
Not having been called to such a conference, may I take it that the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, has not yet been able to arrange one, but still hopes to do so before the Third Reading? Or, alternatively, has he succeeded in persuading the Minister to accept this Amendment, as he did when my noble friend Lord Llewellin moved a similar Amendment to the two previous Acts to which reference was made on the last occasion? I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rochester.)
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, as I have been specially mentioned in part of the noble Lord's delightful speech—I am sure that some of his sayings will remain in our memories almost as aphorisms at all events, I will try to remember one or two of them, myself, for future use, if possible—may I say
838
that I am very sorry indeed that I have not arranged the conference to which he referred? I take full responsibility for my omission, and I tender my apologies to the noble Lord. We have had a long conference with the Minister on several matters and this subject, amongst others, cropped up. If the noble Lord feels that it is the right course, it is only fair to him for me to say that between now and the Third Reading I will arrange a conference between him, the Minister and myself. I did give the undertaking which the noble Lord has mentioned, and I am sorry that I have not carried it out in the strictest sense. On the question, which the noble Lord raises, I am sorry to have to tell him that my right honourable friend the Minister is not prepared to accept his Amendment. In the circumstances, and without prejudice to whet may transpire when we may meet, I do not feel able to press the Minister to do so. On two-other occasions, I have acted as, shall we say, amicus curive for the noble Lord. That was in connection with the Civil Restaurants Act and the Housing Act, in which restaurant provision was made. But in both those cases, the accommodation is situated in places where there is a considerable population. It is not established in scattered and remote spots such as those which are contemplated here. There is, therefore, a very material difference between this case and those cases. In any event, any licences will be subject to the licensing justices.
The only point between us is this—whether, if a licence is issued it should permit the supply of intoxicants only with a meal. On that I am bound to say that I am influenced by what the Minister said, and by my own experience as one who rambled a good deal many years ago. It was not a fancy picture which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, drew. One sometimes walks great distances, and for considerable periods. In my younger days I have walked for many hours in hot summer weather; and so, I am sure, have many others of your Lordships. Personally, I am convinced that the case put by the Minister is right. And it is in these circumstances that it is judged necessary to have licences, though in every instance, as I have said, the matter will be in the hands of the justices. I

839
support the view that a man should not be prohibited from having an alcoholic drink except with a meal, for, as we know, in many instances these walkers carry food with them. Therefore, in this matter which, as has been said, is quite different from the others, I cannot support the noble Lord as I did previously. I expect he will bear me a grudge; but there it is; and it cannot be helped. It is better that I should be absolutely frank. In the circumstances, we cannot accept this Amendment, but, as I am in honour bound to do, I will, between now and the Third Reading—I do not know when that will be—
LORD ROCHESTER: On Thursday.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I will, if the noble Lord desires, do my best to arrange a meeting between the noble Lord, myself and the Minister, but I am obliged to tell the noble Lord in advance that I do not think he will meet with much success.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as I took some part in our discussion on this matter on a previous occasion, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two about it now. I think there is a difference between this Bill and the Civic Restaurants and Housing Acts, and my attitude on this Amendment has been considerably influenced by the Government Amendment with which we have just dealt. Where there are not adequate facilities it may well be that some rambler or other person going for a long walk will, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, take the main part of his meal with him. What he wants to do is to buy some kind of alcoholic or other refreshment en route. I do not believe that if we accept Lord Rochester's Amendment it will in any way prevent the litter of bottles, because an empty lemonade bottle is just as unpleasant litter as an empty beer-bottle. The sort of person who leaves a bottle about is just as likely, if he cannot get the one, to get the other and leave that about. So I do not think that point should influence us very much.
One sentence which Lord Rochester used made me think that perhaps these facilities were more important. He said that no alcoholic liquor whatever could be taken into these youth hostels. That
840
means that a person must start out on his day's journey without his bottle of beer in his pocket. He must buy it somewhere en route. I think the House were right in their attitude on this matter in the Civic Restaurants Act and Housing Act, but I recognise that there is a different case to be made here. I believe that there will be few additional licences given under this Bill. Most of these areas are already fairly suitably equipped, and there will be no great additional demand created by this Bill. On this occasion, unlike the previous one, I am not prepared to support the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in his Amendment.
4.2 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene, as I took part in the earlier discussion. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, when he refers to my description of him as a temperance "fiend" to write the letter "r" in front of "i"; then he will obtain my real sentiments in regard to him. The noble Lord said that there are already too many facilities for obtaining alcoholic refreshment in the countryside. If he is right about this, under the clause we have just accepted there will be no question of any further provision, because the authorities will examine the provisions and, if they are satisfied that they are sufficient, will not provide anything further. The noble Lord spoke of the number of organisations which exist to provide hostel accommodation. These associations carry on admirable work, but they provide evening meals and bed and breakfast, a different sort of refreshment from that envisaged here. They are not places into which one can turn for a drink. The noble Lord has threatened to ask your Lordships to divide. If he does so, I hope that noble Lords opposite who have in the past shown sympathy with the noble Lord's point of view will, on this occasion at any rate, become abstainers.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, believing as I do that it is as wrong to take offence as to give it, let me clear the ground at once by saying that I have no personal feeling about the seeming discourtesy of not having been called into this conference by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. This conference did take place, though I did not happen to be present. In any case, I should

841
desire to dissociate the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and the Paymaster-General from even any apparent discourtesy in the matter, because I am sure they are incapable of it. The ultimate responsibility for resisting this Amendment must, of course, be with the Government as a whole, and especially with those Ministers whose names were on the Bill at its inception.
I concede at once that the position is somewhat ameliorated by the acceptance by the Government of the last Amendment, but I feel that the position is still unsatisfactory. How true it is that:
"Whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad."
That on the very eve of a General Election some of their best friends should be estranged and alienated by the Government in this way may well mean that the Government have underestimated the strength of the temperance forces in the country. Is it any wonder that a conference of some ten or a dozen kindred societies, held in London this month at the headquarters of the National British Women's Total Abstinence Union, resolved upon the formation of a united committee to mobilise the women of the country on the temperance question in an effort to secure a million active votes? After what the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has said, I feel sure that your Lordships do not wish to divide on this question, so I must be content with the Amendment being negatived. In all the circumstances, I am sure your Lordships will not expect me to withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 13 [Improvement of waterways for purposes of open-air recreation]:
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words after "Provided" and to insert:
"that a local planning authority shall not under this section provide facilities of any description except in cases where it appears to them that the facilities of that description are inadequate or unsatisfactory."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which your Lordships accepted to Clause 12. It has a similar effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 34, leave out from ("Provided") to end of line 39, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. The clause provides that the local planning authority may provide sailing, boating, bathing or fishing facilities, if they are satisfied that the facilities of that description are inadequate or unsatisfactory. Surely facilities of that sort may be inadequate or unsatisfactory and yet it may also be undesirable either to provide or extend them. I can refer to a district which the noble Lord knows well. There are no motor-boats on Wastwater, and no bathing facilities on Ennerdale Water. Under this clause, apparently the local planning authority would be able to provide such facilities. The existing facilities could certainly be described as inadequate or unsatisfactory, but I think it most undesirable to provide such facilities on these two lakes. I should be obliged if the noble Lord could clear up that point.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if your Lordships will permit me to speak again, this is not obligatory on the local authority. The Amendment merely gives them power to do so. It may be that some dispute may arise as to how the authority are to use these powers. In these circumstances they halve to consult the National Parks Commission. If there is disagreement then between the Commission and the local planning authority, it may be that the Minister may have to intervene and decide between them. That, as I understand it, is the position under the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"() Where any authority consulted under the last foregoing subsection objects to a pro posed exercise of powers under this section, and the objection is not withdrawn, the proposal shad not be proceeded with unless on an application in that behalf specifying the proposal and the objection the Minister so directs, and subject to any conditions or modifications specified in the direction: and before giving a direction under this subsection the Minister shall afford to each of the authorities an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose, and shall consider that person's report."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, during Committee stage, when the Government accepted his Amendment in principle. The effect of

843
the Amendment is that, in the event of there being any dispute between the local planning authority and the authority with whom they have consultations, which in cases of this kind would usually be the land drainage authority, the matter should be referred to the Minister for his decision. There is practically no difference in substance between the noble Lord's Amendment and this one, except that the noble Lord brought in the Minister of Agriculture. He has been left out of this Amendment, because, as I think your Lordships will appreciate, it is against constitutional usage to bring in the Minister in that way. The noble Lord can be sure that consultations will take place with the Ministry, and I hope he will be able to accept the Amendment, as now framed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 23, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Charley.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for going so far to meet this point, though I must admit that I am a little disappointed. When the noble Lord said that he accepted the Amendment in principle, I had hoped that he would accept one of my points, which was to mention the river boards and drainage boards specifically, and also to bring in the Minister of Agriculture. However, he has given the reason why the Minister of Agriculture cannot be brought in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Agreements with Nature Conservancy for establishment of nature reserves
16.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land, being land as to which it appears to the Conservancy expedient in the national interest that it should be managed as a nature reserve, for securing that it shall be so managed.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that an agreement shall not be entered into with a lessee or occupier of land unless the owner of the land is a consenting party thereto."
The noble Earl 'said: My Lords, I had thought of moving this Amendment formally and awaiting the noble Lord's reply. However, it might help if I say briefly what the Amendment means. If
844
your Lordships look at Clause 16 you will see that subsection (1) says:
"The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land,"
for its management as a nature reserve. My Amendment says merely that such an agreement shall not be entered into with a lessee or occupier of land unless the owner has been consulted and has consented to the arrangement. There is an obvious fear on the part of owners that, having let land to a tenant, the tenant may then come to an agreement with the Nature Conservancy that will be found to commit the owner when he resumes occupation. Even if the tenant would not be in a position legally to commit the owner (I think that is almost certainly so) that particular piece of land may have become so established as a nature reserve that it would be virtually impossible for the owner to negotiate the cessation of the land being run as a nature reserve. It may be that he would not want to do so, but he should certainly have the right to be a consenting party to any agreement entered into. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, this is rather a curious and not uninteresting point on which I venture to address your Lordships for a few moments. Clause 16 (1) does not sufficiently indicate what a wide area is covered by this clause. If your Lordships look at subsection (3) you will see what a large scope the agreement may have. It extends to:
"the management of the land in such manner, the carrying out thereon of such work … as may he expedient for the purposes of the agreement."
The purposes of the agreement are that the property may be managed as a nature reserve. Subsection (3) (b) says:
"may provide for any of the matters mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph being carried out, or for the cost thereof being defrayed, either by the said owner or other persons, or by the Conservancy, or partly in one way and partly in another."
Without going into all the things that can be done, I feel it is desirable to remind your Lordships that it involves an enormous variety of projects. For instance, one of the first things that comes to my mind is the question of fen land.

845
The Fens carry some rather interesting fauna and some rare butterflies. The land has to he kept undrained; if that were not done, the whole fen land would be spoilt. Surely, it is not intended that the tenant should be able to say that he will do so and so with his land to make it a nature reserve? Then there are other cases of drainage, particularly cases where lakes all over the country are being dried up which, ought to be kept watered if it is desired that duck and fish should continue to live there. I am not going into the merits of any particular proposal, but merely showing the kind of proposal that may be made. Then there is the planting of flowers or shrubs for encouraging butterflies and certain birds. It is very pleasant to have them on a particular piece of land, but it may ruin that land for the future.
It is all very well to say that the landlord will not be bound, but if the tenant has been allowed to do anything of that sort the landlord may come back and find that his land has been grievously affected. I believe that would be still more so in the country about which we have heard so much in connection with ground-nuts. Then there is the question of beasts. I like to see a beaver, and I also like occasionally to see a badger. But whether they be beavers or badgers, I cannot conceive that work of the sort indicated should be done on a piece of land without consulting the owner, the person who may come back after the lessee or the occupier. If, with that explanation, your Lordships turn back to the terms of the agreement, you will be left in a state of doubt as to what the construction really is. Clause 16 (1) says:
"The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner,"—
note the word "any"—
"lessee or occupier of any land, being land which it appears to the Conservancy expedient in the national interest"
to have managed as a nature reserve. That does not prohibit an agreement with the lessee without consulting the landlord whose land may be grievously affected. I feel strongly that this clause does not at present indicate with any precision what is meant by it. I would suggest that the noble Lord should consider the addition at the end of subsection (1) of the words:
846
"so far as the person or persons entering into the agreement can properly so provide."
Let me show your Lordships how that will read. It will read thus:
"The Nature Conservancy may enter into an agreement with any owner, lessee or occupier of any land, being land"—
and so on—
"so far as the person or persons entering into the agreement can properly so provide."
That is to say, if he wants badgers, or to plant a special kind of tree, or to do drainage, or anything of the sort, then in such a case the person who must consent is undoubtedly the owner of the property.
I hope that nobody will think that I am against this clause. I am strongly in favour of the clause, provided it achieves its object without doing anything which is absolutely unjust to persons interested in the land. I trust the noble Lord has followed my argument, because, if he has, I am sure he will appreciate the force of it. It goes on different lines from the argument of my noble friend who moved the Amendment, but it is not too late even now to amend the Bill in that respect. Some amendment is urgently necessary with regard to this important clause.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I would like to support, my noble friend in this Amendment, although I do not think it goes far enough. In the large majority of cases I think it will be found that it is the owner who will agree, and that the man who will object will be the tenant. In a large number of cases the owner would be urged strongly to have a nature reserve in which flowers, badgers and other things were kept; it is the tenant who will make objections to having badgers and other things foisted upon him. I would rather that this Amendment went further and provided that agreement shall not be entered into unless all three join together.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My suggested Amendment does provide for that.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, is that the owner could not possibly enter into an agreement with the Nature Conservancy which was in derogation from the agreement with his tenant. For the course of his tenancy, the tenant is entitled to use the land in the

847
way the tenancy agreement lays down, and it would be impossible for the landlord to enter into any arrangement with the Conservancy which would derogate from that right of the tenant. The answer to the noble and learned Viscount is that the words he suggested are unnecessary. I am advised that there can be no question about it: that this clause does not confer upon a tenant or lessee any rights to enter into an arrangement with the Nature Conservancy which would in any way break any terms or conditions in his lease or which would in any way amount to what is in law a waste of the land. All that the noble and learned Viscount proposes to do would be to write into the clause in so many additional words that which is already implicit in it.
We discussed this problem during the discussions which were taking place and, as I understood the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, he wished to have a clear statement of the position as it exists under the clause. I am very glad indeed to be able to give him the assurances which I hope will satisfy him and other noble Lords who have taken a real and proper interest in this matter, which is obviously one of importance. In the first place, the tenant's agreement with the Nature Conservancy does not in any way bind the landlord. It obviously cannot do so unless the landlord himself comes in and becomes a party to the agreement. In the second place, the tenant cannot enter into any such agreement in breach of the covenants of his lease or if it would amount to what is legally waste—that is to say, would do permanent damage to the property. I might perhaps add that wherever possible, it is the intention of the Nature Conservancy to come to a joint agreement with both landlord and tenant, because obviously the Nature Conservancy are not going to set up a nature reserve in an area of this kind unless it is going to be a long-term business. Therefore, from their own point of view it will be of the greatest importance that they should have an agreement in which both the tenant and the landlord are joined. They have assured me—and I think the noble Earl was there when the assurance was given—that it is their intention to try and get a tripartite agreement to which both the landlord and tenant are parties.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord this—and it is a point of elucidation. Under the clause as drafted, could they reach an agreement with a tenant or occupier without reaching an agreement with the landlord, or could they reach an agreement with the landlord without reaching an agreement with the tenant or occupier? The noble Lord will understand what I mean. The position under this clause, as I see it, is obscure.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if I may speak again, I would say that as a matter of law they could. The clause does not confer any new rights whatever. The noble Marquess, myself, the Nature Conservancy, or anybody else can enter into an agreement with a man who has a lease on a particular piece of land, under which they become sub-lessees or acquire certain rights to go on that land and use it in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Provided that is not forbidden in the terms of the lease or does not amount to waste, then the landlord has no control over it. The Nature Conservancy are very anxious indeed that the landlord should come in, because they must have longterm agreements, otherwise they cannot run these nature reserves efficiently. Your Lordships will appreciate that these nature reserves are not going to be established for just a year or two—they are long processes, and in order that they may be carried out effectively it will be necessary for the Nature Conservancy to enter into long-term agreements. For that purpose they will seek out the landlord and try to come to an arrangement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the position is rather difficult on Report stage, but my questions are for the purpose of elucidation and the noble Lords's answers elucidatory answers. I cannot see why it is not possible so to draft a clause that both parties have to be consulted. The reply which the noble Lord gave to my last question was that it would be possible for a Nature Conservancy board, or whatever it may be, to enter into an agreement with a lessee without entering into an agreement with the owner of the land. Why should it be possible? Why should it not be a requirement of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, that both of them should be parties? There is no reason why it should not be. Many people feel it is desirable that they

