Lords Sitting of 12 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD
Sir John Primatt Redcliffe Redcliffe-Maud, G.C.B., C.B.E., having been created Baron Redcliffe-Maud, of the City and County of Bristol, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carrington and the Earl of Longford.
The Lord Gormanston (V. Gormanston.)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS AND LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYMENT
2.46 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Commonwealth immigrants, at the last available date, had been unemployed for twelve months or more.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I regret that this information is not available.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it ever will be available?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I doubt it very much. Commonwealth immigrants admitted to the United Kingdom for the purpose of employment are not subject to any restriction and are treated in exactly the same way as people born in this country. The collection of separate employment and unemployment statistics for them has been avoided as savouring of discrimination.
LORD ELTON: But, my Lords, is it not the case that the total figures of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed, as distinct from the figures of those unemployed for a year or more, are known and have been published? Is that, then, not discrimination?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not think I can usefully add to the information I have already given.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will make further inquiries about this, because certainly up to three years ago, to my certain knowledge, the Ministry of Labour possessed figures showing the total number of Commonwealth immigrants who were unemployed. Has the collection of that information been given up?
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords. There is information, but not of the character asked for. What is done—and I think that this is what the noble Lord is referring to—is that a monthly count is made of those adult Commonwealth immigrants who entered this country after 1956 and who are registered as unemployed, so far as this can be done by visual observation and from their employment records. The detailed figures of Commonwealth immigrants unemployed on June 12, 1967, are in a table which I do not think it would serve a useful purpose to publish. However, the total figure was 15,987, and this was 3·2 per cent. of all adults unemployed at the same date. The corresponding figures for the previous twelve months are available, and these vary between 2·2 per cent. and the current 3·2 per cent., which is a provisional figure.

ROAD ACCIDENTS AND DEFECTIVE EYESIGHT
2.49 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave 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 their attention has been directed to the speech by the Chief Constable of Aberdeen, when opening a recent Congress of Opticians, in which he maintained that a great many

1127
accidents on the roads originated in bad eyesight, and he felt that the Government should take steps to keep drivers with incorrigibly bad vision off the roads; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to secure improvements to this end.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has seen a report in the Press of the speech referred to by the noble Lord. The Chief Constable of Aberdeen is reported as advocating research into whether there is any connection between defective eyesight in drivers and road accidents. The House will be pleased to learn that the Road Research Laboratory are at present looking into this question. So far their researches have not shown any correlation between the two, and this provisional conclusion is borne out by the results of researches on this subject which have been carried out on a much larger scale in California. It is already an offence punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both, for a person with sub-standard vision to drive a motor vehicle on a road. The police are empowered to test the vision of any driver whom they have reason to suspect of being guilty of this offence.

SOUTH AFRICA AND UNITED KINGDOM ARMS BAN
2.50 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave 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 they can estimate what financial loss the United Kingdom has suffered by the ban on the export of certain types of aircraft, submarines and other vessels and their equipment which are used by the South African Government to fulfil their task in defending the sea routes around the Cape in conformity with the terms of the Simonstown Agreement, and also in the external defence of South Africa.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, No. We do not now seek such orders, and cannot say whether we should win them if we did.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, am I to understand that Her Majesty's Government cannot "estimate"—that is the word in my Question—the loss occasioned by an act of policy? How then can they relate national finances to any act of policy?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the reply to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is: Yes. It is not possible to make an estimate. I do not necessarily see the correlation between this particular matter, where facts are not available, and others, where facts are available.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I wonder how much information there is as to the increase in the export of arms to South Africa from other countries since the ban was imposed. Have the Government any reason to think that our stoppage of the export of arms has had the slightest impact upon the racial policy of South Africa?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have no figures on the value of exports by other countries. It may interest the noble Earl to know that in fact the export of defence equipment in 1965 and 1966 by Her Majesty's Government, or by the British Government and exporters, in furtherance of agreements already entered into, was higher than ever before.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, with regard to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to put this question to him, as the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Alexander of Tunis, and I were responsible for making the whole of the Agreement about Simonstown, and about orders for these ships. It was perfectly clear what was going to be ordered and those are all there, and I rather think they are set out in one of the White Papers. Surely, it could be no breach of security, and would be quite proper, to say which of those orders have been carried out and which have not.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it would be perfectly possible. The commitments under the Simonstown Agreement and the orders under it have been fully met, except in relation to two particular ships for which the South African Government did not ask us to tender.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, why did not they ask us? Was it because we made a mess of it?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, since figures have been quoted by both United Kingdom and South African trade associations and by Ministers in South Africa, may I ask the Minister whether it would be inaccurate to attach any importance to these figures which relate particularly to security? Further, would the noble Lord agree that the same thing would apply to the loss of business of this character to Portugal with reference to Mozambique?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think I ought, within the terms of the Question, to discuss Portugal. I am not, I do assure the noble Lord, holding out. I have no figures. Certainly figures have been published by certain people. I cannot, I am afraid, assess whether they are correct or not.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government seeking to suggest that no financial loss has been suffered by the ban on the export of these goods; or is it merely that they cannot quantify the loss?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, certainly I am not anxious to suggest, and did not suggest, that there has not been any loss. If one follows the right policy, it does not mean that there may not be certain disadvantages—in this life, anyway.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord say that there may have been a loss, but that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to tell Parliament what it is?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to be helpful to the noble Marquess. We do not know what loss there has been on orders which we have not obtained, and which, as I said in my original Answer, we have not sought; and we do not know whether we should have won them if we had sought them. I would only repeat again, so that there
1130
is no misunderstanding, that we have fulfilled our commitments under the Simonstown Agreement. We are continuing to supply spares because clearly there is, if not a contractual obligation a semi-contractual obligation, to supply spares, both for ships and aircraft, and we did deliver the aircraft for which we had contracted.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what aircraft, submarines, ships and other equipment, which it is perhaps quite reasonable to assume might have been supplied by this country, have been supplied by other countries? If such information is available, would not that give some idea of the kind of loss which this country has suffered because of Government policy?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, again I wish to help the noble Lord. We do not have this information; we do not know the value of equipment supplied by other countries. There has, I know, been references to submarines which the French are supplying. We were not asked to tender, and I do not know what they are worth. It would be quite improper for me to attempt an estimate on such a very tentative basis.

DRUG ADDICTS: TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION
2.56 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements they have in mind for ensuring that rehabilitation centres for drug addicts are provided to match the treatment centres called for in Hospital Memorandum (67) 16 of March 7; and in particular to state what scale of grant they will offer to voluntary bodies willing to undertake such provision:—

(a) in respect of capital expenditure;

(b) in respect of running costs.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, there is no ready-made proven system of rehabilitation, and

1131
it is a question of deciding what are the most promising ways of improving existing facilities.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Health arranged two conferences—of psychiatrists, medical officers of health and voluntary bodies—and the results have been placed at the disposal of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, which has set up a subcommittee on rehabilitation. Guidance on this subject, including the co-ordination of statutory and voluntary services, will be issued when recommendations have been received from the Advisory Committee.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is it not high time we had more to show in this field? Is the noble Lord not aware that it is a year since the Brain Committee reported on this matter and recommended the establishment of these centres? Is it not a fact that rehabilitation and treatment centres are now running at Birmingham and Spelthorne St. Marys? Is the noble Lord aware that voluntary bodies are keen to make this provision but are unable to do so rapidly enough without support from the Government or from local authorities?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the rehabilitation and after-care facilities at psychiatric hospitals and departments and local health authorities are available now to drug addicts, as to other persons who have received treatment in psychiatric hospitals. If there are to be any centres exclusively for drug addicts it is important to ascertain first what kind of facilities would be of best use for these unfortunate people.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that at this stage it is extremely difficult to assess the demand for accommodation at these rehabilitation centres and also their ideal location? Would it not be better if the Minister were to defer his policy until he had gained experience of the working of the Dangerous Drugs Bill once it becomes enacted?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend, who has considerable experience of these matters, has indicated some of the variables in this problem but of course
1132
even more important than the amount of accommodation is to decide for what people are to be accommodated. An Advisory Committee has been established, and I think that it would be useful to have their recommendations before money is spent.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the gratitude felt in many circles to Her Majesty's Government for the serious and thoughtful way in which they are approaching this problem, in spite of a rather equivocal Press, and how much the Churches, in particular, are looking forward to every opportunity to co-operate once the way forward appears clear?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for what the right reverend Prelate says.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us an absolute assurance that the Government will not bring into effect the provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, which is still before this House, until they are absolutely satisfied that enough rehabilitation centres are effectively working or have been set up?
LORD BESWICK: I cannot give that assurance; nor do I think it should be given. As I have said, there are already facilities for rehabilitation provided by hospitals and by the local authorities, as well as the excellent voluntary organisations with which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is well acquainted. Moreover, it is now possible for local health authorities to give grants to voluntary organisations. The only question to be decided is which of the various facilities ought to be encouraged further by a grant; that is the question which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is now asking.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to look at this point again. I seem to recall that his right honourable friend in another place virtually gave the assurance for which I asked this afternoon.
LORD BESWICK: Certainly, my Lords; if the noble Lord has received that assurance from my right honourable friend I have no doubt that can be accepted. But I will look at this matter

1133
again and perhaps write to the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, will the Government be brisk about it, seeing that to-day is the 1,000th "dynamic" day of office?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, briskness is an excellent thing, but not necessarily so when deciding medical treatment for a phenomenon which is of fairly recent growth and about which we have still a good deal to learn.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend also bear in mind that a need is likely to arise for the development of other rehabilitation centres, in addition to the excellent ones already existing and run by the voluntary bodies? There may be a certain type of addict who will not respond readily to the existing provisions of the voluntary bodies.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the Department will take note of what my noble friend has said.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL: PROGRESS OF BUSINESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I shall be making a Statement on the 70 m.p.h. speed limit shortly after 3 p.m. Later in the day we shall again be in Committee on the Leasehold Reform Bill, on which, it seems to me, there are something like two and a half to three hours' work to do. I would suggest that we do not adjourn for dinner to-night, for this would mean that we could get up a little earlier than last night; but dinner will certainly be available in the dining room.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I did not know about this estimate of time. What the noble Lord proposes is quite acceptable if we are making good progress; but if it is clear that we are going to sit very late, then I should have thought it would be better to have an actual adjournment for dinner.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will respond to any suggestion that the noble Lord cares to make. I have tried a little crystal-gazing to see how best we may arrange our programme for the convenience of noble Lords. If it appears that we are going on a little longer than
1134
I estimated, then I will certainly agree to an adjournment.

UNIVERSITY OF ASTON IN BIRMINGHAM BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
PRICES AND INCOMES (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons this day and printed, pursuant to S.O. No. 45; read 1a.
CONTROL OF LIQUID FUEL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LLANGOLLEN INTERNATIONAL MUSICAL EISTEDDFOD BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): This Bill has been amended by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. There are no further Amendments to be moved in Committee this afternoon, so the Question is that I report it to the Committee without further amendment.
House resumed: Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in commending the Countryside (Scotland) Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading. I welcome the opportunity to introduce

1135
a measure which provides the framework for what I hope will be very real advances in planning the use of the countryside for recreation in a manner consistent with the great natural beauty which is Scotland's heritage. The Government have been much encouraged by the support which the Bill has received from all quarters—not only in another place but among a wide cross-section of opinion outside the House, representative both of the people who live and work in the countryside and also of those who seek recreation and enjoyment in it. I hope we shall see this unanimity of view reflected in our debate this afternoon. We shall no doubt have some points raised, both now and in Committee, on the detailed provisions, but I am sure that the principles of what we are trying to do will not be in dispute.
There may be some people who would instinctively shy away from the notion of planning for leisure. They would argue that surely that is the one precious thing left in life which people should be left to get on with on their own—each according to his own taste—and for which one should not have to plan. But I do not have to tell your Lordships how superficial this argument is, especially when applied to a small but heavily populated country like ours. There is in this country to-day an explosive growth of demand for opportunities for recreation away from the confines of the cities and towns, a demand which all the evidence shows is likely to increase dramatically within the next decade and beyond. Higher education, greater mobility, better standards of living, a greater number of leisure hours, longer holidays and second holidays and more people getting them and taking them—all these factors added together can leave us in no doubt that the demand for recreational facilities is on the upsurge.
And Scotland stands in the mainstream. With its beautiful open country bordering in a unique way the industrial and population concentrations of the Central Belt, its great reserve of wild country, its magnificent coastline, its tremendous sporting potential, it has all the attractions which will increasingly be in demand by our own people and which may be expected increasingly to draw visitors from this side of the Border
1136
and, we hope, from overseas. We believe that with this Bill we now have the chance to get in ahead of the emerging needs and to prepare in a planned fashion to provide facilities for recreation and to guide the ways in which all the different uses of the countryside can best be met. Such guidance is of particular importance in Scotland, where the temptation of apparently empty spaces is to undertake sporadic or badly planned developments. That is why the Bill has been designed with two objectives. They are to provide for the improvement of recreational facilities and for the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the countryside.
There may often be an apparent conflict of interest in these two things, but we hope that under the expert guidance of the Countryside Commission any such conflicts can be resolved, because one thing is certain—resolved they must be. It is no use, on the one hand, providing facilities which destroy or desecrate the very thing which people wanted in the first place; and equally there is little value in preserving something which people cannot properly enjoy. I hope that there will be very few instances where with the Commission's help and guidance these apparent conflicts cannot be reconciled. Certainly I think it would greatly help if we did not even start to get into the habit of thinking of them as conflicting. They are simply two sides of the same coin, and we have deliberately not separated them in the drafting of Clause 1 of the Bill in order that they may come to be regarded as basically one objective made up of two vitally important elements.
The Bill aims to achieve this through two means—the Countryside Commission and individual local planning authorities. I will talk of the Commission in a minute. May I say a little about the position of local planning authorities under the Bill, because this is very important and has been vital to our thinking. The whole Bill is based on the active involvement of local planning authorities in all aspects of the planning and execution of countryside projects. This is fundamental, and the success of the Bill and the success of the Countryside Commission's work will be only as good as the backing and support given by local planning authorities.

1137
We are not setting up the Countryside Commission to detract from the responsibilities of the local planning authorities. The Bill confers wide powers on local planning authorities, gives them special duties and responsibilities and provides for specific grant to them of up to 75 per cent. I am anxious therefore that it should not be thought that the Bill simply exists to set up the Commission. It is equally important in bringing local planning authorities fully into the sphere of recreational and amenity planning, and the Government regard it as of first importance that local planning authorities should rise to the duty and the challenge which the Bill presents.
Before turning to the clauses in the Bill, I think it only right that I should pay a warm tribute to the organisers of the two "Countryside in 1970" Conferences—held in 1963 and 1965—for the way in which they focused attention upon the problems with which this Bill is seeking to deal. The foresight shown by the sponsors of these Conferences has been of incalculable value in bringing to public awareness the pressures on the countryside which I have mentioned and the dangers which can flow from unplanned developments. They appreciated in full measure the inevitability of the increased demands which will be made on the countryside and the absolute necessity therefore of forward planning to meet these pressures in an ordered way. In particular, I am sure that some of your Lordships will be familiar with the report of Study Group 9, which sat under the chairmanship of Professor Grieve and which produced a valuable and comprehensive report on the situation in Scotland. This Bill seeks to give effect to many of the things which they felt should be done.
I should also like to pay tribute to the valuable work done over many years by local authorities, public bodies and voluntary organisations in pursuit of many of the aims now included in this Bill. I would not suggest that they should regard this Bill as the culmination of their efforts, but I hope that in a very real sense they will have a feeling of identity with the provisions which it makes. Thinking particularly of the many voluntary bodies active in the countryside field, I am sure that the Countryside
1138
Commission will wish to lean heavily on their knowledge and experience, and I would express the hope that they will in no sense feel that their missions will be any less important in the future. I would deprecate, and I am sure that the Commission themselves would, any general slackening of this effort in the future. What we can look forward to, however, is the Commission playing a co-ordinating role among organisations, and perhaps assisting in some way with their work.
May I now turn to the clauses in the Bill. Clauses 1 to 9, which together form Part I of the Bill, deal with the setting up of a Countryside Commission for Scotland and set out the responsibilities, duties and powers which we feel it should have. Clause 1 provides for the actual establishment of the Commission and defines its general role, which is concerned with the provision, development and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the Scottish countryside and the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty and amenity. We see the Commission as both leading the way in the development of recreational facilities in the countryside and ensuring that the public have adequate access to open country; and also, at the same time, acting as a watchdog to prevent spoliation and to make sure that when facilities are created they are in harmony with their surroundings and in keeping with a high standard of development. This will be a formidable task and, as I have already said, balancing the various considerations will not always be easy. We are convinced that there must be a central agency on the lines now proposed, to build up the necessary experience, knowledge and expertise, to enable the balance to be struck and to lay down the guide lines of countryside policy and standards.
With regard to the composition of the Commission—and here Clause 1 is backed up by Schedule 1—I think there will be general agreement that in view of the many different pieces, large and small, which go to make up the countryside jigsaw, it is right that the Commission should be largely a representative body. It is accordingly provided that the Commission should consist of up to 14 members and that in making

1139
appointments there should be consultations with local authorities and other countryside interests. It is the intention to make these consultations on as broad a basis as possible, so that the many organisations I have already mentioned who have interests in the countryside may feel reassured that their particular aspect of country life is not being overlooked and so that the Commission itself, when established, may be able to bring a widely informed view to bear on the determination of policy.
Although Schedule 1 provides that members of the Commission may be paid, it is the Government's intention that, with the possible exception of the Chairman, the Commissioners should be unpaid. There has been a good deal of discussion about this in another place, and in order to make the Government's position quite clear on this point I should like to quote the words used by my honourable friend the Minister of State in summing up the issues. He said:
"My right honourable friend has asked me to make quite clear that he is still firmly of the view that the members of the Commission should be unpaid, with the possible exception of the Chairman whom we would probably want to recompense for the greater amount of time he will necessarily have to devote to the Commission's business. My right honourable friend's view is unequivocally in favour of the type of Commission I have commended to the Committee, unpaid and broadly representative, although not directly so, of a wide span of countryside activity and operating through a high calibre staff."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Scottish Standing Committee, 20/6/67, col. 451.]
The clause also provides that the Secretary of State may give general directions to the Commission. It is not the intention that this power of direction should be used other than sparingly, but it is important that there should be a safeguard to ensure that the Commission operates within the general context of the Government's plans for Scotland as a whole.
Clause 2 provides for the procedure by which "the countryside" will be defined for the purposes of the Bill. We gave a lot of thought to this provision and we should have liked to be able to find a simple clear-cut definition for the purpose, but unfortunately it became clear that this could not be done without creating a host of undesirable and largely unforeseeable anomalies. We shall therefore be embark
1140
ing on a mapping exercise which will clearly define for both local authorities and the Countryside Commission (after consultation with them) the areas which are designated as countryside. This will very largely be a once-and-for-all exercise and has the additional merit that, when completed, it will be unaffected by any possible reorganisation of local government which may emerge in the future.
The clause binds the Secretary of State to complete the mapping within a year of the passing of the Act, although this period can be extended up to two years by Statutory Instrument. It is certainly our hope that the bulk of the work will be completed within the first year but, until it is, the clause provides for an interim definition of the countryside to be in force—this is stated as being
"the landward areas of counties and the areas of small burghs containing, according to the last published census, a population of less than 5,000 inhabitants."
I should make it clear—as I know some of your Lordships will be particularly concerned on the point—that the countryside under either method of definition will comprehend the coastline.
Clause 3 sets out the duties of the Commission and specifically charges them to keep under review all matters relating to the provision, development and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside, the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty (which I should make clear includes flora and fauna and features of geological or physiographical interest) and the need to secure public access to the countryside for the purposes of open-air recreation. In the exercise of this power, the Commission will be required to consult with such local planning authorities and other bodies as appear to them to have an interest, and it might be convenient for me to mention particularly at this point, as I am sure your Lordships may be wondering about our intentions, that, flowing from this provision, we should expect there to be the closest co-operation and co-ordination of activity between the Commission and the other three major Government agencies working in the Scottish countryside; that is, the Forestry Commission, the Nature Conservancy and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. With all three, the Commission

1141
will be enjoined by administrative directives to work in close liaison on all matters of mutual interest, and I do not anticipate any particular difficulties in operation.
This clause also charges the Commission to encourage, assist, concert or promote the implementation of any suitable proposals from private persons or other bodies which they consider are conducive to the attainment of their own objectives; and it establishes a mutual right of direct access between the Commission and Ministers and any public bodies. The other duties laid down in this clause will be more conveniently dealt with when I come to subsequent clauses in the Bill to which they relate.
The powers of the Commission are detailed in Clause 4, and the more important of these would enable the Commission, at their discretion, to establish committees, conferences or other appropriate bodies where they feel this would assist them in their work. This could be to assist them regionally, in relation to specific areas of Scotland, or functionally in relation to specific duties. The clause also enables the Commission to place at the disposal of local planning authorities the services of any of its professional or technical experts in circumstances where it is considered that special skills are required to further particular projects. I regard this as a very important provision, because there is no doubt that cases will arise from time to time when the development of tourist and recreational facilities in an area will raise specially difficult problems of planning or where problems of conservation will require specialist knowledge which local planning authorities cannot be expected to have within their own resources. The precise arrangements and terms for these secondments would of course need to be agreed with the authority concerned in each case. Other important provisions in this clause will enable the Commission to engage in research activities—a basic requirement in any organisation of this sort—and also to engage in publicity or educational work designed both to deepen the appreciation of members of the public in countryside matters and to educate them in the proper use of, and behaviour in country areas.
1142
We now come to Clauses 5 and 6, which contain very important provisions to enable the Commission themselves to undertake development projects or schemes designed to facilitate the enjoyment of the countryside or to conserve or enhance its natural beauty or amenity. It will be seen from the terms of Clause 5 that the intention is for the Commission's activities under this head to be essentially of a pioneering character. In other words, we see the Commission operating in this sphere not basically as a provider of facilities, but rather as blazing the trail and showing and proving what can and should be done in a variety of differing circumstances. This could range from the siting, planning and landscaping of a caravan or camping site in or near a particularly sensitive scenic area to the integrated planning of what may hitherto have been considered as conflicting uses of land or water, or providing a prototype information centre with new techniques of presentation and display. I have no doubt that the Commission themselves will have no difficulty in identifying a number of imaginative projects which they can use effectively for demonstration.
Although the powers conferred on the Commission by Clause 6 are very wide—ranging from the compulsory acquisition of land (subject, of course, to all the normal safeguards) to the carrying on of a business—we do not at all envisage that the Commission will become involved in such enterprises in any contining executive sense. The powers must be available, however, in order not to circumscribe in advance any of the activities in which the Commission might wish to engage for demonstration purposes.
Clause 7 contains an important provision enabling the Commission to make grants or loans to persons other than public bodies where they are pursuing projects conducive to the attainment of any of the purposes of the Bill as a whole. It will be one of the conditions under which financial assistance is given under this clause that the circumstances must be such that it is preferable that the project should be carried out by a private person or organisation rather than by a public body; and it will of course be an essential condition in the arrangements governing grants and loans under this clause that each project must be of demonstrable value to the community.

