Lords Sitting of 19 May 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Craigmyle—Took the Oath.

TEES VALLEY WATER BILL
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SCHOOL CROSSING PATROLS BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for the authorisation of measures for the control of traffic, at places where children cross roads on their way to or from school, by persons other than police constables; and to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HEAVY VEHICLES' SPEED LIMIT
2.37 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the statement by the Road Research. Board that over 90 per cent. of the drivers of heavy vehicles subject to the 20 m.p.h. limit disregard the law as it stands, the Government can indicate what steps are contemplated to regularise the position.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, the facts disclosed by the Road Research Board, to which I referred in the debate in your Lordships' House on January 28, are only one of the considerations bearing on the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles. I fully explained the Government's attitude in that debate, and I regret that I am not in a position to add to what I then said.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he considers as entirely satisfactory the state of affairs disclosed in the Report of the Road Research Board: that there exists a law which is completely disregarded by over 90 per cent. of the drivers of these vehicles? Furthermore, when may we expect a decision upon this matter? Surely enough time has now elapsed and there have been enough negotiations behind the scenes to enable Her Majesty's Government to give us an idea of what is going to happen. It seems to me that this is not a situation which should be allowed to continue indefinitely. Cannot the noble Lord give us a little more information on that point?
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I made it quite clear in the debate in your Lordships' House that there was a great deal to be commended in this proposal, and I was most anxious that we should be able to proceed at the earliest moment. Negotiations have taken place with a variety of interests, and they are still going on. I ask your Lordships to take into account the fact that the Transport Act has recently been passed, and a great many matters require attention, such as negotiations with labour and other interests. I think it would be a pity unduly to rush this matter while all these other urgent matters require attention. I feel that I cannot say anything further at the moment.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Lord whether he does not agree that the initiative in this matter should come from Her Majesty's Government? To place the responsibility of enforcing the law upon consultations with various interests is not government—it is just hiding behind the skirts of other people through not wishing to take action which, as the noble Lord knows, is really long overdue.
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I think those are odd words, coming from the noble Lord opposite, because for years he was precisely in the same position. If I were guilty of a delay of anything like that length, I should be almost ashamed to rise and use those words. I want to emphasise that we are deeply seized of the need to bring this about at the earliest moment and, indeed, we shall pursue it to that end.

WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE
2.40 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of schemes of water supply and sewerage, respectively, approved, the number completed, and the amount of Government grant paid in the financial year April, 1952, to March, 1953, under the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1944.]
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, in the period from April, 1952, to March, 1953, 418 rural schemes of water supply and 228 of sewerage were approved. I regret that there are no records available to show the number of these schemes which have actually been completed. The amount of Government grant which was paid in this period is as follows: water supply, roughly £3 million; sewerage, nearly £2 million. The grant paid in the financial year is not necessarily applicable to the schemes approved and completed in that year: it is in respect of any schemes partly or wholly completed during that period, irrespective of the dates when work was started on them.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, am I not correct in thinking that there has been a great improvement between the years 1952 and 1953, although we still have a long way to go? Could the noble Lord break down the figures for England, Wales and Scotland?
LORD MANCROFT: My answer to Lord Wolverton's first supplementary question is, Yes, there has been a considerable increase. Speaking in very rough figures, the number of schemes have increased by about one-third and
592
the amount of money expended, or to be expended, has been nearly doubled. The answer to the noble Lord's second Question is also, Yes. I could certainly give him the breakdown of the figures into figures for England, Scotland and Wales, but as they are of necessity a little complicated, I will, with the permission of the House and the noble Lord, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that subject, may I ask if he knows whether there are any uncontaminated water supplies still unimpounded for water schemes, and whether the Government have in mind the urgent necessity of trying to purify contaminated water supplies, rather than reaching out to take the last uncontaminated sources in Britain?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, if I may say so with respect, the noble Lord seems to have strayed a little from the Question put by my noble friend Lord Wolverton. I must beg the noble Lord's indulgence and ask for notice of the question which he has put to me. I will see that the matter is put to those who are more knowledgeable in this matter than I am.
LORD SALTOUN: I am obliged to the noble Lord.
The following are the figures referred to by Lord Mancroft:
Rural schemes of water supply and sewerage approved in the period April, 1952, to March, 1953:

Water supply in England

…

…

263

Water supply in Scotland

…

…

80

Water supply in Wales

…

…

75

Total

…

…

418

Sewerage in England

…

…

151

Sewerage in Scotland

…

…

50

Sewerage in Wales

…

…

27

Total

…

…

228

Amount of Government grant paid in the same period:

£

Water supply in England

…

1,539,599

Water supply in Scotland

…

1,104,941

Water supply in Wales

…

262,583

Total

…

£2,907,123

£

Sewerage in England

…

1,451,280

Sewerage in Scotland

…

234,858

Sewerage in Wales

…

209,000

Total

…

£1,895,138

LICENSING BILL [H.L.]
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, in the circumstances, I will not ask for any details or particulars of this Bill. I rise merely to say that its Second Reading has my cordial approval.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

COASTAL FLOODING (EMER- GENCY PROVISIONS) BILL
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Compensation]:
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "making" to insert:
"provision for the hearing and settlement of claims for compensation by interests affected and in case of need providing how much of the compensation is to be treated as capital and how much as income and for the proper distribution of the compensation between interests affected and."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is unfortunately unable to be here at present. He is engaged on public business, and he has asked me to deal with this Amendment, a copy of which, in manuscript, has, I think, been handed to the Chairman of Committees. The Amendment seeks to ensure that in claims for compensation by interests affected as the result of an injury within the language of the Bill provision can be made for the distribution of a lump sum where the land
594
is either landlord and tenant owned—so that in many cases the compensation will have to be divided between them—or for cases where the land is in settlement, so that there is a tenant for life and persons entitled in remainder, where, again, the compensation paid will have to be divided between these interests.
There is, I think, no dispute between us that these divisions of the compensation money have got to be made. Those in charge of the Bill say that under the Bill as it stands they can be made; and the doubt which Lord Simon and I have expressed, and which others feel also, is whether the Bill as it stands is sufficiently wide to enable the divisions to be made in some way or other. The suggestion made, I understand, is that there is provision in Clause 10 which deals with the difficulty that we envisage. Clause 10 (1), which relates to compensation and Government contributions, runs as follows:
"The Minister shall prepare, with the approval of the Treasury, and lay before each House of Parliament, a draft of an order making such provision as appears to him, with such approval as aforesaid, to be requisite as regards"—
and then the things for which the order may provide are mentioned, as follows:
"(a) compensation to be paid by riser boards for damage, or diminution in the value of land,"—
That provision relates to the global amount of compensaton payable in respect of damage to a particular piece of land. Then at the end come the words:
"occurring in consequence of the exercise of powers conferred by or under this Part of this Act, or for the use of land, or the working of clay or other substances, in the exercise of such powers;…
For my part I cannot find in these words anything which authorises a distribution of the amount of the compensation which is to be determined under this subsection. It relates to the amount to be paid. I am seeking to provide that the compensation shall be distributed in respect of a particular piece of land as between different interests which existed in it before the damage occurred.
What is suggested by the Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, for which I make myself responsible, is as follows. In Clause 10, page 12, line 17 after the word "making" in the words "an order making

595
such provision as appears to him…to be requisite" et cetera, to insert these words:
"provision for the hearing and settlement of claims for compensation by interests affected and in case of need providing the proper distribution of the compensation between interests affected."
My noble and learned friend suggests after the words "in case of need for," this provision providing "how much of the compensation is to be treated as capital and how much as income; so that there can be no doubt that the draft of the order in question can make provision for the distribution of a sum of £x payable in respect of a particular piece of land owing to there being different interests in that land.
The question is whether the clause as it stands in the Bill is sufficiently clear to make any such addition unnecessary. I am not in the least dogmatic about this, and I do not think that my noble and learned friend, if he were here, would wish to be dogmatic, but would wish to leave it, as I do, to be determined by this House as to whether, as at present the clause runs, these words are necessary in order to put an end to any doubts on that matter. If there is a real doubt, it is certainly desirable that it should be disposed of either by the Bill or by the proposed order; and, as I understand it, the Government are desirous that there shall be no delay in the bringing into force of the Act. Certainly, I for my part would not wish any such delay to take place. All I am saying is that there is at present a doubt in the minds of people like my noble and learned friend, who is not here to explain it for himself, and myself, who have an unrivalled experience in arguing cases of this kind in the High Courts extending over more years than we like to remember. We suggest that, having regard to our doubt, it would be just as well to put in some words which do not in the least injuriously affect the working of the Act as it is proposed to take effect by the Government, and they will be words removing the doubt which we submit, with all respect to the House, does exist. In those circumstances I beg, to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 17, after ("making") insert ("provision for the hearing and settlement of claims for compensation by interests affected
596
and in the case of need providing how much of the compensation is to be treated as capital and how much as income and for the proper distribution of the compensation between interests affected and").—(Viscount Maugham.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am rather uncertain whether I have exactly the words that the noble and learned Viscount wishes to insert. As I understand it—he will correct me if I am wrong—the Amendment proposed is:
"Page 12, Clause 10, line 17, after the word 'making' insert the words 'provision for the hearing and settlement of claims for compensation by interests affected in case of need providing the proper distribution of the compensation between interests affected, and how much of the compensation is to be treated as capital and how much as income'."
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: No. The suggestion is that the words added in the handwriting of my noble and learned friend should come after the words "in case of need providing."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I see. Then the words that I have already read out come after the word "making," but I had better read the Amendment again:
"After the word 'making,' insert 'provision for the hearing and settlement of claims for compensation by interests affected and in case of need providing how much of the compensation is to be treated as capital and how much as income',"
and so on. Is that right?
EARL JOWITT: What does that mean?
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: Yes, I think that is right.
LORD CARRINGTON: I regret to say that, in whichever way the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, reads out the Amendment, I am unable to accept it. Subsection (1) of Clause 10, as it now stands, reads:
"The Minister shall prepare, with the approval of the Treasury, and lay before each House of Parliament, a draft of an order making such provision as appears to him,"
and so on. Under that subsection as it now stands, the Minister can do all those things which the noble and learned Viscount wishes to insert in the Bill: in other words, all those particular provisions which the noble and learned Viscount has in his Amendment can be inserted in the draft order which is to be laid before your Lordships' House. As regards the first part of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment, I think I can give

597
him an assurance that that will be catered for in the order. The sort of words which might be used are
"Any person disturbed by the doing of the work in his enjoyment of the land on which the work was done or having an estate, or interest in any land,"
and so on. That, I think, would cover the first part of the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment.
As regards the second part of the Amendment, I am told that it would be unusual to adopt the course which the noble and learned Viscount suggests and that, in comparable legislation, there is no attempt made to provide in detail for the distribution of sums of money. Therefore, I cannot give him any undertaking of any kind that we shall do that in the order which is laid before your Lordships' House. But it seems to me that, if the noble and learned Viscount is not satisfied with the order when it comes before this House, he might take the matter up again then, when we should have the benefit of the presence of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who would help me out of my difficulties. I ask the noble and learned Viscount not to press this Amendment this afternoon, because it seems to me that we should get this Bill passed through its remaining stages, and that the latter half of it—the compensation provisions, and so on—should come into force as soon as possible. For those reasons, I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I quite see the force of the argument that has been put before your Lordships. It is is not possible, of course, for any of us to discuss on the present occasion the form of the order, because the order is not before us; and it is difficult to discuss something which we cannot see. As I understand it, my noble friend agrees that we can discuss the order when it is laid before the House, and we shall be able also to discuss part, at least, of the proposals which I am seeking to insert on the present occasion. But I hope that we shall also be entitled to urge that the order shall plainly provide in some way or other for the distribution of a sum in regard to which various people have rights, otherwise there will be no method of ascertaining how the distribution is to be made. Take, for instance,
598
the case of a tenant from year to year of the property in question. He will be the man in possession, and I understand that the view of the Government is that prima facie he is the man who makes the claim. But surely a tenant from year to year is not entitled to take the whole of the claim if the damage done to the land will last in perpetuity. As that has got to be ascertained somehow, it will be, I assume, for this and the other House to determine the mode in which the distribution is to be undertaken. At any rate, in the belief that it is left open for somebody to raise that point when the order comes before the House, I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's suggestion and to withdraw my Amendment to-day.
LORD CARRINGTON: I do not want to mislead my noble and learned friend. Of course, he may raise any point that he likes when the draft order comes up for the approval of your Lordships. But I should be misleading him if I led him to understand that there would in any probability be in the order any provision for the detailed distribution of compensation. I ant told that it would not be at all the usual practice to have that in an order. In the normal course, if there is any dispute about distribution the matter would go to the courts. That is what I am told. But if my noble and learned friend likes to raise the matter again when the draft order comes before the House and when the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, is here, I know that my noble and learned friend will be only too happy to answer him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 13):
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read 3a.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of

599
the Coastal Flooding (Emergency Provisions) Bill, gives Her consent, so far as Her Majesty's interest is concerned on behalf of the Crown, that the House may do therein as they shall think fit.
On Question Bill read 3a, and passed.