849
should be parties, and I can see no disadvantage in it. It requires merely a new clause, and that is the Amendment which we suggest.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I add one word? What my noble friend Lord Salisbury has said is absolutely unanswerable, but what I really rise to say is this. I wholly and totally disagree with what has been put into the mouth of my noble friend opposite, that the words I suggested at the end of the clause are unnecessary. I do not want to say anything violent to people who cannot answer for themselves, but I must say that whoever told him that is absolutely and entirely wrong. In my opinion, it is nonsense. The clause is a badly drafted clause. It is framed in a way in which nobody can tell what precise agreement can be made under its terms with one or other of the various parties concerned. Accordingly, we ought to do our best to make it clear and precise, and if the noble Lord opposite thinks that the proper way in which to deal with this matter is to say that he is advised—
LORD CHORLEY: May I just interrupt? After such a strong statement from one who is so learned in the law, clearly I must take the matter back and look at it again with a view to coming to a decision whether some words of the kind should be inserted. May I continue my speech in answer to the noble Marquess? The answer is one which he should appreciate because it has been the law in England for the last six hundred or seven hundred years—namely, that a man who takes a lease of land should be able to deal with it within the ambit of his lease; and in my submission this clause gives no further rights to a tenant than those which he has always had under the Common Law of England.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I am really ashamed to rise again, but this is a question of law; it is not a thing within the ambit of the tenant. It is the fact that what he does under his agreement, quite rightly, may affect the landlord after the tenant has gone.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on so
850
technical a point, but I should like to make one suggestion. Would it make the clause more acceptable if in line 26 of page 13 the word "and" were substituted for the word "or," so that the agreement would have to be entered into with both the lessee and the occupier of any land?
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if I may, with your Lordships' permission, speak once more, that is a suggestion which we should naturally take into account when looking at the proposal made by the noble and learned Viscount. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to withdraw his Amendment, and we can then discuss the matter.
EARL DELAWARR: I will certainly ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. There is only one thing more I should like to say. We have been discussing this clause mainly from the strictly legal point of view of what, in fact, the lessee can do during the term of his lease. The point I was concerned about is the question of the tenant and what he is permitted to do during his lease. In fact he creates a fait accompli with which the land owner is met at he end of a lease. I thank the noble Lord for what he has said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to say one word on the question of procedure. As your Lordships know, it has never been the practice in this House to have a Manuscript Amendment on Third Reading; it is a practice which has been constantly objected to. I understand that the Third Reading is to be taken on Thursday this week. To-day being Tuesday, if the noble Lord is going to take this back and put down an Amendment before the Third Reading, he will have to be quick. If he puts down a Manuscript Amendment it will not be in accordance with our usual practice.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am glad the noble Marquess has raised that point, because there is very little time to spare. If an Amendment is put down it will have to be formulated to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Or postpone the Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20:
Byelaws for protection of nature reserves
20.—(1) The Nature Conservancy may, as respects land which is being managed as a nature reserve under an agreement entered into with them or land held by them which is being managed as a nature reserve, make byelaws for the protection of the reserve:
Provided that byelaws under this section shall not have effect as respects any land in a reserve unless a declaration under the last foregoing section is in force declaring that the land is being managed as a nature reserve and notice of the declaration has been published in pursuance of that section.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved to add to the proviso in subsection (1)
"(ii) that bye-laws under paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of this section shall not have effect unless and until there has been consultation between the Nature Conservancy and the county agricultural committee or committees in whose area the nature reserve is situated."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Carrington, who has been obliged to leave. The main point of the Amendment is probably covered by the new clause which the Government intend to move after Clause 83. The object of the Amendment is to make certain that no bylaws are made for the preservation of birds and animals which, although they might seem to the members of the Conservancy to be well worth preserving, in fact might tend to cause excessive infestation of vermin. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 14, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, a good deal of apprehension was obvious in a number of speeches which were made on Committee stage and, indeed, in speeches which have been made this afternoon about the nature of the work which the Nature Conservancy are to undertake; and possibly it may be useful if I say a word or two on the general subject of the Nature Conservancy before I deal specifically with the Amendment just moved.
The Nature Conservancy was formed under a Royal Charter, which was drafted on very similar lines to that for the Agricultural Research Council, with which many of your Lordships are familiar; and it was granted on March 23 of this
852
year. The Conservancy is a United Kingdom body and is responsible to a Committee of the Privy Council. The Charter provides—and this is relevant Ito another Amendment which is to be submitted later on in connection with the position in Scotland—that there shall be a Scottish Committee in order to further conservancy objects in Scotland. The Privy Council Committee, which is presided over by the Lord President of the Council, includes, among other members, the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The membership of the Conservancy, although largely composed of experts on conservancy matters, also includes three Members of Parliament drawn from the major political Parties. There are, similarly, three members of Parliament on the Scottish Committee, one of whom is a member of your Lordships' House, the Earl of Wemyss and March. The Conservancy's main functions are; the provision of scientific advice and the conservation and control of natural flora and fauna; the establishing, maintenance and management of nature reserves in Great Britain; and the organisation and development of research and scientific services relevant thereto. So that it has three main objects.
The Amendment is concerned with possible damage to agriculture which might arise, in the noble Lord's view, from the existence of nature reserves, as, for example, by the escape of pests to neighbouring land. From what I have told your Lordships about the work of the Nature Conservancy, however, I hope it will be clear that it will be the Nature Conservancy's own express business to see that plant and animal population in nature reserves are, in fact, scientifically controlled, and to maintain for that purpose close liaison with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and with the Scottish Office. The control of particular species may range from destruction to encouragement—anywhere between those limits, depending, of course, on the known status of the species in the maintenance of the balance of plants and animals suitable both to the purpose of the reserve and to the use to which the land is being put.
If it is a pest, the emphasis will always be on destruction. The scientific control and management of a nature reserve,

853
which is the main function of conservancy, must be clearly separated from the idea of a sanctuary. The Nature Conservancy are anxious that it should be perfectly clear that they are not a preservation society in the ordinary sense and that their nature reserves will not be sanctuaries; there could be nothing more different. A sanctuary, in the sense in which I am using the term, is a place where, whether consciously or unconsciously, there is the opposite of control, the exact negation of control: where the indigenous flora and fauna, the birds or whatever they may be, are left to multiply unchecked, thus establishing (as has in fact occurred in some parts of the country) an area from which pests may escape to neighbouring agricultural land, doing there considerable damage. But this is the exact opposite of the work which the Nature Conservancy is to undertake and is, in fact, undertaking. Their objective is to keep a balance in areas where the nature reserves exist.
The noble Lord may be assured that the Nature Conservancy will in fact consult with all the appropriate bodies whenever their bylaws are likely to affect the interests of those bodies. They already have the closest liaison with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in this country and with the Scottish Office, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries will refer all matters, where it is appropriate, to the local county agricultural committee so that the necessary discussions may take place at the appropriate level. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that, in these circumstances, having heard what I have told him about the practice and the objectives of the Nature Conservancy, he will feel it is unnecessary to have an Amendment of this kind. I hope he will withdraw it.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the full reasons he has given as to why this Amendment is unnecessary. I thank him very much for the assurances he has given and beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26:
Application of Parr III to Scotland
26. In the application of this Part of this Act to Scotland the expressions "owner." and "limited owner" have the same meanings as in section three of the Forestry Act, 1947.
4.42 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to omit all words after "Scotland" and to insert:
"the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) the expressions 'owner' and 'limited owner' have the same meanings as in section three of the Forestry Act, 1947;

(b) section twenty-four shall read as if in subsection (1) thereof there were added after the words 'Lord President of the Council' the words 'and the Secretary of State for Scotland'."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that a breath of Scottish air will not be disagreeable to your Lordships. On the Committee stage I put down an Amendment similar to this to clarify the position of the Secretary of State. The answer which I received on that occasion did not completely reassure me or, for that matter, several of my noble friends, including Lord Elibank and Lord Saltoun. Therefore, I have nut down this Amendment again at this stage in the hope that I shall receive a statement which will be satisfactory. The Amendment seeks to ensure that a copy of the report made by the Nature Conservancy goes to the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as to the Lord President. In passing, I should say that the answer I received on the last occasion was that that was not strictly necessary or constitutional because the Lord President of the Council is not an English Minister but is a United Kingdom Minister; he acts North of the Border in those matters which are within his purview. That I accept and understand. It was also said that the Secretary of State would automatically receive a report as he is a member of the appropriate Privy Council Committee. That I also accept. But I am not so much concerned with the question of the receiving of reports: what I am concerned with is to ensure that the Secretary of State is not by-passed when it comes to executive action in the provision and the maintenance of these nature reserves in Scotland.
This is important because, as your Lordships will recognise, in Clause 21 of the Bill power can be given by the Nature Conservancy to the local authorities, the county councils or even the district councils to establish and maintain nature reserves. So we are dealing not only with the important body of the Nature Conservancy, but also with county councils and district councils. The Secretary of State

855
is the father of all local authorities in Scotland. That is unquestioned. They may chafe at his guidance but they all acknowledge his parenthood. It would be quite wrong if we envisaged a state of affairs in which the Secretary of State and his Departments were by-passed when it came to the creation and maintenance of these nature reserves. So I put down this Amendment to elicit from the noble Lord a statement which I hope will be reassuring. If the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, had been here—and I hope he will soon be back with us—he would on racial grounds have understood my anxieties, but I hope that, none the less, in his absence the noble Lord who will reply will be able to reassure me on this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, leave out from beginning of line 11 to end of line 12, and insert the said words. —(Lord Clydesmuir.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I was born sufficiently near to that Roman Wall which divides our two countries to appreciate his anxiety on this point. I will not repeat what I said on the previous stage, because he has referred to it and I do not think it is necessary for me to go over it again. In the interval I have made inquiries and I will tell your Lordships what the position is at the earlier stages. I hope that the noble Lord will think that what occurs at the earlier stages really affords a good safeguard to the interests for which he is concerned. In connection with the last Amendment, I pointed out that the Conservancy's own Charter provides that, with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, they shall appoint a Scottish Committee for the purpose of carrying out the Conservancy's work in Scotland. So there we have a completely separate Committee upon which, as I pointed out, there are three members of Parliament, one of whom is a member of your Lordships' House, and other members with the necessary scientific qualifications or interest in matters which are within the ambit of the Conservancy's work.
The Scottish Committee meet in Scotland. There are regular joint meetings between the main Conservancy and the Scottish Committee, so that the liaison is
856
maintained. There is a Scottish director of nature conservation who has his headquarters in Edinburgh. The Scottish Committee are generally responsible for carrying out the work of the Nature Conservancy in Scotland. In particular, they will be responsible for selecting areas which are to be made nature reserves. I understand that they are already at work on that question. The next point is important to the noble Lord: there is a close liaison between the Scottish Committee and the Secretary of State's Departments who are represented at all meetings of the Committee. I think your Lordships will agree there could hardly be a closer liaison than that. In particular, arrangements have been made for the Committee to consult the Secretary of State's Department both from the planning and from the agricultural standpoints on all proposals for the establishment of Scottish nature reserves. So that both the planning aspects and the agricultural aspects have been carefully considered and are covered.
Any compulsory purchases of land in Scotland for the purpose of establishing nature reserves have to be authorised by the Secretary of State for Scotland under Clauses 102 (1) and 113 (1) of this Bill; and bylaws made for the protection of Scottish nature reserves must also be confirmed by the Secretary of State under Clause 105. So your Lordships will agree that great care has been taken to see that the Scottish side of the matter is properly looked after and that the whole job of managing these nature reserves in Scotland is, as it should be, being entrusted to a Scottish body which is closely in touch with the Secretary of State's Department. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the assurances I have been able to give him are satisfactory.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that even if the noble Lord had been born on the other side of the Wall I do not think he could have given me a more reassuring statement. I think it is quite satisfactory. It brings out the point that I chiefly sought to elicit; that no land can be acquired without the Secretary of State's consent (as appears in the Bill) and that the bylaws will be subject to his confirmation, too; also that there is very nearly Home Rule for Scottish fauna—that is to say, the Scottish Committee,

857
presided over by the Director for Scotland, an eminent scientist whom the Committee have been very fortunate to secure, will be able to make their own recommendations in the light of the conditions prevailing in the country. I think that the Amendment has served its purpose by drawing out the statement which I wished to hear. I thank the noble Lord for it and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Provision of information by other local authorities]:
4.50 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to add to the clause:
"() Information supplied to the surveying authority by any body able to satisfy that authority that it can provide information useful for the purposes of the survey shall be considered by that authority in the preparation of the draft map."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the preparation of the survey of footpaths and the maps connected with that survey is going to be a lengthy, difficult and long-drawn out process involving much research in every corner of the country. I think it would be reasonable to insert in this Bill a provision that where voluntary societies or other bodies have information which may be of assistance to the local authorities, that information shall be considered by those local authorities. I admit at once that under the Bill it may be, but I think it would be reasonable to say that it shall be. My Lords, there may be some authorities which will be impatient of receiving such information which could be given by such organisations as the Ramblers' Association, the Society which has the duty of protecting public footpaths, or indeed, on the other side, of landowners' organisations, and I beg to move this Amendment which seems to me to be unobjectionable.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 21, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the purpose of the Amendment is certainly unobjectionable but, as usual, it is not considered necessary in the Bill, since authorities can already take into account any material that is supplied to them from outside sources. There is one further
858
consideration — namely, that every authority will be aware that if it refuses to accept and consider any bona fide information supplied by a voluntary organisation, it will merely be inviting objections and representations when a draft map has been prepared. My right honourable friend has considered the anxiety which he knows troubles Lord Merthyr on this question, and he has asked me to state here that he is prepared to give an undertaking that he will issue a circular or some administrative instruction to local authorities concerned, pointing out the value of information that voluntary organisations can supply, and advising the authorities to make use of this wherever possible. In view of that undertaking by the Minister, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said and for the assurance he has given. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29:
Representations and objections as to draft maps and statements
(4) Any person aggrieved
(a) by a determination of the surveying authority under subsection (2) of this section not to give effect to a representation or objection as to anything omitted from the draft map and statement (other than a limitation or condition to which a right of way is alleged to be subject), or
may, at any time within twenty-eight days after the service upon him of notice of the determination or decision, serve notice of appeal against that determination or decision on the Minister and on the surveying authority.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 26, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I accept "four" in place of "three."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"() At any time after the publication of a notice under the la it foregoing subsection