1143
Only in the most exceptional circumstances will approval be given for more than 75 per cent. of the cost of a project to be financed by the Commission, thus bringing the assistance under this clause into line with the payment of countryside grants to local authorities. This grants and loans clause is on similar lines to that operated so successfully by the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
Clauses 8 and 9 were designed to provide for the Commission to exercise a wide and persuasive influence on all aspects of countryside planning. I use the word "influence" advisedly. We do not want to see the Commission become deeply involved in matters of day-to-day planning control. As the Commission establishes itself, however, and we hope with the resources of experience and knowledge which it will build up gains the confidence of authorities in dealing with the more specialised aspects of countryside planning, it is hoped that a good working relationship can be achieved which will greatly assist the authorities in the exercise of their planning functions.
If it should be felt that any particular areas require a more detailed form of control—either over all development or any particular class of development—then Clause 9 provides the machinery for this and associates the Countryside Commission with it. I should emphasise, however, that before designating areas for this special form of control we shall need to have very good cause shown as to why it is necessary, and we expect the powers to be used very sparingly. With the emphasis which we are placing in general on greater delegation of planning control away from central Government, it would not be consistent to be imposing a more rigid form of control through this Countryside Bill. Nevertheless, having said that, we must have regard to the fact that there are in Scotland areas of such unspoiled magnificence and beauty, or of such high amenity potential, that they cannot be too carefully watched at all levels of Government to ensure that any developments which might be proposed are in complete harmony with the surroundings.
The actual provisions of Clause 9 translate into the Countryside Commission
1144
context the arrangements which have in fact existed in Scotland for the last 19 years, and which have I think worked well and successfully. Under these arrangements the Secretary of State has issued directions in respect of five large areas of especially high amenity (these are Loch Lomond/Trossachs; Glen Affric/Glen Cannich/Strathfarrar; Ben Nevis/Glencoe/Black Mount; the Cairngorms; and Loch Torridon/Loch Maree/Little Loch Broom) and these directions require that the local planning authorities must inform him of all planning applications within the designated areas so that he may decide whether to intervene or not in the way in which they are dealt with. I believe the local planning authorities have generally welcomed the direct involvement of the Secretary of State in these areas of truly national significance, and I am sure that the joint discussions of problems which have arisen have been of considerable mutual advantage. When the Countryside Commission come on the scene and make their own recommendations to the Secretary of State about the designation of areas for this special form of control the existing arrangements will lapse, but I should not expect any new arrangements to be more widespread or more detailed in control—in fact, rather the opposite; there is already room now for a looser form of control in some areas, and with the advent of the Commission I hope this can be achieved.
Part II of the Bill makes detailed provision for empowering local planning authorities and the Secretary of State to make access agreements and orders, or to acquire land in order to secure public access to open country for open-air recreation. These provisions are something new for Scotland, but they have existed in very similar form in England and Wales since the passing of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act in 1949.
Hitherto, the opinion has been held that such provisions were unnecessary in Scotland. This view was often very largely—and erroneously—based on the belief that there is no law of trespass in Scotland and that every Scotsman enjoys as of right the freedom of the countryside. This is excellent as a sentiment and I hope your Lordships would agree that it represents the spirit of what we are

1145
trying to achieve, and that we should like to preserve the feeling that every Scot should have the maximum freedom to enjoy his own country.
As a pure matter of fact, however, there is very little difference in the law of trespass between Scotland and England. In both countries it is a civil offence against the personal right of property, and not a criminal offence. In Scotland, however, damages can be secured against a trespasser only if it can be established that he has actually caused damage, and the difficulty of doing this has tended, in the past, to give rise to the belief that the law did not exist. The one difference here with the law in England is that this side of the Border nominal damages are awarded against the trespasser without the necessity of proving that damage was caused. What all this adds up to in practical terms is that on both sides of the Border no one has the right to enter anyone else's property without his consent, and if he does so he can lawfully be ordered to leave—and, if necessary, can be ejected. I should warn that in the latter case the ejector is not entitled to use any more force than is properly necessary. He also, of course, has to have regard to his own size and the size of the person he proposes to eject.
It is clear, therefore, that there must be provision in Scotland for securing access for the general public to open country in circumstances where this is being refused or where difficulties are arising—and, much as I deplore it, I am afraid this does tend to happen. Being realistic, too, I think your Lordships will agree that these difficulties are likely to increase in the future rather than decrease, having regard to the increasing pressures to which country areas will be subject from the numbers of visitors and their motor cars and coaches. As the weight of numbers goes up, the willingness of owners to allow unregulated access over their land must be expected to go down. So we must make statutory provision to confer reasonable rights of access. The clauses in Part II are based very largely on the well-tried provisions of the English 1949 Act and contain all the necessary safeguards for owners' rights and for compensation.
Part III of the Bill contains a number of important provisions for the creation
1146
of public paths and long distance routes, which are in many ways complementary to Part II and which again are well precedented in the 1949 Act. A public path means a footpath or bridleway, and the purpose of a long distance route is to enable the public to make extensive expeditions on foot, on pedal cycle or on horseback. Your Lordships will not need me to remind you of the great joys which Scotland has to offer for walking, pony-trekking and climbing away from the vehicular routes, and how vital it is—now more than ever before—that these opportunities should be safeguarded or, where necessary, created or completed. We must see to it that none of these pursuits is handicapped by lack of statutory powers to protect it. The purpose of Part III of the Bill is to provide this protection. In the implementation of these provisions we shall expect to see the Commission working in the closest co-operation with local planning authorities.
Part IV of the Bill confers a number of miscellaneous powers on various authorities. I will briefly highlight the main clauses. An extremely important provision—indeed, one of the major ones in the Bill—is contained in Clause 48. This clause deals with the establishment of Country Parks—defined as a park or pleasure ground (and that could be infinitely variable, both in size and in the nature of recreational facilities provided) which is sited in the countryside and which
"by reason of its position in relation to major concentrations of population affords convenient opportunities to the public for enjoyment of the countryside or open-air recreation".
Local planning authorities are charged with assessing the particular needs of their areas for these country parks and to keep this need under review; and it is proposed that the Commission should pay particular regard to this problem and should advise and assist local planning authorities in discharging their responsibilities.
In framing the clause we have had particularly in mind that this is very much a two-way operation: there are those urban authorities who export people into the countryside in large numbers, and there are the rural authorities who are at the receiving end; and it is essential that the two should get together and make joint arrangements. The clause,

1147
therefore, provides for this very necessary co-operation; it empowers the setting up of a joint committee to plan the facilities required; it enables authorities to act as agents for each other and, very important, it provides for the cost of establishing a Country Park to be shared between authorities on terms which would have regard to the prospective use of the park by the inhabitants of the areas of the respective authorities.
I hope that there will be a spirit of willingness on both sides to make this concept succeed. If urban pressures can be significantly absorbed in this way, it will have a most beneficial effect all round—in greater enjoyment for the individual and his family; in relieving congestion on the roads and lay-bys, and in evening out the demand on the more crowded spots which exist at the moment and which are much over-used because of the lack of suitable alternatives.
Clause 49 extends to local authorities the power they already have to provide caravan sites to enable them to make similar provision for camping sites. There has been a deficiency in the past and, with the growing demand for camping facilities, it is important that it should be remedied.
I should perhaps say a special word about Clause 50, since this gave rise to a somewhat belated but nevertheless vigorous reaction in another place. The clause empowers local authorities to make arrangements for securing the provision in the countryside—either by themselves or by other persons—of accommodation, meals and refreshments; and refreshments in this context is defined in Clause 77 as including excisable liquor. It is this latter point which has caused some raising of eyebrows, although it is really not very clear what those who have raised the matter feel should be done about it. Perhaps I should therefore put the clause in perspective. It is not intended as an open charter for local authorities to get into the retail drink business. On the contrary, I envisage this particular power being very sparingly used. In the first place it is governed by the proviso in the clause which restricts the provision to circumstances where facilities are inadequate or unsatisfactory. This will almost certainly be because the venture is commercially
1148
uneconomic; otherwise there would be no shortage of private entrepreneurs ready to step in; and the local authority will not themselves lightly become involved in an uneconomic venture of this sort unless they consider it their duty, having regard to the purposes of the Bill, to do so. And they will also have to convince their ratepayers that this is an activity which they should engage in. With all these hurdles, therefore, this is something which, by the nature of things, will not be done very often.
Another point which has been raised is that it is objectionable that the local authority, applying for a licence, should appear to act as judge in its own cause because of the common membership between the authority and the licensing court. This, however, pre-supposes that courts and local authorities cannot be trusted to act responsibly, and that is a suggestion which I cannot for one moment accept. The whole framework of this Bill is that public bodies will exercise their discretion and use the powers they are given reasonably and responsibly. We could not proceed on any other basis, and I do not think the present instance is any exception. The Second Report of the Guest Committee saw nothing objectionable in the present arrangements between local authorities and licensing courts, and I am content to rest on their view, although I am aware, of course, that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who was a member of that Committee, did not agree with all their recommendations.
Clause 51 confers an important power for the provision of parking places specifically to enable members of the public to enjoy the countryside. This is a badly needed provision in some areas and could have a significant effect both on the enjoyment of the country by the general public and on road safety and the free flow of traffic. The remainder of the clauses in Part IV deal with a number of miscellaneous, but nevertheless important matters, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not cover them all in detail now. There are, however, just three other clauses in this Part on which I should just like to say a little.
Clause 58 confers powers on the Forestry Commission to enable them to provide recreational facilities on the land which they have at their disposal. We have come to the conclusion that the

1149
Forestry Commission's powers in this respect need strengthening. That is the purpose of this clause. The Forestry Commission have, of course, for a long time provided recreational facilities in their forest parks and these have been a very valuable and much appreciated amenity. We hope to see these activities continued and expanded in the future and, as I said earlier, the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Commission will be working in the closest co-operation.
Clause 59 gives the Secretary of State powers to acquire land under the Forestry Act. In Scottish Standing Committee (col. 409), my honourable friend, the Minister of State, said:
"The clause requires that action is taken where land is reasonably required and where it is in proximity to other land in the Commissioner's hands. I would like to give an assurance—and I hope this is adequate to the honourable Member's purpose when he called this a probing Amendment—that we are regarding this as a rounding-off provision only … It is important that this is not seen as a sweeping clause which might affect the value of land held by an owner next to the Forestry Commission, the fear being that, perhaps, the clause would be used for purposes wider than is our intention. I give that assurance so that people may realise that we regard this clause as a rounding-off provision only to be used marginally and, I hope, naturally, with commonsense all the time on the part of all concerned."
Clause 60 confers on the Secretary of State similar powers to those in Clause 58 for providing recreational facilities in respect of land which he holds for a variety of different purposes. This makes good a deficiency which has existed so far. Clauses 61 to 63 are directed towards getting the maximum benefit for recreation out of Scotland's lochs, rivers, reservoirs and canals. One of the most significant recreational trends in the last ten years has been the phenomenal increase in demand for water sports. Sailing has increased twenty times over during this decade; rowing and canoeing have both increased; the demand for water ski-ing has grown spectacularly. Angling has grown vastly more popular since the war—and, of course, swimming is always popular. These various activities on water are not always compatible with each other—and that is a problem of co-ordination and control to which local authorities and the Countryside Commission will have to give urgent attention.
1150
But that is a separate problem. What the three Clauses 61 to 63 are aiming to do is to make provision for the improvement of waterways and to bring as much water as possible into recreational use.
Part V of the Bill deals with a variety of general, financial and supplementary provisions, a number of them in common form, and I do not think I need go into them all in detail at this stage. I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 65, which provides that:
"In the exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, government department and public body shall have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside."
This is a clause with a wide general effect which is on lines suggested by "The Countryside in 1970" Conference, and I feel sure it will commend itself to your Lordships as a timely reminder to all arms of Government of the importance of conserving the countryside in any actions they undertake.
Clause 66 empowers the Secretary of State to pay grant to local authorities up to 75 per cent. of expenditure in respect of the exercise of the powers conferred on them in the Bill, and provides that the Countryside Commission may make recommendations to the Secretary of State with regard to these grants. This is an important new specific grant which is tangible evidence of the importance which we attach to these countryside endeavours. I earnestly hope that it will act as a real encouragement to local authorities. Clause 67 empowers the Secretary of State to defray or contribute towards expenditure incurred in connection with long distance routes, and here again I hope that positive action will be taken by local authorities in co-operation with the Countryside Commission.
My Lords, the Bill is a long one—I have been aware of that for a long time. My speech has been a long one—I have become increasingly aware of that as time has gone on, but I hope that what I have said will not do anything in any way to diminish the commendation which I give to the Bill to all who love the Scottish countryside and who believe that both the Scottish people and their visitors should be enabled to enjoy it at its glorious best. It is in that spirit that I

1151
commend the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading, and I hope it is in that spirit that your Lordships will receive it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)

THE 70 M.P.H. SPEED LIMIT
3.47 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, and I will use her own words:
"The Road Research Laboratory has now completed its assessment of the 70 m.p.h. speed limit trial, and its Report was published on 8th June. The Report estimated that in 1966, with the 70 m.p.h. limit in operation, fatalities and casualties on motorways were 480 fewer than would have been expected without the speed limit. This was a reduction of about 20 per cent., and included 58 fewer people killed. Also, in clear weather on a 73-mile length of the M.1/M.10/M.45 complex during the trial period, the accident rate was the lowest recorded-10 per cent. lower than the average for the previous five years. The proportion of injury accidents was also the lowest recorded.
"The Report concluded that accidents on main roads were about 3½ per cent. fewer than would have been expected without the limit. On less important roads subject to the limit there appeared to have been virtually no change in the number of injury accidents compared with those expected. There were greater reductions in fatal and serious accidents and casualties on dual carriageways than on single carriageways, but the extent to which this could be attributed to the 70 m.p.h. limit was uncertain. 'The limit probably had little or no effect on the single carriageways because speeds as high as 70 m.p.h. are possible on only a few of them.
"An inquiry undertaken by National Opinion Polls in February this year showed 61 per cent. of motorists questioned in favour of a permanent 70 m.p.h. limit on motorways.
1152
"Before making up my mind on the course of action to follow, I invited and received the views of a wide range of interested organisations. The Report has also been discussed in the National Road Safety Advisory Council.
"In the light of the evidence now available, it is clear that we must distinguish between motorways and other roads.
"So far as motorways are concerned, I accept the evidence of the Road Research Laboratory as clearly establishing that the 70 m.p.h. limit has reduced casualties on the motorways. None of the arguments advanced against the limit convinces me that we should forgo this saving of life and injury. I have therefore decided to continue the 70 m.p.h. limit indefinitely on motorways.
"I have also decided to retain the 70 m.p.h. limit for roads other than motorways, at any rate for the time being But the Road Research Laboratory Report makes it clear that if we want to achieve a really worthwhile reduction in accidents on these roads then we may need to consider lower limits for them.
"70 m.p.h. may well prove to be the right limit for the majority of dual carriageways. But there are others bearing particularly heavy traffic where a limit of 60 m.p.h. might be more appropriate. And this might also prove to be the best limit for main roads other than dual carriageways.
"I am not putting these limits forward as firm proposals at the moment. There has been a good deal of Press speculation about my plans for these roads, and I want to say now that there is no question of a general limit lower than 70 m.p.h. being imposed before the summer traffic peak. But these are the kind of limits which we are now going to investigate and about which I shall be consulting all those concerned.
"I also intend to continue indefinitely the ban on slow-moving vehicles from the off-side lane of three-lane motorways which I introduced on a trial basis on 23rd May, 1966. This has been widely welcomed and should

1153
help to keep this lane free for the faster moving traffic subject to the 70 m.p.h. speed limit.
"The White Paper on Road Safety published last week stressed that we cannot rely on hunches to reduce the appalling total of casualties from road accidents. The Road Research Laboratory Report is, I believe, clear evidence that the right decision now is to keep the 70 m.p.h. limit on motorways.
"But we shall continue to watch the effect of this and other limits. I recognise that there are conflicting views among responsible people about just where limits should be fixed. And I can assure the House that if experience shows that it would be right, as our highway network develops, to consider other possible limits or variations of them, upwards or downwards, then we shall not hesitate to do so."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for giving us the Statement of the Minister of Transport; and may I assure him that we on this side certainly welcome the reduction of accidents and loss of life and limb, however it is brought about. May I ask him whether he is aware that a careful reading of the Report reveals that its conclusions that the limit of 70 m.p.h. was a cause of the reduction is deductive rather than objective? Is he aware that the Report would have been much stronger if it had been able to achieve a comparative analysis of the causes of individual accidents on motorways, both before and after the limit? Is the noble Lord further aware that there is some justifiable anxiety about restrictive limits? Whilst it is always persuasive to impose speed limits in the interest of reducing accidents, they may have a damaging overall effect in slowing up transport, in interference with export markets and so on. Is the noble Lord, therefore, aware that the Minister's intention to consider lower limits for other classes of road—and it has been rumoured possibly 60 m.p.h.—calls for an objective study and research to determine the causes of accidents, to find to what extent they are due to the speed factor?
1154
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware—I am sure he is—that we live in a world of movement, where it is in the national interest to adapt ourselves to speed so far as possible? Indeed, the noble Lord and his noble friends are asking us now to adapt ourselves to supersonic flight and supersonic boom. This matter of speed limits is very much a matter of judgment which should be founded on the most objective evidence. Provided that he gives us that, he will certainly get my support.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place? May I assure him from these Benches that we will support any measures that will save life or prevent injury. Does not the noble Lord think that in the ultimate the best solution will be found in greater efforts to improve the standard of driving at all speeds, rather than having restrictive limits?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I may, I will reply to the noble Lords, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Byers. Naturally, I did not need to be told by either of them that they supported this Government, any Government, in efforts to reduce the appalling casualties on our roads. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is quite correst in saying that this is a question of judgment. Certainly the more evidence one can obtain on which that judgment can be based, the better. At the moment we have the evidence that has been produced by the Road Research Laboratory, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will give them very great credit for the manner in which they carry out their inquiries. We now have clear evidence from this Laboratory that the speed limit has had a marked effect on accidents. The fact that we save 50 lives, or frankly even a figure lower than that, I think justifies some form of restriction.
I take the noble Lord's point that one does not want restrictions for the sake of restrictions. We want the most economic use of our roads. But if one looks at the fact, one finds that the speed limit of 70 m.p.h. really affects a relatively few number of motorists on the roads. Looking at the figures, I should personally say that only about 20 per cent. of drivers previously drove at

1155
over 70 m.p.h. Therefore, the slight difference is not going to be very great.
I agree with the noble Lord we must obtain more evidence, more information, on accidents, but the Government have made their decision, which of course will be subject to review, as I mentioned in the last paragraph of the Statement. We have also evidence from overseas, particularly Germany, where there was a really terrible increase in accidents when they took off the speed limit. We therefore had evidence from overseas, and we had this in mind when we were considering the Report of the Road Research Laboratory.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that until quite recently we had only one speed limit, 30 m.p.h. We have now in various places, 30, 40, on occasions 50, and 70 m.p.h. Do they therefore not consider the introduction of yet another one, 60 m.p.h., is likely to prove even more confusing to drivers than at the present time? At the same time, will they consider the advisability of doing away with as many as possible of those death traps, the three-lane roads, which are responsible for a large proportion of the accidents?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are in the middle of a Scottish debate, and I will not follow the noble Earl into the question of three-lane roads. I will say this: we have now a Committee considering the whole question of speed limits, and I believe their report should become available to the Minister in September. One of our difficulties is that we have a wide variation in the standards of roads in this country. One tries to make the most economic use of these roads, and this has resulted, through experiment, in a wide range of speed limits. I would agree in principle that the fewer limits we have, or the greater standardisation, the better.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I put a couple of questions to the noble Lord? Would he confirm my understanding that this is to be a continuing experiment? I thought that was what I was to understand from the Statement. I should like to be confirmed in that understanding. I do not wish to carp,
1156
but it is a trifle disappointing that, after 20 months of experiment, the available evidence is not a little more positive. The noble Lord himself used the words "it is estimated" and "would have been expected". Am I definitely to understand that this is to be of a further experimental nature, and that further evidence which many people think is required as to the variations in factors, including speed, will be considered in the future?
May I further ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us what are the views generally of the police on the action the Minister has decided to take? And, in view of the necessity of obtaining such adequate enforcement as is needed for safety, should not such a limit be seen to be reasonable by those who are affected by it? Possibly they are a different category from those referred to in the Opinion Poll figures, many of whom may not have been affected by it. Can the noble Lord further tell us what were the views of the National Road Safety Advisory Committee on this matter?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with regard to the first of the noble Lord's questions, perhaps I may repeat that this speed limit on motorways will remain indefinitely, but that we shall have it much under review, studying all its effects. I think I should also say to the noble Lord that at the moment we shall not be undertaking any change. Therefore we wish to see this limit remain certainly for some time. As to the police, of course they have the problem of enforcement; and, to be quite frank with the noble Lord, they might have preferred a slightly higher limit in terms basically of enforcement, although they recognise the case made by the Road Research Laboratory as to the effect of this particular speed limit.
The Advisory Committee's Report has not yet been delivered to the Minister, but my information is that the Committee, which embraces a fairly wide range of interests, was fairly split between the maintenance of the 70 m.p.h. speed limit and perhaps a higher limit. However, there was unanimity of view on that Committee that the 70 m.p.h. speed limit should remain as an experimental limit. As the noble Lord will see from my Statement, we intend to continue this limit for

1157
an indefinite period, but naturally we shall be keeping it under review.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this matter unduly. The noble Lord referred to Germany. Am I right in thinking that nowadays on the autobahn there is a selective system, which clearly indicates what is the right speed for the section of the road; and that in fact some sections are completely unrestricted? This is a system which I believe gives confidence to the motorist. Is it not worth considering something along these lines for Britain?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. One does not wish to develop this matter, but the noble Lord will be interested to know that when the speed limit of 62 m.p.h. on the Frankfurt—Mannheim autobahn, imposed in 1958, was removed in 1961, there was an increase in accidents of 35 per cent. and in deaths and injuries of 43 per cent., although the increase in traffic was only 9 per cent.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, is there any statistical evidence as to the deaths caused by the influence of drink? If this evidence is not available, might not this be examined by means of coroners' depositions? The reason I say this is that I administer a benefit which pays out in the case of fatal accidents; and I must say that from my experience which covers about 60 deaths a year, I am appalled at the number of deaths which can be associated with drink. I would emphasise that it is not just drink on the part of the driver. I do not think that it is appreciated how many pedestrians under the influence of drink will walk into a car at about half-past ten or eleven o'clock at night.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have had a number of full debates on the question of drink and driving. There is now in being an Act, which I believe will be in force later this year and, I should imagine, will have a material effect upon the question that the noble Lord has put forward.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, one more question to the noble Lord. I heard with interest his reply to my noble friend Lord Chesham
1158
about police preference for having a higher limit. Is he aware that my own feeling is that had this limit been set at 80 m.p.h. instead of 70 m.p.h., we probably should have got the same results? Would he therefore stress to his right honourable friend in another place the importance of not relying on "hunches", as she says in her Statement, when she is dealing with the overall speed limit on roads, but to make quite sure that her thoughts are based on scientific evidence?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Castle is the one woman who does not rely on "hunches". But I will certainly see that the point made by the noble Lord is conveyed to her.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.7 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps we might now return to the Countryside (Scotland) Bill, and I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord for having taken us through this long Bill in such an enlightening—I said "enlightening", and not "lightning"—fashion. I think he has illuminated some of the rather more obscure corners in it in the course of so doing. He may rest assured that the principles of what the Government are trying to do will, as he said, not be in dispute.
This is a Bill which has been a long time on the stocks, as I remember even from my own time in the Scottish Office. Maybe it is all the better for that. Certainly, as the noble Lord said, it is much better for the two conferences, held in 1963 and 1965, and, above all, for the work of Study Group No. 9 whose Report I have here, submitted in 1965. I have one grumble. The Bill was mentioned in the gracious Speech; it breaks new ground for Scotland, from both the legislative and the administrative points of view; and in these circumstances one cannot but regret that it is brought forward so late in this unusually lone Session.
This Bill is essentially about people. It is about their enjoyment of the countryside. It is not only about people alive