PHARMACY BILL
3.4 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY
3.5 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER had intimated his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can now make any further statement on the subject of the pensions of retired officers in the three Services, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret that I must ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion for this afternoon and to put it down for a later date. Perhaps the House is entitled to a few words of explanation as to how that comes about. Through a mischance, for which I personally, and nobody else, am responsible, the words at the end of my Motion on the Order Paper announcing my intention to move for Papers, were omitted from the Order Paper until quite recently. I am told that their more recent insertion causes embarrassment to the Government in respect of the kind of debate which might be expected to follow. The last thing I want to do is to embarrass anybody. I hope that I am not inconveniencing any other noble Lords by doing this, but I regret to have to ask leave to withdraw my Motion for the time being.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for so doing. I think it is recognised in the House that for the proper conduct of business, Motions or Questions should not be subjected to alteration at the last moment. I think I am correct in saying that the additional words "to move for Papers "have not appeared in the green Notices and Orders of the Day, but have appeared merely on the daily Notices and Orders of the Day. I am sure that the House in general will agree that the matter should be deferred until another day.

NATIONAL PARKS
3.8 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the Report of the National Parks Commission for the year ended September, 1952; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed in the autumn of 1949, and it is now three and a half years since it came into operation. In pursuance of the Act, the National Parks Commission was set up almost immediately, and they have issued three Annual Reports, the last of which was published last November. The matter has not been discussed in any way in this House since the passage of the Bill, and I thought that it might be useful if we had what looks like a short debate to-day in order that we might discuss the Report and the general work of the National Parks Commission.
The idea of national parks formed the subject of a great deal of propaganda, struggle and effort for over fifty years, until the Act came into operation. A great many open air societies took part in this propaganda, and they must feel great satisfaction at the progress which has been made in those three and a half years towards the culmination of their idea. There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction at the fact that not enough national parks have been designated and confirmed, and that not enough access has been provided for the public in pursuance of the Act, but I would ask your Lordships to take note of what the Commission have actually achieved, rather than what still remains to be done. In this relatively short period of three and a half years they have designated and have got confirmed no fewer than six of the most important national parks. There remain, of those which were suggested by the Hobhouse Committee, six which have not been designated; but the six which have been designated constitute something like two-thirds of the total of the area of the parks recommended by the Hobhouse Committee, and they represent, also, something like 3 per cent. of the total area of England and Wales.
When one remembers the inevitably lengthy procedure which has to be gone through to get a park designated and

601
approved, one cannot but congratulate the Commission on the splendid progress they have made. They have to make a survey of a proposed area, a survey in which they have to mark, in the greatest possible detail, the exact boundaries of the proposed national park. They have to consult with every local authority concerned and, so far as possible, get their agreement. There are a great many local authorities concerned in any substantial area of the size of a national park, and anyone who has had experience of negotiating with local authorities knows that that is not exactly a speedy procedure. It is a democratic one and a very proper one, but it is certainly not the quickest way of getting results. When the Commission have gone as far as they can in consultation, they have to make their designation. Then, generally, the matter becomes the subject of an inquiry. Any person affected has the right to object, and the somewhat lengthy process of a public inquiry has to be gone through. Then, of course, the Minister has to make up his mind and confirm—either with or without modifications. When you take all that into consideration, it is remarkable that the Commission have been able to get confirmed six of the most important national parks. I am sure that if some of the great pioneers of the movement were here to-day and could see what had happened—men like the late Sir Lawrence Chubb, the late Lord Addison and others, who took a great interest in this movement—they would express nothing but pleasure at what has been achieved so far.
I should like to make one or two observations concerning the particular national parks that have so far been confirmed. I think that, on the whole, they are the most important; they are, also, the most popular and those which will give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number of people. For instance, there is the Peak District, which has been designated and confirmed as a national park. That district has within a radius of fifty miles of its boundaries something like 60 per cent. of the population of this country, and very large numbers of people are now in a position to enjoy the amenities of that area. There still remain, in my view, two national parks which definitely ought to be designated
602
fairly quickly. One is Brecon Beacons, that lovely stretch of country in South Wales. With all respect to my noble friend Lord Hall, South Wales is a very different area from North Wales, and the designation of an area in Snowdonia will give very little satisfaction, in practice, to people in South Wales, which contains a great many thickly populated areas. The Brecon Beacons will make a lovely playground for people from Cardiff, Newport, Merthyr, and other populous places. I hope that the Commission will get on with the task of dealing with the Beacons as quickly as possible.
Then there is the Norfolk Broads. I have had some doubts as to whether the Norfolk Broads is a proper area for a national park. I think on the whole it is. But accepting that—and, after all, the Hobhouse Report did accept it and so did the Dower Report—I think the Norfolk Broads is the most urgent of them all. It is not merely that the area is unique in its character and exceedingly popular with people who enjoy water sports. The fact is that there is a great danger that in the course of time, possibly in the not very distant future, these waters may silt up unless something is done, and this lovely stretch will be lost to us. There is a peculiar difficulty in this connection, in that a considerable number of authorities all have some kind of jurisdiction in the Norfolk Broads, and it is very difficult to get any particular authority to accept complete responsibility. I think that the National Parks Act and the machinery created by it would, at any rate, concentrate responsibility in one body and ensure that something was done. It is also going to be fairly costly to deal with the silting, and so on, in the Norfolk Broads. Bat if the Norfolk Broads are to survive, I would appeal to Her Majesty's Government to do what they can to ensure that it is dealt with fairly quickly.
There are two other areas which I should like to mention briefly, and about which I wish to make suggestions to the National Parks Commission. They are not dealt with either in the Dower Report or the Hobhouse Report. One of them is Dovedale, in West Derbyshire, which, I think, is probably one of the loveliest pieces of country we have. Why it has been ignored, as it has, I cannot imagine. It is certainly of considerable interest to

603
people in the industrial areas of the North, and in my view it should be seriously considered as a national park. The other area is the Cheviots. I would certainly put the Cheviots far ahead of the Roman Wall as an area for a national park. But, of course, that is the concern of the Commission; it is not my concern. However, I do make these suggestions with all deference. In some cases where an area does not quite qualify as a national park it might be constituted an "area of outstanding beauty." Apparently, the Commission have not so far done anything by way of survey of areas for the purpose of designating them as areas of outstanding beauty. "I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is going to reply on behalf of the Government, can give us any information as to what are the intentions of the Commission on the question of designating such areas. There are a vast number of them, and I hope that the Commission are not going to deal with too many. We may defeat the purpose of this Act by trying to designate too many areas in the country and make them precious. I would suggest as one of these areas the South Downs, which is, in fact, one of the places recommended by the Hobhouse Report as a national park. I think it would be much more suitable as an "area of outstanding beauty."
It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the national park idea has not caught on with the general public so much as one had hoped. Of course, it is early days. But there are some misconceptions about national parks that ought to be removed as quickly as possible. One is the name itself, which is somewhat misleading. Some people tend to think that these are nationalised parks. Well, of course, they are not. Life goes on very much the same after an area has been designated as it did before. It is not the signal for large-scale acquisitions of land: indeed, it is a signal for preserving the character of the countryside within the area designated even more strongly than we did before. But there is this misconception. Then there is the misconception which comes from the use of the term "park." This is nothing like the national parks in the United States, Canada, South Africa and other parts of the world. As your Lordships know, the purpose is merely to pre-
604
serve and enhance the beauty of exceptional areas and give the members of the public an opportunity of enjoying these beauties. The Commission would render a great service if somehow they could make the general public understand that these are the purposes, and nothing more.
There is also a misconception about what might happen to agriculture. This arises from the access provisions in the Act. The Act provides that the public shall have access to the wild places of the country, places which are not being used for agricultural purposes; but it gives no right to the public to walk over or trespass on land used for agricultural purposes. Unfortunately, even the farming community are under a misapprehension in regard to this. They fear that when an area has been designated, that automatically gives the public a right to walk over the land. It does nothing of the kind. Furthermore, the access provisions obtain over the whole country and not merely over national parks.
Before the Act was passed, there was unanimity in both Houses on the principles of the Act, but there was a good deal of discussion on administration, on the powers of the National Parks Commission, on who should be responsible for administering the national parks, on whether in an area within the jurisdiction of more than one local authority there should be a joint board or a joint advisory committee, and so on. I do not want to revive the old battles in this discussion, but I notice from the Third Report of the Commission that they are still hankering after the recommendations of the Hobhouse Committee, which would give the National Parks Commission considerably more powers than they have. There are still people to-day who are urging that the National Parks Commission ought to have more powers conferred upon them. They claim that the Commission are merely an advisory body and cannot do a thing. Well, to a considerable extent that is true. They have the power to designate, they have the power to take the initiative and to make recommendations. I suggest to your Lordships that a statutory power to advise, given the right body advising, is a very considerable power. Short of setting up a supra-governmental body, I cannot see how the Commission can have powers conferred upon them in the way of making decisions. Decisions on the use of land must

605
inevitably be made by the Minister concerned. He must have the last word, and all that a body of this kind can do is to make recommendations. But, depending on the character of the body, the reasonableness of the body and the kind of recommendations they make, they can gradually acquire a powerful influence, and I believe that the National Parks Commission are doing that.
It was also advocated, and still is, that the actual management of the national parks should be in the hands of the Commission and not in the hands of the local authorities. That was a recommendation of the Hobhouse Committee and it was perhaps one of the most difficult matters I bad to decide, but in the end I hat no difficulty in taking the view that it was for the local authorities to manage the national parks in their areas and not for an outside body. It is true that the views of the National Parks Commission ought to be known and taken into consideration, but I could not think it was right to say to the county councils, who had recently had planning powers conferred upon them, that while they were competent to deal with ordinary areas, they were not competent to deal with those of exceptional beauty. Moreover, there would have been considerable conflict between the bodies which had been imposed upon them to plan part of their areas and the bodies which were planning the rest of their areas. I have little doubt that it was right to trust the local authorities and give them an opportunity of carrying out this very responsible task.
Then, there was the question of whether there should be a joint board or a joint advisory committee in cases where the national park was within the area of several authorities. Obviously, in a national park there must be unity of command. We cannot have each authority concerned merely with the part of the national park within their own area. The Act itself took the view that there should be a joint board in such cases unless there were special reasons for the contrary. In the cases of the national parks that so far have been designated, the Minister has sought to impress that view on the local authorities concerned, as have the National Parks Commission. In two cases—those of the Peak District and the Lake District—the authorities concerned have accepted the view of the Minister and have set up joint boards, and I under-
606
stand they are working extremely well. The Peak District Board have actually prepared a comprehensive plan for the development of their area, and I believe the joint board of the Lake District are now engaged in doing the same thing.
In the case of Snowdonia, the three local authorities concerned were most unwilling to set up a joint board. They preferred the advisory committee procedure, and the present Minister has been strongly criticised for not imposing a joint board upon the three North Wales counties. I am always ready to criticise the present Minister, but in this particular case I think he was right. I do not think we shall get anywhere with local authorities by pressing upon them a piece of machinery to which they are strongly opposed. It is difficult to make a local authority work machinery if they do not want to do so; they will not work it. Moreover, whereas those of us who have been concerned with this matter have taken the view that a joint board is preferable, we are really speaking with little experience of either system. We believe that a joint board is a good thing; but we may be wrong—nobody is infallible in these matters. I feel that it is not a bad thing to try out the machinery of a joint advisory committee. In my view, the Minister has been wise in agreeing to the setting up of a committee for three years, subject to certain conditions, with a view to seeing how they get on. I am quite convinced that we shall get better results by carrying the local authorities with us, rather than by imposing machinery upon them.
If I were going to be presumptuous enough to advise the Commission, I would say that perhaps they have been rather rushing the local authorities, trying to get them to do things of the merits of which they have not yet been convinced, rather than waiting until the local authorities were quite convinced. After all, there is no doubt that if the Commission are right, the local authorities will come round to their view. But the Commission themselves have very little experience; nor are they infallible. As I have said, I think it would be much wiser to try and carry the local authorities with you; if you find that you cannot, then give them the opportunity of carrying out their own ideas.
A further point that is referred to in the Report is the question of whether