859
and before the expiration of the period specified in the notice for the making of representations and objections, the owner of any land to which the draft map and statement relate, or any other person interested in such land, may require the surveying authority to inform him what documents (if any) creating or modifying any of the rights of way shown on the draft map, being rights of way required to be shown thereon, were taken into account in preparing the draft map, so far as the said land is concerned, and—

(a) as respects any such documents in the possession of the surveying authority, to permit him to inspect them and take copies thereof,

(b) as respects any such documents not in their possession, to give him any information the authority have as to where the documents can be inspected;

and on any requirement being made under this subsection the surveying authority shall comply therewith within fourteen days of the making of the requirement:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as limiting the documentary or other evidence which may be adduced in any proceedings under this Part of this Act in support of the existence of a right of way."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment carries out the undertaking I gave to Lord Amherst in regard to Clause 27. I have a long brief here, but I do not think it is necessary to read it all because I am satisfied that the undertaking given is carried out. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 30, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.55 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (4) (a) after "anything" to insert "contained in or." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is really consequent upon what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald himself said when this clause was going through Committee. He moved a number of Amendments which he said would go a considerable way to meet the point which I was endeavouring to put forward, and he suggested that it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to accept his Amendments and, if we thought fit, put down a further Amendment on Report stage. The noble Lord was right in saying that the Amendments went some way to meet us, but they did not go the whole way, and we consider that the Amendment that we now put forward is still required.
A person can appeal to the Minister on anything that is contained in or omitted from these maps and that sort of thing, but has no right of appeal in a case where a statutory authority have decided upon a point. If the statutory authority decide to have a map in a certain form, there is then no right of appeal to the Minister. As an example of what we are getting at, there may be on the map, or in the particulars, a road described as a road "used as a public path." Transport interests may wish to challenge this description and to contend that the road is just as much a road for vehicles; and we suggest that if the surveying authority will not nullify the particulars in this respect, there should be an appeal to the Minister. It is said that an appeal to the Minister is unnecessary, because if a map is erroneous it does not matter. What we are anxious about is that, once a road becomes scheduled or appears on a map, if it is accepted, then the whole case may be prejudiced at a later stage under Clause 92, where the Minister may have to take action. Therefore we suggest that these additional words should be inserted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 25, after ("anything") insert ("contained in or").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I agree that the substantial Amendments which I moved to this clause do not give the noble Earl all he asked for. He has agreed, however, that they go some way to meet his request. He has made his trouble quite clear. What he is anxious about is that a road used as a public path may be included on the map, and that it may therefore in due course become subject to traffic restrictions under Clause 92. I would prefer to leave Clause 92 until we reach it; nevertheless, it is to some extent involved here. What I would say is this: if it should happen that an order were made by the local authority restricting traffic on such a highway as the noble Earl has in mind, then the provisions of Part II of the First Schedule would apply. That allows full scope for making objections to orders under Clause 92, and requires that where the highway authority object to the order a public inquiry shall be held. I should also like to add that the Minister of

861
Transport has undertaken to inform those organisations which he feels may be responsible for promoting this Amendment when such an order is submitted to him, so that there will be no case where they will not be in a position to object if they want to. In view of that if hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for the answer that he has given, and for the assurance which the Minister has conveyed. In the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Preparation of provisional maps and statements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 37, after ("under") insert ("paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Power of Minister to expedite preparation of maps and statements]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 18, after ("under") insert ("subsection (2) of").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 27, after ("objections") insert ("made under the said subsection (2)").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39:
Creation of rights of nay by agreement
(2) An agreement made under the last foregoing subsection (hereinafter referred to as a "public path agreement") shall be on such terms as to payment or otherwise as may be specified in the agreement, and may, if it is so agreed, provide for the dedication of the foot-
862
path or bridleway subject to limitations or conditions affecting the public right of way thereover.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGE VISCOUNT GAGE moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that before entering into a public path agreement the council with whom it is proposed to enter into such agreement shall serve a notice of such proposal upon any person having an interest in any fishery for the purpose of fishing for freshwater fish, salmon, trout or any kind of fish which migrate to and from tidal waters, and eels, in every case where the footpath or bridleway will be adjacent to or so near that the use thereof will be likely to cause injury to such fishery and shall give to such person an opportunity of making representations in regard thereto."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, a number of your Lordships have been fortunate enough to secure concessions between the last stage of the Bill and to-day, and I had hoped from something that the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said on Committee stage, that I should be fortunate to have a similar privilege in regard to this Amendment. I understand that some unexpected difficulties have arisen, and that the noble Lord cannot produce words to insert into the Bill. I understand, however, that he is prepared to give some assurances. Therefore, I move my Amendment formally in order to see what the assurances are. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Pace 35, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am sorry that we cannot accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. We have great sympathy with the object which the noble Viscount has in view. The difficulty is that it would not be possible to concede this point without conceding rights to all sorts of other people to receive similar notices. If that were done, it would become, as I am sure the noble Viscount will realise, quite impracticable to impose on the authority the burden of giving notice to all sorts of interests which might be sufficiently closely concerned to be entitled to have the notice. It may help the noble Lord to some extent if I tell him that my right honourable friend the Minister is willing to mention this point to local authorities concerned in any memorandum on the administration of Part IV which he may issue, so that, so

863
far as possible, they may be in a position to safeguard interests of the sort which the noble Viscount has in mind. I hope this will satisfy the noble Viscount, and that he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying what he has said, although I confess that I am a little disappointed at his reply. I cannot believe that any owner will feel that he has any real protection in going forward with agreements of the sort I had in mind unless he has the protection of a formal inquiry. The only effect of the Government's decision, I suggest, will be to make it less likely than before, or rather not likely at all, that any owner will be willing to enter into an agreement if there is a danger of some other owner with contingent interests proceeding against him at law. I have often wished that local authorities had some power to institute inquiries without having to go to so much preliminary trouble or taking compulsory steps. But perhaps that is a point that might be looked into on another occasion. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42:
Diversion of public paths
42.—(1) Where an owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by a public path satisfies the council of the county borough or county district in which the land is situated that, by reason of the effect of the public right of way on the existing use of the land or of other land held therewith, it is expedient that the line of the path across his land, or part of that line, should be diverted (whether on to other land of his or on to land of another owner, lessee or occupier), the council may by order (hereinafter referred to as a "diversion order") made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister—

(a) create, as from such date as may be specified in the order, any such new public right of way as appears to the council requisite for effecting the diversion, and

(b) extinguish, as from such date as may be so specified in accordance with the provisions of the next following subsection, the public right of way over so much of the path as appears to the council requisite as aforesaid.

LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment has been tabled to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on the Committee stage. The
864
clause as at present drafted enables the owner who wishes to have a footpath diverted to make representations only when it is expedient in the interests of the existing use of the land. The noble Lord suggested that it would be advisable to extend that in such a way as to enable the owner to make representations in a case where it would be useful to have a shorter or more commodious way than the old one. We concur in that view, and we have put down this Amendment in order to secure that it is put into effect. I am sure your Lordships will agree with it and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 29, leave out from ("that") to ("it") in line 31 and insert ("for securing the efficient use of the land or of other land held therewith or of providing a shorter or more commodious path").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, subject to one drafting point, I am completely satisfied. I am also grateful to the noble Lord for what has been done to meet me in this matter. The drafting point is this. In the third line of the Amendment, where it refers to "of providing," I do not see what governs the word "of." The wording does not seem to me to be grammatical, though I may be wrong. I suggest putting in the words, "with the object of providing" or "for the purpose of providing," or even "for providing." If the noble Lord would look at that word "of" I think he will see that it is rather in the air. However, this is purely a drafting point. Subject to that I am most grateful, and I do not think there is any need to hold up the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I should have thought that the drafting was all right, but we will look at it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 44:
Exercise of powers of making diversion and extinguishment orders
(5) Where it appears to the Minister as respects a particular public path that the path or part thereof should be diverted or stopped up, then if—

(a) the appropriate authority have not made and submitted to him a diversion order or an extinguishment order, as the case may be, and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that, if such an order were made and submitted to him, he

865
would have power to confirm the order in accordance with the provisions in that behalf of the two last foregoing sections,

the Minister, after consultation with the said authority, may direct the authority to make and submit to him a diversion order or an extinguishment order, as the case may be, or may himself make the order; and where the Minister gives a direction under this subsection the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, of that subsection and of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section, or the proviso to the last foregoing subsection, as the case may be, shall not apply.
5.6 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, during the discussion of this clause it was pointed out that the clause was perhaps rather wider than was needed, though I think that when one looks at it closely it is not so wide as some of your Lordships thought. It is just as well that its exact scope should be made clear; and it is quite narrow. We have put down this Amendment, which I hope will satisfy your Lordships. Its meaning is clear from its terms, and I need not say more about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 24, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 25 and insert ("an owner, lessee or occupier of land crossed by a public path satisfies the Minister that a diversion thereof is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1) of the last but one foregoing section, or where it appears to the Minister as respects a public path that it is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section that the path or part thereof should be").(Lord Chorley.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I was chiefly concerned in raising a point on this matter in our previous discussion as I thought the clause as originally drawn was far too wide. Looking at it again, after the remarks which the noble Lord has made, I still think that it is too wide, because it refers to the Minister doing something in regard to a particular path. However, we need not argue that for one moment this afternoon, because the Amendment which the noble Lord has put down in view of the criticisms on the drafting made in this House, makes it clear how far the Minister can go. That limitation I accept, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for putting down the Amendment. It certainly removes the ground for my criticism of the original very wide drafting.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I agree that the first pant of this Amendment is entirely satisfactory, but I have been a little worried about the second part. If I am right in saying that under the second part, which begins with the words "or where it appears to the Minister," the Minister can close a public path only
"on the grounds that the path is not needed for public use"
—I am quoting the words in Clause 43 (1)—then I regard it as satisfactory. It all depends on the views of the Minister. Sonic Ministers may see things from a different angle from others. May I have an assurance that this Amendment applies only to cases where the path is not needed for public use?
LORD CHORLEY: That is the view we take. It is almost impossible to do anything in this world which makes every person happy, but I am sure that this Amendment will make most of your Lordships happy.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47:
Liability for repair of public paths
47.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act, the rule of law whereby a highway is repairable by the inhabitants at large shall apply to all public paths, whether coming into existence before or after the commencement of this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment passed or made before the commencement of this Act; and accordingly the enactments relating to highways so repairable shall have effect in relation to all such public paths.
5.9 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1) after "Act," where that word last occurs, to insert:
"and notwithstanding any liability to repair of any other person."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a question of the liability to repair footpaths which as your Lordships will remember is left on the owners of the land in those cases where it already exists as a result of some Statute, agreement or whatever it may be. We had some discussions about this matter, as those of your Lordships who took part in the joint consultations will remember, and I think that as the result it became plain that the general view was that the obligation on the land owners there ought to be left. But, in order that it may be

867
made clear beyond peradventure that the duty of keeping footpaths in repair will fall primarily on the local authority we have put down these additional words. I think they make the position clear, and it will no longer be an excuse for any local authority who fail to effect the necessary repairs to say that it is already the duty of a landowner to do them. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 29, after ("Act") insert ("and notwithstanding any liability to repair of any other person").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, this Amendment and the next go together. I understand that the noble Lord is going to accept them, but I hope he will not say this is any sort of large concession on his part. I feel that I am picking up an exceedingly small crumb that has fallen from his table. In fact, I doubt whether he is giving me anything at all, but, provided it is treated as a mere token, I will accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 3, after ("enclosure") insert ("or").—(Lord Merthyr.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I gave the noble Lord a large piece of cake a moment ago. After all, it is his Amendment. It may be only a crumb, but it is what he is asking your Lordships to give him. I am glad to be able to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 3, leave out ("or otherwise"). —(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is one of the Amendments we withdrew during Committee stage in order that the whole question should be discussed. Discussions have taken place, and it has been agreed that the land owner should still be under the obligation for repairs. The Amendment enables a land owner who has a joint responsibility with other land owners in respect of repairs, and who
868
has had the whole of the cost put upon him by the local authority after they have carried out the work, to obtain contributions from the other land owners who are jointly responsible with him. I think your Lordships will agree that that is only equitable, and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 10, at end insert—
("and
(c) where the highway authority exercise a right of recovery under the last foregoing paragraph, then, if the said person would have been entitled to recover from some other person the whole or part of the expenses of repairing the path if he had repaired it himself, he shall be entitled to recover from that other person the whole or the like part, as the case may be, of the expenses recovered from him by the highway authority.")—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51:
General provisions as to long-distance routes
(3) A report under this section may also include such recommendations as the Commission may think fit for the restriction of traffic on existing highways along which the route passes.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to add to subsection (3):
"after consultation with such organisations as appear to the Commission to be representative of the road users to whom the proposed restrictions would apply."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when Clause 51 was going through Committee stage I moved an Amendment which said:
"Provided that before making any recommendation for restricting the use of highways by vehicles the Commission shall consult such associations representing users of vehicles as they may think fit."
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that that Amendment was too vaguely drafted, and we have attempted to meet that criticism in this Amendment. I am asking for nothing extraordinary. The principle of this Amendment has been conceded in the Milk (Special Designations) Act, 1949; in three different Schedules in the Agriculture Act, 1947; in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and in the National Health Service Act, 1946. I can give your Lordships the details but I do not want to weary the House nor take up time unnecessarily.