1159
to-day; it concerns future generations and their enjoyment. It is for them, as well as for us, that the scenic beauty of Scotland must be preserved and enhanced, and that her unique opportunities for outdoor recreation must be developed and made available to the ever-growing numbers, both from within and outside Scotland, who want to enjoy them in the various ways that appeal to them.
Those who know an area well know what they can do and whom to contact before doing it. I have been surprised at the number of visitors to Scotland who complain that they do not know what they may do, and who feel that they are unduly restricted. This has never been my experience, but it emphasises the need for information. Whatever the laws of trespass may be, Scotland is a land of freedom; and in so far as the Bill will extend that sense of freedom it is greatly to be welcomed, provided, of course, that the freedom is exercised with responsibility and respect for the rights of others.
The problem, as I see it, is to prevent the countryside from being spoiled, either by misuse or by lack of resources. However anxious owners and occupiers may be to maintain their property in good order, whether they are private individuals or public bodies, they will inevitably be discouraged unless it is treated with respect, and unless there is adequate co-operation and consultation between the various interests—owners and users and public bodies alike. Why is it that the Bill lays no duty on the public authorities to consult the private interests? Is that not rather a bad start? Take again the matter of "open country". What is open country is left to the judgment of the authorities, subject only to what is defined as "excepted land" in Clause 11(5). I should have thought that the opposite of "open country" is "closed country" or "enclosured land". But all livestock-rearing land is excluded from "excepted land", including enclosures, although it is impossible to raise livestock without enclosures. I hope the Government will look at this again.
In my view, the main problems involved under the Bill will be, first of all, orderly access to open land and the reconciliation of various uses and various rights; secondly, the preservation and de
1160
velopment of the countryside; thirdly, finance; fourthly, communications, in the sense of consultation and information—this will be extremely important. Many of the places of greatest beauty are situated in areas where local authorities have little to spend either on staff or works. According to Study Group No. 9, in the Highlands as a whole there are only 20 people to the square mile, and in the rest of rural Scotland only about one-ninth of the population per square mile in the central belt. That means that the rural areas alone cannot possibly afford to pay for the services needed. Therefore substantial help is needed. The Bill proposes grants not exceeding 75 per cent. This is to be welcomed, and in some cases—for example, Country Parks—it may be enough, or more than enough, to meet the needs or urban communities. But in the remoter areas it is not too much and may prove inadequate.
The next problem is, as always, that of priorities: to decide not only what needs to be done, but in what order. In view of the modest funds to be made available, this is particularly important. To advise or decide on all this plainly needs, as the Study Group put it,
"a central agency to determine countryside standards and policy, to recommend grants to other authorities and to carry out with its own executive arm those projects which cannot be handled by existing agencies."
That central agency is to be the Countryside Commission and, as the noble Lord said, or at any rate implied, if I may put it in my own way, to start with it will be a bailie without a bailiwick.
This bailiwick—the countryside—is to be mapped out by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Commission and the local planning authorities concerned, and defined—with luck—within a year.
One thing the noble Lord did not say was what happens if it is not possible to complete the job within a year. I hope that at least as much as possible will be defined in that time, and if it is I would assume that in those areas in which it is defined the maps will take over from the temporary arrangements provided for in the Bill. The results of this mapping are to be available for inspection by the public as a consequence of an Amendment made to the Bill in

1161
deference to the wishes of the Opposition in another place. Within its bailiwick the Commission is to exercise the functions—which means both powers and duties—for the
"provision development, improvement of facilities for the enjoyment of the Scottish countryside and for the conservation and enhancement of its natural beauty and amenity".
The noble Lord said that he hoped these would not conflict, and indeed I hope they will not. But what is striking is that, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, all this has to be done within a budget of £400,000 a year, plus the local authorities' expenditure—say, £500,000 in all a year.
I should like to refer briefly to what I regard as the outstanding powers of the Countryside Commission. First of all, there are those in Clause 5 to try out new schemes to serve as models; secondly, to advise the Secretary of State on the exercise of his powers in areas of special planning control; thirdly, to prepare and submit to him plans for long-distance routes, including ferries, accommodation and eating-places along them, and to advise on local planning authorities' schemes for public foot-paths or bridleways. There is a point on that matter on which I should like to ask a question. According to the Bill, the Countryside Commission is merely to put up proposals. I should like the noble Lord to confirm that the implementation of those proposals will rest with local planning authorities in all cases and will not rest upon the Countryside Commission. I think that is in line with what he said: that the executive powers of the Commission will be confined to exceptional cases in certain areas.
The fourth power which I should mention is the power to make grants and loans, with the Secretary of State's or the Treasury's consent, to the National Trust and also to persons other than public bodies. The fifth power is to educate and inform people in the proper use of and behaviour in the countryside. The sixth power is to establish, promote or assist in the establishment of committees and other appropriate bodies—in other words, to bring interested parties, both public and private, together to co
1162
ordinate measures in the different areas of Scotland or for special functions.
The noble Lord said something about areas of special planning control. What the Study Group said about this matter, in paragraph 37 of their Report, was this:
"Previous attempts to do regional planning by means of advisory joint committees of local authorities have demonstrated the degree of local rivalry which can still exist in connection with the settlement of industrial or residential projects and there is nothing to suggest that this would be less in connection with countryside or recreational projects. Indeed it has to be recorded that there is nothing in that past experience, anywhere in Britain, to suggest that such an arrangement would work."
Accordingly, I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord say that there was room now for some relaxation, even in the National Park areas, I took him to say, and, indeed, in the other areas which may be recommended by the Commission. As the Study Group put it, "Existing powers and authorities could not handle such measures"—meaning the measures which they consider necessary to preserve and develop these areas. If there is going to be a single co-ordinating authority, presumably that authority will have to be the Commission and, as I read the Bill, this was the intention. I was therefore surprised at what the noble Lord had to say on this point. I wondered whether the Commission or the Secretary of State would co-ordinate the activities in these areas. I hope that he will be able to say something about that matter.
I turn now to the question of access; and much of the Bill is taken up with the matter of access to the open country. The Bill enables agreements to be made, with the approval of the Secretary of State, with any person having an interest in the land, including those having sporting or fishing rights, to allow people to go, as of right, on open country for the sole purpose of open-air recreation, provided they do no damage. I think that is a fair summary. Such agreements may be made by the local planning authorities and, if they fail to do so where the Commission think they should, the Commission may request them to do so after consulting them first. What happens if they decline is not altogether clear. On the other hand, the local planning authorities do not, apparently, have to consult the

1163
Commission before making an agreement, except in areas of special control. If agreement cannot be reached, then the local planning authority may make an order. The Commission may request them to make one, and if they decline the Commission may request the Secretary of State to direct them to make an order. This is in the case of an order, but not in the case of an agreement. Before he makes an order, an opportunity is to be given for representations to be made, and the Secretary of State must consult the Commission before coming to a conclusion.
The noble Lord has said in one sentence what the policy of the Government would be, and I hope that when he winds up the debate he will enlarge a little on this. Although he said that there is a precedent for these powers in the English legislation, if I understand it correctly that precedent relates to the National Parks areas; whereas, of course, in Scotland the legislation is to apply to almost everything except the urban areas. I should like to ask this question. Is it that a legal right to access to open country is to be provided, either by agreement or by order, over wide areas, even where no obstacle is placed in the way of the public going on to the land without a legal right? Or are agreements and orders to be made only where difficulties of one kind or another arise? I think it is very important that we should know the answer to that question.
Where access orders are made, the local planning authority has to pay the person concerned compensation equal to the amount of any depreciation in the value of land or damage consequent upon the orders. I do not propose to go into the question of compensation to-day, because I think that that is rather more a matter for the Committee stage, and is one with which some of my noble friends will no doubt deal. But I should just like to ask this question. Will the compensation cover insurance premiums to cover the persons concerned against their liabilities towards the public, whom, after all, the local planning authority or the Secretary of State will be bringing on to the land by the order—this is in the case of an order—or possibly cover against any loss or damage which the owner of the interest in the land may incur as a result of the
1164
activities or negligence of people coming upon the land?
Then who is to prevent the public from causing damage? Will not wardens be required? And who is to pay for them? I do not think the noble Lord mentioned wardens, but this is an important part of the Bill. As the Bill stands, Clause 64 provides that wardens may be appointed only by local planning authorities or other authorities to look after land which is the subject of by-laws. Local planning authorities are empowered to make bylaws for any land or waterway to which the public are given access under Part II, either by agreement or by order, and may be required by the Secretary of State to do so. What is to be the policy about making by-laws and appointing wardens? And if it is not judged necessary to make by-laws for open country in particular cases, will the local planning authorities defray or contribute towards the cost of wardens employed by the owner of the interest in the land?
There is one other small but fairly important point. Who is to be given free access? It is reasonable that individual members of the public should have access for open-air recreation. But does the same necessarily apply to an individual who regularly brings on to the land a lot of ponies, with or without riders, not for his own open-air recreation but to make a livelihood? Pony trekking has become very popular, but it does not follow that it should necessarily have free use of the land. I understand that the Forestry Commission make charges to cover the upkeep of land and make good the damage, which inevitably results if a large number of ponies regularly go over the land. Will the owner of the land be allowed to make similar charges, or will the local planning authority defray the cost of making good the damage they do?
The only other subject to which I want to refer, as my noble friends will no doubt be dealing with many other subjects, is that of waterways. This is perhaps the most sweeping provision of all in the Bill. It is contained in Clauses 61 and 62, to which the noble Lord briefly referred. They enable a local planning authority to carry out any work or to do anything which appears to them expedient for facilitating the use by the public of any loch, river, reservoir, canal or other waters in the countryside within

1165
their area for sailing, boating, bathing, fishing or other sport or recreation, subject only to the consent of any local water authority concerned. A local planning authority is also empowered to acquire land compulsorily for the purpose, or it may make an agreement with any public body on whom powers are conferred in relation to the waterways for these purposes. It would be odd, would it not, if river pollution authorities were to exercise these powers.
Then if any such public body wants to exercise these powers, and the local planning authority declines to make an agreement with them, the Secretary of State may direct that the powers are exercisable by that body. There is, of course, provision for appeal by the owner and for compensation to be paid to him. All the same, these are very sweeping powers, and I would ask the noble Lord to state the policy. He used two phrases here. The first was, "to get in ahead of emerging needs"—which is obviously sensible—and the other was, "to bring as much water as possible into recreational use." Of course, a lot of this water may already be in recreational use, although it may be restricted in one way or another, being made subject to licence and day payments for the rod and so forth.
There is a great deal in this Bill which ought to be looked at very carefully by Parliament. I can cover only a very small part of it. The fact that the general objects of the Bill have the support of nearly everyone in Parliament does not imply that the means proposed to achieve these objects need not be examined in detail. We on this side will certainly not obstruct the Bill in any way, for we recognise that it is not easy to get a place for a Bill of this kind in the legislative programme, and we agree with the objects. But I hope that this debate will extract from the Government a statement of the way they intend that the powers will be exercised.
I hope, in particular, that the Commission will be allowed to co-ordinate the expansion of facilities for the enjoyment of the countryside; that it will be consulted by local planning authorities even where the Bill does not require consultation, and kept informed by them of all that they do. I do not see how they can do their job unless this happens. I hope
1166
there will be full consultation with landowners and farmers, and I should like to see that provided for in the Bill. I should also like to ask what responsibilities the Commission will have in the development of tourism, and how it will work with the Scottish Tourist Board.
Finally, I would express the hope that, except perhaps in the areas of special planning control, the Commission will advise and co-ordinate and will not try to take on too much themselves, or to run too much themselves. I hope that both they and the local planning authorities will be prepared to allow private enterprises to play their part in the scheme of things, and that they will not seek to conserve the beauty and amenity of the countryside by keeping people out of it. However grand the scenery, the land is not there just to be looked at, and while bad development can detract from it, it can be greatly enhanced by the efforts of individuals to improve their own property, be it one-eighth of an acre or several thousand acres. I hope that the Bill will result not only in more people being able to enjoy the countryside on holidays and week-ends and days out, but in more people living in the countryside—in new villages where people will live and work and give hospitality to their less-favoured brethren who come among them from the towns and cities.
4.30 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should like to join my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, upon introducing this Bill, which will undoubtedly be welcomed by the majority of people in Scotland. I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that this Bill has indeed been a very long time on the stocks. Its gestation, in fact, goes back at least 80 years, to the time when, in 1885, the Member for South Aberdeen introduced his Access to Mountains Bill. This Bill is the lineal descendant of that Bill, which was introduced in the other place at that time, and we must therefore welcome the fact that at long last it has got through the other place and come up to your Lordships' House. Incidentally, one might say that the Member for South Aberdeen was a very pertinacious person, for having failed in 1885 he brought his Bill forward again in 1892, when it was accepted by the Government;

1167
but, as his biographer, H. A. L. Fisher, said:
"It did not fructify into legislation".
At long last it appears as though it is about to fructify into legislation.
My Lords, from reading the debates of over three-quarters of a century ago one can see that a very different state of affairs existed in Scotland then from that which exists now. I can remember being told in my youth of the great battle of Glen Tilt (or perhaps one should call it the encounter of Glen Tilt), when persons who desired access to the mountains encountered the representatives of my noble friend the Duke of Atholl; and there was a considerable outcry and correspondence in the Press of Scotland at that time. Since that historic encounter little more has been heard about real difficulties of access to the hills. Speaking for myself, as a hill-walker rather than a mountaineer, as one who does not care to dangle at the end of ropes but prefers just to get the recreation from the summits, I would say that I personally have never in my life encountered any difficulty in going anywhere in the hills of Scotland. I have heard of only one case where access was made difficult, and that was by an English brewer.
If your Lordships wished a good example of how the landlords of Scotland co-operate with the people of Scotland in this matter, I would direct your attention to the developments at Aviemore. These developments, which have taken place in the last fifteen years or so, have been carried out with the entire good will of the owners of the land. One of the owners, of course, is the Forestry Commission, but the other and the main one is Colonel Ian Grant, of Rothiemurchus, whose family has owned estates there for centuries. He and his family have never created any difficulties for people who have wanted to climb and walk among the Cairngorms; and one can say the same, on the other side of the Cairngorms, of the owners of the ground on the River Derry.
My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said that there are difficulties of access, but these are very small, I believe, compared with what they were a hundred years ago. Our tendency nowadays is to legislate for things for which, in the past,
1168
one would never have thought detailed legislation was necessary. In the past, one would have relied upon the good will of both sides; and I must say that up to this time in Scotland, because of this good will, there have been few cases where tempers have been lost and people have been refused access.
My Lords, I come on to the question of trespass. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that in England the law of trespass is only slightly different from the law in Scotland. The law may be only slightly different in itself, but in its application it is indeed very different. It almost amounts to the point that in Scotland there is in fact no law of trespass, in so far as, if you do have somebody trespassing, the only way in which you can possibly stop him, if he is not doing major damage, wilful damage, is by applying for interdict, and to obtain interdict is almost an impossibility at the present time, because it is both time-consuming and somewhat costly. But this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will make it very much easier for daylight poaching to take place than it is at the present time. Whatever may be the law in England, it is almost impossible in Scotland, as the law stands at the present time, to prosecute for daylight poaching. I think that some attention should be given to this point when this Bill is considered in Committee.
I should also like to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has said about the phrase "livestock rearing land". It is extremely difficult to understand exactly what is meant by "livestock rearing land", which is to be included in the land that the Commission can open up, whereas other agricultural land is excluded. Does a herd of cows grazing in a field make that field "livestock rearing land"? Or, failing that, does a herd of their daughters, their heifers, in a field make it "livestock grazing land"? To my understanding, it would. I am not quite certain what is meant there.
Reverting to the question of the law of trespass, I would point out that damage can be done by any person who has access to the mountains, but there is virtually no way in which he can be caught up; whereas if a bull belonging to the farmer over whose land access is being given creates damage, the farmer

1169
can be fined £50. It is explicit that the farmer can be fined £50; and I would submit for the consideration of the Government that, when explicit regulations are being made, with penal sanctions, the penal sanctions should be on both sides. Hitherto, we have worked on good will. But if there is to be a penal sanction of a £50 fine on a farmer if his bull gets out of hand and he himself has no redress if the tourists get out of hand, then I think there is something which needs to be looked into here.
As a tailpiece, I might mention the question of the provision of alcohol where there are no local services. This is exactly the kind of thing that we are moving into in these times, showing that the tendency of the time is to legislate for what would have previously been a matter of common sense. In my young days one would never have thought of adventuring upon the mountains without making certain that one's alcoholic requirements until such time as one got back to civilisation would be fully met! That the Government should now start to make special provisions for alcoholic requirements when one goes up the Cairngorms is interesting; but it is an example of the spirit of paternalism into which we are moving in this generaton. I recognise, however, the great change which has come over us since the time when the late James Bryce introduced his Access to the Mountains Bill. We now have pony trekking; and I agree with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that the provision of pony tracks is essential—one would like to see bridle-tracks going over the whole of Scotland—but their maintenance is something to which I think local authorities should pay attention.
With due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I am not convinced that ski-ing and bathing are antagonistic. I have seen ski-ing, bathing and fishing being conducted all on the same lake in Minnesota, in the northern part of the U.S.A. Probably we shall be more civilised if we have some measure of control over water ski-ing; and, of course, the tremendous advances in ski-ing in the Cairngorms and in other parts of Scotland contribute to producing a completely different situation from that when Lord Bryce introduced his Bill in 1892. I should like to read to your Lordships what his biographer said about his speech on the Bill:
1170
"The speech ended with a burst of true, but un-Parliamentary, eloquence that does not often startle the ear of the British legislature."
I am not going to startle your Lordships as James Bryce then apparently startled the other place; but I should like to read the Resolution arrived at in the other place at 11.40 p.m. on March 4, 1892:
"Resolved, That in the opinion of this House legislation is needed for the purpose of securing the right of the public to enjoy free access to uncultivated mountains and moorlands especially in Scotland, subject to proper provisions for preventing any abuse of such right."
4.43 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for attempting this Bill; I wish I felt it possible to join my noble friend Lord Balerno in congratulating them on the Bill itself. He referred to the fact that this Bill had taken a long time to gestate; and from my own experience I have found that an egg that takes a long time to gestate produces a weak chick. I think the same may be said about this Bill. There will probably be a great deal of unremunerative public expenditure arising from this Bill, much of which will fall on the local authorities. A fear of the strangulation of development is very evident from this Bill; and it may take a lot longer to get planning through. The local authorities may be more reluctant than the land owners to enter into agreements. It may cost a great deal of money.
First of all, I must declare a major interest. I own two establishments both of which have camping sites, petrol pumps and a shop. I am deriving interest from the tourist industry and I hope, at the same time, helping it. I anticipate having 400 to 500 people on one of those sites next week. On the other hand, as a landowner and farmer I suffer materially from this industry. My property lies beside Loch Ness which, with its famous aquatic beast, has a unique attraction for the "Bumble Bug" who crawls around the roads in his car and also for the hitchhiker; while on the West coast I have until recently owned deer forest, ground which rises steeply from sea-level to well over 3,000 feet and attracts hill climbers—who, for some reason or another, must climb above the 3,000 ft. contours. In this respect my noble friend, Lord Balerno mentioned restriction to access to

1171
some of these hills, and I saw the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, look at me when he mentioned an English "beer-Baron". I think he was probably not referring to me, because I should like to think that most of my ancestors were Scottish and not English.
With the experience I have had during the past years of these various tourist attractions I can say with confidence that this Bill is not compiled by those who understand the serious problems involved. The tourist industry, of course, is essential. It brings money and seasonal employment to much of rural Scotland, quite apart from the recreation facilities it provides for those from our industrial areas. Although it may benefit many people, it is a very serious burden on the owners and occupiers of land. I do not think that that has been fully realised in compiling this Bill. I am somewhat nervous about being here to-day, because I have left behind me serious fire risk. Only about a fortnight ago practically the whole of my forestry squad were knocked out by tourists, who drove into them; and most of them are still out of action. That is the sort of unexpected burden that we have placed upon us during this particular month of the year. The rate of accidents occurring on the roads in Inverness-shire at the end of July is almost double what it is throughout the rest of the year; and this is so each year, practically without exception.
There is also the problem of litter, and, worse still, the fouling on road-sides and in corners where indiscriminate camping takes place. Sometimes there is a hideous mess left behind which the landowner has to clear up. There are, too, the reductions in rentals through disturbance in the hills; and the substantial carnage of young lambs. In one of my flocks on the West coast I have lost already this year nearly 10 per cent. of the lambs born in that flock. In another flock I have lost nearly 15 per cent. this year—and we are now coming into the heaviest month. This is the sort of problem with which we are faced and which is not altogether understood. And there are many other problems.
The vast majority of landowners realise that they must live with the tourist industry and they look to the Govern
1172
ment of the day to do all that they can to alleviate their difficulties, while giving as much freedom to the individual as possible. There is the need for open-air recreation, for access to the hills and open country; but, as my noble friend explained in detail, this already exists. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may say about the law of trespass in Scotland, it is practically worthless. The legal costs to an individual trying to enforce it are far in excess of any benefit that he may derive from a successful case, or any penalty imposed on the wrongdoer. I wonder how many cases of trespass come before the courts each year. I suspect there is practically none; and the reason is that they are not worth bringing. Why, then, say that the law of trespass is of any use?
Unfortunately, there is a minority of tourists which causes considerable trouble and damage. The average individual does very little accidental damage and practically no wilful damage; but there are those who will persist in doing things that they know must be wrong. Perhaps I may give your Lordships one small instance. Last year we had a stalking party sitting beside a path, deciding which way to go for a stalk. Three young men came up the path; they were asked either to go on by another route or to wait for a short time after which they could come up with the pony-boy. Everything was explained to them—why this particular stag had to be killed, and so on. They listened to what was said and then walked straight on, and they disturbed the stag.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Burton, explain how all this is relevant to the Bill? He is talking about what is going on now, and the Bill is to make provision for dealing with it. In England, in the High Peak, where there is a local planning board which employs wardens, they have, to some extent at any rate, succeeded in overcoming this problem, lust because there is a National Parks organisation in England. This Bill is designed to make the same sort of provision for Scotland.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I was just coming to that. If I may continue what I was saying I will answer that question eventually. Wardens have been mentioned, and I will deal with them. Last