607
these joint bodies, or the advisory committee (whichever is set up) should have a separate planning officer and a separate staff to plan the national park area. Again, I believe that probably that will have to come, but it may well be that it would be premature to insist upon it at the present time. Until the authorities have prepared their plans and know what they are going to do about these national parks, there is not much work for a planning officer and a staff to carry out, and it may well be that the work can be done by the existing staff. When the time comes that there is much more activity in the national park areas, then no doubt the local authorities themselves will discover the wisdom of setting up a special staff to carry out the management.
The designation of a national park and the setting up of the machinery is, of course, only the beginning. There is a good deal of work to be done once these preliminary steps have been undertaken. The first thing is to prepare a scheme for the management of the national parks. Some of the things which the Commission are required to do are to remove unsightly and undesirable development and to enhance the beauty of the area. I would suggest that one of their greatest difficulties in preserving the area is with the Government and with public authorities. I suppose that the most difficult problem of all is the question of electricity. In almost every one of the national parks the question of dealing with the Electricity Authority has arisen. The Report refers to a number of controversies which have taken place in various parts of the country, and I am bound to say that both the Commission and the Electricity Authority have acted with considerable wisdom and restraint; there has been a good deal of give and take in this matter. It is not always practical, for instance, to put wires underground: such mundane questions as costs have to be taken into account. But where the cost factor does not loom too large, the Electricity Authority have been very willing to agree to take the necessary steps; and, in the aggregate, a considerable amount of wiring has been placed underground, so that the beauty of the area has been preserved.
The question of the Service Departments is a difficulty. Obviously, training has got to take place. I feel that sometimes the Service Departments are a little insensible as to where it should take place, and it is sometimes possible for them to find alternative sites once their attention has been drawn to the point. From my experience of the Service Departments, they have been eminently reasonable, and willing to accommodate themselves, having regard to the duties which they have to carry out and to the needs of the area. Wherever possible, they have gone out of their way to meet those needs. Nevertheless, there have been a number of instances in different parts of the country where they have had to encroach on national parks. One can only hope that they will take the greatest care of them, get out as quickly as possible and not leave too much mess behind.
That brings me to another difficulty. A great deal of the remains of war still lie about in some of these areas. Barbed wire, disused camps, large pieces of concrete, and so on, are still to be seen in far too many places in the national park areas. I hope that the Service Departments will make a point of contributing towards the enhancement of the beauty of these areas by getting rid of these unsightly objects. It is now eight years since the war ended. I am glad to see the noble and gallant Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, here to-day, because I am sure he will want to do all he can in this direction; and I hope that the other Service Departments will likewise take this matter to heart. We have been too long crying in the wilderness. The Forestry Commission also have been difficult at times, although now the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is the Chairman, I am sure that they will be much more reasonable. However, the Forestry Commission have tried to afforest areas which they ought not to afforest and which would be better left alone; I gather that they have sometimes planted the wrong trees, and that they have failed to plant areas which ought to be planted. In these national park areas there is a certain amount of derelict land, and I hope that the Forestry Commission will cast an eye over it and see whether the beauty of the area cannot be enhanced by

609
their using it for afforestation. I could refer to many areas where they could do this.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I hope the noble Lord realises that there is a Departmental arrangement by which the Forestry Commission consult with the National Parks Commission before they afforest any of the land in a national park area.
LORD SILKIN: I realise that, of course. It is laid down in the Act, and they have to do it. It is difficult, as the noble Earl knows, for the National Parks Commission or any other body always to be saying "No." It gives them a bad reputation and is very disagreeable. The noble Earl can ease matters by not putting up proposals which he knows are not entirely suitable, and thus avoiding the necessity of the National Parks Commission having to say "No" too often. Of course, legitimate differences of opinion will arise, and are bound to arise. I am quite sure that the two bodes can work amicably, and are working amicably; but differences have arisen. Then there are the local authorities with their big housing programmes and, in some cases, the difficulty of finding suitable sites. There again, the National Parks Commission are doing a good job in restraining the enthusiasm of some local authorities and inducing them to go to more suitable sites.
There is also the great difficulty of mineral workings. By one of the freaks of nature, some of the most valuable minerals in this country have been placed in the most beautiful parts of the country. There is always the dilemma as to whether you are going to dig for minerals and spoil the countryside, or 20 without the minerals in the places where they are most needed. This is a most intractable problem, but you cannot solve it by always saying "No" to the mineral workers. There are cases where it is inevitable that mineral workings should be either permitted or extended. I am afraid that: the Peak District was one of them. There was an unanswerable case for extending mineral workings in the Peak District in 1948 or thereabouts; and it had to done. It is difficult, and I am sure that the National Parks Commission have been very wise in recognising that it is impracticable simply to deny the mineral
610
workers facilities for working in a national park area.
What the Commission can do, of course, and what I am sure they are endeavouring to do, is, where they are satisfied that alternative facilities are available in less desirable and less beautiful parts of the country, to recommend and urge upon We Minister the use of those alternative areas. Where it becomes inevitable to use an area in a national park, then I think they must put down conditions which are reasonable but which provide for restoration at the earliest possible moment and, in the meantime, for plantation and so on, so as to minimise the immediate ill-effects on the area. That is the work of preserving and enhancing the beauty of the national park area. But the Commission also have the responsibility of recommending to the local authorities the provision of facilities for enjoyment by the public, the provision of accommodation, by way of hostels, camps and so on, and refreshment facilities. I take it that their aim is to use existing agencies as far as possible—agencies like the Youth Hostels Association. I should like to see grants given to these organisations in cases where it is not possible for the Commission themselves to provide the facilities. But I hope that the grants will be by way of capital and not by way of maintenance. It would be a mistake to subsidise the provision of refreshments to the general public, or even the provision of accommodation, beyond the point of helping in the capital expenditure. I believe that much more could be done in the way of providing road facilities and car parking facilities. One knows from experience that in some of these areas the car parking facilities are hopelessly inadequate, and the result is that vehicles interfere with the enjoyment of the public.
There is one matter which I hope will be dealt with even more vigorously and energetically than has been done so far, and that is the question of litter. In accordance with the Act, the National Parks Commission have prepared and made public the Country Code—an excellent document which has had a wide circulation. But apparently it has not circulated in the right quarters, because one has only to go to any of these areas, say after a Bank Holiday, to find the place

611
filthy, with litter of all kinds. One could never believe that so much litter existed in the world as one finds in these places. People seem to bring it from home with the express purpose of leaving it in a national park area—of course I know that that is not so, but that is the impression one gets. Evidently much more education will be necessary to ensure that the public do not foul their own nest.
What can be done about it I do not know—that is the job of the Commission. I understand that they were preparing a film, and that the Government have been unwilling to meet the cost of that film. Whether a film is the right way of dealing with it I should not like to say, but I hope the Government will not be niggardly in giving the Commission the facilities for doing whatever they think necessary to educate the public up to using the national parks in the right way. One method would be by the employment of wardens. So far, no planning body has appointed any wardens. Of course, the purpose of wardens is not to act as policemen but to guide the general public and to educate them. If they see anything of this kind happening, it will be their business to explain to the public that these things are not done.
I should like to say a word about the other provisions of the Act—the access provisions. On the whole, I think they are working well. One feared that large numbers of access orders would have to be made by compulsion over landowners, but apparently the landowners are playing up quite well; and so far as I know it has not been necessary to make any access orders at all. It may be that one or two may be necessary in one of the national park areas, although I hope not. By and large, there seems to be very little complaint about the implementation of the access provisions. I hope that the public, who are enjoying access to other people's land almost for the first time in history, will use those lands with care, and will treat them as if they were their own lands—which, in fact, they almost are—and see that landowners have no cause for regret at having facilitated the access provisions of the Act.
The achievements in the matter of long-distance footpaths I am sure your Lordships will note with great satisfaction. A great deal has been done in a short time.
612
We have the Pennine Way approved, the Cornish coastal path, a path about 135 miles in length, and a number of others. There have been some disappointments, with which I hope some noble Lords who are to speak later will deal. There is, for instance, the Thames footpath. However, I do not want to detain your Lordships any longer. I will conclude by saying that the setting up of the national parks and the provision of access constitute a tremendous advance in enabling the public to enjoy and appreciate our beautiful and healthy countryside. In the past hundred years or so there had been a big drift from the country to the town; and to-day four people out of five live in towns. But it is obvious from these figures that the town dweller has his roots in the country, and it is good that he should be encouraged to return, if only occasionally, and should be given an opportunity of appreciating and enjoying country pursuits, thus creating what is needed in a healthy community: harmony between town and country. I beg to move for Papers.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
3.51 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I want to occupy only a fairly short time this afternoon, but there are one or two points which arise out of this Report of the National Parks Commission on which I should like to comment, living as I do in the Lake District national park. I should like first to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it is high time we had a debate on this matter, and also that the National Parks Commission are to be congratulated on much of the work which they have already done. I also agree with him, if I understand what he said aright, that the time is not opportune now, at any rate, for giving the Commission greater powers. The noble Lord referred to the misconceptions that have arisen over this matter and which are referred to on page 11 of the Report. The most common is the misunderstanding as to unrestricted right of access in areas that have been designated as national parks. There certainly is that misconception; one meets it from time to time. I would suggest, however, that that misconception is really a symptom of a fact which the noble Lord

613
mentioned in the course of his remarks, that the whole idea of national parks did not seem to have "caught on" quite as much as some people had hoped. The misconception regarding access, I am quite sure, arises not from any idea of malice or from people trying, to go where they are not meant to go. It is because they do not understand the idea of the national park.
That brings me to a general point on which I should like to say a few words, and that is the Country Code. I am well aware that the Country Code refers to behaviour in the country, all over the country and not merely in national parks. I suppose most people, or a very large proportion, who have visited the country from the towns, go to the national parks, and therefore the question of a country code is particularly important inside these parks. Those of us who for one reason or another were interested from the start in establishing these parks always felt how important it was, if the parks were to be successful, that there should be a considerable amount of mutual education and understanding between those who normally live and work in the parks and those who visit the parks from the towns. Hence, of course, the obvious need for something that would be known as a country code. So the Country Code was issued; and I should like to say at the outset that I consider it a most admirable document. It is well worded, it is delightfully illustrated and it should appeal to anyone who has a few minutes to spare to read it. But what is the use of having a country code if nobody or hardly anybody sees it?
The noble Lord, Lord Silk in, said that this Code had had a fairly wide distribution. I am afraid I do not agree with him. I have talked to a great many people, both inside and outside the national parks, and asked them what they thought of the Code. The vast majority of them had never even heard of the Code. Indeed, even when I came into your Lordships' House this afternoon I found at least one of my noble friends who had never seen the Code before. Although I would not accuse any member of your Lordships' House of not behaving most properly in the country, at the same time it think that this widespread ignorance is an indication that this Country Code has not had the distribution it ought to have had.
614
I think this is borne out by the Report itself. The Report says, in paragraph 28, that there was an initial printing of 20,000 copies and that there was a further printing of 25,000, making in all 45,000 copies. In my view that is merely scratching the surface of the problem—in fact it is hardly doing that. I should have liked to see au initial issue of, say 500,000 distributed right down to the children of secondary school age. I should have liked to see it in railway and bus booking offices, in hotels, boarding houses and other such establishments where it could be seen. I realise, however, that if you are going to try to distribute a pamphlet on that scale you can hardly expect people to pay for it. I believe we ought to have issued that pamphlet free of charge if we really wanted to disseminate all that is inherent in it. I am delighted to see in the Report that educational authorities regard the Code as of considerable value and that they use it; but I doubt whether it is really getting down to the children, arid I doubt whether it is getting down to the children's parents, which is quite as important. Is it not rather being read simply by the teacher and then put away in the teacher's desk for possible occasional future reference? That is all I propose to say on that point, but I hope my noble friend will bear it in mind.
The second point I want to make is more parochial. It again deals with a matter to which the noble Lord referred; it is the question of staffs of the joint planning board. In the Lake District national park we have a joint planning board, and the Commission, as I understand it on reading the Report, made a strong recommendation that at least that board should have a full-time planning officer. In fact, I observe that the Chairman of the Commission went personally to the North-West to try to persuade them to carry out: that idea. However, as the Report tells us, that recommendation was turned down by the board, who decided that for a trial period of three years they would use the services of three planning officers of the three counties concerned—Lancashire, Westmorland and Cumberland. It remains to be seen whether or not that decision is going to work out. I advise the Minister to keep a very keen eye on it. It seems to me that the decision may work out, but that it is mote likely to cause a breakdown in one very