869
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us this concession, if it be a concession, for direct consultation, which I think facilitates general understanding. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 10, at end insert the said words. —(Earl Howe.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it is true that I pointed out to the noble Earl that his Amendment was vague, but I also assured him, and I thought he was going to be satisfied with the assurance, that the Minister would ask the Commission, when established, to consider the desirability of consulting with the main associations representing road users before making any recommendations in their Report for long-distance footpaths. Although the noble Earl's present Amendment is different from his earlier one, I do not think he would gain anything from it, because it only imposes an obligation to consult and I have already given him the assurance that the Minister will ask the National Parks Commission to do that. If the associations gain earlier knowledge as a result of these consultations they will have all the knowledge they require to protect the interests of their members. That is as much as they can satisfactorily have at this stage. When the local planning authorities come to carry out their proposals for long-distance routes, they have to submit these proposals to the Minister of Transport. I think I have already given an assurance on his behalf, but I repeat it now. He has promised to give these associations early notification of the submission of orders to him, so that they will be able, if they wish to do so, to lodge their objections. The noble Earl is aware that the provisions of the Second Schedule, Part II, will ensure that these representations will be considered and a public inquiry will be held. So that in fact the associations will have all the protection they need. In these circumstances, I am sure the noble Earl will agree that there is no need for him to press this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for the assurance he has given, which on the surface appears to me to be satisfactory, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52:
Approval of proposals relating to a long-distance route
52.—(1) On the submission to the Minister of a report under the last foregoing section, the Minister shall consider any proposals contained in the report wider subsection (2) of that section and may either approve the proposals, with or without modifications, or reject the proposals:
Provided that where the Minister does not propose to approve the proposals as set out in the report he shall, before coming to a determination as to what action to take under this subsection, consult with the Commission and such other authorities and persons as he may think fit.
5.18 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from and including "shall consider" to the beginning of the proviso and to insert:

"(a) shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as appears requisite to him for informing persons and bodies of persons concerned, notice of the submission of the report naming places where copies of the map prepared in accordance with subsection (2) of the last foregoing section may be inspected, and specifying the time (not being less than twenty-eight days) within which and the manner in which representations or objections with respect to the route shown an the map may be made; and

(b) shall consider any proposals contained in the report under the said subsection (2) and any representations or objections made in accordance with the last foregoing paragraph;

and the Minister may either approve the proposals, with or without modifications, or reject the proposals:"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when a similar Amendment was submitted during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, expressed a certain amount of sympathy far its object and asked for something more satisfactory. We have redrafted the Amendment and I hope that to some extent it meets his wishes. If this Amendment is not made, proposed long-distance routes will not be notified until after they have been approved by the Minister and have taken effect. We feel that this Amendment is required to safeguard the position. The Bill in its present form does not require an order approving, and confirming long-distance routes to be glade under Part I of the First Schedule; the Minister's determination under Clause 52 is to be sufficient for their purpose. Transport

871
interests would be content with the Minister's approval provided that the proposals of the Commission were published as provided for in the Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 30, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 33 and insert the said new words.—(Earl Howe.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this proposal is open to exactly the same objection as that which I made to the last Amendment. The noble Earl has not met the arguments I put before him when we discussed this matter in Committee. It is unwise that the proposals should become too rigid at this early stage. On the contrary, it is important that they should be kept as loose and flexible as possible, so that the details can be worked out. If the noble Earl's Amendment were accepted it would prejudice the interests of land owners, because in effect they would be met with what appeared to be a cut-and-dried proposal which would affect their land and which afterwards, as a result of further discussions, might be so modified that their land would not be affected in the same way at all. Therefore, their interests would be seriously prejudiced.
What the noble Earl is really concerned to do is to see that the organisations representing the road users get notice at an early stage that there are, in fact, proposals which may have the eventual effect of restricting traffic. It is not necessary that they should have detailed information at this stage. The fact that the Minister approves proposals for a long-distance route which include proposals for traffic restrictions will not prejudice them. I should like to make this quite clear. The Minister of Transport will come in at that stage, and he will consider the individual orders which are made by the local authorities and which, as I have already pointed out, have to be put up to him. As in the case of the last Amendment, I can assure the noble Earl that the Minister will suggest to the Commission that they should get into touch with the main motorist organisations in regard to all proposals which are made which may restrict traffic. It is unlikely that there will be more than a minute number of them, because the whole object of these
872
long-distance footpaths is to avoid routes on which motorists go. It will be only here and there that there is a stretch on which restriction of traffic may arise.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, with the permission of the House I would like to ask the noble Lord whether the motoring and transport organisations will be consulted before any decision is taken. What we fear is that the decision may be taken and the consultations will take place subsequently.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, that certainly is so. No final decision can be taken until it gets to the Minister of Transport. Even before that stage the motoring organisations will be consulted.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Accommodation meals and refreshments along long-distance routes]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is an Amendment which has been put down after consultation. We have already had some discussion about it. I do not think I need say anything further. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 13, at end insert:
("Provided that an authority shall not under this section provide accommodation, meals or refreshments except in so far as it appears to them that the facilities therefor are inadequate or unsatisfactory, either generally or as respects any description of accommodation, meals or refreshments, as the case may be."—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 56:
Rights of way subject to conditions for securing efficient use of agricultural land
(4) Where the owner, lessee or occupier of agricultural land, or land which is being brought into use for agriculture, represents to the highway authority that it is expedient, for securing the efficient use of the land for agriculture, that stiles, gates or other works for preventing the ingress or egress of animals should be erected on a public path crossing the land, the highway authority may, subject to such conditions as they may impose for maintenance and for enabling the right of way to he exercised without undue inconvenience to the public, authorise the erection of the stiles, gates or other works; and where the highway

873
authority give an authorisation under this subsection the public right of way shall be deemed to be subject to a condition that the stiles, gates or works may be erected and maintained in accordance with the authorisation and so long as the conditions attached thereto are complied with.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to meet a point which arose in a speech by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. He was afraid that the power conferred upon the authority to authorise the erection of gates and stiles arose only in cases where land was being brought into agriculture. I do not think that is so, if one looks at the clause, but it would be possible to argue that it did not exist in a case where the type of agriculture was being altered—for example, where a farmer had decided to build up an attested herd, and was altering the use of the land in that way. We wish it to be clear that that is a case which is covered, and we have put in these words to make it clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 28, leave out from ("that") to ("that") in line 29 and insert ("for securing that the use, or any particular use, of the land for agriculture shall be efficiently carried on, it is expedient").—(Lard Chorley.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this Amendment was put down in response to one which I submitted. It certainly meets my point, and I would like to thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to give effect to a promise made to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The Amendment provides that where a person has made an application to the highway authority for the erection of a stile or gate or other work for securing the efficient use of the land for agriculture under Clause 56, and the highway authority refuse the application, or grant it subject to conditions, there shall be the right of appeal to the Minister. We agree that there should be this right of appeal and have accordingly tabled this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 35, leave out from ("works") to ("the") in line 36 and insert—
("() If, on a representation duly made under the last foregoing subsection, the highway
874
authority refuse to grant an authorisation there-under, or grant such an authorisation subject to conditions, the person who made the representation may appeal to the Minister against the refusal or against the imposition of the conditions, as the case may be; and if the Minister, after giving to the appellant and to the highway authority an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose and considering the report of that person, determines to allow the appeal, he shall—

(a) if the appeal was against a refusal, authorise the erection of the stiles, gates or other works in question, subject to such conditions as he may impose for maintenance and for enabling the right of way to be exercised without undue inconvenience to the public;

(b) if the appeal was against the imposition of conditions, direct that the authorisation granted by the highway authority shall, as may be specified n the direction, have effect either unconditionally or subject to such modified conditions as may be so specified.

() Where in the care of a public path an authorisation is granted by the highway authority under subsection (4) of this section or by the Minister under the last foregoing subsection.").—(Lord Chorley.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this Amendment does not go quite as far as we had hoped, but it certainly goes some way towards meeting our point. I would like to thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Compensation to be assessed with regard to effect of first five years of access]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this Amendment is put down to try and meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, in moving an Amendment on the Committee stage. It tightens up the wording of the subsection, so that the powers of subsection (2) are limited to cases where the local authorities or the Ministers (where the subsection applies to Clause 77) consider that the proper exercise of their functions under this clause will be substantially prejudiced unless the excepted land of the classes specified is acquired along with the access land. I feel that this Amendment will allay the fears entertained by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 10, leave out ("three next following sections") and insert ("next following section").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment, which I feel is a great improvement on the original wording.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Acquisition by local authorities of land for public access]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 46, leave out ("expedient, for") and insert ("that").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a further consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 47, leave out (", that any") and insert ("will be substantially prejudiced unless").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 1, leave out ("should be") and insert ("is").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after Clause 83 to insert the following new clause:
"Protection for Agriculture and Forestry:
Duty of authorities as respects agriculture and forestry
In the exercise of their function under this Act it shall be the duty of the Commission, the Nature Conservancy and local authorities to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is inserted in place of the Amendment in which we deleted subsection (4) of Clause 5. It fulfils a wish of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and others, that forestry and agriculture should be brought in as much as possible. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 83, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, we accept this Amendment as a great improvement in the Bill. I would like to thank the noble Lord for meeting the House in the view that was universally expressed that the interests of agriculture and forestry had not been sufficiently safeguarded. In thanking the Government for accepting that view, perhaps we should also take a little credit to this House for asserting the importance of such a vital subject. I gladly accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Information services to be provided by Commission]:
5.30 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to subsection (1):
"and the said methods shall include the preparation and publication of a code of conduct for the guidance of persons visiting the countryside."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is put down in an attempt to meet the views which were put forward by many noble Lords on the Committee stage, that there should be a countryside code. During the course of that discussion I pointed out that one of the main duties of the National Parks Commission would be the duty of educating the people who are to use the national parks, and I indicated that they would in fact draw up a code of this kind. In reply to that, the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, pointed out that their duties under Clause 85 are limited to the national parks—which is true. It appeared in the course of the discussion that your Lordships were willing that the National Parks Commission should undertake this duty. It also appeared that the various suggestions which had been made about laying the countryside code before Parliament, and giving it some kind of presumptive effect in actions of law and matters of that sort, were not insisted upon. Therefore, we thought that if we specifically imposed upon the National Parks Commission the duty of preparing a code of conduct of this kind, not only in regard to the national park areas but over the whole of the countryside, it might well provide a compromise which your Lordships would be prepared to accept. Therefore, we have tabled this Amendment,

877
and I hope your Lordships will be ready to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 30, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Chorley.)
EARL, DE LA WARR: My Lords, I believe this is in response to an Amendment which I had down somewhere else in the Bill, and I think it meets the point I made. There is only one question which I would like to ask the noble Lord. The point has been raised with me by outside authorities, and refers to the words, "visiting the countryside." That rather implies a charge upon those coming from the towns, whereas we have to admit that sometimes the damage is caused by people resident in the countryside. It is purely a matter of drafting. The noble Lord may say that there is nothing in it, but, if there is, perhaps he would make some modification on Third Reading. There is one point of assurance I would like from the noble Lord, and that is that such bodies as the Central Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union and organisations representing the ramblers should be consulted in drawing up this code. I am quite sure the noble Lord can give me that assurance.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say one word? He is right when he says that I pointed out that Clause 85, as originally drawn, applied only to national parks. We wanted this code to cover access land and, indeed, people using footpaths across fields. For myself I think it is a good Amendment, and I rather like the words, "visiting the countryside," which in my view cover the points which were raised by your Lordships. If people have not lived in the countryside they may not realise the Importance of shutting gates, whereas the countryman should realise the importance of it. I am glad that this new duty is being placed on the Commission, and I am certain that they will consult the interests concerned. Having done so, they will, I am certain, produce a worth-while code, which I hope in due time will find its place in the curriculum of our schools.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am glad that noble Lords have been able to accept this proposal. We will certainly have the drafting point looked at, and
878
so far as the organisations representing the land owners and others are concerned, I can give the assurance that when the National Parks Commission is set up the need for consulting hem will be pointed out.
EARL DE LA WARR: Also farmers and ramblers?
LORD CHORLEY: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the last. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 31, leave out ("generality") and insert ("provisions").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.36 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after Clause 85 to insert the following new clause:
Registration orders and agreements in local Land Charges Register
".—(1) Forthwith after the making of

(a) an order designating an area as a National Park and an order varying the same under Part II of this Act,

(b) an agreement that land should be managed as a Nature Reserve under Part III of this Act,

(c) the making of a public path agreement under Part IV of this Act,

(d) the making of a public path order under Part IV of this Act,

(e) art access agreement under Part V of this Act.

(f) an access order under Part V of this Act,

and forthwith after the approval of proposals relating to a long-distance route under Part IV of this Act, such orders, agreements and proposals shall be registered in the manner provided under subsection (3) of this section in the register of local land charges by the proper officer of the council of each county borough or county district in which the land to which the order agreement or proposals relate to any part thereof is situated, or, if that land or any part thereof is situated in the administrative county of London, by the proper officer of the London County Council.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Minister or other authority forthwith after any order has been made to notify that fact to the proper officer of any council by whom the order is required to be registered as aforesaid and to furnish to him all information relating to the order requisite in that behalf.
(3) The power conferred by subsection (6) of section fifteen of the Land Charges Act, 1925, to make rules for giving effect to the

879
provisions of that section shall be exercisable for giving effect to the provisions of this section."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which was discussed at considerable length on Committee stage, and it would not be right for me to repeat the arguments which were raised on that occasion. The Amendment was withdrawn in order that the Government might have an opportunity of reconsidering the position they then adopted. No doubt it will be readily recognised that the points mentioned in the first part of the Amendment, from (a) to (f), have a considerable effect upon the value of land. Whilst there may be other arguments for the acceptance of this Amendment, I would put forward to the noble Lord only those which seem to me to be the most important. It would facilitate the operations between vendor and purchaser if these points were made subject to registration. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 85, insert the said new clause, —(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we did discuss this matter at considerable length on the Committee stage, and I agreed to have it looked at again. We have, in fact, looked at it again very carefully, and the upshot is that the arguments which I put before your Lordships on the Committee stage are regarded as being, conclusively against the proposal. I have here a rather long brief, and if your Lordships would like me to go into the arguments again, I would be glad to do so. In effect, it would be repeating what I said on the earlier occasion, but of course if one embarks upon a closely-knit technical argument of this kind, it is necessary to carry it right through. I am entirely in your Lordships' hands.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should be glad if the noble Lord would continue.
LORD CHORLEY: It appears that there are two questions which arise on this Amendment. First of all, the noble Earl asked me on the last stage which of the documents listed in subsection (1) of his clause would be registrable in the local land charges register without any change in the law. Here I am afraid that he must be satisfied with an answer of a rather negative character. He would
880
not expect me to be able to answer the question myself, and therefore I have taken legal advice. The noble Earl may not be surprised to learn that the lawyers are disagreed on these points. It appears that the answer turns on the wording of a paragraph in a Schedule to the Act of 1926, the meaning of which is not at all clear, and upon which judgment could be passed only by the High Court. The most I can tell the noble Earl is that no document made by the Minister or the Nature Conservancy would be registrable in the local land charges register, and that there is some doubt whether any of the other documents he lists would be registrable in that register.
On the other hand, it is clear that an agreement for managing land as a nature reserve, whether made by the Nature Conservancy or by a local authority, would be registrable in the land charges register, which I understand gives a purchaser of land the same protection as registration in the local land charges register. I think we shall all be in agreement in regretting that the state of the law should be so confused. I do not think I am giving, away any secrets when I tell your Lordships that a Committee, on which experts, both from inside and outside Government circles, are deliberating, are at the moment considering what changes ought to be made in the law relating to local land charges. Whatever they may recommend—and I am afraid I am not in a position either to tell your Lordships what their recommendations are likely to be, or to forecast a date on which their recommendations will appear —I think we all ought to be agreed that so general a question could not be dealt with satisfactorily in this Bill.
Now I should like to turn to the second point raised by the noble Earl's clause and to discuss that matter with him on its merits. I think we all have the same object in view—namely, to secure that a purchaser of land should be able to inform himself, before he has gone too far, whether there are any orders or agreements of the kind which we are discussing which might discourage him from purchasing the land he wants. The noble Earl suggests that the way to achieve this result is by registration of all the relevant documents in the local land charges register. The effect of his clause—and I have no doubt this was intended—is that