1173
year I personally stopped three young men who were about to go to the hill. The first thing they said was, "You cannot stop us from going." As the noble Lord has said, I could not stop them from going. But I said to them, "If you go, once you cross that ridge you will almost inevitably disturb some deer, and we have a stalking party going out to-day. If they are disturbed, the deer probably will not return to this ground until the wind changes. If you go, I shall have you watched, and if you disturb any deer, I shall charge you not only with the full cost of to-day's stalking, but the rental and everything else until the wind changes; and I shall make a case against you." That appeared to have some effect, and they came down to ask—they had not asked before—whether they could go or where they could go. It turned out that one of them was an Edinburgh W.S. I think that was the first time that I had ever had a free legal opinion. It seems to me that that is one possible method of dealing with such a situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to the use of a necessary amount of force to remove people, but this is a very dangerous thing—and I can say from bitter experience that it is not only a question of using the necessary amount of force. One may use very much less than the necessary amount of force and still find oneself involved in a case of assault. Substantial penalties and a number of new restrictions are to be imposed on owners and occupiers of land, but few additional restrictions are to be placed on members of the public. I feel that unless there are to be more restrictions—not necessarily very rigid—and unless it is possible to deal with those who commit wilful damage, the situation will never be reconciled.
If and when this Bill becomes law, how is the general public to know whether a certain piece of ground is subject to an access order or agreement? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, talked about the tourist who did not know where he could go, or where to get information. If the Bill as it stands becomes law, this problem will become very much worse. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Government that we should plaster our hillsides with notice boards. That would seem to
1174
be entirely contrary to provisions in other parts of the Bill connected with the preservation of the natural state of the country and the amenities. Already many people get lost in the hills, and the first thing they would say would be, "I thought I was on a piece of ground which was subject to an access agreement." I can see that considerable difficulties will arise in this connection. Again, how are they to know what are the terms of any agreement for a particular piece of ground? A great deal more attention must be paid to the provision of information about where people may go.
The question of wardens has been mentioned. They will have no powers, so far as I can see, and their function will be advisory. They will be in the same position as one's employees. As the law stands in Scotland, anyone who wishes to go to any place can do so, whether they are spoken to by a warden or not. They can just say, "I am going", and they can go; and there is little that can be done about it. As I read the Bill, that is the case. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will be able to tell me that I am wrong.
My Lords, another problem which concerns me is that the agreements appear to be once-and-for-all agreements. As a trustee I am concerned that one may find oneself in considerable difficulty when property is handed over to an heir. The heir may say, "You have made an agreement which seriously depreciates the value of my property, and as the trustee I must hold you liable." I ask the Government seriously to look at the question of whether it may be possible to make agreements which are not irrevocable but with, perhaps, a minimum period of ten years; or anyway for a period. If both parties were agreeable, the agreement might be revoked altogether. It may well be that after a little experience a local authority and the landowner may decide that it was not a good thing to have an agreement in respect of a particular piece of land, and the agreement could be terminated. Reference has been made to the question of compensation and insurance. It is extremely difficult to say what the compensation is likely to be, even after five years. It would be very much easier were it possible to claim compensation from some sort of pool for any

1175
damage which occurred, or from Government sources, rather than have an initial claim. I think it would cost the country a good deal less to do this, and it would prove much more fair and equitable all round.
Indiscriminate camping seems very difficult to control. I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the Act of 1865 contains provisions which would control this, but if that is so it is certainly not being done at present. That is a matter which requires looking at, and about which provisions should be incorporated in the Bill. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, did not mention anything about the pasturing of bulls. I understood that there was some agreement made with the Scottish N.F.U. whereby a clause would be deleted or altered, and I am sorry that we have not heard about it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to Clause 44? That clause has been amended, and has the agreement of the Scottish N.F.U.
LORD BURTON: I apologise to your Lordships; I missed that Amendment. There is one other thing about which we are worried, and that is having dogs at large. I can understand that those who live near Edinburgh might want to have little "Fido" running at large, but it would be much the worst for any little dog which started to run around among Galloway cattle on the open hill. Therefore, it would be to the advantage of the visitor if the activities of dogs were properly restricted.
Finally, my Lords, may I refer to the set-up of the Commission? I should be grateful for some assurance that someone, a factor or an owner with considerable knowledge of land management—if one can be found with sufficient time to spare, as they are all extremely busy dealing with new legislation—could be put on the Commission. After all, the Commission is being entrusted with land management.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I appeared to be laughing at what he said. It was not that. I was laughing at the rather extraordinary note which I have just received.
4.59 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I am not opposed to this Bill but I am rather worried about certain aspects of it. In the debate on the gracious Speech at the start of the Session I welcomed the Bill as bringing some measure of control to the movement of tourists in the Highlands. I was rather surprised when my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn referred to people whom he knew and who had said that they felt restricted in the Highlands: that they did not know where they could go. My experience has been, and I have always had the impression, that under the legislation giving access to mountains and moorlands, the hiker in the Highlands could go anywhere. One could only "tell him off" if one could prove damage. In actual fact, that is never done.
I have some sympathy with the complaint of my noble friend Lord Burton, who is just going out, about interference with deer stalking. And I have to declare an interest here, as I am a Highland landowner. I have a deer forest on the estate, but about one-third is now quite unusable—and I have to decrease any rent accordingly—because of the number of hikers on the ground during the stalking season. I am not complaining; I am just stating a fact—well, perhaps it is true to say that I complain in private, but I am not complaining in public.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, for the Record may I say that I was surprised to hear this. I said that it did not coincide with my experience.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. The part of the Bill in which I am most interested is Part II. On the definition of "open country" we come to a hobby-horse of mine, because I have always been trying to get a definition of "enclosed land". We now have the definition of open country as:
"… wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath, hill, woodland, cliff or foreshore, with the waterways …"
It is a pity that we cannot get enclosed land defined as well. I think that this definition is rather muddled, and that the word "predominantly" is not definite enough. It is no good saying, "unenclosed country", because if one walks on the hills far enough one is bound

1177
to come to a fence. But if we could say, "country that cannot support more than one ewe to five acres", or, "country where the enclosures are over 5,000 acres or more", or some definition on those lines, we might get closer to what is required.
I am frightened that on the definition in the Bill there may be damage to the revenue producing capabilities of the countryside in Scotland. For instance, at lambing time we may have people wandering all over the hills with their dogs. They can panic the sheep, who may get broken legs, and the lambs may run into burns and be drowned. In the autumn we may have a couple of hundred tourists appearing in the middle of a grouse drive. Perhaps one has an American tenant paying £5,000 for a moor. He is not going to be very pleased if his sport is completely spoiled by tourists on the hill, and he will not come back again.
There is another point of definition about which I am worried, which ties up with Clauses 61 to 64. I do not have a grouse moor, but I may have a rich American tenant fishing my river. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may come paddling down the river in a canoe, as he would be perfectly entitled to do under this clause, charge into my tenant's salmon pool and become tied up in his line. There would be a "helluva" row.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to the noble Viscount for at least taking me down the river and not compelling me to struggle up it?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I would certainly not ask the noble Lord to paddle up-river; that is only for teenagers. I understand that in the Peak District of Derbyshire the authorities can make exceptions to access orders to provide that during a certain number of days the public can be kept off certain areas. I do not know how the public can be told about this. One would have to plaster the whole hillside with notices. But I hope we can have a clear definition of "open country". I should have thought that this was necessary legally.
In Clause 11 we come again to this question of damage, but there are forms
1178
of damage which are not set out at all. For instance, I have had a lot of damage done to stock by broken bottles and tins. I admit that the hazard of fire damage is covered in the Bill. I think that there must be provision to enable areas of countryside subject to these orders to be closed to the public during such periods as lambing time, a grouse drive, or some other activity, otherwise one will destroy a considerable amount of the income of the Highlands; and if we are to keep the population in the Highlands, we certainly need the revenue.
Another thing I am worried about is that land for livestock rearing is not going to be excepted land. Here again, as I see it, the difficulty is that the pattern of farming is changing very quickly the whole time, and owing to the fact that something like 60,000 or 70,000 acres of agricultural land a year are taken for urbanisation and other purposes, in order to create more agricultural land we shall have to plough higher up the hills, and turn into agricultural land and land for livestock rearing areas which normally would be classed as open country. I personally should like to see the livestock rearing areas—and by "livestock rearing areas" I am, of course, chiefly thinking of cattle—exempted, because in any event they are usually enclosed. There is the further hazard to the public in the spring from Galloway cows with their calves, which can be extremely dangerous.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: And billy-goats.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I do not know so much about billy-goats; but the noble Duke is quite right in saying that billy-goats can be dangerous, too. I quite agree that the question of bulls is covered by the Bill, but the question of dangerous cows is not. If the public are to be allowed to roam over the livestock rearing areas in the spring, in calving time, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that there may well be some very nasty accidents, because there is nothing more dangerous than a Galloway cow with her calf. She is far more dangerous than a bull.
EARL FERRERS: More dangerous than a billy-goat?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: She is far more dangerous than a billy-goat. This is a widely drawn clause, and much too wide for my liking.
The question of compensation has been mentioned. If a member of the public is on my ground and falls when climbing and breaks his leg, am I responsible? Or if he drowns in my loch, am I responsible? It seems extremely unfair if I am. Of course, I can insure against it; but in that case I think the Commission ought to pay the premium. May I return to the question of waterways? I have one beautiful loch, and the fishing in it is very good. But if the public are going to be able to speed-boat all over it, to sail and paddle kayaks and all sorts of craft, my fishing tenants will all go. In this event I should like to think that I should get fair compensation. But I rather doubt that I shall.
I may say that when I welcomed this Bill in the gracious Speech I was rather hoping that the public would be more confined to definite paths and roads through the hills. It was all right having the public on the hills in the past, but as we have about 500,000, or probably more, new cars coming on the roads every year, if people are to have the right of access to open country it will be quite impossible to sheep-farm or to continue with sporting rights, and it will be impossible, too, for the wild life. I hope that the Government will bear this point in mind. The local authorities often are not always fully aware of this aspect. They have, in many cases, urban backgrounds, and a number of them do not have great feeling for the country. I hope that the advice of people of great knowledge with roots in the country will be sought.
I should like to end by saying that, on the whole, I welcome the Bill, because I agree that nowadays, owing to the advance of science, people have more leisure and a higher standard of living, and they should have access to the beautiful places in the country. But we must bear in mind that geographically it is a small country. I sincerely hope that this Bill will help to preserve the beauty of the countryside, because if it is destroyed, then nobody will have gained anything. So, while welcoming the Bill, I wish to put in a strong plea to the Government to seek the advice of country people, to
1180
try to keep Party political bias out of it, to preserve the beauty of the countryside, and not to destroy its revenue-producing potentialities.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I want first, if I may, with great respect, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on his very painstaking and clear explanation of the Bill. As I have successfully resisted all attempts to be educated on matters of this sort, I find the greatest difficulty in understanding a Bill, and your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have been enabled to cut out quite 90 per cent. of what I was going to try to say. Next, I should like to declare two interests. First, I am a member of our local planning authority; and, secondly, I am a landowner in a district of Scotland which I should think would be classified as open country.
I want to welcome the Bill for two reasons. One is only a negative reason: that I cannot see that this Bill is going to do anything to make the situation in Scotland worse, and it certainly is a reasonable attempt to make it better. That is the negative point. The next reason why I want to welcome the Bill is that I am an unrepentant countryman, and the more people who can properly enjoy the country, the better; and the happier I am. On that note, I shall now proceed, if I may, to criticise—or, rather, remark on—two or three points in this Bill—
It appears to me that to make this Bill work, as I certainly want it to work, and as I am sure nearly everybody does, it is vital to get the right people, who will be difficult to find, on the Commission. Secondly, unless we have mutual trust, mutual respect, among all the people concerned—the local authorities, and the people hardly mentioned in the Bill, the local landowners and owner-occupier farmers—this measure will not work as we want it to.
I have a slight fear (it may be unfounded) which arises from the fact that local government in Scotland is now under review, and it is quite possible that large-scale regionalisation of one kind or another may take place. It has already taken place as regards water, and in my own county our experience was that we were amalgamated, against our will, with Dundee; and our representation was such

1181
that, whereas Dundee town has 11 members on the new Board, we in the whole of the county have one. If this kind of thing were to happen in regard to the local planning authorities there would not be that intimate connection with the country which is so desirable and, I would dare to say, so necessary. I may be raising a danger that does not in fact exist; but if it does exist I should like some kind of way around this problem to be produced. Perhaps there could be district council planning, or something like that. But if the planning goes to the top-tier authority—and there are many reasons why it should—it would be dead against the interests of this Bill. That is the point I am worried about in this connection.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, my noble friend will bear in mind that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, Lord Hughes, was Lord Provost of Dundee for about seven years.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I am well aware of that, and I was delighted to picture him paddling a canoe down the river. I can only hope that I am able to conjure up a picture of him water ski-ing, too.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount will also be aware, coming from near my part of the country, that it is quite some time since I ceased to be Lord Provost of Dundee.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I have a slight worry about livestock rearing areas. People say that these are not defined. In my own case, however, the entire estate is defined as a livestock rearing area. I have no land that is not. Nevertheless, this land is farmed by the normal method in various rotations; the use to which the various fields are put is rotated in different years, and a number of fields which might be classed as livestock rearing areas are also used for growing turnips, for hay, and for other forage crops. Will they be classified, excepted, as livestock rearing areas; or what will happen? The situation will be totally different next year, because the usage moves round in rotation. This is a problem which seems to me to be worth considering. Then I think I am right in saying that the only specific reason given in the Bill for suspension of an access agreement is the existence of conditions
1182
of high fire risk. This, of course, is very necessary. But there are times of year—and noble Lords will be complaining bitterly over the difficulties they are suffering at the moment—when one wishes to be able to suspend the operation of an access for other reasons—agricultural reasons, for instance; and no doubt sporting rights, and matters of this kind.
There is another point to which nobody has yet desired to extend the provisions of the Bill, and I think I might be the first to do that. I should like to see it covering voluntary agreements for picnic places, parks, and other points of amenity which are, by definition, in excepted areas, but which are nevertheless used by the public—with my full approval, I may say, so long as they behave themselves. I am delighted to have them there. Nevertheless, it would be far better if they were regulated under this Bill, because it is a pity to have one group regulated and another unregulated, merely because they happen to be in woodland, where they could perfectly well take whatever benefits are applicable under this Bill.
The only other point I wish to make is to stress, as other noble Lords have done, the consequential losses which could arise from mistakes and accidental uses by people thinking they have an access right or access agreement and doing accidental damage. Accidents do happen. They are not intentional, but the unfortunate chap who suffers an accident has in some way or other to pay for the damage done and to put it right. I think that a very generous attitude should be taken and that insurance premiums should guard against risks of this kind. This point should be considered in the general consideration of the Committee points when we come to deal with them on this Bill.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, like most of your Lordships who have spoken to-day, I support this Bill, and I should like to follow the remark of the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, who has just spoken, concerning the need to find the right people—I think that is the first consideration—to serve on this Commission. Clause 1(4) does not provide for any representation of farming, forestry or fishing. I am not suggesting that it should be built into the Bill

1183
that there should be a representative of each of those interests, or that representation of any particular interest should be built into the Bill. But I feel that some wording should be included, possibly in Clause 1(4)(b), requiring the Minister to pay particular attention to those interests when selecting the members of the Commission.
I raise this point because I think I am right in saying that when the previous members of the National Parks Commission had their employment terminated by the present Government during last year a certain number of the newly appointed members of the Commission had very little knowledge of the land, trees or the countryside in general. So I would ask the Minister, if he can, to look at this clause again with a view to ensuring that the Secretary of State gives particular attention to these interests when selecting the members.
The only other point I would make on this first clause, which has been said by others of your Lordships to be probably the most important clause of all, concerns the size of the Commission. It is proposed that the Commission will be 14 in number. Looking at various new commissions we find that the National Parks Commission is now nine, the Highlands and Islands Development Board consists of a Chairman and six members, and the newly constituted Meat Commission is 10. I should like to ask the Minister why the number here should be up to 14, bearing in mind that when this Bill was considered in great detail by the Scottish Standing Committee a distinguished member of the Government said:
"I tried to persuade the Minister to agree that the Commission should have seven members, of whom three should be full-time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Scottish Standing Committee, 2/5/67; col. 13.]
I am not entering into the argument as to who should be full-time or part-time, but that point was put, and the Minister of State in dealing with that question—I do not think I am taking this out of context—said (col. 28):
"First of all, on whether the number should be fewer than fourteen, the Government are probably inclined to agree."
I only mention this because I should like the Minister to look at this again bearing
1184
in mind the point made by the previous speaker.
Turning to Clause 11(5) on the subject of excepted land, which is a difficult subject, it has been suggested to me that possibly, instead of "other than livestock rearing land," the wording which is now in this subsection, the words, "other than hill sheep rearing land" should be used. I put that suggestion to the Minister and ask him to consider it. I think that would make it much more clear-cut.
I should now like to turn briefly to Clauses 21, 22 and 23 on the subject of compensation. As I read those clauses, in spite of special conditions and circumstances, the occupier or owner receives no compensation for five years. Clause 23(1), which defines when payments on account in special circumstances may be made, uses the wording:
"At any time during the period after which, under section 21 above, compensation may be claimed …"
As I understand that, it means that Clause 21 operates, and therefore no on-account payments can be made to an owner or occupier under five years. I think the point has already been made by two speakers that it would be fairer for the owner or occupier to receive on-account payments for routine payments which he has to make, such as repairing stiles, gates and fences, the payment of insurance premiums, and so on. Possibly this could be done on an annual basis.
I do not think Clause 43 has been referred to in your Lordships' House to-day, and I do not think it was looked at very carefully in the other place, with particular reference to one aspect. As I understand it, where a public right of way crosses agricultural land—and I am referring to the new rights of way or paths to be instituted under this Bill—the owner or occupier:
"in accordance with the rules of good husbandry "—
I must say I love that wording!—may plough the land and the path. This is very kind, but reading on we find that under Clause 43(3):
"Where a public right of way is ploughed in the exercise of the said right the occupier of the land shall as soon as may be after the ploughing is completed reinstate the surface of the way."
Although this clause has been redrafted in another place, what do the

1185
words "as soon as may be" mean? I have consulted two solicitors since I was able to read the revised edition of this Bill on Saturday morning, and they have told me that in law those words mean nothing at all. Is this right of way to be reinstated immediately after ploughing or sowing, or after cropping? Reading on, we find that under Clause 43(4) a person who fails to reinstate "as soon as may be" is liable to a fine of £50, and if convicted of this offence is then liable to a fine of 20s. per day for every day the right of way is not reinstated. If that is not enough, under Clause 43(5) it says:
"… the local planning authority, after giving to the occupier not less than 14 days' notice"
can do the work for him and recover the cost of so doing.
Supposing the field concerned is ploughed in mid-April and sown with oats which are not cropped until mid-August, and the words "as soon as may be" are construed to mean immediately after ploughing, the owner-occupier would appear to be liable to a fine of £50 plus £120 after conviction and also the cost of the local authority doing the reinstatement work for him, as the occupier will certainly be too busy in the summer to do the work himself. Therefore, may I ask the Minister to look at the clause again, with particular reference to the wording "as soon as may be". Lastly, like others of your Lordships I am delighted that Clause 44 has been amended in another place so that a bull may spend the summer with the herd on the hill.
5.36 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for not being able to be here when he was speaking. I have listened with great interest to the debate and, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill. There are two small points which strike me as being worth mentioning. The first concerns Clause 11. It seems to me that what we have heard to-day indicates that it would be wise if Clause 11 were redrafted to include a reference to Schedule 2. As it reads, it makes mention of people having access to the land,
1186
"for the purpose of open-air recreation without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge or means of access …".
But, of course, Schedule 2 goes a great deal further than that, and I think it might be wise if that point could be looked at in terms of drafting.
Following on what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, I support every word that he said about the importance of taking country people along with the Government and the Commission in their approach to this whole matter, and thus it is well that in Clause 11 it should be made absolutely clear beyond a peradventure that, whereas access is available to the land, there are obligations upon people, many of whom cannot be blamed for not knowing the primary rules of agriculture and what Clause 44 calls "good husbandry". There are many people who do not realise the dreadful damage that may occur even through a failure to shut a gate.
This brings me to another point which has been touched upon already; namely, the risk which will be incurred by hikers and townspeople—as the noble Lord, Lord Burton said, with "Fido", even if "Fido" is on a string—if they are in the presence of cattle with calves. We make the rule in our family that at certain times of the year nobody shall go with a dog, no matter how well under control (as in Schedule 2) unless he carries a stick, if there is any likelihood of being in the neighbourhood of out-calving cattle. I do not see how the Bill can provide to protect people from accidents of that nature. It seems to me to follow that notices will have to be provided if the careful landowner is going to ensure that people with access to his land do not get into trouble.
This brings me to the subject of compensation, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords, and particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald. Those notices will cost money to produce and maintain, and to renew: Will the Government make some provision to ensure that, in addition to the insurance premium and the like, which is so essential, the cost which will fall upon the careful landowner who is co-operating in making this Bill work, such as the cost of the preparation of notices, will be included in the compensation?