615
important aspect. The whole idea, surely, of having special planning was that it would provide a better opportunity than would be possible by using the existing county planning organisations for expressing what one may call the inspiration or the idealism which many felt could really be said to underlie the whole conception of national parks.
The arrangement now being tried out in the Lake District seems to me likely to fall between two stools, because, surely, the recommendations of those three planning officers acting jointly must in a great number of cases almost certainly prove to be compromises—and what compromise was ever known to be inspired? This is no criticism whatever of the three individuals concerned, whom I believe to be most admirable and competent individuals. But it seems that those members of the board who in the first place accepted the invitation to serve upon it because it was something which they really believed in and thought was worth while doing, may well feel now that what is being done could just as well be done by the county planning arrangements set up under the 1947 Act, instead of by any special machinery set up under the National Parks Act. I have no doubt that those members of the board, who will probably be extremely busy men, as most of your Lordships are these days, may well feel that they are losing the enthusiasm which they originally felt for the work. I voice that feeling here, not as mere surmise on my part but as something based upon a certain amount of information. If enthusiasm is going to wane on the planning boards themselves, where else can we expect to find it? I understand that in the particular case I have mentioned nothing can be done about the matter for three years. We shall have to see how it works out. But I hope that the Minister will watch this point carefully, so that, if the arrangement does not prove to be a success, he may try again to get the Commission to persuade the board to set up their own staff.
4.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am not competent, as other noble Lords are, to deal with the detailed administration of this scheme of which my noble friend Lord Silkin was the originator—at any rate, it was under his direction
616
that the scheme was realised. I wish to draw attention only to two rather specialised aspects of the whole scheme. The first is the matter of footpaths, and particularly the long-distance routes. Your Lordships will remember that Section 51 (1) of the Act gives powers to the Commission, when they consider
"that the public should be enabled to make extensive journeys on foot or on horseback along a particular route, being a route which for the whole or the greater part of its length does not pass along"
motor roads. The Annual Report of the Commission this year, the one that we are debating, gives news of three of those paths. The first is the Pennine Way, and we are glad to know that progress is being made. But is it not rather slow progress? We hear that there are some eighty miles of footpaths still required in order to link up the existing stretches and make the path complete. Can Her Majesty's Government tell us what progress has been made up to date since the matter was debated in another place in February of this year? How many miles have been designated for the public use over that route? Are the Government satisfied that amenities on the route, facilities for accommodation, refreshment, and so on, are in fact being provided?
One hears stories that all is not well: that ramblers and hikers still encounter gamekeepers, water-supply wardens and the like, who object to the presence of the public on these grounds. That brings up the whole question of any measure, such as this, which produces conflict between different interests. There is the interest of the public, which was recognised in the Act, and there is the interest of the owner, on whatever grounds, either as a water undertaker or as a landowner who wants to shoot grouse on his moors: those interests conflict with the interests of the public and of the Act. As I see it, it is for the Minister and for Parliament to balance the conflicting interests and resolve the conflict. The particular one that I have in mind is the question of access to the gathering grounds of water supply. I believe there are a number of water authorities who still maintain that, to prevent any danger of infection, the public must be excluded from these gathering grounds.
The noble Lord who is to reply will know that there was a Committee, the Central Advisory Water Committee,

617
which went into precisely that point, and their findings deserve a great deal more publicity than they have had hitherto. In their Report for 1948 they said:
"No case has been mentioned in this country where disease has been transmitted by the pollution of a large reservoir, even where no effective filtration or sterilisation has been provided."
They went on to say that:
"gathering grounds should be so managed asto make the maximum contribution to the general welfare by providing facilities for healthy recreation and the production of food and timber."
Finally, they summed it up by saying that they could see no justification on the grounds of water purity for prohibiting access to the remainder of the gathering grounds. That should give the National Parks Commission and the boards administering these footpaths ample power to insist on free access in the parks and in the vicinity of the footpaths.
The next long-distance path mentioned in the Report is the Cornish North Coast Path. The scheme for this magnificient coastal path of 130 miles or so, rounding Land's End, was submitted to the Minister early in 1952, and the Minister's approval was signified in April, 1952. Can the noble Lord tell us what is the present position, and whether the footpath will in fact be available to the public this year? The third one mentioned in the Commission's Report is the Thames Riverside Walk. In that case the story is not so cheerful, because the National Parks Commission have finally had to abandon the idea of incorporating it in the system of long-distance footpaths. The movement for a Thames long-distance riverside walk began some seven or eight years ago and was enthusiastically pursued by the Thames Conservancy and the local authorities on the banks of the river.
Reading the history of this matter, one has the impression that when the Act was about to come into operation, the interest or drive to complete the riverside path rather fell away. One has the suspicion that all those concerned thought that a fairy godmother would suddenly appear when the National Parks Commission was set up and would solve all their financial difficulties. Whether or not that was so, when the National Parks Commission were approached on this subject
618
in 1950, they made close investigations into the position and found that the cost of setting up this path would be more than they felt justified in recommending to the Minister at that time. Anyone reading history will be surprised to learn that the Thames Conservancy, while under a statutory obligation to provide a towing path when there was need for the towing of vessels on the river, apparently cease to have responsibility for maintaining that path for the benefit of pedestrians. The figures quoted for the cost of the necessary repairs to the river bank show that over many years the river has been shamefully neglected, because they run into hundreds of thousands of pounds for capital and maintenance in the first ten years, mainly for repairs due to erosion of the banks. It is a sad story, and we should like to know what Her Majesty's Government think of it and what are the prospects for the Thames Riverside Walk eventually becoming available for the use of the public.
There are other possibilities for long-distance footpaths that I should like to mention, one being the opportunity afforded by the waterways system of this country. There are active canals and obsolete or disused canals running generally through beautiful and unspoiled parts of the country, and giving access to several of the national parks and other beauty spots. In cases where a river or canal is actively used it would not be justifiable, where a public right of way does not exist at present, to throw it open to the public, because the towpath is essential for the purpose of navigation. But where commercial navigation has ceased, I see no reason why towpaths should not be put at the disposal of the public, to form part of this national network of long distance footpaths which the Act had in mind. Under the Transport Commission there are some 600 miles of canals that are no longer used for commercial navigation, and a great many more that are already derelict. It seems to me that those might well be incorporated in the footpaths system. As an extension of the Thames footpath, the line of the Thames and Severn Canal to the River Severn might be followed. There are many other waterways that could supplement the few schemes that are in existence at present.

619
That brings me to my next point, which is 'the administration of the national parks under the Act itself. It was clearly in the minds of those who started the scheme, the Hobhouse Committee, and, indeed, it is in the Act, that public open-air recreation is one of the principal objects of the national parks system. The Act states that the second duty of the National Parks Commission is to encourage
"the provision or improvement, for persons resorting to national parks, of facilities for the enjoyment thereof and for the enjoyment of the opportunities for open-air recreation.…"
I submit that "open-air recreation" should include boating, and in that I am supported by the Hobhouse Committee and, indeed, by the Act itself. The Act included a special clause, Clause 13, giving power that the local planning authorities
"may as respects any waterway in the Park…carry out such work…as may appear to them necessary…for facilitating the use of the waterway by the public for sailing, boating, bathing, or fishing."
Your Lordships may say that there are no waterways in national parks. It is not generally known, but I fancy that most parks contain the head waters of some river. Many of them are canoeable, and that is one form of recreation afloat. Then, although admittedly not many of the larger navigable canals and rivers pass through national parks, one in particular does pass through an area which the Hobhouse Committee recommended and which my noble friend Lord Silkin referred to just now—namely, the Brecon Beacons area. Over twenty miles of waterway run through that area and would add enormously to the enjoyment of the public using the park.
The Peak Forest is another case in point. Your Lordships may not realise that you can get by boat to within six miles of Buxton in the Peak Forest, by way of a most beautiful waterway running from the Potteries in one direction and from Manchester in another. That canal does not actually fall within the boundaries of the park but it skirts it for a number of miles. Not only would it give access from the industrial areas to the people who wanted to come to the park by water, but it would also add to the amenities of the park itself. Other waterways approach quite close to the park
620
areas or pass through those areas that the Hobhouse Committee designated, I think, as conservation areas, but which the Act refers to under the name of "areas of outstanding natural beauty." Access by water to these areas would enormously increase the scope of the park and the opportunities for the enjoyment of the public.
There is another aspect of this question. It arises from the fact that for a long time the British Transport Commission have been negotiating with local authorities to see whether local authorities and the National Parks Commission could take over those canals and waterways which are no longer of use for commercial traffic. As long ago as the time when they published their Report for 1949 they said this:
"The Executive welcome the enabling powers of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949, whereby certain waterways in National Parks may be developed for pleasure purposes by or in conjunction with local Planning Authorities. The extension of these powers to waterways outside the areas at present designated as National Parks may prove to be desirable."
Any of your Lordships who has read the Reports of the Transport Commission over successive years will realise that they are burdened with some 600 miles of canals which have to be maintained but which earn no revenue because the commercial need for them has passed. For the most part, they cannot be closed down, because they perform other functions than purely navigational ones. They are required for water supply, drainage, and numerous other purposes including, of course, pleasure, amenity and recreation. Unfortunately, these Reports, year by year, go no further than to say that negotiations are in progress with several authorities. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to tell us whether Her Majesty's Government are in favour of this solution—or perhaps one should say partial solution—of one of these problems, a problem both of transport and public amenity. Here is an opportunity of going some way towards solving the problem in both its aspects. I hope that the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government will be able to tell us that something is being done.
I have said enough about footpaths, and the particular and rather special aspect of the incorporation of waterways, in order to provide access and improve