881
failure to register would not invalidate the order or agreement; so that the purchaser would not have the full measure of protection which normal registration of local land charge gives him. But this seems inevitable, for, after all, officers of local authorities are as human and as subject to error as the rest of us; and it could hardly be contended that it would be right that a national park order should be invalidated by reason of a slip on the part of the registration machinery. The noble Earl relies, therefore, as we do, on a duty which will be honestly and carefully carried out, and the only difference between us is one of machinery. As the Bill stands, there are provisions for securing that all these orders—and, what is more important, the maps relating to them —will be available for inspection at convenient places. If it would help noble Lords to have details of the provisions of the Bill I have them here, but I do not think I need give them in detail. It is proposed to secure by administrative arrangement that the places where the various orders and maps are to be kept shall coincide, so that they will be convenient for the purchaser and the purchaser's solicitor.
That is our scheme. The noble Earl may ask why it is better than, or even as good as, his scheme of registration in the local land charges register. The answer is this. We are dealing here with country land, where there are not easily identified boundaries such as one finds when dealing with houses in a town. It follows that the entry in the local land charges register, and still more in the official certificate of a search in that register, cannot be made sufficiently precise to give an intending purchaser the information he requires. When a purchaser finds that there is a public street works charge affecting named houses in a named street, he is easily able to see whether the charge affects his property or not. Similarly, when in the days before the 1947 Act the purchaser found in the register a notice of a resolution to prepare a town planning scheme affecting certain local authority areas, the entry was sufficiently informative because he knew in what local authority area his property lay. Here we are dealing with areas, or, in the case of public paths, with lines cutting across all existing boundaries. If we accepted the noble Earl's suggestion the most the
882
intending purchaser would find would be, for example, an entry telling him that there was a public path in the parishes of A, B, C and D. What he wants to know, of course, is whether the public path crosses his field or his neighbour's; and this he can do only by looking at a large-scale map of a kind for which there would not be any room on an official search certificate. These are the reasons which have led us, in no spirit of antagonism to the noble Earl's Amendment, but simply on the merits of the case, to prefer our scheme, the scheme of having these documents available all together at a point where they can be inspected, to the clause which he has put forward and which I am afraid we ought not to accept. I hope noble Lords will agree that ours is the wiser course, and that in these circumstances the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. But it seems that henceforth, unless something is done about it, this land charges register will be almost valueless. A number of very important things that an intending purchaser ought to be able to find in it he will not in fact find at all. This surely makes the register far less valuable than it would be if the Amendment were accepted. I believe that the practical difficulties which the noble Lord mentions could be overcome, though it is true that there is a difficulty about the large-scale maps. The information in the local land charges register ought to be useful to the intending purchaser and his solicitors, but these solicitors are not always local men who can conveniently call at a particular local authority's office. I would ask the Government, if they will not accept the Amendment here, at least to put before this Committee of experts these points that I have raised. They are points which ought to be dealt with. The noble Lord ought not to take the view that the arrangement he has mentioned is good enough for all time. I think he ought to inquire and see whether this information cannot in some way be incorporated so that the purchaser has only to consult one register to find the information he seeks. If the noble Lord can say that he will bring these matters to the notice

883
of this body I think that that would go far to meet the points being made from this side of the House.
LORD CHORLEY: I will certainly give that assurance.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, in view of the assurance which the noble Lord has just given, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 [Designation of areas of outstanding natural beauty]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 8, leave out from ("more") to ("notice") in line 9, and insert ("local newspapers circulating in the area of every such authority as aforesaid").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Application to areas of outstanding natural beauty of provisions relating to National Parks]:
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 1, leave out ("paragraph (d)") and insert ("paragraphs (d) and (e)").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 89 [Local authority byelaws]:
5.50 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1) to omit "may" and insert "shall." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think I can put this point briefly to your Lordships. If your Lordships will turn to Clause 89 of the Bill you will see that
"A local planning authority may … make byelaws."
We should like to see that made mandatory and change "may" to "shall." The point really lying behind the Amendment is this. Earlier in the Bill today the Government put down an Amendment in substitution for an Amendment inserted by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, last time, giving the National Parks Commission power to suggest model bylaws—I am only paraphrasing—to the local planning authorities. Although that Amendment is a good one, and goes a
884
long way to meet us, unfortunately that portion of the Bill, and indeed the National Parks Commission themselves, can concern themselves only with national parks. These model bylaws will have no application to access areas. We have, therefore, to come back to this portion of the Bill, Clause 89, which is concerned with the planning authority, in order that anything to do with bylaws shall be dealt with on a more effective basis than has hitherto been suggested. If the noble Lord feels that it is possible by any other means to meet the point that I have made, I am not in the least tied to this particular form of Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should think that the clause might be left as it stands. If a local planning authority find that events make it desirable that bylaws should be made, then the word "may" will give them all the power they need. They will certainly go ahead and make the bylaws. But if the word is "shall," then they will feel they have to do something, whether the need exists or not. If people are told to do something, they will scratch around for something to do. The word "may" gives the local planning authorities all the power they want. It is preferable to the word "shall." I hope the clause will be left as it is.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like you to accept the argument which my noble friend has just put before you. Although we have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Earl's intention in moving this Amendment, we think it goes too far and is too sweeping. I should like to remind your Lordships that the bylaws apply not only to access land but to land which an authority own. It may well be that they will own a hostel and surrounding land for the purposes of giving people accommodation for the night and that sort of thing, where it would be quite absurd that bylaws should apply. That is just one example where they would have to make bylaws if this Amendment were accepted. I feel that the Home Secretary's powers, to which the noble Earl has referred, which lie in the background and which were put into

885
the Bill in another place as a result of representations made by the land-owning interests and other interests of that kind, are sufficient. They enable the Home Secretary to make bylaws in cases where the local authority do not do so and where he thinks that they ought to have done so. I am prepared to give the noble Earl an assurance that my right honourable friend will, in fact, draw to the attention of the local planning authorities the need for looking closely at this question of bylaws in connection with the particular areas for which they are responsible. That will be brought closely to their attention and the desirability of enacting bylaws will be brought home to them. In the light of these considerations, I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, think the noble Lord has gone a long way to meet the point I have raised. Just to be quite clear, I gather that he is prepared to give an undertaking that the Minister will by official circular draw the attention of the local planning authorities to the bylaws that are to be drawn up by the National Parks Commission under Clause 6. If that is the undertaking, as I take it that it is, I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91 [Wardens]:
5.57 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"() For the enforcement of the provisions of any bye-laws or duties under this Act every warden shall be deemed to be a constable and to have all the same powers and privileges, and be subject to the same liabilities as a constable duly appointed has or is subject to, by virtue of the common law or any statute."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a point which we discussed at great length on Committee stage. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give me an assurance that will satisfy me. If I may, I will defer my speech till later. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall not be able fully to satisfy the noble Earl on this matter. As he said, we had considerable discussion
886
about this in Committee and, as a result of that, consultations took place. At those consultations we thought that perhaps we should be able to come to some compromise which would satisfy everybody; but I am afraid that that will not be possible. However, I hope that what I am going to say to the noble Earl may satisfy him. I would start by saying that the Government's view is that this problem is one which primarily must be dealt with by educating people, and, as we have already seen, that is an obligation which is placed fairly and squarely upon the National Parks Commission. There may, however, be cases in one or two areas which are particularly close to large towns, where the wardens are unable to keep order. There is no great reason to suppose that the passing of this Bill will lead to an enormous influx of people into the countryside; but it may be that there will be some sort of influx, and that the wardens will have a good deal on their hands.
The noble Earl suggests that that position could be dealt with by making the wardens special constables. There are various objections to that. In the first place, if they are made special constables they must have the full powers and privileges, which include pensions, and they have to be given the special training which is given to all special constables. In most of the areas this would be unnecessary; it would be a waste of time, and a waste of money. But if, in the one or two' areas where it is possible that difficulties may arise, the wardens find that they cannot cope with those difficulties, then they will be able to call in the police. If there is recurrent trouble in any particular area and there are not enough police in the neighbourhood to deal with it, then the chief constable for the area in question will no doubt be prepared to send in the necessary reinforcements to that district. Of course the fact that the police are rather below strength at the present time gives rise to difficulties in connection with this matter, but that problem is not to be got over by having special constables, because it may well be that a man who would make an admirable recruit for the police may be recruited into the noble Earl's special constabulary and the police would lose a full-time man in return for the noble Earl getting a special warden of the kind which he has envisaged.

887
If it does, in fact, appear that there is a real need for a fully qualified policeman to deal with these problems, then the demand must be faced and I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will be prepared to increase the quota of police in that district. I think the noble Earl was informed that the Home Secretary might be willing under his own powers to appoint the wardens as special constables in some particular districts, if hooliganism occurred, but on investigation it does not appear that he can do that. The police in the country are not under the charge of the Home Secretary. Special constables in the provinces are appointed in quite a different way, by the justices on the proposal of the chief constables, and I could not therefore give any undertaking of the kind which the noble Earl has in view. If hooliganism of a really serious character is found to prevail in one or other of these areas, then it will have to be dealt with in the ordinary way by the ordinary police who, if necessary, will have to be augmented for the purpose. I hope the noble Earl will agree that that is the only really satisfactory way of handling the problem.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should have thought that perhaps that was not so, and that in many cases the person selected to be a warden would be just the kind of person whom a chief constable would wish to make a special constable. I should have thought that where hooliganism was taking place generally, if the local planning authority or the authority in charge applied to the chief constable for the area he might well give consideration to making one or more of these wardens special constables, with the increased power that would be given to them. That is a course which does not seem to have been envisaged by the noble Lord. It would be open not to the Home Secretary but to the chief constable to appoint; but, of course, the Home Secretary, in the communications he has with chief constables, might well indicate that in appropriate cases it might be thought wise to make some move of that sort. Some such compromise arrangement might be exactly the kind of arrangement that would fit the case put forward from this side of the House.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, there is one simple point which has to be borne
888
in mind here. A special constable is a special constable only when he is posted to do a duty. It is necessary, therefore, every time a special constable goes out, that he shall be posted by a regular police officer or by an officer of the special constabulary delegated for this purpose to do a specific duty. The situation is an easy one for any chief constable to deal with. If there is hooliganism, then if he desires he can make a warden a special constable, and that warden can be instructed to report on duty at a certain time. Normally, that will operate smoothly. If there is no trouble, then there is no need to make a man a special constable. But there is one thing on which I entirely agree with the Government. If these men are to be made special constables they must receive a proper training, so that they know what their power is, and how to use it. I think it is an easy thing, without making it compulsory, to make these men special constables. It is just a case of the chief constable having the power should he wish to use it.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government will resist this Amendment. I do not anticipate that these national parks are going to become the scene of brawls and hooliganism. I think that life will proceed quietly, pleasantly and harmoniously there, and that the public are far more likely to respond to the wardens if their duties are, in fact, confined to subsection (2), paragraph (b)—namely, to advise and assist the public on any matter for which bylaws can be made under that clause. The people who visit these national parks will be far more likely to submit to advice and guidance from these wardens than if they think they are constables; and they are more likely to try to dodge these bylaws if they feel that there are constables in the national parks to enforce them. We have lately heard a good deal about snoopers. I do not wish to see the system of snoopers extended to our national parks, and for that reason I am glad to hear that the Government will resist this Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord thinks that those possessing the power of a constable are snoopers. We have always regarded snoopers as being a very different type of person. This is a serious matter. Of

889
course, we do not anticipate general hooliganism. But while the noble Lord may not anticipate any form of trouble, that means that he is completely out of touch with what has been happening for some time to men trying to drag out a living for themselves and a certain amount of food for this country, in, for instance, the Peak district. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that there have been repeated cases of hooliganism at which the ramblers, no less than the farmers, have expressed the greatest indignation. Under this Bill (with which, in the main, they are in agreement), these men trying to farm this land have practically no provision for compensation for any damage that is done. I think the least we can do is to ask for some form of protection where there is this hooliganism. A great deal depends upon the word "where" and possibly upon the word "when." I am prepared to admit that in the drafting of my Amendment I have perhaps asked for more than is necessary. It suggests that in every case the wardens should be armed with the powers of a special constable, but nobody would seriously feel that that was necessary. What I had hoped the noble Lord was going to say, however, was that, while he could not agree with my Amendment asking for this general appointment of wardens as special constables, he would agree with something on the lines of the suggestion already made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin—namely, that in certain circumstances, in appointing the wardens, the planning authorities should feel that they can approach the chief constable (originally it was thought to be the Home Secretary, but the noble Lord is right in saying that it is the chief constable) with a view to having special powers given to their wardens, if not permanently then at any rate temporarily, for dealing with any particular outbreaks.
Further, I had hoped that the noble Lord was going to say that the Minister, in the instructions which undoubtedly he will have sent round to the different planning authorities, would inform them that it was within their power to make this approach to the chief constable. I had hoped also to hear that the Home Secretary might be prepared to give some indication to chief constables that this was a matter which in certain circumstances they might feel it within their
890
province to undertake. If the noble Lord would give me that undertaking, I should feel not only that he had made a concession to the point of view which I have been trying to put forward but that, in fact, he was making a proposal that was bettor than the Amendment which stands in my name; and I would most gladly withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Earl an assurance that the Minister will issue a circular on the point; I have no authority to do that. But I think the suggestion which was made by Lord Llewellin may well afford a way out of the difficulty. I can assure the noble Earl that I will bring that suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend, and no doubt he will be able to take such action on lines of that sort as may appear to him proper.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment at this stage, but I retain full liberty to bring this matter forward again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 92:
Restriction of traffic on certain roads
92.—(1) Where it appears to the council of a county or county borough, as respects a road in their area, being a road in a National Park or in an area of outstanding natural beauty or a road forming part of a longdistance route, that it is expedient that the use of the road by traffic of any particular description should be restricted on the grounds—

(a) in the case of a road in a National Park or area of outstanding natural beauty, that the use of the road by traffic of that description would detract from the natural beauty of the Park or area or from the enjoyment thereof by the community as a whole, and

(b) in the case of a road forming part of a long-distance route, that the use of the road by such traffic would prejudice the use thereof by persons journeying on foot or on horseback,

the following provisions of this section shall have effect.
6.11 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (1) after the first "road," to insert "other than a trunk road or a Class I road." The noble Earl said: My Lords, the interests for which I speak attach more

891
importance to this Amendment than to any other which we have on the Marshalled List. I moved a similar Amendment during the Committee stage and the noble Lord opposite resisted it. However, we pressed him, and the result was that, towards the end of the discussion, he said that he would consider the possibility of meeting me with regard to trunk roads. His remarks are reported in Column 625 (Vol. 165) of Hansard. As I said during the Committee stage, the position is that 843 miles of trunk roads or Class I roads fall within the ambit of the national parks. In the case of trunk roads, provision as to 100 per cent. of their cost is made out of the Road Fund, and in the case of Class I roads provision as to 75 per cent. of their cost is made out of that fund. The Minister said, in effect: "Oh, well, it does not matter having the trunk and Class I roads in this Bill, because the powers provided will never be used." My answer to that is, "Why, then, have the power in the Bill?" Then it is said: "The Minister must have power to restrict." The Hobhouse Report is generally considered as being the basis of the whole of this Bill, and Paragraph 167 of that Report reads as follows:
"We recommend, however, that a further power should be included in national parks legislation, to be held in reserve for use in cases of special necessity, to prohibit the entry of charabancs and motor coaches into national parks…"
and this is the important proviso
"other than on main through-routes…"
So if you put powers in the Bill to restrict traffic on the through roads—Class I and trunk roads—you are going further than the Hobhouse Committee recommended.
If the Minister wants to restrict traffic he can restrict it under Section 46 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. He can restrict any form of motor traffic if it is likely to prove dangerous or undesirable. That means there is already power to restrict traffic. Why should it be desired to bring in further powers now, to use this Bill as a sort of vehicle for introducing extra legislation on the point? We who speak for the transport interests urge the Government most strongly to drop trunk roads and Class I roads out of the Bill. Consider what will happen if you restrict trunk road traffic. The traffic as a rule has to go by the shortest route from
892
point to point. If you say there will be an alternative, that means that the road will be longer, and that in turn involves further expense for road transport of every kind. It means greater expenditure on petrol and other things. Even now, at the eleventh hour, I beg the Minister seriously to consider the points I have raised. I hope he will remember what the Hobhouse Report said to the effect that restriction of traffic of this character should not be imposed in respect of main thoroughfares. I do not see any reason for going further than the Hobhouse Report. I know the Minister has an Amendment down following mine, but it does not altogether cover the point; indeed it does not cover my point at all. I suggest that there is ample power under the Road Traffic Act to restrict traffic, and that to provide power in this Bill to impose further restrictions on through traffic is on every ground undesirable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 9, after the first ("road") insert ("other than a trunk road or a Class 1 road").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is right in what he has said about the discussion of this matter on a previous occasion. I then saw a situation in which I felt that, at all costs, I must avoid a Division. The noble Earl, I am pleased to say, also saw that situation. For that reason, I said that if he would confine his Amendment to first-class roads, there might be a possibility of coming to an understanding. He did not accept that suggestion, but decided to withdraw his Amendment in order to avoid any difficulty on that occasion. This suggestion has been looked into very thoroughly, and what is felt about it is this. Possibly on some occasion in the unknown future a situation may arise in which it will be advisable for the Minister to have this power. I do not think that the noble Earl will deny that there is such a possibility. I think we have gone a long way towards meeting him. He has referred to the Amendment which stands in my name. I suggest that in that Amendment we make a substantial concession to the noble Earl. I do not know what advice he has received concerning the next Amendment, but I am advised that it goes almost the whole