1187
I would conclude by agreeing very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said about, in fairness, there being some alternative provision whereby under Clause 44 of the Bill whoever makes a mistake over a bull is liable to a penalty of £50. There should be some sort of counter-claim against people who do damage which causes not only loss but, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard said, pain and distress to animals through broken bottles. Litter is included in Schedule 2, but, as I have said, I think it should be specifically mentioned also in Clause 11.
5.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, it is not my intention to detain your Lordships long. I must, however, use up a few seconds in offering my heartiest congratulations to the chief of my Clan, the noble Duke, on his well-deserved promotion to the Front Bench for this Bill.
It is not my intention to dwell upon the grave dangers which this measure threatens to sporting interests, serious though they are. I shall confine my remarks to the other dangers, far more important, which are involved so far as agriculture and forestry are concerned. We have heard, quite rightly, about the danger of dogs, but it may well be that many people who are townsmen do not realise that the dangers that can be attributed to dogs go far beyond the actual worrying of sheep. If even a very small and harmless dog gets loose among sheep shortly before lambing, it may produce a very large number of abortions. In my own family, a number of years ago, we had three very charming Pekingese, extremely sporting animals, ready to take on rats and mice, and quite capable of a five-mile walk, but their main joy, when they got a chance, was to chase sheep across country. Naturally, they were not encouraged, and great care was taken, particularly at lambing time. If you are to have the hills infested with large numbers of dogs—and there are others more likely to be there than Pekingese, like the small poodles which are so popular to-day—it will undoubtedly put
1188
the lambing ewes in considerable jeopardy. And, of course, with the larger dogs the question of actual sheep-worrying would also occur.
Clause 44 has been mentioned, and I would back up everything that has been said about the possible dangers from it. Who—if anyone—is to recompense the tourist who is knocked down and savaged by a cow whose calf he has been injudicious enough to approach too closely? As the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, cows are infinitely more dangerous than bulls. That applies not only to Galloways but to the Highland cattle as well. The Highland bull is the quietest and best-behaved of all bulls, but the Highland cow is the most jealous mother of all cows when she sees someone approach her calf and she suspects him of evil intentions. I myself, on more than one occasion, have had to break the middle-aged record across a field when one of my cows objected to my interest in her calf. One would like to know what is the position when cows are in a field, where they have a perfect right to be, and a tourist, who has a perfect right to be there, appears, but, through injudicious conduct leads the cow to knock him down.
More important still, and something to which very little attention, if any, has been paid to-day, is the question of danger from fire. We know that all too many people, particularly townsmen, although countrymen also are included, are very careless in the way they throw away unextinguished matches or cigarette ends in the country. Others, I am afraid, deliberately on occasions, set fire to dried grass or heather for the pleasure of seeing the ensuing conflagration and a great belt of smoke extending over large areas of territory. Those of your Lordships who, like myself on occasion, have tried to beat out unintentional fires, will know the feeling of complete hopelessness one gets when one is only a few feet downwind from the flames and is smothered in smoke through which one cannot see for more than a foot or two. The incidence of such fires may produce danger to human beings, but the real danger is the one they produce so far as livestock are concerned. If you get a large-scale fire sweeping an area of moorland, the cattle and/or sheep upon that piece of ground will certainly

1189
panic and run away. Sooner or later they will come up against a fence, boggy land, ravine or precipice, into which or over which a great many of them will fall, with catastrophic results so far as their owner is concerned.
The agricultural community in Scotland, and most of all the hill farmers, have been going through a pretty difficult time the last few years. I feel that hardly enough attention has been given to the dangers that this most worthy section of our community are going to have to endure if precautions of an adequate nature are not taken, and it seems to me to be a very difficult thing to find out what precautions can be taken. I hope, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will bear this aspect in mind, and in the course of his investigations as this measure proceeds will do something to mitigate the dangers of a Bill which I am afraid I cannot, speaking as an agriculturist on behalf of agriculturists, welcome with anything like the same fervour as has been done by some on these Benches.
5.47 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, first I should like to thank my noble kinsman, Lord Mansfield, for congratulating me on my promotion to this spot. I can assure him it is purely temporary—just for the duration of this afternoon. On the whole, give or take a little, I welcome this Bill. I think, like my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, it cannot make matters worse, and it might make them a great deal better. Obviously the most important thing the Bill does is to set up the Countryside Commission, and the powers it gives that Commission I find extremely interesting. On the whole their positive powers to negotiate access agreements and make long-range footpaths and do things of that sort I think are about right, and it seems to me that these should be a great success and a great help towards controlling the use of the countryside in Scotland and enabling everyone to use it to the maximum which it will stand.
But what slightly disappoints me about this Bill is the negative powers of the Countryside Commission. So far as I can see they do not have anything like enough powers to stop other public bodies from spoiling the countryside. Largely, the countryside is wrecked by
1190
such bodies as the Gas Board and the Electricity authorities, and by indiscriminate roads and various other things; and, so far as I can see, the Countryside Commission would have no power to prevent a Cow Green happening in Scotland or an Abingdon gas-works happening in Haddington; if the Gas Board happen to own land there—I do not know whether they do—the Commission would be powerless to stop it. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether the powers of the Countryside Commission in this respect could not be strengthened. I fully realise that many people consider there are quite enough different authorities from whom planning permission has to be obtained before one can do anything, but I think that, particularly in special areas, the Countryside Commission ought to be consulted before any development is allowed to take place.
Lord Hughes said that the main object of the Bill was guidance. I quite agree with him. I think its main object will be guidance—guidance to the owner, guidance to the occupier and, above all, guidance to the general public who are going to make use of the agreements and orders created by the Bill. I may say, in parenthesis, that I hope there will be few orders, as I am sure does the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and anyone who is going to have anything to do with the Bill. I feel that we ought to be able to get agreements in nearly all cases. I know that this is the experience in England with the National Parks. But this, of course, raises problems, some of which have been pointed out by my noble friends. One of them is how the public are going to tell in regard to which areas of land access agreements have been made, and what are the prohibited times and dates for taking advantage of those access agreements. We should like to hear more of the mechanics of this operation from the noble Lord in his summing-up this evening.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier has already mentioned education. I think that one of the main functions of the Countryside Commission will have to be to educate the majority of the population in how a minority who live and move and have their being in the country go about their daily lives; and that there are certain laws that have to be obeyed,

1191
particularly in regard to fire and to not exposing oneself to unnecessary risks. Many people spend much of the winter searching for others who have got lost, or fallen over precipices, or been buried by avalanches or something like that, and I am afraid that this Bill may increase the number of people who are rather foolhardy and go out without due preparation, and then get caught up in the mist, or fall over the cliffs or do something like that. Many people are engaged and much money has to be expended on trying to rescue them. I therefore think that much of the Countryside Commission's early work will have to be in the field of education.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about some particular points. I am afraid I have not been able to give him notice of these, mainly owing to the fact that the Bill in its final form was not printed until Friday, and therefore we amateur legislators who live in Scotland did not receive it until Saturday or Monday. I hope that this will not happen again, as it gives one but a short time in which to make up one's mind what points need to be pursued and what has been safely dealt with in another place; and it must make it more difficult for the noble Lord opposite when he comes to reply for the Government, if we are not able to warn him about the points that we are likely to raise.
I endorse everything that has been said by my noble friends Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Stonehaven about the composition of the Commission. I think it is vital that the Commission should have the confidence of everyone in the countryside; and I consider it is also essential that there should be represented on it such people as the Ramblers' Club and the Caravan Club, so that we in the countryside can understand the problems and the feelings of the people who are going to make use of it under this Bill. I gather that this is to be the case, but it cannot be emphasised too often that really high-quality people who have the confidence of all concerned are needed for this Commission.
I would endorse what many of my noble friends have said about consultation. I am sure that if this Bill is to work, it is vital that owners and occupiers
1192
should be consulted at almost every turn. After all, they are the people who know the countryside best. They are the people who know the land concerned. They, and pot the local planning authority, are intimately acquainted with it; and I should have thought that they are the people who should be consulted. I know that in another place the Minister of State said frequently that it was the intention to consult them, but it is not written into the Bill as much as I or my noble friends would like it to be. This is a point that we shall have to bring out on Committee stage. Much has been said about the definition of "open country". I do not think I need say more about it, except that I think that the present definition could lead to difficulties. However, this, too, is more a point for the Committee stage than for to-day.
Then, will the Scottish Development Department issue to the local planning authorities a circular outlining the policy to be applied, and the type and conditions reasonable for different sorts of countryside, which can be incorporated in access agreements? Obviously, it is not going to be possible to make all access agreements the same—they would not be agreements if they were. But unless there is some general standard, it is going to be extremely difficult for the people who use the countryside to know what applies where. It would be a help if the Scottish Development Department issued model access agreements (if that is the right phrase), before the Bill comes into operation.
I was disappointed that in another place the Government did not accept the necessity for wardens in all cases. I am prepared to admit that probably there will be occasions when it is not essential to appoint wardens, but I think that in nearly all cases where an access agreement, as opposed to a footpath agreement, is made, and probably in most cases where footpath agreements are made, wardens will be essential. Presumably, if you make an agreement one of the conditions you make can be that wardens should be appointed. I hope that where an agreement falls down entirely on this question of wardens, because the local planning authority do not wish there to be wardens and the owner and occupier wants them, the Secretary of State will not allow the

1193
local planning authority to get an access order, but will insist on their agreeing to supply wardens. This is a point of some importance, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give me an answer to it.
So much has been said about compensation that I do not think I need say any more, except that I should like to know whether, if your neighbour makes an access agreement or order and as a result you suffer increased disturbance, even though there is no access agreement applying to your land, you will be able to get some compensation at the end of five years. There might be reasons why you did not want to make an access agreement on your land, or possibly the local planning authority may not want to do so. Also, if, as the owner, you consider an access agreement to be essential, and the local planning authority are not keen on the idea, can they be forced by the Countryside Commission to agree to such an agreement, if the Commission also think that an access agreement would be advantageous? These are two fairly small points, but they are of some importance and I think we should consider them.
I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said about trespass. All I can say is that technically there may be much the same law in Scotland as there is in England, but the attitude in Scotland is different. I think if the noble Lord ever tried to prosecute anyone for trespassing he would not get far. I have been told by someone that he finds that much the most effective remedy is to put up a notice saying, "Beware of the agapanthus", and that the average person, not botanically inclined, thinks that an agapanthus is a large cat roaming wild over the countryside. I would also support what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said about pony-trekking. As I have made clear in your Lordships' House before, I consider that the Forestry Commission charge of £4 per pony per annum was absolutely iniquitous, when one is looking to a public body to lead the way in these matters. I hope that one of the things the Countryside Commission will do is to persuade the Forestry Commission to remove this charge.
I would say something to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who took my
1194
ancestor to task for not allowing people to go up and down Glen Tilt. Lord Balerno was quite right to do this. I hasten to point out that it was not my direct ancestor, and it is certainly nothing to do with me. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that there is a public bridlepath through Glen Tilt, and it is interesting to note that it was used by no less distinguished a person than Queen Victoria who passed through the Glen on her way to inspect Balmoral with a view to purchase—so that it is well authenticated. There is a very fine bridge on the path which was put up by the Scottish Rights of Way Society in memory of a certain Mr. Bedford who was drowned while crossing the Tarf. We are extremely grateful to them for this amenity. It shows that now the situation is quite all right, and that if the noble Lord ever wishes to hike or ride through Glen Tilt he will not find any obstruction in his way.
My noble friend Lord Burton made a point about litter which I feel is extremely important. Again this is largely educational, but I should hope that the Countryside Commission, when they get started, will take some time on television in order to run an anti-litter campaign. This would be well worth while and would certainly start them off with good will from all land users. My noble friend was also worried about access agreements having to be made in perpetuity. But so far as I can see from reading Clause 13(3), it says that access agreements can be revoked or varied, and I imagine that a trustee would be very stupid if he did not make an access agreement either for the duration of the trust or for a certain period of time, so that when one handed over the land it would not be encumbered by access agreements.
Many noble Lords were worried about water sports. I should like to emphasise what they said about them, but I imagine that where canoeing is allowed under the Bill it will not be allowed on fishing rivers at times of the year when the fishing season is both open and active—for the two are not necessarily the same. There are many lower stretches of the Tay where nobody fishes in July and August, although technically they could, simply because it is not worth while.

1195
I should have thought that canoeing might be allowed in those stretches then, but not in February and March when the fishing is at its best; although if anyone wants to canoe in February and March I should be very surprised.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his right honourable friend the Minister of State for the way in which they have listened extremely patiently to all the arguments that have been put forward. They have acted on many of them in another place. In my opinion, the Bill has been much improved during its passage through another place, and I hope that the same spirit of co-operation will continue in this House and that we shall be able to improve the Bill still more.
6.5 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I had a very lengthy task at the beginning explaining the purposes of the Bill, and if I am to deal adequately with all the points which have been raised during the debate I do not think that we in Scotland will be unduly popular with those who are waiting to resume the Committee stage on Leasehold Reform, in which of course I also am involved. I must, however, try to be fair to those who are waiting for my answer, and those who are waiting for me to stop answering. So if I have to make a selection of points, it is because the clock is beating me and not because I am inadequately provided with notes on the subject. And if I read a little more quickly than I am accustomed to do, I hope noble Lords will realise that it is because time is pressing.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised a question on the definition of "open country" in Clause 10(2). This matter was referred to subsequently by other noble Lords, and part of their criticism was that they did not feel that the distinction was as good as it might be. It is something which is exceedingly difficult to define, and if in the course of our proceedings on the Bill through this House it is possible to improve upon the definition, then certainly I shall be very happy to look at it. In connection with consultations with owners and occupiers, there is bound to be the fullest consultation with them before any pro
1196
posals for the countryside can be implemented. If it was not so, we should not get anywhere with access agreements. What the Bill does not do—I think this is what Lord Drumalbyn was getting at—is to impose a condition on the Commission to consult with all owners and occupiers at the thinking stage. We think that this would be unreasonable. But when it comes to action, there is a very definite obligation to consult.
On the subject of mapping, I did say that if any maps could not be completed within a year, it would be possible by a Statutory Instrument to extend the period for two years. It is simply because of the fact that we cannot be absolutely certain how quickly this may be done that there is this interim definition, which at least gives the bailie some idea of what his bailiwick is until the maps are actually drawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is this in regard to particular areas, or overall?
LORD HUGHES: The interim definition covers every area, because it is a definition by relation to the existing local authorities. No matter how quickly the Royal Commission report and how quickly the Government act on its recommendations, there is certainly not going to be any alteration in these local authorities during the period when these maps are being, drawn. What I am not certain about, and what I should like to have time to consider, is whether or not it would be possible to do what the noble Lord suggested; namely, that maps should be brought into operation as they are ready, and that the operation should not wait until everything is done. I will drop the noble Lord a note on the point after the matter has been further considered.
In regard to the powers of the Commission under Clauses 5 and 6, the Commission will take all the necessary executive action in the promotion of approved schemes. When the purpose of the scheme has been achieved and demonstrated, we would expect the Commission to withdraw and to dispose of the project either to a local authority or to any other suitable person or body. In regard to areas of special planning control, Clause 9 makes it clear that in

1197
these special areas the Countryside Commission are given power to give advice about the manner in which all planning applications are dealt with, and in every case the Secretary of State will be able to have the final say, if he so decides. I did say—and this was a point which rather perplexed the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—that we wanted this to be slightly looser. I was talking over the general field of planning. We are moving into an area where it is felt that more power of final decision may be devolved upon local authorities rather than under appeal to the Minister. Even in this field of special areas, it is not beyond possibility that we may be able to relax, but such relaxation obviously will take place only to the extent that it would not defeat the object of the special areas in the first instance. The noble Lord will recollect that I said that this procedure, which has now been operating for 19 years, had worked satisfactorily and that the Commission would base their operations very largely on the way this had been done.
A number of noble Lords raised the point of compensation. I think I can be a little helpful, in that one particular example which was raised was on the question of insurance premiums—the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised the matter and others followed. The information which I have been given is that insurance premiums which an owner may pay to cover his liability as an occupier for a risk of damage to his land or property which may arise from an access agreement or order, are one factor which will be taken into account in assessing the amount payable under an access agreement, or the compensation payable as a result of an access order. So I think noble Lords will find that that is perhaps helpful.
I shall pass over the next question of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, not because it is not a good point but because it will be a very long answer. But I shall write to him. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to the subject of daylight poaching. I do not think I am going to be able to satisfy him on that subject, but I would point out that the daylight poacher will be in breach of Schedule 2, and so will lose the protection of Clause 11. I do not know that the daylight poacher will necessarily consider
1198
that he is putting himself under any grave handicap in that sense, but that is as far as I can go.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, misunderstood me when he assumed that I had said that ski-ing and bathing were mutually antagonistic. I have looked at my notes on that, and I had listed a whole series of water sports. I got to the point where I said, "Swimming, of course, is always popular". Then I went on to say: "These various activities on water are not always compatible with each other". What I meant by that was that if you list half a dozen different things which may be done on water, you must reach the point where one will interfere with another. But it is not necessarily ski-ing and bathing. These might, in fact, be the only two things which could be done at one time.
Livestock rearing land was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and by a number of noble Lords who spoke after him. I should like to say that the term, "livestock rearing land" was deliberately chosen, because it is defined in Clause 77 by reference to Section 1(3) of the Livestock Rearing Act 1951. It was chosen because it is an expression which is well known to farmers and to landowners who are concerned with livestock rearing. It is basically land which is, or can be made, suitable for the breeding, rearing and maintenance of sheep or cattle, but not for dairy farming or production of fat sheep or cattle, or for crops to be sold off the land; that is, not used for maintaining the sheep and cattle on the land. The simple point is that such land is prima facie suitable of access. It does not necessarily mean that it will be used in all circumstances, but it does form a reasonable basis for negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, was quite mistaken when he thought that I looked at him, first of all, when the English brewer was referred to. As a matter of fact, it never occurred to me until I saw him looking at me that he believed I thought it referred to him. I have a pretty good idea who it is, and after this debate is over I shall name a name to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and see whether I am right. If I am right, he is not my favourite English brewer, and as I do not drink beer, anyway, it is not the quality of his products that I am talking about.

1199
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Burton, who asked whether agreements could be made for a limited period. That has already been answered by the noble Duke, who referred to Clause 13(3), which makes it quite clear that it can be done in the way the noble Lord asked. He will recollect that I found it necessary to apologise, because I appeared to be laughing at him. It was just shortly after he had raised the question of dogs, and the note which I was given was exactly in these words: "Dogs are covered by Schedule 2(c)." So that is the answer to the noble Lord, and to those who asked about it afterwards.
I have a feeling that there will be a suspicion growing up in the Highlands that the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and I have a working arrangement that if any Bill is going through about which the Government might have difficulties with certain people in the Highlands, he will oppose it lock, stock and barrel, and that that therefore makes my task very much easier with everybody else in the Highlands. I know that that is the effect of the opposition of the noble Lord, but it is not by any prior arrangement. Nevertheless, I am grateful to him for the way in which he opposed the Bill, particularly as he did not have any support. But those points upon which he raised constructive opposition, rather than a sort of general criticism, I shall of course treat in exactly the same way as any points made by anybody else, because I have found that while in his general criticism the noble Lord tends to be rather unfair, he can be helpful in his particular points.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, reminded me very forcibly during his remarks of when we were talking about land use in the Highlands. When he first used the expression in an earlier debate, he said that when he saw a tourist his first reaction was to reach for his gun. He so put the fear of death into my noble friend Lord Shepherd, that he said. "When the Secretary of State makes his maps of the areas, will he particularly mark out those in which the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is interested, because under no circumstances will I go near his land." But the Access to Mountains Act 1939, to which the noble Viscount referred,
1200
applied only to England and Wales, and it has subsequently been repealed and replaced by the Countryside Act 1949. Although he had the unlikely picture of me canoeing about on his rivers, the noble Viscount raised what is basically a very important dilemma in this matter, something which is basic to the whole problem; that is, how to reconcile private sporting rights and income-producing assets with the emerging need for recreation. Obviously, there must be a reconciliation of these interests, because if not there is really going to be a tremendous problem. We have to accept that there will be more and more people wanting to get into these areas, and it is the reconciling of these possibly conflicting interests which really makes it necessary to have a body like this in the first instance. I can assure the noble Viscount that what he said will be very much in the minds of the members of the Commission.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord a question? If there is an access order to open country, how does that affect camping? Does it mean that anyone can camp throughout the open country to which the access order is granted? Secondly, the foreshore and beach are included in the definition of "open country". Does that mean that anyone will be allowed to pull his boat up on the beach, and to keep it there for all time?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Viscount pays me the compliment of assuming that my knowledge on these matters is greater than it actually is. I do not know the answers to those questions. What I do know is that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, an extract from the Act of Queen Victoria which has something to do with private rights in relation to camping, and which is still in existence. I would also remind him that access agreements are, in fact, agreements, and the prudent landowner would seek to cover as many points of this kind as possible in entering into an agreement.
May I say how particularly pleased I was at the welcome which was given to the Bill by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven? I can assure him that the points which he made are ones in which

1201
we are really interested. On the question of the Commission, as I said in my opening remarks there was a lot of discussion in another place about the type of body this should be. The Secretary of State feels strongly that it is the fact that there are many different types of interest who can properly be members of this body, and that militates against a small, paid body. To get down to a body of five or six members who would be paid would make it quite impossible to cover all the interests who ought to be involved in the Commission. It is because of that that we have fixed the limit as high as 14. We hope that in fact we shall be able to arrive at a membership which will be less than 14, but have deliberately put it at a figure which should be big enough to bring in all the interests who ought to be consulted.
Having said that, I want to make it perfectly clear that no one will be a member of the Commission on the basis that he is a delegate from any particular organisation. He will be there by virtue of the knowledge which he has, which may very well stem from his membership of some organisation; but each person on the Commission will be there on exactly the same basis as any other. He will be there as a knowledgeable individual, and will have all the rights of the individual and no other rights or responsibilities in relation to outside bodies.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether that indicates that there will probably be somebody knowledgeable in the problems of the open country in the Southern Uplands?
LORD HUGHES: The one thing I cannot guarantee is that there will be on the Commission somebody who is knowledgeable of every particular interest, because if we had sought to do that we could not have accomplished it with 14 members. I doubt whether we could accomplish it with 24 or 34. What we shall have to try to do, when considering all those who might be members of it, is to seek to get the number—11, 12, 14 or whatever it may be—who will provide the best balance and will enable the Commission to do the best job.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, also spoke about this matter. He asked for assurances on this question of different interests. He appeared to me to be following
1202
opposing lines of view. It was almost as if he was advocating a smaller body than 14 and then talking of the need for the Commission to include people who were knowledgeable of particular interests. As I have said, it is because of the second consideration that we must get away, perhaps, from the size of body that we should like—a small, compact body. But it would be a mistake to do that at the expense of keeping out some people whose knowledge would be of value to the Commission.
May I return to the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven? He suggested voluntary agreements regarding picnic places and the like on excepted land. First of all, it is possible under the Bill to make access agreements, although not orders, affecting excepted land. This is a matter of negotiation between occupiers and the local authorities. Secondly, the Local Government (Development and Finance) (Scotland) Act 1964 already gives powers for local authorities to make agreements with private owners and occupiers so that picnic places, viewpoints, et cetera, can be had on privately-owned land. I think the noble Viscount will be pleased to hear that.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, raised a very interesting point and valid point as to what exactly the effect was of the words "as soon as may be". I cannot disagree with him when he implies that this phrase has no precise legal meaning in terms of time. If a case should reach the stage of going to court, the court will always have regard to the circumstances of the case, and these words give the court the necessary elasticity to do that. For example, the farmer may be taken ill and be unable to do the required reinstatement for some time. The words therefore allow the court to have regard to all the circumstances. May I give an example of how a court may exercise latitude of this kind? I am informed that there was one case where there was a delay of two years, and the court held that that was in compliance with the word "forthwith".
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, asked whether the drafting of Clause 11 should not be related more directly to Schedule 2. We think there is a point here which needs further consideration, although I believe the noble Lord accepts that, reading the clause together with Schedule 2, the field is in fact covered very widely.

