NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL

HL Deb 22 November 1949 vol 165 cc813-94

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 moved to add to the clause: () As soon as may be after giving a direction under this section the Minister shall unless 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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 moved to omit the proviso to subsection (6). The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (6) starts by saying: Not less than one-third of the members of—

1. (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 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 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: … 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 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 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 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)—

1. (a) of accommodation, meals and refreshments (including intoxicating liquor);
2. (b) of camping sites; and
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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: 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 moved to omit all words after "Scotland" and to insert: the following provisions shall have effect—

1. (a) the expressions 'owner' and 'limited owner' have the same meanings as in section three of the Forestry Act, 1947;
2. (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 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 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, 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 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 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 moved, after subsection (1) to insert: () At any time after the publication of a notice under the la it foregoing subsection 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—

1. (a) as respects any such documents in the possession of the surveying authority, to permit him to inspect them and take copies thereof,
2. (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 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 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: 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- path or bridleway subject to limitations or conditions affecting the public right of way thereover.

5.0 p.m.

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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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—

1. (a) the appropriate authority have not made and submitted to him a diversion order or an extinguishment order, as the case may be, and
2. (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 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 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 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 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. 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 moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from and including "shall consider" to the beginning of the proviso and to insert:

1. "(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
2. (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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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;
2. (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 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 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, 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 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 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

1. (a) an order designating an area as a National Park and an order varying the same under Part II of this Act,
2. (b) an agreement that land should be managed as a Nature Reserve under Part III of this Act,
3. (c) the making of a public path agreement under Part IV of this Act,
4. (d) the making of a public path order under Part IV of this Act,
5. (e) art access agreement under Part V of this Act.
6. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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.