621
and widen the scope which the parks would offer. I commend these ideas to your Lordships, and I end by expressing the hope that we may hear from the noble Lord something of what is in the minds of the Government about these matters.
4.25 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I think we ought to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this very important problem. I hope that lie will not feel, if I criticise a little some of the things he said, that it is a question of "giving Greek gifts," so to speak. In the debate on country houses the other day, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, began an interesting speech by confessing an interest, which, he said, was not the normal type of interest which noble Lords are accustomed to declare on these occasions. It was not that he owned a country house, but that Lady Waverley had been a member of the Gowers Committee. Perhaps I ought to begin my speech this afternoon by a similar confession. It is not the case that I own a national park, but it is the fact that I had the pleasure and the honour of being a member of the Hobhouse Committee, and that gave me one of the most interesting pieces of work with which I have ever been occupied. And, indeed, this problem of establishing national parks has far a very long time been one of the central interests of my life.
I remember that shortly after the First World War the late Lord Bryce, who was then, I think, spending a holiday in the Lake District, wrote a letter to The Times in which he said—writing from his great experience in the United States—that we in this country ought in our own way to attempt the establishment of national parks, and that the Lake District would be the obvious district in which such a scheme should be started. The imagination of that proposal appealed to me; and ever since that time I have taken a very deep personal interest in these problems. When the Standing Joint Committee on National Parks was set up, as the result of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, over which a highly respected member of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Addison, presided, I was an original member of it. That Standing Joint Committee, which represented, I think, all the different
622
amenity societies and outdoor organisations interested in this problem, was set up early in the 1930's, and did a tremendous amount of spadework and hard thinking. One can say, I believe, without too much self-flattery, that that undoubtedly laid the groundwork for the Hobhouse Committee, and, so far as the advice of the Hobhouse Committee was put into the Act of (949, for the Act itself.
Prominent on the Committee was the late John Dower, who made a number of preliminary surveys, and Colonel Buxton. As I have said, I was a member of it, also. Those three were appointed to the Hobhouse Committee which was set up, as your Lordships will remember, just as the last war came to an end. It was interesting to observe how valuable this preliminary work of the Standing Joint Committee proved to the Hobhouse Committee. That Committee contained, in addition to those of us who had spent a great deal of time in studying the problems of national parks and in formulating proposals, other representatives of outdoor interests, and also a number of men with great experience of public affairs, including, most obviously, the Chairman himself, Sir Arthur Hobhouse, a public servant whose many valuable services to this country, I think, have never really received adequate recognition; Sir William Gavin, a most distinguished expert in agricultural matters; Professor Julian Huxley, and other men of equal eminence. I think the Hobhouse Report did, in fact, largely reflect the views which had been put before it by those of us who had been members of the Standing Joint Committee, and by the spokesmen who came to give evidence before us on behalf of that organisation and on behalf of the other outdoor organisations represented on that Committee.
It was very interesting to see how men like the Chairman, Sir Arthur Hobhouse, who, after all, spent very much of his life in local government work, and who was at the time, I think, Chairman of the County Councils Association, came to accept the view that in order to create a really satisfactory system of national parks, a powerful National Parks Commission would have to be established, and a real national system, as opposed

623
to a local government planning system, set up. That was quite remarkable, coming from a man who was such an eminent representative of local authority interests. Of course, there were aspects of the Hobhouse Report which were not altogether acceptable to the amenities societies and the open air movement. Those aspects, to which my noble friend Lord Silkin referred—the problem of central government and the possibility of establishing a National Parks Commission which would be completely independent of ministerial authority and which would not have a Minister who must answer for their work in Parliament—were naturally much better appreciated by a man of wide public experience like Sir Arthur Hobhouse than by members of the Joint Standing Committee. That is the value of having on such Committees men with experience of public life, who appreciate the political and constitutional difficulties which arise. Apart from that aspect of the matter, the views of the Hobhouse Committee commended themselves to all those who had given thought and attention to this problem.
Unfortunately, they did not commend themselves to the Minister concerned, and though he accepted the advice of the Hobhouse Committee in many respects, he did not do so in what I might call fundamental aspects. The Bill which he introduced was not a Bill to set up national parks, with the accent on "national," but a glorified planning scheme. I am now referring to Part I of the Act, dealing with national parks, and not to the later Parts which deal with nature conservancy, footpaths and other problems of that kind. I have no doubt that the Minister preferred the advice of the civil servants, who took rather a technical view of the matter. I imagine also that as the author of the Town and Country Planning Act, which had so recently reached the Statute Book, he felt that the object he had in view could be achieved by skilful use of the provisions of that Act. Therefore, the approach to the whole problem in the National Parks Act of 1949 is entirely a planning approach, and the active, dynamic, creative aspects of national parks which were stressed in the Hobhouse Report, were completely overlooked and no pro-
624
vision was made in the Act for carrying them out.
The scheme, which I may refer to as the Silkin scheme, depended in the first place on the reinforcement of the local planning committees with national representatives, so that the national aspects of the problem might be brought into focus to some extent; secondly, on the formation of joint committees in those designated areas where more than one planning authority was concerned, and, thirdly, on supervision of the local planning authorities by a National Parks Commission—a Commission which, however, was given no actual power beyond that of calling on the Minister to step in from time to time and, possibly, overrule the decisions of the local planning committee. That was entirely contrary to the whole conception of the Hobhouse Report, which wished to establish a strong National Parks Commission which would use the local planning authorities and the powers under the Town and Country Planning Act for the purpose of setting up real national parks in those parts of the country where they decided, subject to the confirmation of the Minister, that parks could most appropriately be established.
As your Lordships may remember, I had the unfortunate but not unique experience of piloting this Bill through your Lordships' House, when my sympathies were often with the criticisms made from the Opposition Benches, which fixed on the fact that the National Parks Commission were being given so little power that nothing very much could be expected of them. The Silkin scheme could work satisfactorily only if it were applied 100 per cent. Unfortunately, it has been applied approximately 100 per cent. only in one case—in the Peak District, to which my noble friend referred in his opening speech. In a way the Peak District was an acid test of the application of the principles of the Silkin scheme. In the most important national park areas more than one planning authority is involved, and in the Peak District there were five authorities, so that from the point of view of local planning committees it was the most complicated of all possible areas. As had been expected, all the local planning authorities in the Peak District objected to the establishment of a joint planning board, and they asked the

625
Minister to make an order that they need not have a joint board.
When I heard my noble friend say that he thought it right to have the local authorities carry out their own ideas, I thanked God that he had ceased to be Minister when that application was dealt with. His successor refused that application, and insisted, against the local authorities in question, on their establishing a joint planning board. The noble Lord told us this afternoon that we cannot insist on local authorities carrying out Acts of Parliament if they do not want to do so, because if we do they will not cooperate. Yet, as soon as the successor of the noble Lord had said that there must be a joint planning board in the Peak District, the local authorities sat down and worked it out perfectly well. I am sure that if the noble Lord who is Deputy Chairman of the National Parks Commission were to speak this afternoon he would tell us that the Peak District is the most successful national park of all, and the board there the only board working quite satisfactorily.
It is also interesting that when Dr. Dalton, as Minister of Town and Country Planning, adopted this view, he received the strong support of the Conservative and Unionist Central Office. In their Campaign Notes for 1951, that Office pointed out that the Labour Government's Act had not been good enough, because it did not give sufficient power to the National Parks Commission, complimented Dr. Dalton on having taken the action he did over the Peak District, and added that The Times and the Manchester Guardian had supported them by saying, in effect, that a strong line ought to be taken in these cases. Yet, when the present Minister of Housing and Local Government is confronted with exactly the same situation in North Wales, he runs away from what his own Party's Central Office advocated in the 1951 Campaign Notes. Unfortunately, he has the support of the noble Lord who moved this Motion. I suggest that if the present Minister had taken the strong line which Mr. Dalton took, And insisted on the county councils in North Wales carrying out the terms of the Act—after all, it is a Statute of the sovereign Parliament—they would then have got together and made a joint planning board for North Wales work, and work successfully, just as the
626
one in the Peak district has been working successfully.
The next important point is one made by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale—and I was glad to hear the noble Lord bring his own personal knowledge of the Lake District to bear on this point. It is not only important that there should be a joint planning board, but vitally important, also, that the joint planning board should work through its own planning officer. Surely it stands to reason that in a large area such as the Peak District, the Lake District or North Wales, the planning arrangements ought to be in the hands of one expert planning officer. I suggest that when the local authorities of Westmorland, Cumberland and Lancashire came to see Mr. Dalton to ask him to allow them to make use of the services of each of the separate county planning officers, it was a mistake on his part to give way, departing from the admirable line which he took in the Peak District. It is significant that in the Peak District they have the one planning officer, who is responsible for the planning arrangements throughout that Park, and that it is in that Park that the arrangements are working so satisfactorily.
In the Lake District they are not working anything like 100 per cent. satisfactorily. The noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, who lives up there and knows all about it, put his finger on the sore spot, which is that there are three different planning officers concerned in the planning arrangements, and under those conditions it is really not possible for the arrangements to work well. It is not that the different county councils, as a matter of amour propre, prestige or anything of that kind, want to see their own planning officer; employed; it is just that they do not see why they should be put to the expense. Two of them are poor counties, and they do not see why they should be put to the expense of paying a salary to a parks planning officer, together with all his staff, which clearly ought to be a national expense. After all, these are national parks, and it is absurd that it should not be a national expense. One of the great difficulties in the Silkin scheme, if I may say so, was that it put the whole of the expense of the arrangements for each of the different national parks on the local authorities concerned.
LORD SILKEN: The noble Lord will bear in mind that there is the possibility of a 75 per cent. grant.
LORD CHORLEY: Yes, I know; and it has been very little used on the occasions when an attempt has been made to get it; again, that is one of the difficulties. One cannot blame the local authorities, when they find it is so difficult to squeeze money out of the National Exchequer, for trying to save the local rates by proposing that they should use their own county planning officers, instead of doing what is ideally the right thing—namely, to have one joint planning officer for the whole district.
Unfortunately, as time has gone on there seems to have been a growing opposition on the part of the local authorities to the whole conception of the national parks scheme, and designations have been fought more and more vigorously. The North Yorkshire moors proposals were fought very hard; a local inquiry was held, and great opposition was put up. I understand that in Cornwall the county council, despite the fact that the Act is an Imperial Statute, on the Statute Book, have, in effect, passed a resolution that the proposals of the National Parks Commission shall be laid on the table sine die—almost making a long nose at Parliament. I should have thought. Yet, as I say, the Peak District national park is working reasonably well, and none of the apprehensions expressed by the local authorities to the National Parks Commission and the Minister, and at the different inquiries which have been held, have been found to be justified in practice. I suggest that it could be a good thing if the National Parks Commission could arrange for much better publicity as to how well things have been going in the Peak District. If it could be brought to the attention of the local authorities in Cornwall, in the North Riding of Yorkshire and in the other districts where this local opposition has developed, that in a district as complicated, from the local authority point of view, as the Peak District, surrounded by dangers from large industrial populations, which are non-existent in the North Riding of Yorkshire, in Cornwall and in these other rural areas, I am sure that their apprehensions would, to a considerable extent, dissolve.
628
I have given a rather wider survey of this problem than is perhaps justified by the terms of the Motion, which refer to the Report of the National Parks Commission for the year 1951–52. I should like to say something about this Report, and about the Reports generally, because I feel that the second and third Reports—the first was only an interim Report—are documents of great interest and of considerable public value. While complimenting the Commission on their Reports, I should like also to compliment them on their work as a whole. I believe that the Commission have more than justified themselves. They are proving a valuable public body, and I feel that, considering the handicaps under which they started work, they have done much better than many of us expected—and, indeed, much better than anyone could have expected. The Commission were lacking in experience. The Minister came in for a good deal of criticism, in that when he appointed the National Parks Commission he carefully left out all those who had been working on the problems of national parks during the years before. Looking, back, I think that probably he was right to do that. He decided on a Chairman of considerable public experience in this country and elsewhere, and on a Vice-chairman of great experience in public affairs. He then built up the remainder of the Commission largely of young men who had not had much experience of public life, but who have since thrown themselves into this work with great energy, determination and enthusiasm, qualities of the greatest value.
I think the Minister is to be congratulated on having been able to get together a team of the calibre which the National Parks Commission have shown themselves to possess. Then they were handicapped by the fact that hardly any power was conferred upon them in the Act; and perhaps, still more, by the fact that they have no money. The Hobhouse Committee were informally instructed that they could draw up a scheme on the basis that substantial sums of money from the disposal of war supplies, and that sort of thing, would be available—money that went into the Land Fund. Actually, when the Bill came to be presented, it bore a quite different aspect. It is obviously impossible to provide in