1203
But I accept the point which he makes: that there may well be value in tying in one more closely with the other; and the Government will look at that before Committee stage.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised in detail a point which had been touched upon, and that was as to what happens if a walker or tourist is knocked down by a cow. The information which I am given is that the law would not award damages to a tourist injured by a cow unless the tourist—and this includes the walker also, of course—could prove that the owner knew the cow was dangerous. It goes on to quote a legal term with which I will not trouble your Lordships, first, because I am sure most of your Lordships will not know what it means, and secondly, because I am not certain I can pronounce it; but the effect of it is that the law assumes that a cow can and will do no damage. So that, while this is not very helpful to the tourist or the walker, it may at least be some consolation to the owner of the rampaging cow.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, raised the question of the powers of the Countryside Commission. This was with particular reference to getting after the Electricity Boards, the Gas Board and other people whose primary purpose in life, I think he thought, was to spoil the countryside.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Not their primary purpose.
LORD HUGHES: Their secondary purpose, then. We cannot accept that the Commission should be set up as a dictatorial overlord in the countryside, and they really would need to be if they were to be able to deal with these points. What the Bill does is to give them a position of very wide influence with direct access to any Minister. Clauses 8 and 9 establish their position in planning matters, and I do not think it is either necessary or desirable to strengthen it further.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but surely the point here is that all other private individuals and bodies have to get planning permission, but these public authorities do not. Therefore there is always the danger, as we have seen
1204
recently in the case of the Abingdon Gasworks and Cow Green, that it may virtually be a fait accompli before the local authority (or, for that matter, the Countryside Commission, when it is set up) hears about them. This is what I object to, and this is where I think the Commission ought to be strengthened in this Bill.
LORD HUGHES: What I can assure the noble Duke is that by administrative arrangements we shall emphasise to everybody concerned the need for the closest co-operation with the Countryside Commission, so that they can do their job better. I am quite certain that this is the sort of thing that Ministers frequently say, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and other former Ministers on the opposite Benches, will agree with me that this is in many cases by far the most useful way of getting things done. While it may not have the force of law, it gets the results just as effectively when you are dealing with other public bodies as if in fact it was imposed in the Bill in the first instance.
The noble Duke raised the point about circulars to local planning authorities. This is very worth while, and I can assure him that certainly we will arrange for a circular to be issued, although I doubt whether it will be possible to go quite as far as he wants in putting out a model access agreement. As he rather indicated in his remarks, the circumstances would vary so widely that a model in many cases would not serve a useful purpose. But the Commission will undoubtedly play a major part in trying to work out the sort of agreements which would be generally acceptable.
The noble Duke's final point was on the subject of wardens. He suggested that it might be made a condition of an acceptable agreement that wardens should be appointed. This is certainly one of the factors which the Secretary of State will take into account before approving an agreement or confirming an order. The object of the Secretary of State—and I think it is a necessary one if the proceedings of the Commission are to be successful and if they are to be made easily successful—is that there should be reasonable acceptance all round that this

1205
is an attempt to give a fair deal both to the occupier of land and to the public who seek access to it.
My Lords, I am fortunate once again in that I have brought to this House for Second Reading a Bill which, while not approved in every clause, every subsection, every word and every comma as it stands, is one the general principles of which have been more or less welcomed. I have no doubt that in the case of this Bill, as in other Scottish measures, when we have completed the Committee stage we shall, by some of the Amendments, at any rate, have improved the measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LICENSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LEASEHOLD REFORM BILL
6.32 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): I understand that Amendment No. 46 (to leave out Clause 19 and substitute the new clause, "Well-managed estates") has already been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: We now return to this very important Amendment affecting an extremely important clause. I hope that it is agreed on both sides of the Committee that Clause 19 is one of the outstandingly important clauses in the Bill. We are discussing
1206
well-managed estates. It is accepted between us that whatever we do here will apply, and apply only, to those estates which are established to be well-managed. These are estates from which no case of hardship has ever been cited—at least, if the Government know of hardship arising on some of the estates which would unquestionably be certifiable as well-managed, we trust that they will say so. Certainly, neither inside nor outside Parliament in any discussion on the Bill have the Government ever suggested that the cases of hardship against which they were devising their policy arose upon any of these well-managed estates.
Large parts of some of the estates which would be likely to be certified as well-managed have now been taken out of the Bill by the Government decision on Report stage in another place that property of a rateable value of above £400 in Greater London, and above £200 in the rest of the country, should not be affected by the Bill. Consequently, we have certain areas of property in different places, estates which are accepted to be well-managed, already substantially reduced, so far as the Bill is concerned, by areas cut out of them owing to the rateable value limit. What we are discussing is what shall happen to the rest of the estates; that is to say, those properties which are below the rateable values that I have mentioned. What I hope we are all turning our attention to is the future; because it is not nearly so much the present-day look of these areas that matters as the eventual redevelopment of them when redevelopment falls due. In the 18th century and early in the 19th century, parts of London may have been a mess; but if they were well developed between 1750 and 1850 or later posterity now is grateful to the redevelopers.
I want to ask what the Government really intend about redevelopment in these areas. How do they think Clause 19 is going to operate in this respect? May I quote from Clause 19(1), dealing with the question of obtaining a certificate from the Minister? The words used are:
"that, in order to maintain adequate standards of appearance and amenity and regulate redevelopment in the area in the event of tenants acquiring the landlord's interest in their

1207
house and premises under this Part of this Act, it is in the Minister's opinion likely …"
I know that I am quoting from the unamended version of the clause; but that is simpler to read. What do the Government have in mind by including the words:
"in order to … regulate redevelopment in the area in the event of tenants acquiring the landlord's interest in their house and premises"?
These are the parts of the well-managed estates which are under the rateable value limits. These estates are going to be speckled by the enfranchisement of individual houses. If the Government have their way they are to be fragmented. On the face of things, the hope of wise, farsighted, comprehensive redevelopment of that area as a whole is gone. On the face of things, the Government have decided to sacrifice that. Yet presumably the Government have some plan in mind, for otherwise they would not have included these words, "in order to … regulate redevelopment in the area in the event of tenants'" enfranchising.
How is this to work? It is most important that we should have a clear interpretation of this. It is no secret that those who are at present responsible for some of these well-managed estates have but little faith in this clause. Everybody is grateful to the Government for having made an attempt to do something in respect of the well-managed estates; but it is felt that the obtaining of the certificate and the approval of a scheme by the High Court will be a complex and long-drawn-out affair.
Secondly, it is thought that in the end it is going to do nothing to secure farsighted redevelopment. If the Government say that one can leave the wise redevelopment to modern planning legislation, that is wrong. It was no less a body than the Town and Country Planning Association, a non-Party body, which campaigned against the policy of compulsory enfranchisement for this very reason; because once you have rights of enfranchisement, it is impossible to rely on planning legislation or anything else to ensure good, comprehensive redevelopment. Are the Government putting aside here all thought of private redevelopment, which is normally much cheaper from the public point of view, and relying wholly on redevelopment by a local autho
1208
rity, or through the agency of the Land Commission—or what? This should be made absolutely plain, because I find very little in this clause as it stands to sustain a belief that good redevelopment of what has hitherto been a good estate will be possible under this clause.
We have on the other side an Amendment before us in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, which he explained last night. This Amendment, likewise, is directed to the well-managed properties. The Amendment says further, however, that the Minister shall be satisfied that the area should "continue to be managed by one landlord." There is nothing about that specifically in the Government's clause. Secondly, the Amendment says that it shall be a case where the Minister is satisfied that the area "should be redeveloped when required comprehensively." There is nothing about comprehensive redevelopment in the Government's clause. What Lord Silsoe's Amendment goes on to do is permit extended leases on these well-managed estates, new leases of up to 50 years, but not to permit enfranchisement. As I take it, the object of the noble Lord in proposing that is to render comprehensive redevelopment more practicable than it would be under the Government's clause.
We all have in mind areas of London—and London is not the only town or city concerned—where there has been very fine development in the past over an extended area; and we are grateful to our predecessors for having handed that down to us. Are the Government saying that we must not hope for anything like that in the future? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, sought to turn down Lord Silsoe's Amendment last night, partly by taking a number of detailed points about it. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, would be the first to say that if the Parliamentary draftsman went to work on his new clause, it could be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also said (col. 1121):
"… well-managed estates have Clause 19 schemes which will preserve the look of the estate after enfranchisement. They should not have total exemption from the risk of enfranchisement which this Amendment would give them, because that would preserve for them the very property rights that it is the purpose of this Bill to transfer to the leaseholders."

1209
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, was thinking of much more than the present look of these estates. From his speech, I am quite sure that the noble Lord was thinking first and foremost of the future practical possibilities of redevelopment of these well-managed estates; and the main reason, indeed the only reason of principle, that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave against accepting the plan in Lord Silsoe's new clause was that it would preserve for the estates the property rights that it is the purpose of this Bill to transfer to the leaseholders.
Let me examine that for a moment. There is no question here of hardship, though as I read the White Paper the policy was based on hardship, and that is what motivated the Government in bringing forward these proposals. Here the noble Lord is stating that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer property rights to the leaseholder. I have looked into the facts of some of the houses which will be enfranchiseable under this Bill if Clause 19 is not replaced by the proposed new clause, and it is quite clear that there will be numerous cases where the present occupying lessees will be able to net untaxed capital gains of between £5,000 and £10,000 a year, and in some cases over £10,000—
LORD MOLSON: A year?
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am sorry, £5,000 to £10,000 a house, under the Government's proposals. This arises because the Government, unwisely, have sought to keep the rateable value in London to as high a limit as £400. Of course that means that in attractive parts of London those houses will have a freehold value up to £20,000; and the combination of the enfranchisement price which the lessee will have to pay and whatever he may have paid for the remainder of his existing lease may, in many cases, fall far short of that. So what the Government are really asking Parliament to do is to jeopardise the repetition in London of good redevelopment schemes by private landlords, such as we benefit by enormously because earlier private landlords were able to carry out schemes of that kind. And the Government intend to jeopardise that because they do not wish to deprive
1210
certain present day occupying lessees of the large capital gains which will accrue to them under this Bill if Clause 19 is not amended.
Casting our minds ahead to 100 years hence, people who care about happy living and the æsthetic appearance of cities will curse the Labour Government of this day if, through some ill-considered action on the part of that Government through this Bill, they have prevented those who have shown themselves competent to manage their estates well from redeveloping them well; and if the only defence which can then be put up by those who defend the present Labour Government is that the Labour Government did not like to move because the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said it was the policy of this Bill not to deprive certain occupying lessees of untaxed capital gains of £10,000 a house.
There are very important issues at stake here for the future of some of our towns and cities. That is why it was right that we did not hasten to a decision on this clause last night. I dearly hope that the Government will agree to give further thought to Clause 19 in the light of Lord Silsoe's new clause and of what has been said in this debate, because I am not without trust that the Government really mean to make Clause 19 into something which will facilitate, and not prohibit, comprehensive redevelopment, If we could only achieve that—and I am putting all the stress on wise redevelopment—there may be nothing between us at the end of the day.
LORD MITCHISON: I find the noble Lord's observations very remote from the Part of the Bill we are now considering. I wonder whether he has really read it carefully. He said, for instance, that there was no reference to only one landlord. In the second line of the clause we are considering there is a reference to "one landlord", and when we come to the operative part of the clause we find "the landlord". Singular does mean singular. When one says "one landlord", it is what one means. That made me doubt a little.
Then the noble Lord said that the grounds upon which the Minister would grant or refuse a certificate are obscure. The noble Lord nods his head, and I withdraw that. Then the noble Lord is

1211
clear that subsection (3) provides in some detail what the Minister has to consider when he grants or refuses a certificate. I think the noble Lord should remember that this Part of the Bill is headed, Landlord's overriding rights; that Clause 17 gives a right to the landlord to develop, which this clause does not take away, and that he can resume possession for that purpose. Not a word was said about that.
Clause 18 is a different matter. It deals with the resumption of possession for landlord's occupation or that of his family. Clause 19 is really supplementary to the rights in Clause 17, and it is meant to deal with a limited number of cases. One of those cases is obviously Hampstead Garden Suburb, which has been mentioned. Letchworth, unless the special provision is to survive, is another. There are one or two others, but it is not intended, I think, to deal, and does not really deal, with an enormous number of areas nor with the mixed estates which reflect, in some cases, great credit, and in others less credit upon the landlords.
I cannot see what difficulty the noble Lord found about it. The certificate is to be issued
"… in order to maintain adequate standards of appearance and amenity and regulate redevelopment in the area in the event of tenants acquiring the landlord's interest …",
and in subsection (3) the Minister
"….shall have regard primarily to the benefit likely to result from the scheme to the area as a whole (including houses likely to be acquired from the landlord under this Part of this Act), and the extent to which it is reasonable to impose, for the benefit of the area, obligations on tenants so acquiring their freeholds; but regard may also be had to the past development and present character of the area and to architectural or historical considerations, to neighbouring areas and to the circumstances generally."
I have never seen a pointer more clearly directed to the public good and more felicitously selecting the kind of thing that ought to be considered in a case of this kind.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If it will help the noble Lord, I was asking the Government whether they would explain in what way it will be possible under Clause 19 to secure farsighted redevelopment under one landlord and by
1212
one landlord of an area in which enfranchisement has been permitted.
LORD MITCHISON: The noble Lord is a trifle authoritarian about this. If he looks at the clause, he will see that redevelopment is the job of the landlord or, by virtue of the Amendment which was accepted the other day, of the representative body of tenants, with or without the landlord. Surely that is right. I am surprised to hear the Tory Party say that Whitehall ought to do it. Why do they not let the landlord or the tenants do it, as suggested here? It is they who have to prepare a scheme. The Minister is bound to consider the things to which I have just referred in granting a certificate, but the originators of the whole thing are the landlord or representative body of tenants, or both of them. I see the noble Lord shakes his head. He is shaking it a trifle too often. I asked him about this yesterday. Is it intended to simplify the clause? If so, what are we going to leave out—the Minister who has to have regard to the public good? Or does the Tory Party now say that the Minister should do the whole thing and leave out the landlord or tenants? What is their intention? Why should they not do it? Are they any different from the people who have or who have not been doing it in the past? Is there any harm in the Minister, before granting a certificate, having to decide whether, on the conditions I have mentioned, it is a proper case?
Lastly, we come to the court itself. The court has considerable duties. The Chancery Court is accustomed to doing this sort of thing. It has to consider questions of fairness and practicability, and it has to consider that the scheme proposed by the landlord should not be such as to give him:
"… a degree of control out of proportion to that previously exercised by him or to that required for the purposes of the scheme …".
What could be more appropriate and broader than that? Yet we have the noble Lord getting up and saying that this is taking things away from the landlord. All it is doing is to give the landlord, if he has been doing all the things that the noble Lord attributes to him, power to continue, but not to go beyond that and start being unfair or

1213
impracticable or to arrogate to himself, by virtue of a statutory scheme, a control which he did not have before. That is all.
I absolutely fail to see upon what grounds anyone who has read this clause and really thought about it can say that it takes away any power to develop. On the contrary, it encourages a good landlord to put forward a scheme if he has a well managed estate. Of course, it does not attempt to go further. We have a Royal Commission sitting at the moment on Affirmative Covenants and the like. I do not want to talk about that, but it seems to me that in a Bill for the limited purposes described in the Long Title it would be somewhat unreasonable to expect a complete scheme for the redevelopment of London and other places to be embodied in its terms. It is right to give this temporary preservation. I say "temporary" because, for all we know, the next Act may alter it. We cannot tell—it depends upon what the Commission say on the matter. Surely it is utterly wrong to attempt to deprive a landlord of one of his overriding rights; and I am rather surprised to hear the Party opposite wishing to take it away from him and give it to the next one.
7.0 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): In the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, we had to-morrow's Daily Telegraph story when he said that future generations would curse the Labour Party for breaking up these great estates simply because Lord Kennet wanted to give windfalls of £10,000 to people. I hope that the Daily Telegraph correspondent has it right. This is not really the occasion to go back over the windfall question—
LORD MOLSON: Would the noble Lord explain what his reference to the Daily Telegraph means? I honestly do not know what he means. When he speaks, it would be interesting to know to what he is referring.
LORD KENNET: I am referring to the propensity that I have observed in the Daily Telegraph, in reporting debates on matters such as this, to pick up the "plummiest" phrases of the noble Lord and build a story round them. This is
1214
not really the moment to go back over the windfall question, but I think I must, because the noble Lord has introduced it into this Amendment in a place which I think is entirely irrelevant, and has come back to the question of £10,000 and so on. I let this go on an earlier stage in the interests of speed, but I think I should not do it again, and I would ask the Committee to consider a fairly typical case of what happens when a leaseholder enfranchises on a property which is not of colossal value but of a rather high value.
When a sitting tenant with a fairly long unexpired term enfranchises, he invariably stands to make a capital gain from the special position he is in of being able to marry the two interests—the occupational interest and the ground interest. That is the position under the present law, without this Bill, when there is a voluntary enfranchisement between leaseholder and freeholder. Without this Bill the leaseholder of a house worth £7,000 freehold, with possession (that is not cheap), with 20 or 25 years unexpired, at a ground rent of, say, £25, could expect to obtain a capital gain of about £1,500 to £1,750 in a friendly negotiation for the purchase of the freehold reversion from the freeholder. For his part, the freeholder would receive in such a bargain substantially more than any other purchaser in the market would give for his interest; and because of the 1954 Act he is in no position even to be able to oust the tenant, unless he is going to redevelop the property when the house is demolished, or unless he is getting it for his own occupation, when he will not be realising its value. These are two special cases.
Let us see what happens under the Bill. Under the Bill the leaseholder is placed in a somewhat stronger bargaining position, and his capital gain could be in the range of £2,000 to £2,500. Compare that with the gain that he would get without the Bill, and your Lordships will see that in this typical case he improves his fortune, if he enfranchises, by about £500 to £750. He improves his fortune to that extent if he enfranchises and then sells. But not all enfranchising leaseholders, we may be certain, will sell. Most of them will want to enfranchise because they desire to keep living in the house they are used to. I think we should realise that

1215
these figures such as £10,000 are highly sensational, and that the figure we should in all sobriety be considering is more in the nature of £500 or £750 improvement on the position in the case of a £7,000 value: not so sensational.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Did the noble Lord give the rateable value of this hypothetical house?
LORD KENNET: No, I did not. But the Committee can make its own deductions from the freehold value that I gave of £7,000. I do not think it would affect the issue very much.
The noble Lord raised the question of hardship, and asked: "What evidence is there of hardship on well-managed estates? And if there is no evidence of hardship, should not this lack of evidence be a reason for withholding the right to enfranchisement in such an estate?" The answer is, No, it should not be; because to take that line would be to prejudge what the Minister might decide was a well-managed estate, and would be to prejudge the sort of matters which a court might hold ought to go into a scheme of good management. The very notion of good management, as it has been introduced into the Bill in order to give rise to Clause 19 schemes, is something which should not affect the property rights, and not affect the right to enfranchise, but merely something which, as I said yesterday, should be carried forward into the new property situation created by the Bill.
The noble Lord also raised the question of redevelopment, and said, if I understood him rightly, that if the Government say that we can leave redevelopment to modern planning legislation, that is wrong—I hope I quote the noble Lord correctly. If it is wrong to leave it to planning legislation for recently enfranchised freehold properties, it is also wrong to leave it to planning legislation for other freehold properties. We do at the moment leave it to planning legislation for the redevelopment of all freehold properties, and if it is wrong for all freehold properties, I can only wonder at the inaction of the Conservative Government over 13 years in not putting it right. It is clear to see that they thought it right for 13 years to leave it to planning legislation, and I think the
1216
present Government are right to leave it to planning legislation in the case of freehold properties now. And the addition of more freehold property to the total stock of freehold property by the provisions of the present Bill will not affect the merit of planning legislation as an organ for controlling redevelopment.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made an appeal for the continuity of fine development in London. Let me say, first of all, that I entirely agree with him that there are certain estates, in London and elsewhere, which it is almost inconceivable should not obtain a certificate of good management. We all know what they are, but we must not mention them, because that would prejudge the liberty of future Ministers when they come to consider applications for such certificates. But the Government are convinced that what is good about these estates—and it is very good—can be maintained by the application of Clause 19 schemes as provided in the Bill, without amendment.
It is not automatic (and here I revert to what was said yesterday) that good management of existing property, good redevelopment of existing property when the time comes, can be obtained only by outright freehold rights. We know that this is not so. We know that there have been many fine developments, and many finely maintained areas, which were never leasehold but always small freeholds and have been maintained in that condition. When the plan for redevelopment came, they have been reassembled, in some cases—it all depends on the circumstances—into larger freeholds, and thus we have seen some of the best redevelopments in this country.
I think it is stretching the special case for those estates much too far to say that you cannot hope for good redevelopment without holding on to the large unified freehold. It is no part of my duty to advise these great estates what they ought to do, but I should like to leave one thought with noble Lords, in the most tentative and personal manner possible. Might it not be equally to the general social advantage if some of these great estates were to take their money under the enfranchisement provisions and devote it to areas of our cities which are in tragic need of redevelopment at the moment? I do not think myself that the need for

1217
redevelopment in the handsomest areas of central London is overwhelming. They are very nice as they are, and I doubt whether we shall improve them. But, my goodness!, if you go into the "twilight" zones and look there at the crying need for funds for redevelopment, I think the Committee will agree that anybody with property development experience who can get funds, by hook or by crook—and this Bill provides a way of getting funds for freeholders—is under something approaching, a social duty to turn his attention to these areas.
Lastly, on the Amendment, it touches the principle of the Bill, in that it would deny leaseholders the right of enfranchisement in certain areas according to the nature of the freeholder. That is against the principle which the Government have maintained throughout. The Government maintained it in the case of charitable freeholders, and the Government must maintain it also in the case of freeholders of well-managed estates. I believe that all the benefits of good management can be secured under Clause 19 as unamended by this Amendment, and I would advise the Committee against passing the Amendment, which would allow certain freeholders to deny their leaseholders the possibility of enfranchisement altogether.
LORD SILSOE: Very soon I think I shall have to make up my mind about the Amendment. May I try once more to get an answer in a rather different form from the one which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, gave? It is this question of redevelopment which is worrying everybody under this clause. There are two forms of redevelopment. There is individual redevelopment, where very often redevelopment takes place house by house, or two or three houses by two or three houses—for example, in taking large houses and making them into two dwellings, and so on. That does not worry me. That can be done. The important thing—and it is a technical phrase well known to all of us who have anything to do with this job—is comprehensive redevelopment. There are a great deal of redevelopments which can be done properly only comprehensively. I believe that the word "redevelopment" in Clause 11 was meant to mean compre
1218
hensive redevelopment. It has no sense otherwise, if it does not.
Before I put the question I wish to ask, may I say that I speak as one who has, since I have been holding various offices, sold to local authorities for comprehensive redevelopment property amounting to more than half the size of the City of London. Certain types of comprehensive redevelopment require to be dealt with by local government, or in some cases central Government, because they have the power of compulsory acquisition, whereas private individuals have not. What happened in all those cases? In every single case leaseholders, tenants and others had to be displaced. The first thing a local authority has to do, much against its will, is to displace, sometimes only temporarily, the people in occupation, and sometimes compulsion has to be used for that purpose. In all cases people have to go. Another form of comprehensive redevelopment is undertaken by enlightened landlords themselves, and, again, since the war, I personally have had to deal with approximately the same acreage in this respect. You can comprehensively redevelop sometimes without any powers of compulsion, and some very great schemes have been dealt with in that way quite recently. I think I have spoken quite neutrally, but those are the two main methods of redevelopment.
How is it going to work under this clause? First of all, you go to the Minister, and the Minister has to consider, among other things, all the things set out in the Bill regulating redevelopment. When the Minister decides on these matters he merely gives a certificate. He has no power whatever to regulate the redevelopment; he merely gives a certificate. He has considered the matter as one of many things, and he gives a certificate.
The next thing is that the leaseholders will have to consider the matter, and there may be a dispute. Indeed, there must be a dispute with the leaseholder who has got to be turned out, and therefore there must be a large number of cases where there cannot be a common mind. What happens? The whole question is to go before a Chancery Judge. I do not want to be rude to my friends the Chancery Judges, but what on earth do they know about redevelopment? None of