893
way to meet him. It is realised that in these days restriction of traffic, unless it is unavoidable, is undesirable. The Amendment which follows, as I have said, goes as far as the Government consider they can go to meet the noble Earl. It is felt that circumstances may develop in which it will be necessary to redirect traffic, and we consider that the Minister can be trusted to see to it that traffic is sent by an alternative route which will not make matters so difficult as the noble Earl seems to fear. I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment. Should he do so and should it be carried, then I can tell him that it is most unlikely that the Minister will accept it in another place. I am sure that the noble Earl will get far more by withdrawing his Amendment and accepting mine than he will by pressing his Amendment now.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has been extremely reasonable over this Amendment, and I should like to suggest to him a possible compromise which he might be prepared to accept. From what he said during the Committee stage, we felt that he was going to cut out trunk roads altogether from the Bill. He has not gone so far as that, but he has tabled a new Amendment which provides that, subject to certain special conditions, the Minister will not make any order restricting traffic on trunk roads. I put it to the noble Lord that he could possibly add the words "or Class I road" to his Amendment on Clause 93.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I am prepared to accept the words "or Class I road" in my next Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, having regard to what the noble Lord has just said in reply to my noble friend Lord Gifford, I think we can accept that, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 93 [Supplementary provisions as to orders under s. 92]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR had given Notice to move, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing section, the Minister of Transport shall not confirm or make an order restricting the use by traffic of any description of a
894
trunk road unless he is satisfied that, having regard to any alternative routes available and to all other circumstances, the imposition of the restriction will not interfere with the reasonable requirements of traffic of the description in question."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the Committee will allow me to include here and now in my Amendment after "road," in line 5, the words "or a Class I road," I beg to move the Amendment in that form.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 47, at end insert:
("() Notwithstanding anything in the last foregoing section, the Minister of Transport shall not confirm or make an order restricting the use by traffic of any description of a trunk road or a Class I road unless he is satisfied that, having regard to any alternative routes available and to all other circumstances, the imposition of the restriction will not interfere with the reasonable requirements of traffic of the description in question.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Crown land]:
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 82, line 3, after ("Part") insert ("IV or").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, this is perhaps my only opportunity of doing something I should like to do, and that is to thank the two noble Lords who have been in charge of this Bill for the considerable extent to which they have met the views of noble Lords on this side of the House and, indeed, in all parts of the House. We appreciate that deeply. We had a little misunderstanding, but that often happens. We appreciate the way in which the noble Lords have handled this Bill and the way in which the Minister, in all our discussions, has gone such a long way to meet our views.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for hip kind words. This is the second measure which I have seen through in my short time in your Lordships' House, and I should like to say that your Lordships have been the means of improving the Bill. I thank noble Lords very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT JOWITT: My Lords, the Air Corporations Bill is another consolidation measure. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PROFITS TAX BILL
6.24 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Profits Tax Bill. This Bill has a simple purpose: it is to raise the rate of profits tax on distributed profits from 25 to 30 per cent. I shall be very ready to try to reply to any points raised by the distinguished speakers who are to follow me, but in my opening remarks, which will be fairly but not unduly brief, I shall stick with some severity to the Bill itself. The Bill raises the rate of tax on distributed profits from 25 to 30 per cent. It leaves the rate on undistributed profits at 10 per cent. Therefore, it does not fall on any money set aside by companies towards reserves. The change will come into force as from the end of September last, and the increase in tax will yield £24,000,000 gross in a full year—that is, £13,000,000 net revenue after consequent loss of income tax. The provisions which give effect to this proposal are somewhat complicated but I think they are not a matter of controversy, and I will pass on to the principles and justification behind the Bill.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer first made this proposal in another place, he said that the consequence of devaluation would be two-fold: first, a higher return in sterling for hard currency exports, and secondly, a small increase in the internal price level of the country. The lower income groups would, on the whole, by reason of the higher internal prices, make a greater sacrifice propor-
896
tionately than the rest of the community. To give one example, the increase in the price of bread falls more heavily on the poor than on the rich, as we know well. By contrast, the profit-earning section of the community, again broadly speaking, would tend to benefit from both the consequences of devaluation. When I talk of the "profit-earning section," may I hasten to say that, as a somewhat passive member of that fraternity, I do not allude to them in any pejorative way. I am simply talking hard economics and not passing any kind of moral judgment—I certainly would not do any such thing. Broadly speaking, it is true that the profit-earning section would benefit from devaluation.
Moreover, the cuts which were recently discussed in your Lordships' House and judged inadequate by a certain vehement spokesman also tend to bear more heavily on the poor than on the rich. In order to anticipate dialectical argument, I would agree that the profit earner in this sense is in some cases not a rich man, but the broad argument I have presented holds good. Therefore, in the words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this Bill is a measure of rough justice. I would submit that any broad fiscal measure of this kind cannot be selective, and, whether we like it or not, tends to be rough justice. In the opinion of the Government, the Bill makes a modest but essential contribution to the fight against inflation. That is why the Government consider this measure both necessary and just. In addition, the Bill has the advantage of widening the gap between the rates of tax on distributed and undistributed profits, thereby increasing the incentive of companies to put their profits to reserve.
I should now like to come to the objections. It may be late when I rise to reply and, therefore, I will attempt at this stage to deal with some of the broader issues which may be raised by subsequent speakers, although, of course, I hope to be able to add a few words at the end. I have mentioned one kind of incentive. And let me dwell on the word "incentive" for more than a moment or two. Whenever any extra taxation of this nature is imposed, the cry is raised in certain quarters, with complete sincerity, that in some sense taxation of this kind reduces the natural incentive on the part

897
of entrepreneurs (as we used to call them; I do not know whether the word is so much employed to-day) to earn maximum profits and produce everything within their power. In our present economic situation, incentives are surely required not only for the comparatively small number of dividend receivers but also for the very much larger number of those whose sole or main income is derived from wages or small salaries—a point not always made, and one which perhaps I sometimes fail to make myself in our discussions here. But from the point of view of general incentive to increased work throughout the community, I submit strongly that any policy which appeared to be palpably unjust and to favour the profit receivers against the rest would diminish the total incentive throughout the nation. This danger was foreseen in another place by the honourable Baronet, Sir Ralph Glyn, a highly respected member of the Opposition, who agreed to the necessity in present circumstances of showing the working people of the country that investors, too, are making their sacrifice—I believe I am representing correctly what Sir Ralph Glyn said.
In bringing forward this measure the Government face clearly and resolutely the fact that, to maintain fairness to all, sacrifices are necessary all round. At the risk of headlining a single sentence in my own speech, may I say that that is the keynote of what I want to lay before the House this afternoon? The Bill attempts to distribute those sacrifices in a manner that I believe is broadly recognised as just. The measure does not stand alone, of course, but rounds off or complements the cuts which we have already discussed. It helps, therefore, to defeat inflation, as I suggested just now, and to promote confidence in the value of our money; and that itself, of course, is an all-important incentive. The Bill is also indispensable in creating the atmosphere to elicit great national efforts. We are all agreed that great national efforts are vital if we are to pull through, and that those efforts must be made for rewards which, in the short run, must be lower on the average than previously if our standard of life is to be recovered and improved on in the end. So much for what we sometimes overlook—namely, the incentive to the nation as a whole.
898
But even if we confine ourselves to the profit-receiving class (again, I do not use the term in any tone of condemnation, or anything of the kind) I cannot for a moment agree that incentive will be reduced. The increase in total tax—that is, income tax and profits tax together—as the honourable Member for Blackley, Mr. Diamond, an expert accountant, said in another place, will work out, when allowance is made for the consequential reduced burden of income tax, at only an extra 2¾ per cent. —that is, 7d. in the £ on distributed profits. That is the extra burden we are placing on the profit earner. In another place, I understand, a member of the Opposition went so far as to describe this Bill as footling, in the sense that it produced only £13,000,000 additional revenue. I do not agree with that use of words, but I do agree that the increase in tax is so small that it represents an insignificant addition to the burden already carried by the profit earner, an increase which can by no stretch of imagination be described as one which will materially reduce incentive.
But let us come closer to this question of incentive and the influence on incentive of profits tax, without arguing the precise impact of the Bill. Let us look at the actual situation in industry since the time when the profits tax in its present form was imposed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The first point to observe is surely that total production, however measured, has risen substantially. I will not to-night embark on an argument with the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, as to whether it has risen by 35, 30 or 25 per cent.; but I hope the noble Lord will not arrest me in my flight if I assert that production has increased substantially since that time. That, surely, is self-evident, apart from statistical information, if we observe that the nation's industrial capacity has been fully deployed over the last two years. Surely that disposes of the argument that the profits tax in a general way has acted to restrict industrial production.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Is the argument that it has encouraged it?
LORD PAKENHAM: I am sure the noble and learned Viscount would not

899
wish to "guy" my argument. Therefore, I cannot quite see the meaning of his intervention. Of course, I was not saying that it had encouraged production. What I did say was that it did not discourage production, if we believe the evidence before our eyes. I am sure the noble Viscount does not wish to parody my remarks, because he is the most fair of reasoners.
I come now to the second point which I think is worth observing, and which is familiar to all—namely, that our export trade has achieved levels half as high again as those ruling before the war, a time when profits tax was only 5 per cent. and, indeed, when the rate of income tax was not much more than half what it is now. The profits tax does not seem to have retarded the general level of the export trade. Thirdly, if we look at the question of incentive in relation to industrial expansion it is worth observing that not only is industry at the present time drawing on all available supplies of labour and materials, but at this moment there are more business men—I understand considerably more—who are seeking to obtain licences from the Board of Trade for building factories than there are resources which would enable the Board of Trade to issue the building licences required. So, if we judge by the experience of the Board of Trade, who are having to stop business men from building factories because the resources are simply not there, it is surely untrue to argue, as has often been argued most sincerely in this House, that there is a shortage of risk-bearing capital. If that is so, how is it that all these business men are so anxious to launch out? That is a point which those who wish to follow me and who are going to talk about the shortage of risk-bearing capital must find some way to answer. As I have said, expansion is going ahead as fast as is physically possible in this country, and it is a striking contrast to those times between the wars when the country left lying idle and wasting, indeed rotting, not only industrial capacity, but the skill and energy of some of the most valuable men in our country. That is surely a point against the fact that incentives are less than they were during the period between the wars, as is suggested by some noble Lords.
900
Let us come a little closer still to the argument that is sometimes presented. We are told, and rightly so, both by noble Lords opposite and by others, that everything must be done to give an incentive to those who are anxious and able to contribute to our exports to dollar markets. I agree that we must encourage them in every way. Devaluation gives them a sharp stimulus and a marked incentive. The increase in tax will in no way decrease the greater profitability that devaluation brings to exports to the dollar area, in contrast to our exports in other areas, since this profits tax will fall equally upon all profits, wherever earned. The large differential, if I may use that word, in favour of dollar exports brought about by devaluation will still remain, and there is nothing in this measure which will detract from the advantages provided by that differential. I am not now arguing that this brings a new advantage; I say that it does not in any way detract from the advantage given by devaluation.
Of course, it could be argued (I would not regard it as a fantastic argument; I do not know whether we shall hear it today) that the increase in the tax, if permitted at all, should not apply to profits resulting from the sales to hard-currency areas. I am bound to say that there are some people who would argue that those are the only profits which might reasonably be expected to bear the tax, because the exporters to those areas are the people who will get the chief benefit. But the more common criticism from opponents appears to be that this tax, if we are to accept it, should apply only to the non-dollar exports. I do not regard that as an absurd contention, but I am rather doubtful whether noble Lords will press it this afternoon. I would suggest myself that, quite apart from the obvious administrative difficulties—they are considerable—involved in the segregation of such profits from exports to those particular areas, it would be entirely inequitable and against the whole moral sense of most of us if additional profits arising from devaluation should go completely unscathed: if the substantial profits which the dollar exporters would get as a result of devaluation should go forward without bearing this burden. I think it would be very hard to stand here and argue that the dollar exporters—the people who are getting the substantial benefit of devaluation

901
—should be the only people to bear this or any other kind of impost. Therefore, as between those who think that the dollar exporters should be the only people to bear the tax, and those who think they are the only people who should not bear the tax, we take a middle position and say they should undergo the same treatment as other exporters and producers.
I come to a second line of criticism, the first being the kind of criticism which is stimulated by the word "incentive." The second broad heading may be summed up in the word "reserves." It has been strongly argued in another place that the increase in the rate of tax would effectively fall on moneys placed to reserve, and would in consequence diminish funds available for re-equipment and modernisation of industry. Is that seriously maintained? Moneys placed to reserve should be, and generally are, a first charge on disposable profits. It is the dividend which comes last. The noble Lord may interrupt me, but I have always wished for the opportunity of investing money in any company led by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. But if the dividend is to come first, I am a little more nervous. Luckily, I have nothing to spare. However, it is my understanding that the dividend comes last, and a good company director will never increase his dividend if it means that the moneys placed to reserve are inadequate. It is therefore surely fallacious to suggest that a higher rate of tax on distributed profits will adversely affect moneys placed to reserve. On the contrary, its result would normally mean that if the moneys placed to reserve would otherwise be inadequate, it would be necessary, to the extent of the increase in tax, to reduce the dividend from what might otherwise have been paid. The conclusion is, therefore, that the profits tax is effectively a tax on dividends. It certainly should be if the entrepreneurs and the people who run our great businesses play their part as we wish. The profits tax is, and should be, a tax on dividends and not on moneys placed to reserve.
However, even if there were something in this objection—and I cannot accept that there is, if we are all to play our part—the actual effect of this particular tax would be insignificant in relation to the sums currently placed to reserves, which are, even in real terms, larger than they were pre-war. The sums currently
902
placed to reserves after paying the tax and after making allowance for the rise in prices are larger than pre-war. I would just remind the House that so far as the question of replacement of plant and machinery is concerned, the very substantial concession made to industry this year of increasing the initial depreciation allowance from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. ought not to be forgotten. I feel that that particular concession, which I think has been widely welcomed here as elsewhere, is sufficient to answer those who maintain that the Government is unaware of the need for industry to provide out of its own resources for replacement of plant and machinery.
Finally, to take what I would call the third broad heading of objections, the point is made (not specifically in relation to the increase to tax, but in relation to tax on profits generally) that the taxation of profits is a factor in the production cost and, therefore, makes it harder for us to export. I will not attempt to bore your Lordships this afternoon with an academic argument designed to show that in normal circumstances profits tax is not a factor in production costs. I would recall to your Lordships' attention only what was quoted with considerable effect elsewhere—namely, the unanimous findings of the Colwyn Committee of 1927. Your Lordships will remember that the Colwyn Committee concluded that the broad argument that income tax—then the only tax on profits—is not a factor in production costs
"is true over practically the whole field and for practically the whole of the time."
The Colwyn Committee concluded, therefore, that income tax is not a factor in the cost of production. I do not wish to add to that testimony, but I am quite ready to supplement it if your Lordships wish to dispute the findings of that most eminent body.
In conclusion, having studied with the House some of the objections which have been advanced against this measure and having touched upon the main arguments in its favour, on behalf of the Government I am asking the House to accept this measure as a contribution to be made by the profit-earning section of the community to the sacrifices called for from the nation as a whole. I cannot help mentioning what I think is accepted