629
the national park areas the boating facilities to which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, referred, to remove eyesores, and to provide all sorts of hostel accommodation, caravan sites and facilities of this type, without very considerable expenditure of money. Even if the Minister is able to get this grant from the Treasury to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago, it will still leave a tremendous burden upon the local authorities. The result is that practically nothing has been done on these lines.
For the same reason, the National Parks Commission work with a very exiguous staff. I myself have been surprised at the work which they succeed in doing with the exiguous staff which has been placed at their disposal. It shows that much enthusiastic and energetic work is put into the job by those who are actually in the office. I hope that the National Parks Commission are not beginning to get downhearted as a result of the opposition which has been more and more encountered from the local authorities of recent years. In my view, they have not been properly supported by the Minister, who, against their advice, has time after time given way to the local authorities. It must be very depressing from the point of view of the National Parks Commission when they have taken a strong line—as for example over the appointment of a single planning officer for the Lakes National Park—to find the Minister giving way, as he did. I hope they will proceed with their designations. They have been designating at the rate of about two national park areas per annum up to the present year. This year there have been no designations, and so far as I am able to discover it is unlikely that there will be any. I hope that this is not due to any feeling on the part of the National Parks Commission that they ought to stop because of this lack of support from the Minister and this hostility from the local authorities.
The Hobhouse Committee mentioned altogether twelve areas, each one of which I am sure was very worthy of designation. I was interested to hear the noble Lord's suggestions for other areas. There is something to be said for the Chilterns, as opposed to the Roman Wall. That proposal was before the Hobhouse Committee, and they had to come to a balance
630
of opinion as to which was the better. To which Dove area does the noble Lord refer, when he proposes that Dovedale should be designated as a national park?
LORD SILKIN: West Durham.
LORD CHORLEY: Of course, I appreciate that there are two Dovedales, but I wondered to which one the noble Lord was referring. It may well be that there is a good deal to be said for that area. The noble Lord will appreciate that if the Roman Wall area and the Dales area of Yorkshire were to be designated as national parks, and also the Dovedale area which he is suggesting, it would mean that there would be three national park areas all lying more or less along the Pennine Chain, and very close to each other.
One of the areas at which I would suggest the National Parks Commission should look very soon is the South Downs area, which the noble Lord was rather against designating. It seems to me quite wrong that there should not be a national park area within reasonably close distance of London. After all, you have a greater concentration of urban population here than anywhere in the whole country. The Hobhouse Committee gave very close attention to the problem of a national park within reasonably easy distance of London. The Marlborough Downs district was explored very thoroughly, but it was so cut up by agriculture that it was finally decided not to be a suitable area. It was eventually decided that if there was to be a national park within reasonable distance of London, the only satisfactory area would be the South Downs. That is a lovely district: large parts of it are completely unspoiled. I suggest to the Minister that he should encourage the National Parks Commission to get on with designating further national park areas and to give very early attention to the South Downs area.
The 1951–52 Report, of course, deals more largely with parks and not very much with footpaths, except the long-distance footpaths which are, so far as the Act itself goes, the only ones which are expressly brought within the ambit of the work of the Commission. Part IV of the Act, which is the longest Part of the whole Act, and in some ways the most important, is taken up with the

631
question of providing and maintaining footpaths in the ordinary country districts, where the footpaths are at the service of people living in small towns and villages, who go out for week-end rambles and that sort of thing, and do not go into the far distant national parks. Therefore, these footpaths are of great local importance. Part IV of the Act, as your Lordships remember, places on the highway authorities the obligation of making a survey of all the footpaths in their own areas. I believe that on the whole that work has been going on reasonably well, although there are a number of highway authorities in the different counties which have not made such satisfactory progress.
A number of difficulties are being experienced and are, I think, of some importance. For example, the Act puts the duty of repair and upkeep of these footpaths on to the highway authority, and while some highway authorities are carrying out the work reasonably well, I am informed—and there is a great deal of information in the offices of the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, of which I have the honour to be a member—that some of the authorities are not doing their work properly. The repair of footpaths when they lie on the route of private roads, and when they cross over private bridges, is also giving rise to a great deal of difficulty. The local highway authorities are taking the view that it is not their job to keep up the private roads or to maintain the bridges, and that is not an unreasonable point of view. On the other hand, the landowner does not see why he should do it, and it may well be that this is a problem which can be solved only by an amendment of the Act. At the moment, discussions are going on, but as far as I can make out there seems to be little prospect of a solution being reached. There is a precisely similar problem when a footpath crosses a fence or hedge by means of a stile or gate. Local authorities contend that their job is only to maintain the footpath and not to maintain the stile or gate. The landowner says, "I do not see why I should have this burden thrust upon me." Here again, it has not so far proved possible for the representatives of the landowners to come to an arrangement with the representatives of the local authorities.
632
Another acute problem which is also far from solution is that of ploughing up public footpaths. Your Lordships know that long before this Act was passed there had been a great deal of heart-burning because of the persistent habit of farmers of ploughing up footpaths. From the point of view of the farmer, that is not unreasonable, because it is difficult, when ploughing a field across which a footpath goes, to preserve the footpath. That matter was finally settled, as we thought, by the important Section 56, which gives the farmer the right to plough up a footpath in those circumstances, provided that he gives notice to the highway authority of his intention to do so, and provided that later on, after the crop has been taken, he restores the footpath. Now, my Lords, there is a great deal of evidence to show that, while farmers are taking full advantage of the power to plough, they are not observing the conditions laid down: they are not giving notice to the highway authority, and are not taking steps to see that the footpath is restored at a later stage in the process of the agricultural economy. It should be somebody's job to see that these obligations which have been placed upon the farmers by Act of Parliament are carried out, and that proceedings are taken, by way of discouraging this sort of action, against farmers who are breaking the law in this way.
There are a number of other difficult problems of this kind which are arising. The Act confers new and valuable rights on highway authorities for the stopping up or diversion of footpaths which are no longer required or are not following the best lines, and those powers have been used a good deal. The Act also provides powers for local authorities to open up new footpaths in places where they are needed, but my information is that very little use is being made of those powers. These are not matters which are specifically put on the National Parks Commission to deal with, but I suggest that if they are not considered to be within the Commission's competence a short Act of Parliament should give them a general right of control over this whole problem of footpaths. The highway authorities vary in keenness and enthusiasm from place to place, but at present it is nobody's job to see that they are carrying out their duties under the Act. I

633
suggest, therefore, that this matter should be specifically entrusted to the National Parks Commission, and that it should be one of their duties not only to look after these long-distance footpaths, in respect of which they have been doing a very good job, but also to keep an eye on the whole footpath problem of this country.
Finally, I should like to say a word on the subject touched upon by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, of catchment areas for reservoirs. The National Parks Commission, as is their duty under the Act, take a wide view of their obligations in respect of development questions in national park areas; and that part of their Report which deals with these matters is of great interest and well repays careful reading. This particular aspect of the problem, however, has not, I think, so far been touched on, and it does not appear that it has been given very close consideration by the Commission. It is a problem which for a long time has caused heart-burning among the open-air societies. In earlier days, when a great public authority promoted a Bill in Parliament for the purpose of taking powers over a wide catchment area, a provision was always inserted by the Parliamentary Committee that access by the public should be allowed over the areas in question. That was a right which was much prized by ramblers and others who went out walking in the country.
A good example is to be found in the Thirlmere Act of the Manchester Corporation, the result of which was to make it possible for the public to go up on the beautiful mountain country on the other side of Thirlmere Lake, which is the Manchester Corporation Reservoir. But in more recent Statutes, such as that of the Longendale Reservoir, that clause has been omitted. Lord Lucan pointed out that the Central Advisory Water Committee which considered the matter came to the conclusion that the fears of local authorities that the result would be dangerous to the health of their people were without foundation. The Hobhouse Committee had before them the Director of the Fresh Water Biological Station, and he gave us most valuable evidence which completely bore out that finding of the Committee to which Lord Lucan referred. There is no danger to health from pollution in this wide open moorland country which the sunlight and fresh air reach. It was different at Croydon,
634
where the question concerned the pollution of wells and water supplies of that kind. It is a serious thing that people should be kept off these very wide areas of country in the Peak District and elsewhere because of omissions from these Bills of clauses of the kind found in the Thirlmere Act. I suggest that the Minister should direct the serious attention of the National Parks Commission to this matter.
In closing, I should like—and in doing so I am sure that I shall be expressing your Lordships' views—to express our very deep sense of gratitude to those men and women who are representing the national interests on these local planning authorities. The amount of work they have to put in is substantial, and they do all this self-sacrificing work without any remuneration. This is a very remarkable thing, and I think the nation should be grateful to them. At the same time, we should be grateful also to the members of the National Parks Commission, almost all of whom, again, are doing the work on a completely voluntary basis. Ever since the Commission was established its members have done most valuable work, at considerable personal sacrifice, and have given much time to the work of the community in this way. I am sure that the community ought to be, and indeed is, very grateful to them.
5.9 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to Lord Silkin for having brought up this matter—a matter which I feel is particularly suitable and appropriate for debate in your Lordships' House, referring as it does to amenities and matters of that kind. I think also that we should state the admiration we feel for the Commission itself and for the work which its members do, without: much publicity of any kind. It is due to them that we should express our appreciation of what they are doing. Particularly I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, said. When Lord Silkin mentioned that the areas concerned in the Act totalled about 3 per cent. of the area of the country, I felt that that figure did not refer to the population concerned: the figure for the population must be very much smaller. I hope, nevertheless, that the Commission in its advisory capacity will bear in mind the inhabitants of these

635
places. The local committees and the Commission itself have a difficult task in steering a rather delicate line between, on the one hand, the "wolves" of industry who want to desecrate the countryside, and, on the other hand, certain people or bodies which I might describe as having bees in their bonnets: people who often enjoy a fortnight's or three weeks' good weather in a park district, and want to keep it in its particular rather primitive state all through the year, without full regard for those who live there and have their livings to earn. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, would agree with me that that does occur in many cases.
If I may go back to Lord Rochdale's point about authority, I would say that the Lake District affords a difficult and rather interesting example. These local boards are working there in complete bona fides and doing their best, although they represent and live in three separate counties. Cumberland has its county town in Carlisle, Westmorland in Appleby and Lancashire in Preston. I do not think it needs any elaboration on my part to show your Lordships how there is a different "pull" among people who come from different quarters and who can have only a sectional interest in the park. These different pulls must be difficult to overcome. There are commercial and industrial interests in each of these three counties. The industrial north-west Cumberland wants to have an arterial road through to industrial Lancashire. The country between is among the most beautiful and unspoiled parts of the Lake District. That sort of thing is difficult to cope with. I beg all concerned to remember that these places are not only a playground for a short time for some people, but also the actual hearths and traditional homes of the people who have to live there and who will continue to live there always.
5.12 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my thanks, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having brought forward this interesting subject this afternoon, and, in particular, for the very temperate and helpful way in which he has put his ideas
636
before us. As the noble Lord who has just spoken said, this is a most interesting subject and a very suitable one for your Lordships' House, particularly coming as it does at the end of, or rather in the middle of, a debate on historic houses, and just before a debate on sheep worrying, upon a Motion down in the name of the noble Earl. Lord Listowel. Surprisingly enough, this matter has not been debated in this House since 1949, and I think that the Parks Commission should derive some considerable comfort, quite apart from anything said this afternoon, from the fact that we are discussing their Report, thereby proving that that Report not only has been read but is receiving sober consideration from those who have their interest and their subject equally at heart.
Looking at the Report generally, I think one can say straight away that it is an encouraging document. Of course, it emphasises and highlights the difficulties with which the Commission have been faced in post-war conditions, but it also shows, I think, how much can often be done with quite a little material but with an immense amount of industry and good will. The first thing that strikes me upon reading the Report is the appreciation it shows of the importance of the attitude of mind—the attitude of mind of the public, of the developers (we have heard this afternoon much about them), of the local authorities and even, one can say, of Ministers of the Crown. The Commission in this particular case, rightly I think, regard themselves, and have regarded themselves, as keepers of the public conscience. I think it was useful that one or two noble Lords reminded your Lordships that the Commission's work is not confined merely to parks. They have a roving commission to advise the Minister also on other matters, and, indeed, to advise other Ministers on other matters, which they think fall within their terms of reference. By acting in that spirit, they may do a great deal and are doing a great deal to clear up the misconceptions which have been referred to this afternoon.
Now let me take the question of progress. What progress have the Commission made? I suppose the hustlers would say they have not made enough. It seems to me that the processes involved by the Act of necessity make progress slow.