1219
them has had any experience of it. A tremendous issue will be going on about this, and they will have to put down in the scheme what the redevelopment should be, and all its terms, and how many people should be turned out. I cannot see that this begins to be the right kind of tribunal. The right kind of tribunal is sitting on the Front Bench here; that is, the Ministers, and also the local authorities. They are the people who should be deciding these matters, not Judges. It is not a judicial matter of any sort. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to tell us how this redevelopment through a Chancery Judge can work. I want an alternative. I have already suggested that if a judicial body is to be involved it should be the Lands Tribunal. At least they know something about the job. But I do not believe it is a judicial issue at all. I should like to see this done under the ordinary arrangements of dealing with Ministers. And I want an answer as to how this scheme can work.
7.17 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I had not intended to intervene, because I have unfortunately not been able to take any part in the proceedings on this Bill, having been ill for these last few weeks. But I have received from the Royal Institute of British Architects representations of their great concern, not about the purpose underlying this clause, but about whether this clause is sufficient to achieve the purpose which I have no doubt the Government themselves have in mind; namely, to preserve very great and important architectural values.
The Royal Institute of British Architects wrote, on June 30 of this year, to the Minister—that is, I think, to Mr. Willey—explaining what their doubts were. They did not themselves suggest any Amendments, but they appealed to Her Majesty's Government themselves to strengthen this clause if they had sympathy with the points put by the Royal Institute of British Architects, in order to make it more effective. There are certain powers given, I think, under this clause, which I admit I have not studied sufficiently, that will enable the landlord, in certain cases, to take action. But it may not be always even in the interests of the landlord to exert the
1220
powers which are left to him under the Government's clause.
Certain alternatives were put in another place, particularly, I think, in an Amendment by Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, and some sympathy was expressed by the Minister who replied in another place for the attempts to strengthen this clause that were made by Sir Hugh and others. I cannot express a strong opinion on the particular Amendment put by my noble friend Lord Silsoe, or criticise the Government clause in detail, because I will admit frankly that I have not sufficiently studied them. I hoped very much that either my friend the noble Lord, Lord Holford, or Lord Esher, might have been here to put the considerations that moved the Royal Institute of British Architects, much better than I can in my unprepared state. I appeal to the Minister to treat with respect and sympathy these appeals that have been addressed to Her Majesty's Government by the Royal Institute of British Architects, and to consider, whatever happens on the Committee stage, whether they cannot themselves propose Amendments at the Report stage to improve this clause and to make it effective for the purposes which I think they themselves have in mind.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I should like to take up the plea of my noble friend Lord Conesford, but first to say how glad we are to see him back again. I still hope that the Government will say that between now and the Report stage they will further re-examine their Clause 19, so as to try to improve it in the ways that have been discussed in our debate to-day, and particularly in a way which will ensure that it does not place wholly unnecessary obstacles in the way of farsighted comprehensive redevelopment.
If I may put this in its simplest form—and I have not seen the R.I.B.A. document, but I expect I am thinking along the same lines—one may have in one of these well-managed estates a street of charming terraced houses on either side, and without doubt the object of the estate will be in due course to replace them with suitable modern houses for modern living, well designed and calculated to recreate an environment which will give satisfaction not only to the people living

1221
in those houses but to all who walk up and down that street. If enfranchisement is allowed, that terrace will be speckled by houses that have become freehold. Exactly how do the Government propose that the estate shall redevelop that street under a scheme? If the Government have no idea at all about that, why are the words
"regulate redevelopment in the area in the event of tenants acquiring the landlord's interest in their house and premises",
appearing in subsection (1) of Clause 19? The Government must have some plan in mind, and this is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, and my noble friend Lord Conesford and all of us are trying to get at. We cannot see that plan in this Bill and we cannot see how any scheme that could be submitted to the High Court could secure that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, talked optimistically about Clause 17. Perhaps he had not observed that that is confined to the landlord's overriding rights where the lessee has an extended lease. It does not apply to cases of enfranchisement. It is where a street has been speckled or an area has been fragmented by enfranchisement that those of us who are worried about this clause quite sincerely cannot see how redevelopment, which I should have thought we all wanted, could be attained under it. I beg the noble Lord to say that he will re-examine this matter. It would make a great difference, and then we could perhaps proceed in amity.
LORD KENNET: I hesitate to keep the Committee yet longer on this Amendment, but I should like to say a word about the position of the R.I.B.A. in this. The letter which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, referred to—and I, too, am very glad to see the noble Lord back among us—was concerned mainly with the fact that the enfranchising leaseholders did not themselves have a right to put forward a scheme of management in those cases where the landlord did not put one forward. It was precisely to meet this point that I introduced—and I am glad to say the Committee adopted by common agreement—an Amendment to Clause 19 which would permit them to do precisely that.
On the other, specific point of the architectural preservation angle, I would
1222
remind the Committee that Clause 11 of the Civic Amenities Bill which we have recently passed gives local authorities a new duty to preserve precisely the sort of areas about which we are speaking, and that the Clause 19 schemes themselves, especially with the Amendment I have just described, are designed to do precisely that. In short, there is really no guarantee that, leaving aside the redevelopment angle, a lot of separate freeholders will do any worse than one big freeholder with leaseholders peppered all over the place.
LORD SILSOE: I will, in a few moments, ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this Amendment. My reasons are twofold: one, I am confident that having heard this debate the Government will in fact have another look at many of these difficult problems; secondly, I do not wish to be found with a badly drafted Amendment which has been carried. I found out yesterday that people do not think much of my drafting, and I think everybody is perfectly correct to say so, because no lawyer, except those trained in the art, can draft—and I am a lawyer. Therefore I should like to have another opportunity to read this debate and to make sure that the drafting is all right. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
7.28 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, after Clause 19, to insert the following new clause:
Freeholder's power to refuse enfranchisement or an extended lease
" .—(1) Where the tenant of any house and premises having a right under this Part of this Act to acquire the freehold or an extended lease gives notice of his desire to have it the landlord may for reasons of planning or housing management, at any time before effect is given to the notice, apply to the local planning authority for consent to refuse the tenant's application.
(2) Either the landlord or the tenant, if dissatisfied with the decision of the local planning authority, may appeal to the Minister.
(3) Where a local planning authority accedes to a request by the landlord under subsection (2) above or where the Minister allows an appeal by the landlord the tenant shall, on the termination of the tenancy, be entitled to be paid compensation by the landlord for the loss of the house and premises in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Act; and

1223
the provisions of that Schedule shall have effect as regards the measure of compensation under any court order for possession and the effects of the order where there are sub-tenancies and as regards other matters therein referred to."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. This is a fresh attempt to deal with the problem we have been discussing, and my new clause would bring in the local planning authority. It seems rather ridiculous that the local planning authority should be given no say at all as to whether enfranchisement should be permitted. The local planning authority has a closer knowledge than any Minister or any Government Department can have of what is really happening within its area. My proposal is that where a tenant is seeking enfranchisement or an extended lease the landlord may apply to the local planning authority for consent to refuse that tenant's application on the grounds of planning or housing management.
In subsection (2) of my new clause I provide that either party, if dissatisfied with the decision of the local planning authority, may appeal to the Minister. By subsection (3) I am bringing my proposal into line with other provisions in the Bill. Subsection (3) says, in effect, that where the tenant's application is refused, on the termination of the tenancy the tenant may be entitled to compensation for the loss of the house and premises in accordance with the same provisions (which I think are in Schedule 2) relating to a successful application by a landlord under Clause 17 or Clause 18, for the recovery of the house.
I do not want to repeat what has been said, but, as the Committee will realise, I feel a great concern about these streets where it is most desirable that there should be continuity both of appearance and of management. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said on the previous Amendment that one can trust to planning to secure good appearance and wise redevelopment. I am not so sure of that; but, at any rate, here I am giving additional responsibilities to the local planning authority, and I submit most strongly to the Government that the local planning authority should not be left out of this. My clause does not refer to well-managed estates. I have in mind an area which
1224
could not well be called an estate—it may be just a tiny group of houses. But I am envisaging the case where the local authority, knowing the area intimately, reaches its opinion that in the interests of good planning or good housing management it is desirable that things shall remain as they are, and that at that point in time the tenant's rights should not succeed against the landlord. The clause provides in subsection (3) compensation for the landlord.
As I have said, this is another attempt to try to overcome the difficulties—and I do appreciate the Government's difficulties. I appreciate the Government's difficulty in that, having promised enfranchisement to tenants and leaseholders, they are now up against the difficulty that they may badly damage the appearance of an area if in fact the area has gained by good planning or good housing management in the past. I hope the Government will seriously consider the purpose underlying this new clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 19 insert the said new clause.—[Lord Brooke of Cumnor.]
LORD MITCHISON: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, one question? I do not agree with the argument, but I could understand it where a planning authority was concerned with housing management. What I do not understand is what happens in the country, for instance, where the planning authority is the county council and is not concerned with housing management, and still less concerned with questions between the leaseholder and the freeholder? I should have thought that no planning authority was ever concerned with questions of the sort that are dealt with in this Bill primarily between the leaseholder and the freeholder. They are concerned, broadly speaking, with the use of the land, not with the question of whose it is or what rent the tenant pays or whether he can enfranchise or not. But leaving aside that major issue, and assuming that there is something in the noble Lord's suggestion, how does housing management come into it? The planning authority is, or course, as the noble Lord well knows, the county council and has nothing to do with housing management.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If the noble Lord would like an immediate answer, I may say that I am well aware that the planning authority is not the housing authority in a county. I am also well aware that a planning authority is normally in the closest touch with all the district councils in its area, and indeed seeks their advice before it reaches decisions on many planning matters. On my knowledge of local government, it does not seem to me inconceivable that a planning authority could obtain the advice of the district councils on housing management questions also.
LORD MITCHISON: May I thank the noble Lord for explaining the point, which he had not made clear before.
7.35 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord has put forward this Amendment, and I accept that he is attempting to follow up constructively the point he made in the previous Amendment. While paragraph 22 of the White Paper recognised that on some comprehensively managed estates enlightened management contributes greatly to the wellbeing of the residents, by maintaining the character of the estate, the proposal put forward and now embodied in Clause 19 of the Bill was for a scheme for continued management. Such a scheme may provide for the eventual shift of control from the original landlord to a body representing the new individual freeholders or to a local authority. So far, then, as concerns management and the regulation of redevelopment in order to maintain the distinctive character of an estate, the scheme will provide; therefore, in the Government's view, there is no case, on this score, for refusing either enfranchisement or an extended lease.
When we come to the proposal which the noble Lord makes for carrying out redevelopment, I admit that it is convenient for a landlord, particularly a big landlord, to carry out redevelopment as the leases fall in. But that is not because carrying out redevelopment when the leases fall in is necessarily good planning; it is because it is the economic way of doing it. It enables them to do it in one go, without getting involved in the expense of buying out people before their lease has fallen in. It does not necessarily follow that the houses are obsolete by that time, or that the site of a batch
1226
of houses whose leases have fallen in ought, ideally, to be redeveloped on its own. In fact it is the Government's view that the dictation of redevelopment at the end of leases has nothing at all to do with good planning, and therefore there is no justification for seeking to go to the planning authority for it. On the other hand, where there is a need for comprehensive redevelopment there is power under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 to see that this is carried out. With the best will in the world to try to accommodate the noble Lord, the Government just cannot see any merit at all in accepting this Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: As I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the Government maintain that redevelopment of areas as the leases fall in has nothing to do with good planning. I should therefore have thought that the Government would welcome my Amendment, which would give the planning authority a say in the present ownership, and consequently the future redevelopment, of a particular plot or plots. I am not going to press this Amendment. I hope that the Government will consider its purpose, along with the general purposes we have discussed under the last Amendment, because I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will realise by now how deeply concerned I am lest the Government are taking action here which will stand gravely in the way of comprehensive or wise redevelopment in the future. It seems to me that if this new clause were to be inserted in the Bill it would ensure that something which is at present believed by the planning authority to be good would survive and not be destroyed, and it would make a contribution, small as it may be, to the purpose we were discussing under Lord Silsoe's Amendment; that is, effective comprehensive redevelopment. All I can hope is that by speaking to these Amendments I am doing something to impress on the Government the very deep concern of a great many people, including nearly all the professional people who have contact with these property matters, lest the Government's Bill is going seriously to injure the possibilities of farsighted comprehensive redevelopment. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 20 to 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Agreements excluding or modifying rights of tenant]:
7.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment is of a drafting nature. When the Bill was introduced it did not contain the words "the freehold or" in the second line of Clause 23(4). The words "the freehold or" were introduced in another place on Committee stage, which makes the use of the word "one" in line 30 rather odd. We seek to make this look a little better. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 30, leave out ("one") and insert ("the freehold or an extended lease").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved, after Clause 23, to insert the following new clause:
Purchase notice relating to common parts of a leasehold estate
" . The owner of any land which is a road, footpath, watercourse, sewer, drain, garden, parkland, recreational or sports ground, communal building or other premises, used in common by or for the benefit of the residents of any neighbouring house and premises of which that owner is the landlord by virtue of a long lease at a low rent may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, serve on the Council of the County Borough or County District in which the land is situation a notice requiring that council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part VIII of the said Act and the notice shall have the same effect as a purchase notice under Part VIII aforesaid and the condition that the person serving the said notice is the owner and landlord aforesaid shall take the place of the conditions set out in section 129 of the said Act and the provisions relating thereto as stated in that section."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. Those of your Lordships who have read the Financial Times to-day may have noticed on the front page the headline which reads:
"How much will Aberdare say today?"
The answer is, "Not much"; but I hope that what I have to say is of some importance, because it seems to me that this is an important matter.
As your Lordships will be aware, this new clause was moved in another place at a late stage, the Report stage, and the only reason I have reintroduced it here is that the Minister was clearly most impressed by the case that was made on that occasion. He said
"I am persuaded by what the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has said … but I am willing to consider the question".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 20/6/67, col. 1461.]
So I think it is worth returning to it. The fact is that the terms of enfranchisement in the Bill are most attractive, and we can expect that a great many leaseholders will avail themselves of them. So a difficulty may arise on many estates, small and large, where communal facilities are provided by the landlord; and once a number of houses have been enfranchised there would no longer be any incentive for the landlord to maintain these communal facilities. It may be only a few houses which share a common sewer, or it could be a whole estate with a vast park; or, as the Minister himself brought up in another place, it could be a private road. Once the houses that adjoin the road are all enfranchised, what is left to give the landlord any incentive to remain keeping up the road?
Early on the first day of the Committee stage when we were discussing this Bill, your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, spoke about the park at Dulwich and the trees on that estate. I know that for the moment charities have been excluded from the Bill, but this is the kind of instance that may well arise. Nor would it be appropriate in all cases for there to be a scheme such as the one we have been discussing under Clause 19. It might well not be a suitable site or estate to which to apply Clause 19. I can think of many reasons, one simple one being that it might be an estate where already freeholds have been sold, and therefore there would not be any possible scheme of good management in the sense that is meant under Clause 19. Therefore the clause that I am suggesting requires the local authority in such circumstances to take over those facilities that are common to an area. Perhaps this is not the way to bring about what I have in mind, but I think there ought to be some method whereby these communal facilities can

1229
be taken care of after considerable enfranchisement has taken place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 23 insert the new clause.—(Lord Aberdare.)
7.46 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, this Amendment is identical with the one which was moved in another place on the Report stage. The noble Lord has told us why he has been encouraged to put the Amendment forward; that is, because of the words used by the Minister in rejecting it. In those circumstances, I can well understand that it was worth while having another go at it here. The noble Lord stated that in the estates to which Clause 19 refers it is not a problem. We are talking about estates which would not benefit from Clause 19; and I must admit that where Clause 19 does not apply the landlord could be faced with the possibility of being left, when most of the leaseholders have enfranchised, with a road or open space which he is bound to maintain under the terms of the outstanding lease, and for which he cannot require contributions to be made by those who have enfranchised. In reality, however, his position will be a little better than it seems, since he will be under no obligation, for example, to maintain a road over which former leaseholders have a right of way; and one can expect that in practice a satisfactory agreement will be made between the parties for the maintenance of common amenities which are of real value to the neighbourhood.
No doubt the local authority may be willing to take over in such a case. Little, however, would be gained by trying to force them to take over something if they were not satisfied that it was in the interests of the community generally to do so, because if they were compelled to take over something against their will, it is most unlikely that they would add to the capital expense in which they had been involved in the first instance, a willingness to undertake a maintenance responsibility which they could not be compelled to do.
The Government would have liked to be able to do something about this. I must admit that I have great difficulty in understanding the position, because the law in my country is not the
1230
same as it is down here, and there is no problem of this kind. The individual purchaser can have these responsibilities all transferred to him without any difficulty, and it does not matter how much the estate may be fragmented. I have gone most carefully into this matter, and the reason for not including this provision is the difference in the law as it exists in England and Wales.
The desirable thing is that the person who is enfranchised, and who is the one who is going to benefit, should be the one who should carry the responsibility; but, unfortunately, under the law of this country as it stands this cannot be done. I am told that only negative or restrictive covenants run with the land. There is no effective means of passing on the burden of positive covenants from vendor to purchaser. Thus, even if the enfranchising leaseholder was required as a condition of enfranchisement to enter into a covenant with the former freeholder for ever after to bear an equitable proportion of maintaining the road or open space, the covenant would not be enforceable against the leaseholder's successors in title.
In regard to this defect in the law (admittedly it is a defect; and I marvel that it should have survived so long) it is to be hoped that, when the Government have an opportunity of giving effect to the recommendations of the Wilberforce Committee on positive covenants, a Bill will be introduced—I cannot say when, but at some time—and that it will contain a provision to overcome this and similar practical difficulties arising out of the passing of this present Bill. It is not out of any unwillingness to be helpful that the Government do not accept this Amendment. We think that it would not provide a solution, because if the local authority were willing in the first instance they would probably do this without a clause of this nature being in the Bill; but if the local authority are unwilling, then no useful purpose would be served by compelling them to take over these mutual responsibilities.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pinpointed the difficulty about this when speaking about the problem of enforcing positive covenants on the subsequent holders of the land which is intended to be burdened

1231
by the covenants. I know that legislation will at some time be introduced on this point. I would point out that there have been Private Acts of Parliament within the last year or so which I have seen which include statutory provisions by which positive covenants can be continuously enforced against the people who have the land which is burdened by those covenants. I do not know whether the noble Lord would like to look at some of those enactments in those Private Acts. There is no reason why the same sort of principle should not be applied for the purposes of this Bill. It would mean that the fort could be held before general legislation comes in. I think that I can find a precedent for the noble Lord to think about. Would he care to consider it?
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Lord is good enough to look this up and write to me about it, I assure him that my right honourable friend will be very happy to look at this matter. As I have said, it is not out of any desire to be unhelpful in the matter, but because the law makes it so difficult to find a useful solution. If the noble Viscount has something else which has not been looked at at present, obviously I am quite happy that it should be looked at.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very sorry to hear that in spite of the hopeful attitude of the Minister in another place, the Government have not found any way round this difficulty; for I consider that there will be difficulties, and that this may lead to a great falling off in standards of property management. I hope that they will consider carefully the suggestions put by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Preservation of trusts, charges, etc. affecting, tenant's estate]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 24 puts into words what is already the legal position when, by agreement, a leaseholder enlarges his leasehold interest into a freehold or negotiates a new lease in substitution of an existing lease. The
1232
clause provides that the new freehold or substituted lease is to be subject to the same third party rights as the original lease. Normally, a third party mortgagee of the leasehold interest would get the leaseholder to execute a further deed in his favour. If this is not done, then the third party would apply to the court for an order providing for the legal estate in the freehold or extended lease to be vested in him.
Clause 24 would, in effect, have been a short cut, so that the legal estate in the enlarged interest vested in the third party automatically. However, we have discovered that this short cut would cause grave inconvenience at the Land Registry, since they are not normally in a position to investigate the leasehold title which in many cases will not be registered, and so are unable to ascertain whether or not it is mortgaged. The effect of Clause 24, therefore, might well be to create errors on the register. The Government have come to the conclusion that it is better that the law and procedure governing, voluntary enlargements of a leasehold title should also govern enfranchisement and extensions carried out under the terms of the Bill. It is for these reasons that the Government wish now to delete Clause 24.
Clause 24 disagreed to.
Clauses 25 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29:
Retention or resumption of land required for public purposes
29.—(1) Where the landlord of any property is a body to which this section applies, and a Minister of the Crown certifies that the property will shortly be required for relevant development, then—
(a) a notice of a person's desire to have the freehold or an extended lease under this Part of this Act of a house comprised in the property shall be of no effect;
(6) In subsection (1) above "relevant development" in relation to any body to which this section applies, means development for purposes (other than investment purposes) of that body, but so that—
(a) the purposes of a county council or county borough council shall be taken to include the purposes of a police authority which is a committee of the council; and
(c) in the case of a Regional Hospital Board, Hospital Management Committee or Board of Governors of a teaching hospital, the purposes of the National Health Service

1233
Act 1946 shall be substituted for the purposes of the body.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "shortly" and insert:
"within a period of seven years or such longer period as the Minister may at any time by order decide".
The noble Lord said: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Ilford, I am moving the Amendment which stands in his name on the Order Paper. A similar Amendment was moved in another place and was received with not unsympathetic consideration by the Government. The reason for it is that the word "shortly" is vague and means that everybody is left in some doubt as to when the power can be exercised.
During the Committee stage elsewhere the Government spokesman said there were two things which required to be balanced. On the one hand there was the apprehension that might be caused if the situation were uncertain on the other, there was the risk that if a fixed period of, say, seven years were inserted in the clause that period might tend to become the period for all development, regardless of the character of the development. He said, however, that he would be willing to look at the matter again to see whether a fixed period could be put into the clause. When the Opposition put down an Amendment to this effect on Report stage elsewhere, it was not selected by the Chair. The result was that the Government did not have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on this matter. This Amendment is an attempt at giving something more definite in the way of a period of time. At the same time it provides for reasonable flexibility.
We on this side have argued that in matters of this kind it is generally wise to give some discretion to the Minister in the matter. We are most anxious in all matters arising out of this Bill that there shall be a reasonable possibility of good comprehensive development in the future. We feel there is no doubt that by indicating a minimum period of seven years and by providing the additional period in suitable cases where the Minister of the day can extend the period, one would have the advantage of enabling comprehensive development to be carried out. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 35 leave out ("shortly") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Molson.)
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): I do not think I need declare any interest in the Bill, although my family fortunes, such as they were, were founded on leaseholds in Dublin, and I hope that noble Lords will realise that the landlord's point of view is not altogether lost sight of on these Benches. However, I have no possible interest to declare on this Bill. I am anxious to meet the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and his noble friend Lord Ilford on this point. It struck me, as I looked at this matter, that the word "shortly" was misleading, at any rate to the novice—though perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, may understand it. But, in fact, it is intended to cover quite a long period of years. My main doubt is whether, if one is going to put in a period at all, seven years is sufficient, even with the addition mentioned: it might be better to put in ten years. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, on behalf of his noble friend, will be good enough to withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that we will withdraw the word "shortly", and will try to meet the idea which is in the minds of the two noble Lords.
LORD MOLSON: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House and, naturally, on that very satisfactory undertaking by him I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.1 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (5), to insert after paragraph (f)
"( ) to any landlord of an area which is subject to a scheme approved by the High Court under section 19 above".
The noble Lord said: I am greatly encouraged by the intervention of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Few Amendments had been accepted, even in principle, until he arrived. It may be decided that these proceedings should be brought to an end as expeditiously as possible. I am therefore much more optimistic in moving Amendment No. 51. Clause 29 enables certain types of landlord to obtain from the Minister a certificate that the property