903
here and elsewhere, that the T.U.C., on behalf of the millions they represent, are shouldering with fine courage their share of the sacrifices, and I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite would wish to be behind the T.U.C. in this respect. We on these Benches agree cordially with the right honourable gentleman, Mr. R. A. Butler, who in another place, while opposing the Bill, made it clear that in the view of the Opposition the sacrifices required as a result of devaluation should be shared by everyone in the community. I know well that differences of opinion can arise in connection with various points of economic reasoning thrown up by this Bill, which I have touched upon no doubt too briefly but in an attempt to suit the convenience of the House. I am not asking noble Lords, therefore, in any way to abandon their economic principles or economic lines of thought. But I would ask your Lordships—and in particular those who are to follow me—to consider the Bill in the spirit I have stressed and in the context which I have mentioned.
The more one considers the purposes of the Bill, the more certain one becomes that this measure, rough justice though it admittedly is and, indeed, must be, is the only effective way of promoting that equality of sacrifice which we all agree is right, proper and indispensable if every one of us is going to make his full contribution at this time. I know well that at this moment we are all equally determined that we shall make our full contribution, and therefore I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, realising that it casts new burdens on some, but recalling also that burdens are inevitably falling on all—which is not, perhaps, unnatural at a time when the fortunes of all of us and our families, whether our incomes come from dividends, salaries or wages, are equally at stake, as is the whole future of our country. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Pakenham.)
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, this is a Money Bill, certified as such by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Therefore, it is not necessary for the
904
noble Lord who has just spoken to persuade the House or to get a majority in favour of the measure. It becomes law because the House of Commons has adopted it; and we in this House certainly would never obstruct its passing. But it is right, I think, that we should spend a few minutes, even at this late hour, in considering the measure and the way in which it has been expounded—very charmingly and, if I may say so, brilliantly. But I think I should like to examine a little more closely one or two of the observations made.
I am sure I may say, not only on my, own behalf but on behalf of every noble Lord present, that I can confirm with all seriousness the proposition with which the noble Lord began his speech and to which he returned at the end of it. It is and ought to be accepted by everyone. Undoubtedly, when there is a burden to be borne, it should be shared by the citizens of this country in proper proportion; if there is a sacrifice to be made, nobody wants the sacrifice to fall upon one section of the community while another section escapes. Speaking as I am, with complete sincerity, I think we might proceed on that basis. It is possible to have different views as to what is the way to achieve the desired object. But that does not mean that there is unwillingness on the part of any decent, respectable citizen to take a share and to bear his proper responsibility.
There are two particular arguments put forward, one of which is in the realm of economics and the other is psychological. I do not think I approach this particular tax with any prejudice, but I am afraid I have formed the view that, regarded as a financial measure, on its merits, it is a bad and unjustified tax. If I am asked what is the explanation of it—and, it may be, in the minds of many people the excuse for it—I answer that the real explanation and excuse are psychological; and I am far from excluding, that as being altogether irrelevant in the world in which we are now living. All attempts to produce solid economic arguments in its favour are covering up its real purpose. That purpose is to try to demonstrate that the appeal that devaluation should not be followed by wage increases is an appeal which should be accepted because other people besides wage earners are going to suffer, too. That is the truth of

905
the matter; I am far from saying that you can get rid of it as being an irrelevant consideration. I try to face facts and look them in the face, and I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made this proposal in order to make more persuasive the appeal that devaluation should not be followed by wage increases.
Let us then note this in passing. The pretence (for it is nothing more than a pretence) which was current eight or nine weeks ago that writing down the pound would not have in many directions an adverse effect on some prices at home, and on the position of many people, is no longer one that will serve. Of course there is a real advantage to be obtained for the time being if the best use is made of the opportunity—if we have to accept the ignominious position of writing down the pound. But we have to bear in mind that it also has what I have called in this House recently a boomerang effect. It is bound to have the effect of making life on a small income more difficult than before for people who have limited resources. That must be so; and I wish very much that it had been said a little more clearly and frankly in the first instance. Whatever opportunities and advantages devaluation of the pound may give—and Heaven knows we all want them to be seized as fully as possible—the advantages would be neutralised if they led to a substantial increase in wages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sees that perfectly well; and of course, it is in that connection that he has thought it necessary, for what I have called a psychological reason, to say in effect: "While I am urging you not to make any claim for an increase in wages because of the rise in the cost of living, I am hitting the profit-receiving section of the community, too."
Let me here interpose my warm agreement with what was said by the noble Lord opposite when he acknowledged the strenuous and statesmanlike efforts that are being made by the Trades Union Congress General Council to restrain additional wage claims. They have a most difficult task, and everybody who tries to look at the situation broadly must feel a great respect for the efforts they have made. There are some important trades—the iron and steel trade is a notable example—who have themselves made the most admirable approach to the problem.
906
I believe that with the consent of the whole trade they have agreed not to make a claim of this sort. My real complaint is that what has been done is characteristic of the Government attitude. They profess to regard the adverse consequences of devaluation in a sectional way, as if they fell only on the wage earner. That is not true. I cannot help thinking it would be a great ad vantage if the contrary were more boldly stated. The whole population suffers when the purchasing power of the pound falls. The person who in his or her old age draws a small income from investment of savings suffers in exactly the same way as the wage earner whose income does not buy so much. It seems to me a pity that there should be this sectional view of the matter, a view which is encouraged in some quarters, as though the disadvantages of devaluation were limited to the wage earner—whose wage will undoubtedly, owing to devaluation, tend to buy less because the value of the pound is likely to fall.
It may be said—and it is true—that there are a great many shareholders who are not very poor people. But our fiscal system has for a long time dealt with that matter. Our system deals with the difference between the rich and the poor very thoroughly. It is a system which imposes on larger incomes such swingeing taxes, whether the income comes from holding shares or anything else, as cannot be seen in any other country of the world. I am not making a "song and dance" about it, but that is the basis of our fiscal system, and it has been raised to heights which I think some people hardly realise. Therefore, my point is that the disadvantage which accompanies, or may accompany, devaluation is not really a disadvantage which is suffered by the wage earner as such. It is suffered by everybody who has a similar income. As for higher incomes, they are already well taken care of. The richer members of society are already skinned and bled by steep differential taxation which it would be difficult for even the most ingenious man—and for the noble Lord opposite who is a very ingenious man—to increase. I think that is the true view of the matter.
Yet the argument in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he made the announcement on September 27, was plainly this: that if industry was going to take advantage of devaluation

907
by working harder and exporting more, then he must see to it that shareholders did not benefit by larger profits. He said that, in reference to the average profit-earner, there would be a tendency
"on the whole to benefit by the change, especially in the case of exporters."
I am sure that I wish nothing but good results from this step of devaluation which we have been forced to take, but I have a feeling that the Chancellor of the Exchequer greatly underestimated the difficulty of getting into the dollar market under the new conditions, though we ought all to recognise that great efforts are being made by many firms and companies. If his objective was to tax extra profits resulting from this switch-over, then surely the means adopted in this Bill are clumsy and extraordinary. More than once it has been pointed out that one of the ambitions which we ought to entertain, and one of the wishes of the Treasury, is that we should attract American capital to this country. But how is that encouraged by the Government saying to exporters, "If you do, and you really succeed in exporting, then we are going to increase the tax upon your profits"?
We all understand that the increase is only in the profits tax on distributed profits. At present, an industrial company is charged with profits tax before income tax is exacted—20 per cent. on distributed profits and 10 per cent. on profits which after taxation are put to reserve. The increase now proposed is to change the 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. That increase is to fall on all distributed profits, whether or not they are made by a new drive into the American market. If we take a company which with great effort—it may be at considerable risk—endeavours in the national interest to shift its sales to America, it surely cannot be disputed that this is a curious way of providing incentives to induce it to do so. Some people who talk about it seem to think that, almost automatically, thanks to devaluation, a company which is seeking export trade to America will get the whole benefit of the writing down of the pound.
I do not claim to know as much about business as business people do. In my professional life, I have been consulted by business people only when they have
908
been in difficulties or could not understand their contracts. That is all I know about business, but I should have thought that one of the things which might easily happen would be that you find you must give to your American purchaser some portion of the benefit resulting from devaluation, and put up with a very small portion of the advantage which devaluation gives you. The result of a tax of this sort would seem to me in some cases to make all the difference between a company being able to attempt this new effort and not being able to do so. Surely, it is an odd thing that we should be prepared to step up the tax on profits just when many companies will need not a less but a greater incentive to switch their efforts from the sterling to the dollar market.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said just now something about how the tax would work out in practice. He emphasised that the increased tax is only on profit that is distributed. But I am speaking in the presence of some who know much more about this than I do, when I ask: Is that really the way in which a board of directors will have to consider the matter? A company which has to pay the tax has, I apprehend, to decide how to deal with its balance of profit as a whole. There is a figure worked out on the principles which the income tax accepts which says that there is x as the balance of profits for us to deal with. Of course, there is already a limitation of dividend in practice which is almost universal. While it is true that this tax is calculated only on the distributed profit, the tax is paid out of the common fund, and surely it is obvious that in many cases the extra money will be found for the Revenue by taking it out of what would otherwise go to reserve. I was astonished to hear the proposition that all that a board of directors have to consider is, "Have we made sufficient reserves?" and that the shareholder comes in at the end, if he comes in at all.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? I did not state the proposition in that extreme form, as I think the noble and learned Viscount will recall, but I did suggest that a prudent company would consider its reserves first.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The two things are considered very much together, but there is this consideration which I do not

909
think the noble Lord has in mind. The directors have to think twice, when they have made a profit, before they reduce the regular rate of dividend. Not only have they a duty to their ordinary shareholders, because they have their money, but there is also this point: if they did not do their utmost to maintain a proper rate of dividend when they made profits, it would be more and more difficult for that company thereafter to raise more capital. The terms on which it would be able to expand its business would be worsened. Incidentally, when it comes to paying death duties, the ordinary shares are worth much less. It is not some peculiar kind of favouritism, which I think in another connection is called open favouritism, which causes directors to decide to distribute a dividend; it is because when the circumstances reasonably justify it, it is their duty to do so; and though sometimes for want of profits they cannot do it, they have to consider the claims and the interests of their own enterprise and of the dividend owner, as well as the claims on reserves.
Your Lordships will observe that what is here proposed is not to stop the paying of increased dividends; it is a question of whether the directors' duty to ordinary shareholders does not require them, if it is possible, to pay the same dividends as before. When you talk about a freeze in wages what you mean is that wages should not go up. Is a freeze in dividends, in the sense of saying that, if possible, dividends should not go down, an abominable thing? In the case of dividends, what is sought is to avoid, if it can properly be done, a shrinkage. The issue in the case of wages at the present time is whether there are good reasons which would justify restraint on an increase of wages. But if the pound becomes less valuable, in both cases the money paid, whether it is in dividends or as a wage, loses its purchasing power in exactly the same way.
Then my noble friend briefly advanced an argument connected with a much more difficult matter, and one on which I step with real delicacy—namely, the subject of whether or not this tax will operate in an anti-inflationary way. You must not say "deflationary" in these days; the word is too short. We must say "anti-inflationary."
LORD PAKENHAM: Or "disinflationary."
VISCOUNT SIMON: Yes, that is a very long word too. What really will be the effect of this tax? It seems to me that the effect of this tax in reducing the spending power of the shareholder will be trumpery as compared with the disadvantage which it will bring about in discouraging reserves. I quite agree with the noble Lord that nothing could be more important than reserves, especially in these times, because plant is difficult to renew especially when it is going to cost two or three times as much as the old plant. It seems to me that we were faced with very much the same argument (which was, I thought, a false argument) as when we discussed that "once-for-all" special contribution not long ago. Serious economists, like Lord Pethick-Lawrence, as soon as they looked at it, dropped that nonsense about the "once-for-all" special contribution being justified as an anti-inflationary measure, because it was nothing of the kind. It was, of course, produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to show that he was quite prepared to hit people who were supposed to be capitalists as well as others. In fact, the special contribution did not operate and does not operate as an anti-inflationary measure. It is paid largely by realising capital and, if you consider its effects as a whole, it seems to me to have had a disastrous influence on national savings, as I recollect Lord Mackintosh's deputation to the Treasury feared and warned the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the case, for it showed to large numbers of people what happened if they did save.
Without any desire to take a partisan side, when the matter is thought out I do not think the economic arguments for this tax are very strong. I do not dispute that it has to commend it the fact that it has a psychological effect; and if it be necessary that the whole country should pull together to adopt such measures, well, that is to some extent an explanation. But I must say that I cannot think it is a justifiable way of looking at the matter, because, as I have pointed out, it is completely fallacious to suppose that because X is earning his income by a form of wage he suffers by devaluation, whereas Y, who is earning the same income out of a dividend, does