637
There is so much to be done in the way of consultations, representations, inquiries and long and complicated legal investigations, that rapid progress was never to be expected from the first day that this Commission came into being. To my mind, measures based on consent and good will, even though they are measures that take a certain amount of time to negotiate, are infinitely preferable to those which have to be bull-dozed through a reluctant opposition. I think we can say that the Commission are certainly wise to feel their way gently in these first years of their life.
Going on in the report, one immediately comes to a subject which several noble Lords have discussed this afternoon—the actual choice of the parks to be designated. Here, of course, it must be a matter of opinion, and largely a matter of personal opinion. So far, six parks, as your Lordships know, have been designated in the three years that the Commission has been in existence. The area involved constitutes something like 3,200 square miles, and that represents a considerable achievement. I would remind those who say that the progress is too slow that, although it is less than Hobhouse, it is more than Dower. It is, however, a matter of opinion, and all we can say is that it is of the first importance that we should concentrate on getting right what we have done, so that we may profit by experience. Various noble Lords have mentioned their pet areas for future designation—Dovedale, the Cheviots, Brecon Beacon, the South Downs. All these obviously will be considered in time, but I think it would be unwise to ask the Commission to rush too fast into considering them, desirable though they all are, before they are satisfied that they have fully learn the lessons from the six areas which they have already designated.
I was particularly interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, refer to the Norfolk Broads. I myself spent most of my childhood, and certainly all my holidays, on the Norfolk Broads. Indeed, I think I first tried my hand at sailing a small boat there, to the immense anxiety of my parents, of those within striking distance, and of the Norwich Union Insurance Societies. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wisely points out, it is all or nothing with the Norfolk Broads. The problem is one of extending the area for sailing by clearing channels and some of,
638
if not all, the Broads of reeds, weeds, silt, and so on. My right honourable friend has gone into this particular case very carefully and has beer advised that it is a much bigger job than was at first thought. In fact, at the moment it is beyond our financial resources. It might take every penny of £1 million to carry out the task in the way in which it ought to be carried out. Since that estimate was made, there has been another aspect to consider—the one which we were discussing this afternoon: the disastrous floods on the East Coast. The work in that connection is going to occupy much of the skilled labour and take much of the material which might otherwise have been deflected towards this wholly desirable but unfortunately long-term project of clearing the Norfolk Broads and designating them as a national park. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that it is desirable: but the answer to his question must be that the day when the Norfolk Broads is designated as a park is, I am afraid, far off.
I pass to the question of park administration. This was a question which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, touched upon frequently in the course of his speech—the other part of the speech was concerned mostly with giving a respectful trouncing to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. At one moment he thanked the Almighty that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was no longer Minister of Housing and Local Government. I, too, am happy that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is no longer Minister of Housing and Local Government, but for quite different reasons, because on this particular point I find myself of the Silkin school and not of the Chorley school. The long and the short of it is that there is no hard and fast rule for the administration of these parks. A pretty clear pointer is given in the Act, but I should have thought that the old adage applied—namely, that what is best administered is best. Where the park covers more than one county, the joint board is the normal administrative scheme. That is provided in the Act. But provision is also made for exceptions, of which Snowdonia is one.
But instead of saying what the ideal form of administration would be, I think the best thing to do is to look at the administration as it is in progress, and to ask oneself the question: is it working? To the best of my knowledge and

639
belief, the administration of most of these parks is working pretty well. The initial difficulties have been overcome, and although it may not be the ideal administration according to the copy book, it is working pretty well. I think there is nothing more unfortunate than continually to be digging up the bulbs to see how the flowers are growing. Let us allow these boards to develop a little more. They are still very young and at the moment they show every sign of working well.
May I return for one moment to the scheme for Snowdonia? This has been disapproved of by several people, notably the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, but it has been approved of by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I think there would be general agreement and approval that some form of working arrangement has now been arrived at to overcome a long and complicated series of differences of opinion. It may not be the ideal one, it may not be what we should want, but it is now at least working, and men and women of good will have said that they are prepared to try to give it a chance. Again, although it is not the ideal, may I suggest that it might be a good thing to let it bide for a bit and see how it works? After all, these boards have had only a short life. Even the Lake District board, which was the first to be established, has been functioning—
LORD CHORLEY: The Peak District was the first one.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg your pardon; I stand corrected. I thought the Lake District was the first. But even the Lake District board has been functioning for only about eighteen months or two years. All these boards are now engaged in the preparation of development plans, the day-to-day work of planning control, and that must be the first charge on their time. They are all engaged in inquiring into the facilities for camping and caravanning. All the parks differ a certain amount in their characteristics. Perhaps I may pass to one or two for a moment and try to deal with some of the questions which have been asked.
Returning to the Lake District planning board, whose Report I hold in my hand, I was very happy to have the
640
opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, both of whom know this area well. I agree that the planning system there is not ideal—nobody could pretend that it is. It will have to be watched very carefully. But, again, I say that I personally would rather see an organisation that is not ideal but is what meets the local demand of the moment, working not perfectly, but at least working, rather than that something should be pushed upon the local folk against their will. It may be necessary to have amendments to this scheme for the Lake District. It may not work as well as either the Commission or the Minister would wish. Very well, then; our hands are not tied and certainly the necessary action can be taken. This hoard, which has been in existence for such a short time, has had seventy-seven meetings of one sort or another, and that does not suggest that it has been idle. One is able to see that the facilities for access are apparently already satisfactory. Proposals for a camping and caravan site on the coast and a lakeside hostel are being discussed with interested voluntary organisations.
In regard to the Peak District, here again negotiations are actively in progress for the establishment of a hostel to serve parts of the Pennine Way. Proposals are on foot to carry out experimental tree-planting, to screen disfigurements. Negotiations are on foot with various landowners to secure access to something like 13,000 acres of moorland. All this is good progress, and the same story comes from all the boards—modest but good progress. In regard to the Pembroke Coast, there is a busy clearing-up of the eyesore of abandoned airfields: and there are many examples, none of them spectacular, but all showing that the various authorities, whatever their shape may be, are taking their responsibilities seriously and carrying out their duties in the spirit both of the Report and of their terms of reference.
There is one point I wish to touch on now which rather worries me, I must confess, and that is the aspect of caravanning. This applies to all the areas. This caravan habit is a new phenomenon in our postwar world. It existed before the war to a degree, but I think your Lordships might be surprised to learn—just taking it

641
roughly since the war—that the number of caravans in this country has increased by over 100,000. That brings a new and difficult problem, or to be more exact, two problems: there is the problem of the casual caravanner and the problem of the mass-caravanner. We have several mass caravan sites in this country, and I think it would be a rash man who said that he was satisfied that all is well with all of them. It is a very quick and easy stage from a caravan site to a shanty town, and there are one or two that we can think of, in North Wales and, particularly, in the Wittering area on the South Coast, where the caravan site borders on a shanty town.
I am pleased to learn (this is not in the Report) that the Commission are now considering the hygienic aspect involved in this problem. As I say, it is a post-war problem, arising to a certain degree out of the growth of holidays with pay, which enable far more people to take holidays of this kind, and possibly due to the post-war housing shortage, and the very cheap, convenient way of taking a holiday. But, quite clearly, it is a holiday which places upon the holidaymaker social obligations which have not yet been fully appreciated. The lone caravanner who puts himself down in a highly desirable place, spoiling the view or endangering himself or his neighbours, and the mass-caravanner in his camp, both present problems which, quite frankly, I do not think we have started to solve and I am therefore glad to hear that the Commission are considering an investigation of this whole problem of hygiene, the problem of neighbourly relations with the countryside, and the problem of the recovery of the land used for sites during the winter months. Obviously, this is a problem the extent of which we have not yet fully appreciated. I hope I have not made any wild generalisation. Most of the caravanners are of an excellent disposition and decently-minded people. Their club, the Caravan Club, has done a great deal in this respect. Unfortunately, the minority do much more harm than the majority can do good.
Now, my Lords, we come to the question of rights of way and long-distance footpaths. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, talked about slow progress. Nobody who has ever had anything to do with rights of way expects to go very fast. I should be surprised to meet any such person.
642
In our day, both the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I have practised the law, and if we had a case dealing with rights of way we should certainly put in a month's hard work before we could beg into get any sense out of it. So progress in regard to rights of way has been slow. But there has been progress. A nation-wide survey is being carried out. The procedure is novel. Local authorities, rightly, are trying to get things done by agreement rather than by compulsion. Let us deal first with the Pennine Way, which runs almost north and south from just south-west of Kelso to approximately Kinder Scout, half way between Manchester and Sheffield. It is about two hundred and fifty miles long, and involves ninety miles of new rights of way, of which twenty-two and a half miles have already been created. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who asked me how many miles of rights of way had been created since February 6, which was the last date upon which this matter was discussed in public. The answer is, about four and a half or five miles. It is not spectacular progress. The creation of those twenty-two and a half miles of rights of way has already involved consultation with twenty-two local authorities, and if we are going on at that rate of one local authority per mile of progress—which is the rate at the moment—clearly it will be a long time before the whole thing is completely tied up.
I was asked whether the Pennine Way had actually been traversed by a pedestrian without any incidents occurring in the way of trespass or brushes with keepers or anything of that sort. The answer, I am happy to say is: "Yes, it has." I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, about the Thames Riverside Walk. No one is sorrier than I am that this most desirable project cannot be taken up and put through. It is a project which is particularly desirable from the point of view of those of us who live near London. We have unfortunately found, however, that the capital outlay would be something like £500,000, spread over ten years, with maintenance at the rate of approximately £25,000 a year. At the moment, and in the economic circumstances in which the country finds itself, that is honestly too steep a bill to meet. We hope to tackle the job

643
in due course, but, for the time being, as I say, we cannot do so.
I was much interested to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said about canals within national park areas. I am horrified to find how faulty is my geography. I had not realised that there were any canals in park areas. At the moment, the Usk Canal is the only one that springs to my mind. I will consult the books, and I will consult the Commission, and the noble Earl may rest assured that what he has said will be put to good purpose. I was also asked by the noble Earl about the North Cornish coastal path. It is 135 miles long, and I am informed that new rights of way are required over one-third of it. I am happy to say that my noble friend Lord Hawke—who is not here at the moment—and I, intend to carry out a personal survey of this lovely path during the Summer Recess. We expect to find ourselves during most of our holidays in that area, and in our survey we shall be accompanied by certain junior reconnaissance elements. Other paths are affected by this same problem. The rights of way problem has brought into being the need for the survey. This survey is being carried out as fast as the local authorities and others concerned cango. I am glad to say that it is making good progress. Draft maps should have been ready by the end of 1952, but, alas! here again, most counties required extra time. However, county councils and local authorities are going ahead well, and they are receiving valuable help from such organisations as the Central Rights of Way Committee, which was set up by the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, and the Ramblers' Association.
I do not think there is any need for me to refer to the association between the Forestry Commission and the National Parks Commission, because my noble friend the Chairman of the Forestry Commission managed to answer that point most happily for me. The subject of access has been referred to by several noble Lords. It is a vexed and difficult subject. Like the rights of way survey, the access survey has taken longer than was expected. But two-thirds of the county councils concerned—including those in the Lake District, Snowdonia and North Riding—have completed
644
their survey, and have reported access facilities in their areas to be satisfactory. There have been very few representations by the public, and of those that have been made, some have now been withdrawn. Inquiries are being made into those objections which are being maintained. Some twenty-three county councils, including Durham and Pembroke, and the Peak District Board, have been granted extensions of time. Five applications have been received for consent to acquire by agreement small areas of land for access—this is a matter of only minor importance. It looks as though there will be no real difficulty, and that, except for one or two appreciated danger spots, we shall soon complete the task. Again, I am afraid, it is a question of time. It is clearly a longer task than we thought.
I come now to what is perhaps the main point raised by all speakers—that is, the question of publicity and education. Education, in this connection, comprises the education of the townsman as to his duties in the country, the education of the traveller and holiday-maker as to his social responsibilities, and—a matter that is not often touched upon—the education of the countryman as to his responsibilities towards his less fortunate kinsmen in the towns. Quite frankly, we have a long, long way to go. We have talked about litter. There was a campaign, I think, before the war against the "litter lout." There are two types of "litter lout" with whom we have to cope. One is the careless individual, the uneducated and thoughtless individual—and he is in the vast majority. The other, of whom, unfortunately, there exists a really staggering number, is the deliberate vandal, the man who for sheer pleasure in wrongdoing commits all sorts of offences in the countryside. I have here details of a great number of most extraordinary cases. There are cases of people who have gone into farms, taken every gate off its hinges and then flung them down in a pile. Such people are just thugs. Again, there are cases where people have gone into a farmer's agricultural implements' park and slashed every tyre. There have been instances of people mixing up cattle, and letting out pedigree herds, T.T. attested herds, into public footpaths. That is not just the action of the thoughtless "litter lout." That is