1235
will shortly—or whatever word may be substituted for "shortly"—be required for relevant redevelopment. It seems to me that there is another possibility here of helping towards a solution of the problem which we discussed at some length on Clause 19.
The Government have already recognised that landlords of well-managed estates should be given certain advantages, and my Amendment would add to the list of types of body set out in subsection (5) of Clause 29 as being qualified to take advantage of this clause,
"any landlord of an area which is subject to a scheme approved by the High Court under section 19 above";
that is to say, any landlord who has been certified as having a well-managed estate and who has obtained from the High Court approval of the scheme.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in relation to Clause 19, I hope it is accepted by the Government that the redevelopment of private well-managed estates is a matter of some importance to the community, and it would go some way towards securing the end which I hope we all have in view if this Amendment were accepted. The effect of the Amendment would be that, as with local authorities and other types of body which own leaseholds, a landlord of a well-managed estate could claim that the property will, within a certain term of years, be required for redevelopment, and that accordingly the application of the tenant to obtain enfranchisement or an extended lease should not be granted. But the tenant should, of course, receive the same compensation as is provided in the case of landlords of other types. I can but repeat my appeal to the Government to recognise that there is a problem here, and I submit this as yet another possible step towards the solution of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) to any landlord of an area which is subject to a scheme approved by the High Court under section 19 above").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am afraid that I cannot keep up my record of 100 per cent. acceptance, although the noble Lord need not despair; I may be more obliging on a later Amendment.
1236
I was not quite sure what he was aiming at in his remarks about the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, but in so far as I understood them I thought he misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, earlier. Be that as it may, it seems to me fairly clear that the noble Lord's Amendment would not be in place here. I imagine that from our point of view it would not be in place anywhere, but certainly it would not be in place here, because, as the noble Lord knows, the purpose of Clause 29 is to avoid the nonsense which would occur if a leaseholder holding from a public authority were to enfranchise or extend his lease, and shortly afterwards were to be bought out under compulsory purchase powers, as was explained in the White Paper.
Therefore, for that reason—and I should have thought for that sufficient reason—the clause must logically be confined to public authorities of the kind who possess compulsory purchase powers or on whose behalf such powers are used. So I should have thought, whatever ingenious ideas the noble Lord might apply elsewhere, he would agree that his Amendment does not fit in here and I therefore hope that he will not wish to press it.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am an ignoramus in these matters, and I had no idea that universities and university colleges had compulsory powers. If the noble Earl tells me that they have, then of course I accept it. But it is a great surprise to me and I think it will be a surprise to many people outside.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I think some answer must be given to that, and if I deal with the point at greater length for a few moments I may be able to answer it. I am trying to interpret correctly the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and I gather he is anxious to facilitate the fulfilment of existing redevelopment schemes by private landlords. But, as he is aware, such schemes are not necessarily restricted to well-managed estates; and, in any case, large private estates have to redevelop simply when the leases fall in, because the cost of buying out leaseholders with a current lease is prohibitive whereas local authorities acquire for redevelopment what needs redeveloping. I therefore submit to the noble Lord that the real essence of this clause is to assist

1237
local authorities. But I think the point he has made is clearly one which needs an answer, and I hope that he will therefore put this Amendment down on Report stage when I hope he will receive a better answer than he has just received.
A point which I should have added if it had occurred to me earlier is that compulsory purchase powers are occasionally used on behalf of the bodies which the noble Lord mentioned—the universities and so on. Therefore, the distinction lies between those bodies and the ones which he is trying to assist in this Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful for the care which the noble Earl has taken in replying to my Amendment. I thought he possibly misunderstood at one point, because I believe I heard him say that there were all sorts of private estates which would in due course require to redevelop. I am sure there are; but my Amendment is concerned solely with the well-managed estates, and as the Bill already recognises the landlords of well-managed estates as being in a special position, it did not seem unreasonable that they should be included along with other bodies, such as universities and university colleges, which are likewise in a special position. However, I think this is all linked up with the general problem of Clause 19, and I will not press this Amendment at this place in the Bill. I seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, which is brief, and I will speak also, if I may, to Amendment No. 53 at the same time, because Amendment No. 52 is a paving Amendment. Both of these Amendments are really of a probing character. It is a question of what the phrase "relevant development" means. It would certainly appear that this phrase, "relevant development", is not intended to include private development, but there are cases where a local authority, as a wise act of policy, makes land available for private development as part of a comprehensive development scheme. I do not think there is any political or Party difference about that: it is widely recognised as a perfectly sensible policy for a local authority to pursue in certain circumstances. My Amendment is designed to make sure that the Minister would be
1238
able to give a certificate under this clause, Clause 29, in such a case as that—a case in which the local authority wished to make land available for private development as part of a comprehensive development scheme. I may have misunderstood the present wording of the clause, and this may already be practicable, but it seemed to me to be a reasonable question to raise, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to clear it up and perhaps give a favourable answer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 31, at end insert ("(i)").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not think the noble Lord has misunderstood anything here, although he may or may not be right in wishing to put words of this kind in exactly the place in the Bill that he has indicated. We consider that the Amendment is reasonable in intention, for where a local authority acquires land compulsorily under a scheme of comprehensive redevelopment it often then sells or leases sites to developers to carry out redevelopment, as the noble Lord is well aware from his own long experience as Minister. We consider that he is perfectly right in thinking that this point ought to be covered, and that it is, to say the least, doubtful whether it is covered by the clause as it stands. The only criticism I am asked to place before him is that the point really belongs, not to the definition of "relevant development" but to a substantial part of the clause; that is to say, to the beginning. It should come in at the beginning. I would therefore suggest to the noble Lord that he withdraws his Amendment on a clear promise that we intend to do something about it on Report.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am very grateful to the noble Earl, and I have pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (6) of the clause. It seems to me that the Bill, by its insistence that the purposes shall be confined to the purposes of the National Health Service Act 1946, will exclude from the advantages of this clause any land which

1239
a teaching hospital, or indeed a Regional Hospital Board, holds for the benefit of other purposes, such as research. I may be misinterpreting this clause, but it appears to me that no purpose whatsoever will be served by distinguishing here between the expenditure of a hospital on research and the expenditure of a hospital on specific National Health Service functions. I should like to ask why it is specially provided in this paragraph that it shall be confined to purposes of the National Health Service Act 1946. I hope that I have made my meaning clear, and if I continue to speak for a minute or two it will be to enable the noble Earl further to consider this point which I have raised and which may not have been wholly clear on the face of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, leave out from beginning of line 43 to end of line 3 on page 49.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I think it is possible that the intention of the noble Lord, which he has now made completely clear, was not absolutely plain on the face of his Amendment, and I would therefore ask leave to consider this a little more carefully before the next stage. Certainly the Amendment would leave it in doubt as to whether a certificate could be given under Clause 29 in respect of property held by a hospital authority but earmarked for development by the Ministry of Health for Health Service purposes. I am not sure whether the noble Lord wishes to leave that in doubt. I think he really wants to know whether one could go further. I think he wants not to be restrictive but to be expansive. But, as that was not clear on the face of the Amendment, perhaps we can discuss it at the next stage.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I am grateful to the noble Earl. My Amendment was certainly not meant either to be restrictive or to create dubiety. It was meant to secure a certain widening because matters of research, and so on, it seemed to me, ought not to be excluded. But on the understanding that this point will be looked at in the light of what I have said, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Reservation of right of preemption in new town or overspill area]:
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, in subsection (7), after "This section applies", to insert:
("( ) to any local authority namely, the Common Council of the City of London, the Greater London Council, any county council, borough council or district council.")
The noble Lord said: Again I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ilford, and it is one which we put forward at the request of the Greater London Council.
The effect of this clause is that, where the tenant of a house obtains enfranchisement, certain landlords are put into a privileged position. These are the new towns commission, a new town development corporation or the council of a receiving district under the Town Development Act 1952. In such cases, when enfranchisement takes place the landlords may impose covenants securing a right of pre-emption for the landlord and requiring the landlord's consent to a letting of the property. This is obviously extremely desirable in these cases, because of the obvious need for plenty of flexibility in cases where development is taking place. It is not, however, clear why these powers should be restricted to those three kinds of authority.
In other parts of this Bill local authorities have been granted valuable rights, as for example under Clause 30. Many of the local authorities have large estate holdings which are sufficiently similar in character to justify their having the same powers of pre-emption and the right to insist upon consent as in the case of the three kinds of landlords provided for in this clause. It would therefore seem desirable that the powers which are granted to these should be extended to the Common Council of the City of London, the Greater London Council, and any county council, borough council or district council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 29, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Molson.)
LORD KENNET: The purpose of the clause as it stands is to ensure, as the noble Lord has said, that a house built in a receiving area to relieve congestion in some urban agglomeration is not sold after enfranchisement to someone who does not come from the congested area and has no right to that house. Giving the new town corporation or the council of the receiving area the power to insert a pre-emption covenant in the conveyance is mere machinery to control the occupancy of the house and affects nothing else. It is clear that what we are dealing with here is something specially connected with overspill arrangements and, while the clause as it stands might appear too restrictive, I think that, on the other hand, the Amendment as it stands is probably too expansive: it gives power to too many types of authorities. I concede that for certain authorities who own out-county overspill estates there is a case for consideration of whether or not they should be brought within the scope of this clause. On the understanding that the Government will consider that before the Report stage I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MOLSON: Things have really gone well recently in these proceedings. Since the noble Earl the Leader of the House rose to reply, there have been concessions to some degree, beaming smiles and benevolence; there has been a genial spirit as of the sun rising. I am bound to confess, having expected to see him rise again like a sun, and having noted the great consultations taking place on the Treasury Bench, that when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, rose I was full of apprehension. But it was groundless. The effect of the genial presence of the Leader of the House caused even the Parliamentary Secretary to grant some concessions to us. I gratefully acknowledge them; and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the assurance that the Government will consider this matter sympathetically before the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
8.22 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clause:
Saving for Green Belt land and areas of outstanding natural beauty
" . A person shall not be entitled under Part I of this Act to acquire the freehold of any property vested in a local authority within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 under section 3 of that Act or within an area of outstanding natural beauty designated as such under the National Parks and Countryside Act 1949."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. This is to follow immediately after Clause 33, which is entitled "Saving for National Trust". The Bill recognises that in the case of the National Trust properties enfranchisement should not be permitted. I hope that there will be the same geniality of approach on the part of noble Lords opposite, at any rate to the purpose underlying my new clause which deals with two separate but related matters: properties within the London Green Belt and properties in areas of outstanding national beauty.
I have not the knowledge to say to what extent local authorities have acquired freeholds in areas of outstanding natural beauty for long-term preservation purposes, but I was for a number of years a member of the London County Council, and I know that it was the policy of that Council to acquire the freehold of properties in the London Green Belt in order to safeguard them and control their use, and to ensure that nothing happened to them which might cause them to become a blot upon the Green Belt. It seems to me absurd that property which has been acquired by a responsible local authority for purposes of that kind should then be made liable to enfranchisement, with the risk that in due course an owner of a quite different character, and with wholly different ideas, might come into possession and invalidate and stultify the public purpose which the local authority had been seeking to pursue. There are no doubt faults in the drafting of this Amendment; but I greatly hope that the Government will be sympathetic towards its purpose, because I feel sure that there should be no difference in

1243
Party philosophies towards the preservation either of the Green Belt or of areas of outstanding natural beauty. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
LORD KENNET: The holiday is over; the days of the hatchet are back—although it is always open to noble Lords opposite to defeat us on this sort of point if they so wish. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that this comes straight after the National Trust provision in the Bill, and that there is a sort of superficial resemblance between National Trust-type property and Green Belt-type property. But the National Trust provision is in the Bill because the Government found themselves faced with National Trust property which is inalienable. The word "inalienable" appears in certain National Trust contracts and documents of property. It seemed to the Government that this Bill should not be used to "bust up" inalienable property arrangements, specially in the case of the National Trust; and therefore the provisions governing the National Trust were included.
But when we come to the Green Belt we find no concept of inalienable property, or even of property at all. The Green Belt is a planning concept. It consists of planning powers devoted towards a planning end which is irrelevant to property questions. I hope the Committee will agree that planning notions and special planning provisions like the Green Belt ought not to be allowed to affect property rights one way or the other. In essence, the situation is that there is no reason to suppose that a freeholder conceding leases on his property is any more likely to abide by the planning policies which prevail in the Green Belt than is an absolute freeholder in that property like the present leaseholders who would be entitled to enfranchise under this Bill. So, for the sake of not confusing property provisions with planning provisions, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The noble Lord said that the hatchet was
1244
back. I am afraid that the cloven hoof and the spiked tail are back. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has made only too clear that it is the policy of this Government to subordinate planning good to the enfranchising advantage of private leaseholders. It is a great pity. I am quite certain that it is contrary to general public opinion. I am quite certain that the public as a whole, who care about the Green Belt, and care about outstanding natural beauty, would wish to see some safeguard put into this Bill as there is for National Trust property.
I think that when the noble Lord reads again in Hansard what he has said about the subordinate place of planning in relation to the effect of this Bill on property rights, he will regret it. Nevertheless, as I said at the outset, I doubt whether this Amendment is correctly drafted. I do not wish to press it, but for the last time I beg the Government to think of the effect of their dogma, of allowing everybody to enfranchise if possible, on the beauties of this land of ours. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 34 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Modification of right to possession under Landlord and Tenant Act 1954]:
On Question, Whether Clause 39 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SILSOE: I can be very short, thanks to the help of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He asked me to place my point on record so that it would not be forgotten, and was kind enough to say that he would deal with it by an Amendment, or by informing me of the reason why he did not wish to amend it. The point, in a nutshell, is this. We have now come to Part II of the Bill, and this clause takes away the right of obtaining possession for redevelopment. I appreciate that some things in the Bill go contrary to the 1954 Act, but I myself, and some people I have consulted, take the view that this goes far too wide, because it deals with everybody, including those who are not within the ambit of the Bill. I think that is sufficient for the Record.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Amendments of Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920]:
8.34 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
"( ) In section 1(1) of the Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920 after paragraph (a) of the proviso there shall be inserted as a new paragraph (aa) the following paragraph:—
'(aa) where the person entitled to the freehold or an intermediate reversion requires that underlying minerals be excepted, the trustees shall not be entitled to acquire his interest in the minerals if proper provision is made for the support of the premises as they have been enjoyed during the lease and in accordance with the terms of the lease and of the trust; and'".
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 61, 62, 72, 73 and 74. These are all consequential upon Amendment No. 58. Noble Lords may have noticed that in two of these Amendments the name of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is associated with that of my noble friend Lord Kennet. It is not an "unholy alliance" of any sort, but arises from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has been in correspondence for some time with the Ministry about what I think we must frankly admit was a useful device in order to accomplish the purpose, but which the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, regarded as being a drafting nonsense.
LORD SILSOE: Perhaps I could move my Amendment now.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, can come in after me. The noble Lord has given me permission to do something, and he is sitting there wondering what on earth it is going to be.
LORD SILSOE: I am first on the list.
LORD HUGHES: While the noble Lord raised the point seriously, I think he got a lot of quiet amusement out of it, as your Lordships will appreciate when I tell the Committee that the effect of the Bill as it stands is that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is deemed to be a railway board and the premises to which this clause apply are deemed to be railway stations. He did not wish to be so involved at all and so, as I say, there has been quite a bit of amusement for the noble Lord and also inside the
1246
Ministry; so much so that from somewhere inside the Ministry this parody emerged:
"Breathes there a man with Silsoe dead,
Who never to himself hath said
'This is my own, my private joke,
I care not whom it may provoke'."
As I say, the amusement was not all on one side. Seriously, as a result of the noble Lord's correspondence, we have devised what I believe he will find a more satisfactory way of accomplishing the Government's original object. I therefore have much pleasure in moving the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 45, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD SILSOE: I think it is a pity that this clause should be allowed in this admirable Bill. I think it ought to be read. In subsection (3) paragraph (aa) reads:
"For the purposes of sections 77 to 85 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 the use of the premises as a place of worship or minister's house, whether in conjunction with other purposes or not, shall be deemed to be the railway and the trustees shall be deemed to be the railway company."
There are no railway companies left in this country. I know certain churches look like railway stations, but I thought that this was going a little far and, if I may say so, it applies to all churches. I am grateful to the Attorney General, because it required the Attorney General to stir people to get this removed, and I am grateful to him that some very sensible words have been put in instead. I do not know whether the noble Lord said so, but the same point arises in the last Amendment, No. 75, which contains exactly the same words.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 20, leave out from ("1965") to ("shall") in line 22.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 60.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 25, leave out from ("1946") to ("but") in line 26.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 61.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, leave out lines 33 to 39.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 62.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 43, leave out from first ("the") to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("enactments originally applied by section 2").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Enfranchisement and extension by sub-tenants]:
8.39 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: This Amendment overcomes a technical defect in paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 which was added to the Bill on Report stage in another place and which provides for the application of the Schedule where there is a chain of leases and the Crown is one of the links in the chain. Although the appropriate Crown authority under Clause 34(2) can act as the reversioner, it ought not in all cases to execute the actual conveyance or substitute a lease. For example, in the case of land vested in the Duchy of Lancaster, although the appropriate authority is the Chancellor of the Duchy, execution should continue to be by the Queen under the Seal of the Duchy or County Palatine. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 47, leave out from ("then") to end of line 4 on page 74 and insert ("in relation to the Crown interest and the person to whom it belongs this Schedule shall have effect as it has effect in relation to other landlords and their interests, but with the appropriate authority having power to act as reversioner or otherwise for purposes of this Schedule on behalf of that person:
Provided that paragraph 4(1)(a) above shall not apply to the execution of a conveyance or lease on behalf of the person to whom a Crown interest belongs.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions supplementary to sections 17 and 18 of this Act]:
LORD HUGHES: Once again this is a drafting Amendment. The point is
1248
similar to that with which Amendment No. 62 was concerned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 76, line 17, leave out ("had been") and insert ("was to be").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: Once again this is a drafting Amendment, this time to meet a point raised by the Law Society. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 2, leave out ("by reason") and insert ("under or in respect").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: Amendment No. 65 and Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 are little more than drafting, and once again are to meet a point raised by the Law Society. As drafted, paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 2 provides for compensation received on the termination of a lease under Clause 17 or 18 to reckon as proceeds of sale arising under the trust where the lease is held on trust for sale, but only where there is an order for possession. This subjects the compensation to the trusts of the settlement. Amendment 65 ensures that this rule also applies where no order for possession is made, because possession is given up voluntarily in the shadow of Clause 17 or 18. Amendments 66 and 67 achieve a similar effect in relation to paragraph 9 of the Schedule, which authorises the payment of compensation under Clauses 17 and 18 out of capital moneys where the landlord's interest is subject to a settlement or a trust for sale, or is held by a university or college which is subject to the Universities and College Estates Act 1925. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 4, leave out from ("sale'") to ("shall") in line 6 and insert ("and compensation is paid in respect of it in accordance with section 17 or 18 of this Act (whether possession is obtained under that section or without any application for possession), the sum received."—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 45, leave out from ("under") to end of line 46 and insert ("that section or without any application for possession").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 78, line 4, leave out from ("under") to end of line 5 and insert ("that section or without any application for possession").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Validity of tenants' notices, effect on Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 etc. and procedure generally]:
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The point of this Amendment is to remove a fear expressed by the Law Society that, as a result of the requirement on the leaseholder to identify the "boundaries" of the property covered by his claim of enfranchisement or a 50-year extension of his lease, he would always be bound to produce either a map or a very detailed description. In most cases it will be obvious what the leaseholder is claiming, without any such map or detailed description. The Amendment does not, however, absolve the leaseholder from making plain just what is the property to which his claim extends. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 22, leave out ("the boundaries of").—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 30, leave out ("seven") and insert ("ten").—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that a leaseholder's formal claim of enfranchisement or the 50-year extension is not invalidated by any trifling errors, and also to deal with the case where the leaseholder has made a substantial error. Even such substantial errors may be corrected by leave of the county court, and on such terms as the court imposes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) The notice shall not be invalidated by any inaccuracy in the particulars required
1250
by this paragraph or any misdescription of the property to which the claim extends; and where the claim extends to property not properly included in the house and premises, or does not extend to property that ought to be so included, the notice may with the leave of the court, and on such terms as the court may see fit to impose, be amended so as to exclude or include that property.").—(The Earl of Longford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [The Places of Worship (Enfranchisement) Act 1920, as amended]:
LORD KENNET: This Amendment carries into the Schedule containing the Act of 1920 in full, as amended by this Bill, the words we have just inserted by Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 29, at end insert—
"'(aa) where the person entitled to the freehold or an intermediate reversion requires that underlying minerals be excepted, the trustees shall not be entitled to acquire his interest in the minerals if proper provision is made for the support of the premises as they have been enjoyed during the lease and in accordance with the terms of the lease and of the trust; and'").— (Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: This Amendment and No. 73 are also consequential on Amendment No. 58. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 12, leave out from ("1965") to ("shall") in line 13.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 16, leave out from ("1946") to ("but") in line 17.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KENNET: In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, I beg leave to move this Amendment, which is consequential on Amendment No. 61.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, leave out lines 23 to 27.—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
8.48 p.m.
LORD KENNET: This is the last Amendment at the end of a fairly gruelling three days' session, and I should not like it to pass, drafting Amendment though it is, without thanking all noble Lords who have spoken on both sides of the Committee, and on no sides, for the unfailing courtesy and wit with which they have expressed their contrasting points of view, and to say that at the end of the day I believe we have improved this Bill. I should like especially to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his constructive approach to those Amendments where we were at one, and once again for his kindness and courtesy in presenting those where we were not at one and had the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, been here, I should have said the same to him. Perhaps it would not be incorrect if I were also to thank both of my colleagues on the Government Front Bench who have helped me out with this enormous series of Amendments. I beg to move drafting Amendment No. 75.
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 23, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 3, paragraph 1(d).
In Schedule 5, in paragraph 7(3), the words from "under the Rent Acts" to "this Act".")—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: If I am not out of order, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his use of the phrase "contrasting points of view". Having said that, I am grateful to him for his remarks. I should like to congratulate him and his colleagues on getting the Bill through Committee, greatly helped in the closing stages, if I
1252
may say so, by the happy mood of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. In extending noble Lords' thanks to all concerned, I wonder whether I may also include the Parliamentary draftsmen, for whom I have a profound admiration, for all the thankless work they do behind the scenes in order to enable us to discuss these matters intelligibly at all in Parliament.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (No. 2) BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
THE CITY UNIVERSITY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

SEA FISHERIES (SHELLFISH) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.