911
not suffer. The two things are exactly the same. My own conclusion would have been that it is very difficult to find an economic justification for the tax. I do not want to make too much of it, because, when all is said and done, it produces £13,000,000. But the real explanation of it is that it is hoped by imposing it to create the impression that shareholders as well as wage earners are being made to bear a burden. That is perfectly right: they should both bear a burden, and so should we all. The misfortune is that, without this tax, shareholders are bearing that burden already.
7.15 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I regret that this subject of profits tax should have been taken in your Lordships' House at so late an hour after so much other business, because frankly I think the economic and political consequences—I say advisedly "political consequences"—of this profits tax are considerably more important than a great many people realise up to date. First, may I reinforce in the few remarks that I propose to make at this late hour what has been indicated by the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. The economic justification for this particular measure was stated somewhat otherwise, or with different emphasis, by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in another place, when he put as the first reason and justification for this tax, that the rise in tax is intended first of all to restrain spending, and only in the second place did he quote some of the points which the noble Lord has made. With all respect to those remarks and to what the noble Lord has said, to talk about the purpose of a tax the net effect of which is to produce £13,000,000 as being to restrain spending, is just complete nonsense; £13,000,000 either way cannot make a particle of difference so far as the inflationary situation is concerned, more especially if, as the noble Lord will be the first to agree, what does affect the inflationary situation is not the amount that is distributed by way of dividend but very largely what the Government does with the taxes when they have received them. To use that argument is, to my mind, to vitiate the rest of what the Economic Secretary
912
to the Treasury said in defence of this increase.
LORD PAKENHAM: I would like to answer the noble Lord because I do not consider he is doing himself justice in his remarks, and I am always anxious to help him. Is the noble Lord telling us now that, contrary altogether to the doctrines he has preached with such ardour and lucidity for the last two or three years, the inflationary situation is not affected by the policy of distribution of dividends one way or another?
LORD RENNELL: I think it is very much more affected by the policy of the Government in using the taxes that they collect. That, as a matter of fact, is what I did say and what I have said in the past. However, I want to pass on to his own particular point; and, in his remarks, the noble Lord has given me much more of a loophole than I had expected. He spoke about this tax as being an example of rough justice. He admitted that it might not fall everywhere exactly where it ought to, but he said that it would roughly justify itself as a rough measure of justice. In the economic situation in which we find ourselves it is not, I think, so important to consider whether a particular economic measure is one of rough justice or precise justice, as it is to consider whether or not it is expedient. It may well be that there is a psychological effect which is desirable, and to that the noble and learned Viscount has already referred. But Whether that could better have been achieved in this or in some other way is worth examining.
The consequences of this particular tax are—as I submit and propose to show—wholly inexpedient in present circumstances. One of the real difficulties in which I find myself, however, in commenting upon the economic and financial policy of His Majesty's Government, arises from the fact that they themselves do not foresee at the time they do things the consequences of what they do; and when those consequences afterwards become apparent they attribute them to totally different causes. In a recent debate in your Lordships' House on the economic situation, we had a fairly vigorous attack, or statement, by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on what he appeared to regard as a conspiracy on the

913
part of economists, business people, financial journalists and journalists everywhere to diminish and depreciate the efforts of the Government. That is a typical example of not foreseeing the consequences of what one does. That reaction was the direct consequence of cuts which, in the estimation of people in this country who are supposed to know and also in the estimation of people abroad, were considered to be insufficient. Because there was criticism that they were insufficient, that criticism was attributed to a conspiracy to depreciate the efforts of the Government.
Here we have another example of the same sort. This tax, which by the most optimistic showing can produce only a matter of £13,000,000 net, taking into account diminution in income tax which will be obtained by imposing a profits tax, will in my view have certain very clear consequences. I am not going now into the questions of incentive motives or risk-bearing capital—I will deal with those in a minute—but they have a direct bearing on the whole of our balance of payments. I will show exactly and precisely how that arises. If the noble Lord will cast his mind back over the interesting debates which we have had in this House on the balance of payments, he will agree, I think, that it has been stated that in the two or three years ahead the balance of payments will not, in fact, be rectified by the visible exports and imports of this country being made to balance; they will be made to balance (this is my view and certainly the view of the noble Lord, Lord Brand) only by the influx of capital from other countries—in other words, by invisible exports.
The principal sources of invisible exports of that sort—namely the investment of capital in this country, of which we are, on the admission of everyone on all sides, in very sore need because we are not creating enough capital ourselves to do everything we wish to do—are America or foreign countries. Is the scale of taxation under which large public companies, and companies generally, in this country are operating to-day such as to induce any American capital, for instance, to come into this country? The answer is certainly "No." Does an increase in the distributed profits tax on companies here help or hinder the entry of American
914
capital that might have been hesitant before about coming in? The answer is clearly that it hinders. That fact has a further bearing on our present difficulties. As all your Lordships know, there is a very substantial amount of foreign capital and American capital in this country now. A great deal of it has remained here, the hope being that the situation would improve so that it could be put to more fruitful endeavour by investment in this country in industrial enterprise. But it has, in fact, been leaking out. Why has it been leaking out? Because prospects under the régime of company taxation here are now so black that no American or any foreigner who has money over here is likely to leave it here in order to invest it in this country.
It seems therefore that these economic measures which His Majesty's Government from time to time propose, should be regarded not only in the light of what is rough justice, but in the light of what it is expedient in our present economic situation to do or not to do. I suggest that an increase in the tax on distributed profits, however small, will have the result that people who have money here will take it away, and those who might invest money here will not do so. The noble Lord made some point about the number of applications made to the Board of Trade recently on behalf of enterprises for which there were insufficient resources in the country. He attempted to show from that that there was no lack of people here who wanted to invest their money in risk-bearing capital.
LORD PAKENHAM: It is a term which Lord Bland introduced.
LORD RENNELL: That is true. It means that there is not enough capital here to go round.
LORD PAKENHAM: If I may intervene, I would say, rather, that it means that there are not enough people in this country for us to go further than full employment.
LORD RENNELL: I should say that capital was not being created in this country at a sufficient rate to meet our needs. The only way to supplement the scarcity is to get the capital from somewhere else. We are not likely to get it from anywhere else by imposing penal taxation on capital being used in risk-bearing enterprises.

915
There is one point which I should like cleared up; perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to deal with it when he replies. He spoke generally about the economic effects of the profits tax as a whole. I believe that a clear and sharp distinction ought to be made between a tax on distributed profits and a tax on undistributed profits, the consequences of the two being very considerably different. I do not entirely agree with the noble and learned Viscount in speaking of a common pool out of which all taxation has to come. I think that the order in which taxation is levied does have an effect. I have no doubt that, of the two profits taxes, a tax on undistributed profits is a great deal more vicious than one on distributed profits, because a tax on undistributed profits is a bar to the accumulation of reserves. I would go so far as to say that if the present proposal had involved merely an increase in the distributed profits tax, accompanied by a pro tanto or smaller decrease in the undistributed profits tax, I should feel much less opposed to it than I do now.
I would now like to ask the noble Lord to look at some figures, with which no doubt he is familiar. When one does this, I suggest, one begins to wonder whether a profits tax has any economic justification as opposed to a psychological one. The noble Lord will have seen a recent analysis in the Economist of the profits of a large number of companies—in point of fact, nearly three thousand companies whose reports were published between October, 1948, and September, 1949. The total profits tax figure, which I take it includes both distributed and undistributed profits tax, is only £119,000,000. On the total Budget that is a relatively small sum, and I wonder—and here I come back to the question of expediency—whether if this matter had been examined from a long-term economic view, instead of from a short-term psychological one, it would not have been more equitable and reasonable to leave industry with a larger proportion of earnings in the form of undistributed profits free from tax, to accumulate for reserves and replacements, than to extract from industry so small a sum. Actually, the net sum is a great deal smaller than £119,000,000, because that has to be taken into conjunction with income tax, and the net amount is something of the order
916
of £60,000,000. in the light of the scale of our taxation as a whole, would it not have been much better to leave that £60,000,000 in company reserves than to take it into revenue and use it for the purposes for which we know the Government use it?
In considering this profits tax in connection with the w hole question of taxation, one ought to be guided by expediency rather than trot out some rather trumpery arguments about the dis-inflationary effect of taking another £13,000,000 from this source.
7.32 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, as usual I am in the hands of the House at all hours, and I am ready to continue the discussion for a considerable time, but I imagine that is hardly the wish of your Lordships. I acknowledge the few kind words used about me by the noble and learned Viscount. He is such a Goliath of debate, and I am such a David, that he must forgive me if I make use of a sling to cast a tiny projectile in his direction.
VISCOUNT SIMON: So long as the noble Lord does not hit me in the eye!
LORD PAKENHAM: I know that is rather unfair, but no one can stand it more easily than he. I cannot help bringing together what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has said, rather contemptuously, about rough justice and what was said by the noble Viscount in 1937 about rough justice. When the noble Viscount was introducing, very wisely I am sure, what was a profits tax of 5 per cent. in some cases and 4 per cent. in others—I am referring to the National Defence Contribution—he used these excellent words:
"Let me come to a major point of the scheme. The Committee will observe in the White Paper…we suggest there should be a tax of 5 per cent. in the case of companies and of 4 per cent. in the case of partnerships or individuals…What is the reason for that? Of course the reason is, as far as may be, to produce equal treatment. It can only be done as a measure of rough justice…"
When a five per cent. profits tax was placed before the public by the noble Viscount, much more eloquently than by me, the argument about rough justice was very properly imported into the discussion.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am very willing to receive that or any other projectile from the sling of the noble Lord. I do not seem very hard hit. Of course, the distinction was that companies go on and partnerships change, and it was necessary, as has been found necessary in many other connections for the purposes of taxation, to draw a distinction between them. That is all.
LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Viscount is not averse to using the argument of rough justice when he finds it suitable. Therefore, I am sure the noble Viscount would not wish me to apologise for using the same argument to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. There are two main arguments in this connection which I feel sure we shall wish to explore on other occasions and I shall say little about them to-night; and there is one argument about which I will say a few sentences. The first main argument advanced by noble Lords against the Bill is that it discourages foreign investors. As to that, I should point out that the subsidiaries of foreign companies are liable to the lower rate of tax of 10 per cent. I do not wish to put it too crudely, but the Government do not feel that in making our broad economic and social dispositions in this country we must he guided mainly by the view which foreign investors take of our economy. We want our national credit to stand very high, but we cannot accept the view that our Health Service and our other great social provisions, agreed to by most of us, should be cut down at the whim, and it may be under the more careful calculation, of some foreign investor, whether American or otherwise.
The second main argument is this. The noble and learned Viscount raised an issue which seemed to me to lurk behind the whole of the discussions in another place. He said that we must all accept the principle of equality of sacrifice; but, unless I misunderstood him, he said that already the sacrifices being borne by the profit receivers are so great that no further sacrifices can reasonably be expected of them at this juncture. When new sacrifices are required at the present time, the noble Viscount does not feel that profit earners should bear their share of them. That is not my idea of equality of sacrifice at the present time. The noble Viscount thinks that the work of the
918
Government in balancing our economy has been carried too far in one direction. We take great pride in the measures carried out by this Government and the consequent redistribution of wealth. There is that difference between the noble Viscount and me, and I can only say that we take completely different views on that issue.
I come to one matter which arises closely in connection with the present Bill. The noble Viscount suggested, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, suggested perhaps more strongly, that it was nonsense—I think that was the word the noble Lord used—to attribute any disinflationary effect to this Bill. It is only £13,000,000—what is £13,000,000 in this connection! I do not want to twist the noble Lord's argument, but it could be twisted with no great difficulty to point the conclusion that a larger tax would have some effect and might therefore receive the approbation of the noble Lord. I do not imagine he means that, but his argument would lead in that direction. May I repeat that, taken alone, the £13,000,000 has a small economic effect, but it must be considered as part of a complexity of measures, of which the others did not require legislative sanction and are broadly described as "cuts."
The noble Viscount said he did not feel there was an economic argument for this Bill. I am not complaining about his reception of the Bill—on the whole, I thought that he was much kinder than the noble Lord—but he did say that he did not feel there was a solid economic argument for this measure, because it can do so little. Let me put it in a couple of sentences. The economic effect of all these emergency measures is strong and real and there is no nonsense about it at all. They represent an essential provision at this time. Because £13,000,000 is only a small part of the economic steps being taken, the economic effect of this one measure is small. The economic argument, therefore, carries us to support of the economy measures as a whole.
Then I come to the psychological argument. Here there are two arguments: the moral argument—the argument for justice—and the psychological argument, that justice must not only be done hut must seem to be done. Once it is decided to impose a tax of a certain magnitude or complexity, then it becomes a moral

919
and psychological issue as to how that tax or those cuts are to be distributed. Then you come to the point that if the main burden will fall on the poor, part of the burden, at any rate—call it footling, call it moderate, or what you will—must fall on the profit-earning section of the community.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, raised a number of other points, and perhaps on another occasion we can deal in detail with his contention that the profit receivers are not, broadly speaking, better off than the wage earners, if that is what was in his mind.
VISCOUNT SIMON: If some of them are, they are taxed very much more.
LORD PAKENHAM: I can only say that the burden must fall more heavily on the broader hacks. We are back on the old argument. The noble Viscount feels that already taxation has been carried too far at the expense of the rich. We on this side do not accept that. We approach this particular measure in the light of asking for equality of fresh sacrifice at this time. I appreciate the attitude of the noble and learned Viscount, and also the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, although I may not seem to. I hope the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and I am grateful to noble Lords for having helped it through with such considerable speed.
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of November 17), Bill read 3ª, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that this Report be now received, I would like to make a short statement concerning two matters that were raised in the form of questions by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, during the Committee stage. In Committee, on the Question whether Clause 15 stand part of the Bill,
920
the noble Lord asked whether the governing bodies of hospitals which were contemplating agreements under this clause should bear in mind the possibility of
"an unknown and unlimited liability in the matter of a deficiency contribution to the Minister's superannuation account."
The detailed machinery to be applied to these agreements is still being studied, but it is possible that the calculation of actuarial deficiencies in the schemes of particular hospitals would, contrary to the impression which, on advice, I gave in the course of my reply, involve excessively detailed administrative work. It will therefore probably be necessary to fall back on the usual method of dealing with these arrangements, which is as the noble Lord outlined in his speech.
The second part of the statement has reference to the new clause dealing with additional functions of the medical practices committee. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, asked whether there would not be consequential Amendments to Sections 33 and 34 of the Act of 1946. I am advised that no Amendment of these sections is required. The new clause does not in any way conflict with Section 33 of the Act of 1946. There is no intention of empowering the medical practices committee, instead of the executive councils, to arrange for the distribution of patients—indeed, the powers conferred in the new clause could not be used for this purpose. Section 34 of the Act of 1946 does, as the noble Lord stated in the House, limit the functions which devolve on the medical practices committee. It is this limitation which is removed by the new clause, and it is not necessary to write any words into Section 34 in order to achieve this. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for having gone into the questions which I asked on Committee stage, and for telling me that no amendment to Section 33 of the 1946 Act is intended, and that no amendment of Section 34 is necessary, because that is what the new clause that was put into the Bill already does. I am also obliged to the noble Lord for saying that I was right on the point about superannuation. I made that point only because I thought it was right that hospitals who were contemplating embarking on this scheme

921
should know the liabilities attaching, as I indicated in my speech on the Committee stage. As there are no Amendments down for Report, I presume that we shall go straight ahead with the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to, land Amendments reported accordingly.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
WAR DAMAGED SITES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

WRITTEN ANSWERS RAILWAY DELAYS IN EASTERN REGION
LORD STRABOLGIasked His Majesty's Government if they are aware of the frequent and serious delays on the old Great Eastern section of the former L.N.E.R., now British Railways, between Liverpool Street and various
922
places in Norfolk, and particularly from Norwich to Liverpool Street; if they are aware that the reason usually given is points trouble, and will they state what are the technical or mechanical reasons for this; and whether any steps have been taken to effect au improvement.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: This is a matter for the British Transport Commission. I have referred the noble Lord's question to them, and they will be communicating with him.

EXCHEQUER RECEIPTS FROM SCOTLAND
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDasked His Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep concern felt in Scotland at their professed inability to give even the slightest indication of the annual amounts contributed to, and received from, the Imperial Exchequer by Scotland; and if they are prepared to take the necessary steps to have these figures made available in the future, even if only to an approximate degree of accuracy and completeness.
LORD PAKENHAM: His Majesty's Government have had representations from time to time on this matter. These representations have been carefully considered, but His Majesty's Government have nothing new to add to the answer given on October 18, in reply to the noble Earl's Question on the same subject. The reasons for this answer are elaborated in paragraphs 12 to 15 of the White Paper which was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1948 (Cmd. 7308), a copy of which I am sending to the noble Earl.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.