645
deliberate vandalism—and, for the life of me, I do not know what we can do about it.
We can, however, do something about the other persons and, in fact, we have done a great deal. Noble Lords have referred to the Country Code. I took the liberty of bringing a score or more copies with me to the House, and of placing them in the Library. I am happy to find my noble friend Lord Carrington by my side to-day. I believe that it was in his fertile brain, when hews chairman of the Central Landowners Association, that the idea of this Code originated. We are grateful to him for an extraordinarily good document, one which has not yet found its way into a sufficient number of hands. Some 43,000 of them have been issued—I wish the number were 430,000. It costs only fourpence, and its sale has nearly paid for its publication. Its actual cost was £430. It is certainly one of the best fourpennyworths of commonsense I have ever read. What it says in its pages is that the whole problem is summed up in two words, "Good manners." To a great extent, undoubtedly, the root of the trouble is lack of good manners. I must confess that I have some sympathy with the Wessex farmer who, on a Sunday, found a party of trippers picknicking in a corner of his five-acre field. They laughed cheerfully at his remarks about trespassing and so on, and invited him to call upon them the next time he was in Wandsworth. And very surprised they were when, on a later Sunday, he accepted their invitation. But their surprise turned to grief when he marched into their drawing room and from a sack which he was carrying over his shoulder emptied out on to the floor a mass of empty bottles, dirty pieces of paper, wrappers, cardboard cartons, orange peel and so on, which they had left on his property.
Those people had not acted on the occasion of their visit to that man's farm in any spirit of vandalism: it was merely a case of thoughtlessness. It is thoughtlessness which results so often in gates being left open and stock being let loose. But that is thoughtlessness which turns the countryman against the very people whom we are trying to help—those who want to get to the country for their recreation. That has been the cause of trouble in so many cases in these park
646
areas. When proposals are made for creating national parks, farmers are apt to turn round and say, "If you turn this part of the world into a national park, look what is going to happen. We shall have gates thrown down, our stock driven far and wide, crops trampled under foot, hedges broken and goodness knows what else." What we have to do is to try and reconcile these two elements. We have to explain to the farmer that it is better for him to have an educated public going into a designated park, where such things have at least been thought of, than to have descending upon him—for whether the farmer likes it or not these townsfolk are going into the country for their recreation—an uneducated and uninstructed mass.
I agree with noble Lords who put the point forward that much progress has yet to be made. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that we have gone hack since before the war. I have discussed this matter recently with an American who is similarly interested, and he produced a side light which I had not thought of. In America, their problem of litter is a good deal worse than ours, owing to the national habit of using paper handkerchiefs instead of linen ones. He said that after a race meeting or any function of that kind in America the ground looked as if a snowstorm had come down on it. That is a problem we do not have in this country, but heaven knows we have enough in the matter of "litter louts"! If one has to go back and look for a pair of gloves at a race meeting or point-to-point, it is one of the most depressing things for anyone who loves the country.
I was asked about the position in regard to publicity. Posters have been displayed at 2,700 sites, in factories, clubs and holiday clubs. The Government are particularly anxious that the greatest publicity should be given to this matter and to the teaching in schools of good country manners. The B.B.C. are helping greatly, and in the Services they are doing their bit to teach the young National Servicemen how to behave in the country. The Services are also doing their best to clear away the aftermath of the war—shell cases, ammunition, barbed wire, and the like. I am not being complacent for a moment about this. Frankly, I am depressed that the

647
education of the public in the way they should behave in the country has not been the success we hoped it would be; but we can at least go on increasing the publicity, particularly in the schools, because children are often the worst culprits—innocent culprits, because they have not been taught by their parents and teachers just what a damage can be done by that broken bottle, by that match carelessly thrown into the haystack, or by that gate left unfastened.
I have taken an intolerable time and I apologise to your Lordships. I hope that I have dealt with most of the, major points raised. I will do my best to see that the minor points and those that I have been unable to answer are satisfactorily dealt with. In conclusion, I should like to join in the praise that has been given to Sir Patrick Duff, the Chairman of the Commission, and his colleagues, of whom we are happy to number three members of this House—the noble Lords, Lord Lawson, Lord Merthyr, and Lord Wilmot, who was for some time on the Commission. They have done a great deal of work, much of it unpaid. Last year alone, 150 days were spent in meetings and inspections, and in various other investigations—not a bad record! Thanks are also due to members of the park boards and committees, and to voluntary societies—and there are a great many—who have helped in this work. Cyclists, ramblers, caravanners, and members of all the other bodies—I wish there were more of them—are the people who can help to educate their members. The vandals are seldom members of any of these official bodies, and the enthusiasm of their members has been an inspiration to the Commission in their work.
I hope that I have given no feeling of complacency. Her Majesty's Government, in receiving this Report, do not think for one moment that all is well and that progress is as great as it could be. I come back to the first point with which I began. Her Majesty's Government would far rather see a slowish progress that is a willing and agreed progress than a hustle in face of opposition, resentment and local prejudice. I think we are achieving the former, and I think it is a desirable achievement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for bringing this matter to our attention. I hope that next year he will do it again on the fourth
648
Report, and I hope that we shall then have more progress to show.
5.44 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for the full, frank and, on the whole, satisfactory statement which he has been able to make. It is gratifying to find that every speaker in this debate, without exception, has been a strong supporter of national parks and all that they stand for. I am delighted to hear that the present Government, no less than their predecessors, are anxious to make a success of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. There is one respect in which the noble Lord's statement was not satisfactory, and that is what he said about the Norfolk Broads. In the ordinary way I would say that this was something that could wait until better days. But the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, knows as well as I do that this is a matter which, in words used in another context, "brooks no delay." Every year the position of the Norfolk Broads is becoming more and more difficult. We have to make up our minds whether we are going to abandon the Boards as one of this country's important playgrounds or do something here and now to stop its rapid deterioration. It may be that in ten years' time it will still be possible to do something about it, but it will be only at an enormously greater cost. I hope that the Government will reconsider the decision, if it is a decision, not to do anything in the Broads for the time being and will regard this matter as one of urgency. Even the sum of £1 million as expenditure on this project does not terrify me. It would not be spent all at once; it would be spent over a fairly long period. I think it would be worth it, if we attach any importance at all to this large area of outstanding beauty.
I should like to say one or two words to my noble friend Lord Chorley. Of course, he takes a very extreme line over these matters: he always has done, and he is entitled to do so. He makes no secret of it. I am sympathetic with him for having had to advocate, when he was a Minister, a course in which he did not entirely believe. I do not propose to deal at any length with what he said, but I should like to make clear that the decision I made about what he called—very flatteringly—the Silkin scheme really was

649
my own policy, and not one which was imposed on me by civil servants. I do not know what the civil servants really believed. They gave their advice, but it was my duty as Minister to make up toy own mind, and I did so. The civil servants, whatever their views were, loyally carried out my decision. I do not think it is right to bring the civil servants into the matter any further, or to suggest that they were the people who made the decision.
My noble friend Lord Chorley would have taken a strong line on a number of occasions; he would have taken a strong line with Snowdonia. He would have compelled them to accept the joint planning board. He would have taken a strong line with the Lake District, and would have compelled them—and so I gather would the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale—to appoint a separate planning officer and staff. He would have taken a strong line with Cornwall, and made them agree with the proposal that is being considered for a new national park. He would have taken a strong line with the highway authorities and compelled them to carry out maintenance work on footpaths.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord of the answer he gave in another place on May 5, 1949, to a question whether it was his intention that each and every joint planning board should employ its own planning officer. The noble Lord said:
"I can certainly give my honourable friend in the most unqualified terms the first assurance for which he asks."
LORD SILKIN: I still believe that it is the right thing to employ an independent planning officer in the national parks, but when it comes to imposing these things on the local authorities, I agree with the Minister that it is not the best way to get results. I had not finished all the strong lines my noble friend was going to take—but for better or worse, and I think for better, we are entrusting the task of administering the national parks to the local authorities. We must carry them with us, and to a large extent roust leave it to them to administer the plan in the best way they can. I know that the Minister can give a direction, or force a local authority to do a particular thing; and in particular instances, and for a special single purpose, there may
650
be cases where that is justified. But I cannot think that it is ever justified where you are relying upon a local authority over a long period to carry out a particular line of policy. I am convinced that you will get the best results by carrying them with you.
If it turns out that the Lake District national park is not working well, there is a competent and enthusiastic body of people engaged in this task, and giving a great deal of their time, which is unpaid, who will soon realise, as do the noble Lords, Lord Rochdale, Lord Chorley, and Lord Rea, that it is not working as well as it might. I would much rather that they became convinced of it and decided to appoint a planning officer as a result of experience, rather than that it should be imposed upon them by a strong line on the part of the Minister. Incidentally, one of the three counties concerned is undoubtedly the best administered county in-the country, having, in my view, probably the best clerk in the country, Sir Robert Adcock. I am glad to be able to give him a little advertisement, because I am convinced that there is no higher position in local administration that he can reach than clerk to the Lancashire County Council. From my knowledge of Sir Robert Adcock, I am quite sure that if he became convinced that it was necessary to have an independent planning officer for that area he would not hesitate to say so; and it would not he long before one was appointed. From my experience of him, I would be perfectly content to leave it to his judgment as to what is the right time, even though I agree that it might be wise to appoint one without delay.
There are two other things that I should like to say, and one is on the question of the grant. I was surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that there is any difficulty about a Government grant. I should have thought that it was automatic—not necessarily 75 per cent., but that would be the general grant given—and that once a scheme was approved the grant would follow as a matter of course. Lastly, on the question of caravans, I hope that we shall be sympathetic to the claims of the caravanners. As the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, this is a new phenomenon. Well, the purpose of planning is to meet the wishes of the public as a whole. If this is something that the public want, we

651
must somehow find ways and means of giving them what they want through planning. It is by clamping down and taking a strong line that we bring planning into disrepute. I hope that when the Commission and the Government are considering what should be done about caravanning, they will realise that what has got to be done is to find ways and means of giving the public what they want.
LORD MANCROFT: If I may interrupt, I hope that I did not suggest that the caravan movement was to be discouraged. What I suggested was that we have not yet done enough to help it. We have got to find more means of making the caravanners' life acceptable to themselves and to their neighbours.
LORD SILKIN: I was not complaining of what the noble Lord said; I was really talking to certain people—and they do exist, though not necessarily in this House—who would try to prevent caravanners from carrying on their legitimate activities anywhere. No site is good enough. Indeed, even though they might pay lip service to the idea, they would never be able to find any site where these poor caravanners could rest. I am very pleased with the result of this debate; it has been worth while. I may well accept the invitation of the noble Lord to put down a similar Motion this time next year, after we have received the fourth Report of the Comsion. My Lords, I beg leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EDUCATIONAL (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
BROMLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
BELPER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
TEES CONSERVANCY SUPER- ANNUATION SCHEME BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.

EARLDOM OF DUNDEE
Report from the Committee for Privileges, That the dignities of Earl of Dundee and Lord Inverkeithing were created by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Scotland dated the 8th September, 1660, in favour of John, 3rd Viscount of Dudhope, with limitations to his heirs male whomsoever; that the claimant, Henry James Viscount of Dudhope, Lord Scrymgeour, is the heir male of the said Patentee and is now entitled of right to the dignities of Earl of Dundee and Lord Inverkeithing: read, and to be taken into consideration to-morrow.
House adjourned at three minutes before six o'clock.